There are few leaders within Evangelicalism who have been calling for churches and families to care for orphans as Russ Moore has. He and a handful of others have encouraged Christians to foster and adopt children pointing to James 1:27, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Moore has been able to use his influential position as a theologian, author and educator with a large audience to champion this cause. For this I am truly grateful. However, being a theologian and an adoptive parent does not make one an authority on all issues surrounding adoption. He has and should speak with authority on what the Bible teaches regarding adoption but that is where it should stop for a theologian. Theologians and Bible scholars should teach God’s Word and stop where the Scriptures stop. They should not teach their opinions on adoption as if they are authoritative and come from God’s Word. Neither do I speak as an authority. I speak as one who has experienced multiple adoptions and has some first-hand knowledge of trauma related behavior disorders in adopted children but I am not an expert.
Russ Moore has recently written a blog called Don’t Adopt. Many times authors will employ rhetorical flourish in their writings to make their point of view sound convincing by mischaracterizing the opposing point of view to the extent that the author’s view becomes the only tenable or reasonable position. Russ Moore skillfully uses this tactic in his article and it must be pointed out.
In Don’t Adopt, Moore argues that people should not adopt if they just want to get their “dream baby.” According to Moore too many Christian parents adopt children “without a commitment to fidelity no matter what.” This results in “rejection of [the adopted child] by failing to live up to the expectations of parents who had no business imposing such expectations in the first place.” He says that there are some who see adoption as a way of finding that perfect child but children are fallen human beings and none of them will live up to the desires of their parents. As he puts it, the adopted child will not live up to the parent’s “specifications.” The kinds of adoptive parents he describes that should not adopt are extremely superficial and do not see the child in the way that they should as coming from a shattered home or the absence of a family. These kinds of parents, Moore says, should just “buy a cat and make believe” that it is a child.
Moore goes on to explain the kind of attitude adoptive parents should have when adopting. Adoptive parents need to understand that there is no such thing as an adoption that is not special needs because all adopted children come from some sort of trauma in their background. All adopted children have special needs but you may just not know what those needs are on the front end of the adoption. He calls on adoptive parents to count the cost of the adoption just as a king would measure his troops before a war. Don’t go into the adoption without knowing what you are getting into. He goes on to say that this is what the church needs in caring for the fatherless.
We need a battalion of Christians ready to adopt, foster, and minister to orphans. But that means we need Christians ready to care for real orphans, with all the brokenness and risk that comes with it. We need Christians who can reflect the adopting power of the gospel, which didn’t seek out a boutique nursery but a household of ex-orphans who were found wallowing in our own blood, with Satan’s genes in our bloodstreams.
However, if you are one of those wanting that “dream baby,” Moore has the following words for you.
If what you like is the idea of a baby who fulfills your needs and meets your expectations, just buy a cat. Decorate the nursery, if you’d like. Dress it up in pink or blue, and take pictures. And be sure to have it declawed.
I admit that Russ Moore makes some great points in this article. It is his rhetorical flourish with which he paints with broad strokes a picture of those that should not adopt that really bothers me. What is the rhetorical flourish? He starts out the article talking about the “dream baby” and that adopting a child is not the same thing as “ordering a consumer item.” Well of course not! What adult in their right mind would equate buying a consumer item with adopting a child? And who wants a dream baby? I have never heard of such. I know many adoptive parents and have NEVER heard any prospective parents make mention of their child having to be an athletic and academic All-American while winning all of the beauty pageants and being the student body president. How ridiculous is that? Please give prospective adoptive parents and little more credit and respect than that. They are not adopting to get a “dream baby.” He paints a picture of some adoptive parents which sounds ridiculous on purpose to stress a point that Moore believes which is that adoptive parents should not have specifications or limitations when adopting a child and anyone who does wants a “dream child” is a ridiculous person who shouldn’t adopt. This is the rhetorical flourish.
