Responding to Dr. Smolin’s “Of Orphans and Adoption” (Part 1)

The following is part 1 of 2 blog entries that deal with Dr. Smolin's article, "Of Orphans and Adoption."

Recently, I had the distinction of being mentioned in Dr. David Smolin’s article “Of Orphans and Adoption.”  My inclusion in the article was due to my book, A Passionfor the Fatherless, being cited several times throughout the article—and usually not in a good way! 

Nevertheless, I found the article instructive and encourage others to read it and think through Smolin’s argument.  The article may be found here.  

The primary purpose of Smolin’s article is “to demonstrate that the scriptural and theological analysis undergirding the evangelical adoption and orphan care movement is patently and seriously erroneous” (1).  His secondary purpose is to demonstrate that these errors have led to serious consequences in terms of the orphan care ministry.

In one of his first footnotes, Smolin refers to four books that serve as representatives of the evangelical orphan care movement: Adopted for Life by Russell Moore; Reclaiming Adoption by Dan Cruver; Orphanology by Tony Merida; and my own A Passion for the Fatherless.  Of those four books, mine is certainly the least well-known, so it was—in a weird way—an honor to be included with men I respect and some I have the privilege of calling friends.

At the conclusion of his article, Dr. Smolin offers an invitation for continued dialogue.  I have already corresponded with Dr. Smolin and told him I appreciate his critique.  In my correspondence with him, I have found him as good as his word.  He is cordial to those with whom he disagrees and enters into discussions with good faith.     

Here are some of my thoughts on Smolin’s article that may be helpful for continuing a dialogue:

First, Smolin rightly realizes that theology has practical consequences.

The impact of theology on our actions is a major concern of my ministry and book.  I appreciated that Smolin’s article is a theological argument.  He is concerned with dangerous currents within the pro-adoption movement and realizes that faulty theology may be to blame.

He contends that “the errors of scriptural and theological analysis have produced, and are producing, practices that in scriptural and Biblical terms would be called ‘sinful’ and in more secular language can be called exploitative” (1).

While I disagree with aspects of his contention regarding the extent of the scriptural and theological errors and the extent of the exploitative effects of the ministry,  Smolin and I are very close in terms of where the starting point of the discussion should be.  Furthermore, his desire to be faithful to the biblical evidence has certainly caused me to search the Scriptures more carefully in the days since reading his article.

Second, he rightly understands the need to care for the disenfranchised.

This is obviously an area of significant agreement.  Smolin cites my work at the conclusion of the following paragraph:

…God asserts his role as the protector and provider of this vulnerable family unit, and demands that His people, rather than exploiting the vulnerability of this family unit, imitate Him by protecting and providing for the widow and the fatherless (20).

I’m uncertain as to whether or not Smolin is citing me to indicate my agreement with this statement or to suggest that I disagree with it.  I’m also unsure why he cited pages 23-56 of my book.  I think he meant to cite pages 39-55.  So, while I may be wrong, I will assume he understands that I absolutely agree with this statement and the larger point he is making. 

Third, Smolin is right when he warns of the danger of confusing texts on caring for orphans with calls to adoption. 

Smolin argues that one of the fallacies of the evangelical orphan care movement is to see “adoption” injunctions in every text dealing with caring for orphans (e.g., 2).  He is correct to see this tendency.  While I would argue he overstates the discontinuity between adoption and caring for the orphan, his point deserves consideration.

I make a similar point in my book (e.g., 22-23; 195).  There is a reason I tried to make my book deal with orphan care ministry and not just adoption.  I’ve been concerned that churches have focused too much on adoption and not enough on holistic orphan care ministry.  Even though I’ve been vaguely aware of this danger, I certainly haven’t been able to articulate it as well—or as strongly—as Smolin. 

Fourth, he grapples with moral issues that must be addressed by the evangelical orphan care movement. 

Smolin offers a blistering critique of the evangelical orphan care ministry’s intercountry adoption focus. 

