The American church and adoption
How can America have Christian churches and 115,000 orphans? But that is the case, with a sizable group of Christian families in all 50 states and true orphans lingering in foster care year after year. But what would happen if more pastors and church leaders would adopt orphans or model orphan care in their personal lives? Pastors tend to preach and teach about their interests and practices. And American Christians tend to apply the Bible to real life issues after a pastor or recognized leader stirs up interest. So if church leaders would cast a practice-driven vision for orphan care, churchgoers likely would be challenged to participate in one of the most ancient practices of God’s covenant people (Exodus 22; Deuteronomy 14, 16, 24).
If a church considers itself a comprehensively “biblical” one it should foster a culture of adoption and orphan care as a practice of “true religion” (James 1:26-27). Historically, orphan care has distinguished redeemed people from other people groups in the world. In fact, no other religion in the world has made orphan care a normal aspect of spiritual life like Christianity. A God that has made a series of successive covenants to redeem His entire creation through the work of His Son uniquely has positioned His people to put salvation on full display through redemptive acts like adoption.
On a trip to Atlanta last week I was reminded of the adoption problem as I watched a special Christmas edition of “Wednesday’s Child” on the local Fox 5 television. The program profiles orphaned children who have been permanently severed from their families, and over the years there have been about 600 Atlanta children featured but only about half of them have been adopted. The adoption of 300 children is great news, but placements could be better in a city with such a high concentration of large evangelical churches. In fact, Atlanta Christians alone could adopt all of Georgia’s 1,800 true orphans.
I wonder what would happen if Christians thought of family beyond its sometimes idolatrous, biological constraints? My guess is that adoption would become a part of normative church culture. American orphan statistics would plummet. Several years ago I worked in a church where adoption was a part of the pastor’s practice, as well as the practice of the congregational leaders, and it became a part of the church’s culture. Adoption was on display in the pews on Sundays. It was beautiful to witness.
I certainly do not want to make orphan care any type of new legalism, nor a litmus test for church leadership, but I am convinced that orphans will continue to linger in foster care until more pastors and leaders begin to adopt and teach about their experiences. I’m neither a pastor nor a church leader, but if I were, and were married, I’d be, without question, an adoptive parent and this practice would become a regular part of my teaching and, Lord willing, my church’s culture.
I also recognize that every family cannot adopt orphans for various reasons. But the United States only has 115,000 true orphans. Is the American church so dead that we cannot find 115,000 Christian families willing to adopt? Or maybe churchgoers are simply following their leaders?

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top56 Comments to “The American church and adoption”
Are you calling the 115,000 children in foster care true orphans? If so, perhaps we can help with your initial question. Because the children are being held hostage by the H and W. The children are a huge cash cow for them and if released, the depts would be devastated.
Other thoughts, not all pastors or church leaders are adoption material. It can be very difficult and labor intensive and they are often busy enough keeping things rolling with the flock. In our church, small as it is (around thirty to forty regulars, eleven of which are us) the pastor is often out visiting our people. He and his wife visit the sick and help the elderly (th majority of our church) with home care and yard work etc. He also is the principal for our private school. Pouring time into the raising of children with special needs would be tough.
Report comment to moderator
I certainly do not want to make orphan care any type of new legalism, nor a litmus test for church leadership…
But you have no problem at all with making denial of reproductive rights and information a “litmus test” for everybody else?
Most “Christian” churches seem much more interested in funding dubiously accountable missions to far-off places than doing the hard and expensive and demanding work in their own back yards.
Report comment to moderator
Reproductive rights has nothing to do with this post, unless you are talking about offering the solution of forced sterilization for any who might lose their children to the system.
Report comment to moderator
And the hard demanding work that you are doing is what?
If your way is “better,” then we shouldn’t have a lot of problems in this country because liberals and leftists abound. They just want the freebies for themselves, that what that comes down to.
Don’t forget to answer that first question.
Report comment to moderator
You know, Anthony, I’ve spent a lot of time in my life considering adoption. I’ve done a lot of reading, known a number of people who have adopted, prayed and finally concluded I am not a good candidate for being an adoptive mother. It was a sobering and humiliating moment.
My friends’ adoption stories are legion and the amount of time, money and effort it takes to raise kids even from the best of scenarios is astounding. And the roadblocks they went through to adopt–spiritually, financially, emotionally, physically–have been enormous.
Do you know any pastors with a lot of free time? I don’t.