If you have never adopted, you may not know what specifications he is referring to. When you adopt a child you will be asked about what kind of child you are willing to adopt. Do you require a specific hair color or skin color? Are you open to any age or do you have age requirements? Are you open to a child with serious medical conditions? Are you open to a child with fetal alcohol syndrome, HIV, or brain damage? Are you open to a child who might need multiple heart surgeries in order to survive? Are you open to any ethnicities or do you want a child who is of the same ethnic background as you? These are some of the types of questions you have to answer. The way I read Moore, if you have any limitations or requirements you have specifications and consequently you want a dream baby. This is a self-refuting position because you always have specifications. You may be open to any and all health conditions but if you are adopting from China your specification is that the child will be Chinese. If you are adopting from Russia then your expectation is that it will be a white child with fair skin, unless you adopt an ethnic minority from Russia. You may not have the financial resources to give a child multiple surgeries but you may have the resources to give an orphan a family. In that case, you might place some limits on the health conditions of the child and that may not be entirely unreasonable. If you have decided that it is not a good idea to interrupt the birth order of your home, you may have some age requirements. While some of these requirements (or specifications) are superficial most of them are serious questions potential adoptive parents need to consider. Considering these questions does not make you a person who is after a dream baby.
Another one of his implications is that if the adoption is disrupted it is entirely the fault of the parents who had unrealistic expectations. He implies that in the case of a failed adoption, the adoptive parents did not consider the brokenness and risk that comes from adoption and that disruptions are the result of children not living up to parents’ expectations. This idea is clearly naïve and uninformed view of adoption. It is my hope and prayer that all adoptions work out. Disruptions are sad but the truth of the matter is that not all adoptions work out. You should not blame the adoptions that do not work out completely on the parents. Being adopted is a legal condition of being put under the authority and care of responsible adults. The legal position of having been adopted has nothing to do with whether or not the child emotionally ever decides to submit to the parents through trust and obedience. They may legally be adopted children in a family but they may emotionally never join the family. Many adopted children have outlandish behaviors. Some sexually assault their siblings. Some do physical violence to their parents, siblings, and peers. Some threaten to kill their parents. Some burn the house down. These are just a few examples of what some legally adopted children who never actually emotionally allow themselves to be adopted do in order to not join their adopted families. The Excogitating Engineer knows of several families who have been dealing with similar issues for years. You can read about one of them here. Many adoptive parents have multiple children. Parents have responsibilities to all of their children. If an adopted child with severe trauma issues endangers other family members, parents have the obligation to decide whether or not the dangerous child should be removed from the home because parents’ obligation to their entire family includes all of their children; not just the adopted ones. Ultimately, it is usually the behavior of the adopted child who tries to traumatize her adoptive family that causes her removal from the home. The adoptive parents want the child to become part of the family rather than just sharing a roof. It is not due to unrealistic expectations as Russ Moore postulates. More often than not, it is due to violent and outlandish behaviors of the child. Moore is way off base in suggesting that adoptions that end in children being removed from the home are a result of unrealistic expectations of the parents. I realize that I, too, am making generalizations here but they are based on what I have read about adoption. I do not say these things as if my words are supported by Scripture. What I am writing is my understanding of the ways things are in general regarding adoptive families.
Adoptive parents do not expect to have a perfect child. Moore suggests that those who expect a perfect child should adopt a cat instead. Having been in the adoption community for 10 years I have never met a single adoptive parent or potential adoptive parent who expected a perfect child or a dream baby. In fact, all of the adoptive parents I know understand that they would be rescuing a damaged and hurt child from a seemingly hopeless situation by opening up their family to the child through adoption. As far as I know countries involved in international adoption and part of The Hague Convention require prospective adoptive parents to go through training about adoption and the risks involved. Moore trivializes these risks by suggesting that those who end up dealing trauma related behavior disorders simply were expecting a perfect child. Nobody expects a perfect child. Nobody. Neither biological nor adoptive parents. To suggest otherwise is insulting.