The intercountry adoption system routinely is willing to spend $20,000 to $40,000 on an intercountry adoption, while not being willing to spend even a few hundred dollars on the preservation of the original family.  Hence, taking away children from the poor is not considered a corrupt or illegal practice by the modern intercountry adoption movement, but instead is considered standard practice.  Intercountry adoption systems that offer family preservation assistance to avoid relinquishment due to poverty are, in developing nations, the exception rather than the rule.  The movement has yet to learn that taking away the children of the poor and vulnerable is neither a Christian nor a humanitarian act” (30, emphases added).

 Yes, Smolin verges on presenting a false dichotomy between adoption and family preservation and over generalizes, both of which I will address later.  But my stomach churned as I read these words because I fear Smolin is largely right.   This reality must be forcefully addressed by the evangelical community. 

Sometimes when I look at my adopted daughter, I mourn for her birth family.  It saddens me that her father will never get to experience the joy of being the dad of this amazing child.  The fact that she is not with her birth family means a tragedy has occurred.

Next blog will look more closely at areas of disagreement with Dr. Smolin's article.

Orphan Care Bible Study

This Sunday, we begin our six-week orphan care Bible study.  We will be using my favorite book, A Passion for the Fatherless, by Daniel J. Bennett.  The study is not just for those who are considering adopting but for anyone who desires to think through how they can help our church care for the fatherless. 

As I was preparing for the study this week, I read an article by Dan Cruver, the director of Together for Adoption, that has implications for our ministry to orphans and others who are in need.  In “Caring for Orphans as the Exiles We Are,” Cruver writes: 

One of the challenges for Christians in the Western world is that we are often guilty of trying to dry up our profound “sense of exile” with the nonabsorbent paper towels of the incomplete joys of this world. That’s not to say that it is wrong for Christians to enjoy themselves in the here-and-now. God gives His children many good gifts to enjoy now with gratitude in our hearts. But our here-and-now enjoyment was never meant to be the way we deal with our deep ache of exile. When we deal with our “sense of exile” by using God’s good gifts to self-medicate, we’ll find ourselves moving away from the world’s most needy rather than to them. Self-medicating people are not easily mobilized for self-sacrificial service.

The reality is that all Christians are in exile, whether we recognize it or not. Eden has been lost. As a result, we are exiles in the here-and-now (1 Peter 1:1). The period of time in which we live as exiles is deeply marked by suffering, brokenness and unrest (Romans 8:18). The presence of 163,000,000 orphaned and vulnerable children in the world is irrefutable evidence of this very fact.

Cruver goes on to observe that the gospel provides the answer to the longing we feel as exiles.  “Only when we rest in what Jesus has already done to one day bring us back home (Romans 8:19-23) are we able to move toward our world’s most needy now.”

My hope is that our church continues to embrace “exile living.” A worldly discontentment seeks fulfillment in material things.  Godly discontentment finds hope in the gospel then proclaims that hope to others.  To think through how the gospel impacts our ministry to the fatherless, plan on joining me this Sunday at 9:00 A.M.  

2010 Orphan Sunday Video

Adoption Video

On Sunday, January 21st, our church introduced "Open Hearts, Open Homes." Part of the introduction included a video I put together. That video is now up on our website and can be viewed here:

http://www.bethanycentral.org/resources/adoption-video.asp

The Dark Side of International Adoptions, part 2

A strongly worded critique of UNICEF's involvement in the Guatemalan adoption process can be found here:

http://slushturtle.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-unicef-sucks-sticky-post-until.html

Most interesting to me were the following paragraphs the writer quoted from Families Without Borders:

"On any given day in Guatemala, 60 children under the age of five die as a result of poverty-related factors. This is almost eight times the child mortality rate of the United States. Another 1500 to 5000 children live on the streets and survive by begging, robbery, or prostitution.

"Yet another 25,000 to 30,000 children live in orphanages (mostly private) due to abuse, neglect, poverty or parental abandonment. At least half of the children in Guatemala are considered to be malnourished so severely that their growth is stunted and immune systems compromised, two- thirds live in poverty, and 30% live in extreme poverty.