Your point is well taken, believers should consider the ministry of adoption. But the tone of this article feels like it’s attacking those of us who are not Mumsee, and that’s unfortunate.
BTW–I rejoiced when you took in that young man to mentor a couple years ago. God didn’t need you to adopt him to be a positive influence on his life. He needed you to be available and able to minister. I hope you’re still doing that–you, of all people, are more important to the kingdom of God to young adrift men than I am. By not adopting, you’re available to help more. That’s important, too.
Report comment to moderator
Ideally, every child would find himself in a comfortable home with a mommy and a daddy. We do not live in an ideal world. With significant church and family support, it makes sense that children could be adopted by singles. There are many girls who have been significangly messed up by men, they might do well with just a mom until they found some self worth, with the men of the church coming along side in a safe way. Making certain the girl never had opportunity to make an accusation against a male. Many boys have been messed up by women, perhaps they would do well in a dad only home. They would not have any sisters to molest or mothers to rebel against. But women of the church could provide the feminine role models needed. Again, not perfect but it sure beats lingering in foster care, bouncing from home to home for fifteen years or so. Never knowing when the foster parents will be closing the door to you. Go to school one day and have a foster worker take you from school to your new home to meet new family to begin new relationships and to wonder how long this one will last.
Report comment to moderator
“How can America have Christian churches and 115,000 orphans?”
Anthony, as a journalist, can I give you a little writing advice? It is best to begin with an interesting hook and not a negative attack. A good writer considers his audience and is kind. The question you began with sounds like an attack and makes your readers defensive right off.
Do you know how many true ophans there would be if Christians were not adopting? I would guess–and this is me presuming in the positive where you did in the negative–it would be a lot more. I presume this, btw, because so many Christians families in our church have adopted children. Our church has an adoption ministry and area churches, because we live right on the border, fully fund about 15 orphanages in Mexico (adopting from these are very difficult for nationalistic reasons. I don’t see–at least in my corner of the world–Chrisitans laying down on this job.
Report comment to moderator
I think the number, 115,000 orphans, is off. 20+ years ago Los Angeles county had 50,000 children in foster care alone.
Finding numbers is hard.
http://www.fostercaremonth.org/AboutFosterCare/StatisticsAndData/Documents/CA-Facts-FCM07.pdf
” 78,278 children were in the foster care system in California on July 1, 2006i. “
Report comment to moderator
“How can America have Christian churches and 115,000 orphans?”
Because there are over 300,000,000 people in this degenerate country with a devastating rate of 41 percent of our babies born completely out of wedlock. That’s an eight-fold increase since a generation ago. That represents the single most enormous and devastating development of a poisonous social pathology in human history. It is impossible to keep up with such a development. More and more children will suffer more and more, regardless of what pastors do and say.
Report comment to moderator
Bob, when hubbykins has researched this, he found something like five hundred thousand children in foster care but only 115,000 were available for adoption. Most of the adoptees go to relative adoptions or foster home adoptions. Few go just to people looking to adopt which is why so many go overseas.
Report comment to moderator
Nevertheless, to attack pastors for generally failing to focus on that fatal 41 percent statistic and other related moral and social problems in his public communication is a legitimate attack.
We live in a cutlure that intentionally and aggressively deprives children of mothers and fathers in the home. And we are fast getting worse. And yes, too many pastors are gutlessly silent.
That said, my observation indicates that Christians, including pastors, adopt children at a much higher rate than unbelievers. And Christians tend to have the love and decency to get married first too.
Report comment to moderator
And your site says it well, Bob, with forty five percent adopted by rels and fifty two by foster families, leaving a sparse three percent adopted by the people wanting to adopt but not wanting to do foster care.
Report comment to moderator
@ Bob Buckles…hold on a sec. Before this gets out of hand. Orphans and foster care ARE NOT synonymous. This is why I keep saying “TRUE orphans.” Most of the kids in the foster care systems are NOT true orphans with either no parents or severed parental rights.
This a difference between a child in foster care and an orphan. Many children in foster care may be so because their parents are in jail, rehab, temporarily in difficult spots, and so on.
A “true” orphan and a foster child ARE NOT the same.
Your foster care numbers include orphans but California did not have 78,000 children true orphans. That’s just the foster care numbers. Orphans don’t have parents to visit. Many, many foster kids do.
Report comment to moderator
Got that wrong, it was fifty one percent, leaving four percent adopted by others.