As I mentioned earlier, Moore suggests that there are adoptions that are not special needs. He supports this notion by pointing out that all adoptions are a result of a tragedy that caused separation between the child and his or her biological parents. At some point, the child experienced some separation anxiety from the biological mother. In this sense, yes, all adoptions are special needs. All adopted children have special needs and have special pain that needs to be dealt with that most children who are living with their biological children will never experience. However, to say that there are no adoptions that are not special needs places all of the special needs in the same category. For example a child adopted from Guatemala who was cared for by a caregiver until the adoptive parents came to adopt her did experience a low level of trauma when she was separated from her parents. By contrast, however, her level of trauma is going to pale in comparison to a child adopted from Russia whose mother drank vodka all throughout the pregnancy, was not nurtured as an infant, and was physically and sexually abused as a child. The child that was abused is likely going to have much greater trauma and much greater special needs. To put both children in the same special needs category diminishes the needs of the abused child. If we are going to take Moore’s position that all adoptive children are special needs, we should go ahead and take it a step further. All children all special needs! We cannot say that there are any children who are not special needs because all children are born with original sin inherited from Adam. We are all born with the natural inclination towards evil and away from God. We are all special needs. NO! You cannot put all children in the same category. Some children, adopted and not adopted, have special needs that other children do not have. Many children have been through horrific experiences that no child should. Traumatic experiences or lack of nurture and love during critical stages of childhood result in some children having special needs. The corollary is also true. The lack of such abuse and trauma results in some children not having special needs. So no, not all adopted children are special needs children.
As I continue to evaluate Moore’s article his rhetorical flourish, I noticed that he employs another self-refuting argument. He says, “Jesus tells us we ought to know that a king going into battle must measure his troops, a tower-builder must count the expenses of the project.” He goes on that say that you may not know the special needs of a child on the front end of adoption. Well, how are you supposed to “count the cost” without knowing the cost? In other words, if you don’t know what the special needs are on the front end you cannot consider the costs since it is unknown. Besides this contradiction, I do not believe that love is something that requires counting the cost. Love is giving your life to another and reflecting the truths of the gospel through that love. By loving someone you are completely giving yourself to them. This is not something where you can count the cost. You give all of yourself. It is a self-sacrificing kind of love. You make a decision to love regardless of what happens. When you marry someone, do you count the cost? No! You completely commit yourself to them and decide to be joined together. Adoption is similar in the sense that you commit yourselves, as parents, to the child for life because you are now their forever family. You don’t count the cost. You just do what you have to do.
Russ Moore has done a great deal to promote adoption and encourage Christians to consider the practical implications of James 1:27. Adoptions and foster parenting have become popular in large part due to his teaching and writing. Orphan care is now on many people’s radar when it wasn’t before. Moore has a large audience who is eager to hear what he has to say. This has helped tremendously in getting the adoption message out. However, many times such as in this article he has overstepped his bounds. I would like to call on him to do the following.
- Please limit your comments on orphan care and adoption to the Scriptures. As far as I know, you are an adoptive father and a theologian. That does not make you an expert on adoption in general or adoption trauma related behavior disorders. Feel free to give your opinion on adoption but please don’t state your non-biblical opinions as fact.
- Please do not use rhetorical flourish to make a point. As Christians we must be precise and accurate in our language. Please do not use broad strokes of the brush of language in order to make a point.
- Please understand that not everyone has a perfect adoption experience. Remember that every adoption situation is different. The fact that you may have not experienced trauma related difficulties is not a result of your great commitment or parenting but is a result of God’s grace. As you promote adoption please remember that there are those who struggle with many disorders related to past trauma. It is easy to sit in an ivory tower of theological education and look through rose colored lenses but remember that not everyone has an adoption experience like yours.
- Lastly, please remember that all children and people are made in the image of God. You, as a theologian, understand this greater than the rest of us. Telling prospective adoptive parents to adopt a declawed cat is not humorous but insulting. Through your analogy you have placed non-human animal life on the same level as humanity into whom the very creator of the universe breathed life. This is insulting to adoptive parents as it places the adoption of children on the same level as going to the Humane Society and adopting a cat. May it never be!
Thank you, Russ Moore, for your contribution to adoption and orphan care. However, please exercise greater discretion as your write and teach on the issue. I pray and trust that God will continue to use you in a great way to open up more Christian homes to the fatherless and that in the process that your words would be seasoned with His grace. Soli Deo Gloria!