"Each year, a relatively small number of Guatemalan children (2219 in 2002) find homes in the United States through the legal intercountry adoption process, and fewer than 1000 more are adopted into other countries. As we write, the future of intercountry adoption in Guatemala is being decided as politicians and government officials are pressured to implement prohibitive adoption laws aggressively promoted by UNICEF. The backdrop for this struggle is a larger debate over how to protect "the best interest of children "worldwide". UNICEF has been an active and powerful voice in this debate, placing considerable pressure on the Guatemalan government to accede to the Hague convention on Intercountry Adoption and attempting to influence the framework and conditions under which future intercountry adoptions will proceed.

"We acknowledge that UNICEF offers considerable assistance to children worldwide through vaccination, education, and nutrition programs, and we do not find fault with that well-intentioned mission. However, we feel that elements of the UNICEF position on intercountry adoption are misguided and threaten the welfare of the very children they claim to protect."

The Dark Side of International Adoptions

On March 1, the Chicago Tribune ran an article on Guatemalan adoptions and how that country's systemic corruption is impacting adoptions. Apparently there are horrible atrocities taking place. A copy of the Tribune article can be found here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703010214mar01,1,7692942.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

I have to admit that there aspects of international adoptions that trouble me greatly. First and foremost is the fact that the majority of people who give up their children for adoption do not wish to do so. They are forced to do so because of a complete and utter inability to care for their children. UNICEF claims that ultimately what is sometimes happening is that people from wealthy countries are in essence not only exploiting people from poorer countries economically but stealing their children as well.

What does this mean for those who wish to adopt from poor countries, such as Guatemala? The answer is not simple, but here are some of my thoughts:

1. There is an immediate need to care for children from these countries. Regardless of the forces that brought them to this point, these children need homes. Furthermore, just because some terrible abuses are taking place doesn't change the fact that poverty in some parts of the country is at a level we in N. America simply can not fathom. While I share some of UNICEF's stated concerns, it is unclear to me how they would suggest we meet this need.
2. We have a moral obligation to meet the immediate need. I believe that Christians have a directive from God Himself to care for the needs of those He brings to our attention. While we certainly can't meet every need, there are open doors in countries like Guatemal that we should be excited to go through.
3. We must meet this need through reputable agencies that will refuse to help foster an immoral system. Perhaps some people are so desperate for a child that they are willing to go through dubious channels to bring about an adoption. This is at the least terribly shortsighted and may even make one complicit in kidnapping. A thorough vetting of an agency should take place before proceeding. The stories Whitney and I have heard regarding corrupt officials are very sad and we should work to avoid any benefit to these terrible people.
4. We have a moral obligation to work to correct the forces that suppress a people economically. Surely the long term solution lies not in bringing every abandoned Guatemalan baby back to the States but rather creating an environment in that country whereby the poor can care for their children. It means we as consumers must be careful not to help contribute to a system that impoverishes people even if it means ecnomic inconvenience to ourselves. It means praying for a country where the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be clearly proclaimed so that these people can receive what they need the most.

Adoption and the Sanctity of Life

I firmly believe that one's understanding of the sanctity of life can not help but inform one's philosophy of adoption. If one has a distorted understanding of the preciousness of every human life, I would argue, adoption becomes less of a pressing issue.

Charles Krauthammer's January 12th article is entitled: "Stem Cell Miracle? An Advance This Side Of Bush's Moral Line." It is well worth your time and can read it at Jewish World Review: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer011207.php3

While I disagree with several parts of the article, I think he is write to see Bush's stand against stem cell research as holding the line "against the wanton trampling of the human embryo." Here are the final paragraphs of the article:

"If it is proved that these are the Goldilocks of stem cells, history will record the amniotic breakthrough as the turning point in the evolution of stem cell research from a narrow, difficult, delicate and morally dubious enterprise into an uncontroversial one with raw material produced unproblematically every day.

"It will have turned out that Bush's unpopular policy held the line, however arbitrary and temporary, against the wanton trampling of the human embryo just long enough for a morally neutral alternative to emerge. And it did force the country to at least ponder the moral cost of turning one potential human being into replacement parts for another. Who will be holding the line next time, when another Faustus promises medical nirvana if he is permitted to transgress just one moral boundary?"