And I, too, personally know more Christians who have adopted than non Christians. I do know nonbelievers in the lesbian community who have adopted but they did it by lying to China.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony,
The rate of babies born out of wedlock in the African-American secotor of the American population is devastating to the tenth power. This increases the likelihood of creating orphans because when babies start out with just one parent, they are far more likely to lose all parents than those who start out with two.
I raised this problem in sermon once and several of my African-American brothers and sisters in my church were quite upset with me. It is the only time they have ever accused me of being insensitive in the realm of race. But they were wrong on this point. I did not raise the point as a matter of race at all, but as a matter of morality and human concern. The race factor had nothing to do with why I raised the point. I got criticized but I would do it again. Pastors are bound to speak the truth in love and bear the criticism that comes–even if it puts their “job” in danger.
Report comment to moderator
Back in early 2009, a woman in Southern California gave birth to eight babies (octuplets); six boys and two girls. She is unmarried and already had six children.
This woman’s extra-marital behavior and/or decision-making reveals a dangerously low regard for the institution of marriage and for fatherhood. She is just one small part of an orphan creating culture.
Report comment to moderator
While we’re checking on “true orphans’ we should check on true widows.
Report comment to moderator
My phrase, “devastating to the tenth power” was just a manner of speaking to convey legitimate concerns. The fact (without overstatement) is that the rate of births to unwed mothers among African-Americans is just about double the rate for all others.
Remember, the term “fatherless” (in some Bible translations) is synonymous with “orphans”.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony
Not to belabor points that can’t be argued on facts. The numbers of children in foster care vs. the numbers in adoptions is not true or correct. The true numbers are unknowable because the reasons for placement in which category are really in the hands of social workers. They make up their own rules.
We adopted three from Los Angeles County Adoptions. All three had one or both parents alive. We met the mother of one and both parents of a second. They were not orphans.
We were involved in the largest parents group in Los Angeles County, Open Door Society. We worked with the county agency. We found that children placed in the adoption section were white, and blacks under 5 years old. Blacks over 5 were almost automatically put in foster care. This was done by the social workers.
I don’t like the way this sounds.
Report comment to moderator
I just checked the Health & Human Services website. For 2009, they report 424,000 children in foster care – with 103,000 available for adoption. As Mumsee said, the state agencies are holding these children hostage to keep their jobs. When we adopted our first sibling group, the sw said ‘we already have 17 home studies but you can submit yours if you want.’ When we called a month of so later, the same sw said, ‘well, my supervisor has decided to keep the case open for another month because she wants more home studies.’ When we adopted the second sibling group, the sw told us that they reviewed 35 home studies before selecting us. There is no shortage of families willing to adopt these children. So long as the same state agency is responsible for both foster care and adoption, the children needing permanent placement will be at their mercy. We have a fox guarding the hen house – with about equal chances of escape.
Report comment to moderator
Another point – the vast majority of adoptions (around 97%) are the adoptions that the state agencies would be hard-pressed to stop – adoptions by relatives or the foster parents. But they have a instituted a trick their also. The agencies state that adoptive families can received the same stipend as that received by the foster parents – which is technically correct. What they fail to mention are all of the ‘extras’ available to the foster family. The agencies (at least in Idaho) provide separate funds for clothing, school supplies, summer camp, birthday gifts, and Christmas gifts – - none of which are available to adoptive famiies. The agencies have created a financial disincentive for foster parents to adopt.
Report comment to moderator
Well, coming from NJ, I can’t add anything good to this. Sometimes I think there should be orphanages again.
Report comment to moderator
I do think that Christians who have had trouble getting pregnant should definitely consider adoption before they consider major fertility treatments like in-vitro. In-vitro is not a very pro-life practice, ends up costing probably twice as much as adoption, and takes about as much time as an adoption probably would, anyway. (I have not looked up actual numbers, just going from what I know off the top of my head.)
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the problem is the system. I know many Christians that are adopting or have adopted, but they have pretty much been overseas adoptions, which seem to be simpler than American adoptions.
My vice-principal from highschool and his wife domestically adopted a little girl (about 6 years old) when I was a senior. They got a lot of problems from the system because they were a white family trying to adopt a black child. Not to open a can of worms regarding racism, but I think that if people who are willing to adopt, and are good candidates, had an easier time getting children from the system, regardless of race (because as Christians this should NOT matter one bit), then that would also help get more children adopted.