The Theological Argument for Adoption, Part 3

Theological Truth #3: God Calls His People to Care for Orphans

Because God cares for orphans, He calls His people to care for orphans. Isaiah 1:17, “Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless; Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow.” James 1:27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”


Why are His people to care for Orphans? One reason is that caring for orphans is proclaiming the gospel—both to a child and to the world. To the world, it is a dramatic reenactment of the story of our own adoption. “But you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out Abba Father! The Spirit Himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Romans 8:15-16). To the child, we have the opportunity to speak into his or her life for the rest of our lives. As we bring them into our home, we practice the injunction of Deut 6 to teach God’s Word diligently to our children. We fulfill the Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations. We participate in the worship of God that He has decreed from eternity past will consist of people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev. 5:9).

I’ll never forget my first day in seminary. The professor, Dr. Mark Young, told us we were going to be looking at the parable of the Good Samaritan. As I opened my Bible to Luke 10:25, I turned to what I thought was a very familiar story. However, as he went through the story and applied it to missions, God worked through Dr. Young in a special way that day and my life was forever changed as I saw my responsibility to love the lost in a whole new way.

The parable is a response to a lawyer’s question about what one must do to inherit eternal life. In the parable, a man who is traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho falls prey to robbers. They strip him and beat him. Disfigured and without clothes, he becomes unidentifiable and the question of the parable is who’s neighbor is this mystery man? A priest and a Levite both refuse to offer aid but a Samaritan comes upon the man and, moved by compassion, assists him.

That day in class, Dr. Young drew three truths from this parable: First, love of God and love of neighbor are essential characteristics of one who has inherited eternal life and is rightly related with God. Second, one who has inherited eternal life must have an unlimited concept of neighbor…love of neighbor has no qualifications. Third, compassion compels us to action. If you consider yourself a neighbor to all, you will be moved to some type of action when you are confronted with needs.

Is there a need to care for orphans?!?! In October of 2006, Unicef issued a report in which it estimated that there are over 130 million orphans worldwide. By 2010, that number will increase to almost 150 million. That is a staggering number…and an overwhelming opportunity! There are approximately 50 million evangelical Christians in the United States alone. God is working in the hearts of His people and helping them envision how He can use them to meet the needs of these little ones and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. By a God-given compassion, our hearts are compelled to meet the needs of these precious souls.

The question, then, for Whitney and I as we thought about this final truth was not if we would be involved in orphan ministry but rather how.

The Theological Argument for Adoption, Part 1

People who are considering adoption must answer the fundamental question of "why" very early on in the process. Why would a husband and wife voluntarily bring a person whom they have no legal obligation to provide for into their home and commit to caring for them financially, emotionally, physically and spiritually? It is an important question and one I believe many people answer it wrongly. Many, perhaps, adopt out of a desire to meet a void in their own life or assuage themselves of some guilt.

Though it may sound strange, for our family, our motivation was (I hope!) ultimately theological. Therefore a discussion of our adoption story really begins as a theological treatise in some ways. My purpose is not to bore people while only on our second adoption blog, but rather to reveal our motives. Over the next few posts, I'm going to look at three theological truths concerning adoption.

Theological Truth #1: God Cares for Orphans

Throughout Scripture, we see that God has a special concern for those who are disenfranchised and can not care for themselves. Consider just these few examples:

• "He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing" (Deut 10:18).
• "Thou hast seen [it], for Thou hast beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Thy hand. The unfortunate commits [himself] to Thee; Thou hast been the helper of the orphan" (Psalm 10:14).
• "A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His holy habitation" (Psalm 68:5).
• "For in Thee the orphan finds mercy" (Hosea 14:3)

Under Levitic law, the Israelites were held culpable for how they treated those among them who were most vulnerable. God wanted provision made for these and the one who refused that provision was challenging Him. The orphan could look to God confidently for His deliverance.

The implication of this is that ultimately, it is not we who cares for orphans but God.