Report comment to moderator
BeckyF,
We have had that discussion on here before. The system is broken. A lot of fine people are willing to adopt but the process is too complicated. And to further hinder the adoption, though it is now illegal to deny an adoption due to race, the social workers can deny due to culture. For example, we were told we could not adopt a sibling group of preschoolers several years ago because they only knew the inner city and could not adapt to country life.
Also, if you look at the sites showing pics of the kids available, they are predominately black. Anthony has before suggested the black families step up but that is not happening in numbers needed. So, unless they start making it easier for whites to adopt black children, they will continue to remain in the system.
On another note, hubby and I have seen many many children on the sites for years. Children we have applied for and been denied because of various reasons. It is sad. And very difficult for the children as, when they turn eighteen, they are on their own, set free from the foster system. The majority (eighty percent) of the eighteen year olds booted from the system in Idaho are homeless or jailed within the year. Sixty percent of the girls aged out have a baby within two years. Remember, these are children who have missed educational opportunities due to the troubles in their lives and are therefore behind. They do not graduate at eighteen or earlier. That means they are out of the system without a completed education and expected to do well. It does not happen too often.
Report comment to moderator
And they age out in CA because they cannot produce any more $$$ for the system.
We work with a an agency that deals with homeless teenagers. Most have run away from foster care or aged out. Some were not adopted for the silliest reasons like bumpers on bunk beds or the house being too old. That is our Blue state bureaucrats being compassionate.
Report comment to moderator
This is the saddest thread we’ve had in a long time.
Is every system broke?
Report comment to moderator
Sin.
Report comment to moderator
Many Christians in America are so caught up in the American Dream (read materialism and comfort) that they have a difficult time considering the NEEDS of others. This Dream is not a mandate from God or even a blessing to be expected all the time.
Many other bloggers brought out the huge chunks of time and money and endless beauracracy involved in adopting these children who are true orphans (parents’ rights are terminated). We are adoptive parents to children formerly in the foster system. (Yes, the system is very broken.) As we look to adopt more of these children, I still struggle with the impediments to foster/adoption. Family, friends, other believers constantly remind us of these difficulties. My own heart throws those excuses at me. But it all seems to come down to this: they are just excuses.
God did not say to help the orphans (and widows) if it is convenient, if you happen to have the money on hand, or if they are young enough to not be too ‘damaged.’ He said to help them in their distress. He also doesn’t promise that if you adopt an orphan everything will turn out fine. Sometimes the children don’t ‘heal’ or rebel horribly. It doesn’t matter.
Our joy as Christians is to do the will of our Father. One way is to adopt foster kids, regardless of the obsticles. Another way is to support those who are adopting/fostering. I agree that this should be modeled by those God has called to lead us in church (our pastors and elders). Even if it is difficult.
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with Michelle. We adopted a two day old child right out of the hospital and the problems have almost put me under a couple of times. I am in no way qualified to take on a teenager with anger management problems who outweighs me by 50 lbs. I would just make things worse. It is not good to guilt people into taking on more than they can handle.
Report comment to moderator
And race has been the least of our problems.
Report comment to moderator
From what we have seen, adopting a baby is no guarantee. The child removed from its mom in the first three years is at big risk of not being able to bond. And that usually indicates problems. We enjoy our older children. Yes, they come with problems and we are way early in the process to know what is coming. But we do believe we are following God and offering them hope.
But, many people would love to adopt and are trying but the system does not allow it. We know people, successfully having raised their children, waiting and waiting, applying and applying. They have done the requirements but still they wait. They apply for older children. They apply for sibling groups. And still they wait. And still they watch children age out. So it is not just excuses that keep folk from adopting. We applied for twenty five years in various places before we were able to. I suspect we are to make ourselves available in whatever way we are made and then let God work. A lot of our success comes from people who have not adopted but treat our children as grandchildren.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee, you seem to have a lot of experience in dealing with anger management in children. I could use any advice you have.
Report comment to moderator
I’m truly fascinated by the lack of actual information provided in the comments. While we can continue to speculate on the nature of adoption from US foster care, let me add some factual information.
The majority of adoption go to relative and foster parents for two reasons. Reason #1, state agencies are required to seek permanent homes for children where the children have relationships. Relatives clearly meet this criteria. Foster parents have a stronger bond with children that have lived with them than people off the street. Reason #2, there is a large number of people who are only interested in adopting infants, white children, and non-sibling children. The waiting lines for a healthy, white baby are incredibly long. The amount of people looking to adopt a child of color is diminishing everyday
State agencies cannot hold children “hostage” in the foster care system. The Child and Family Services Review is conducted by the Administration for Children and Families in conjunction with the Children’s Bureau on a regular basis for all 50 states. States are measured on several items in the areas of Child Safety, Child Well Being, and Child Permanency. States that cannot unite children with a permanent home (read family) in a short amount of time are financially penalized by the federal government. It does a state no good to keep a child in foster care. The cost continues to build as long as the child remains in care and the federal government cuts matching Title IVE dollars to the state agency if they do not meet timely goals in permanency, which includes goals for reunification (returning kids to their biological parents), adoption and guardianship/relative placement. The second round of CFSR has just been completed and you can find out how your state fairs in all of these measures.
I believe the overall point of this article is to say that there is a huge amount of real orphans, children without parents, that are living in our country. These orphans’ parents are legally and fully the state that retains custody of them. The system is broken. The kids need homes. Christians are the people called to answer this problem. The care for orphans is a biblical mandate.
So if Christians are not the people to answer the call, as seems to be indicated in the comments, then who is?
Report comment to moderator
SJFults,
Of course the majority should go to rels and foster home if possible but four percent (CA) and three percent (ID) seems a small number for these kids to find homes. There are a lot of people willing to adopt, hence the ability of the social workers to gather up numerous home studies for each child. Keeping in mind that a home study means the home and people are approved to bring in children, why did our first group keep the door open for more, saying they did not have enough when they had eighteen? And our second group needed thirty five? That means thirty four families turned down for these kids. If they are anything like us, they applied elsewhere rather than quit. Why do we, a generally deemed excellent home by our social workers in three states, see so many of the children we have applied for, still in the system three and four and more years later? Why are so many of them entering their tenth or even fifteenth year in foster care?
Yes, Christians should be stepping up and they are. They are being turned away. I do not think the commenters are saying it is not up to Christians. Did I miss some?
Report comment to moderator
SJFults,
It sounds to me that YOU are not really reading well. No one is saying that Christians should not step up, but REAL people, who have REALLY adopted and who REGULARLY work with the system are saying it is beyond broken, and that many children who have families ready and willing to take them are not able to get adopted due to the system.
I’m afraid that I’m going to believe someone like Mumsee (with 13? adopted children) over someone new with “facts” to spout that sound as if they came right from the broken system.
Report comment to moderator
#33, I’d be interested in the source for your factual information.
#20 cites the source for the data provided in his comment there, and he, like several others commenting, has firsthand experience with both foster care and adoption, including adoption of older children and sibling groups.
At least five of the people commenting in posts 1-32 are Christians who are adopting/have adopted, and several others are involved with ministry to at-risk young people. In that context, I’m not understanding the last paragraph of #33 at all.
Report comment to moderator
Honestly, I would consider adoption. However, at this time in my life, I simply cannot deal with the hassle of the system. I really can’t.
I wonder if, perhaps, when my kids are out (one is in college), if I might be more willing to fight, and to take in a child or two.
They’d probably tell me (after successfully rearing 3 children) that I’m: too fat, too religious, too messy, too busy, or some other ridiculous objection though, despite the evidence (3 successful children) that my husband and I can do a good job. And, I just don’t want to deal with that.
Report comment to moderator
I think any commenter who has actually tried adoption would agree that the bar set for adoptive parents by the various state agencies is very high, somewhat arbitrary, and not easily met by many people. One of the first things they do is start asking around the applicants’ neighborhood trying to collect negative comments, however spurious and baseless. I have see semi-employed drug addicts awarded children because they happen to live in neighborhoods where this is the norm, and / or they are good at buttering up the neighborhood. While perfectly stable and nurturing people are turned down because of some ten-year old dispute about a barking dog two houses down. It is rather hurtful to call such people lazy or bad Christians because their attempts to adopt were unsuccessful.
Report comment to moderator
Tammy, thanks but nine. Thirteen kids, four grown bios. And Tammy, we were told our bio kids were too perfect, we would not understand the challenges of adopted kids. When we were told that again, and broke the news to the teller that she was talking about our adopted kids, we were told that was because we had been given an easy group of kids and the next could be difficult.
We are no longer allowed to adopt through the state of Idaho as we have exceeded their limit of six children in the home. We, however, believe that a large number of children helps the kids do better, so long as they each get treated specially and individually for their unique positives and negatives.
Report comment to moderator
One more testimonial: We applied for a sibling group of six from SC. About a year-and-a-later, we received a call that we’d been selected to adopt the children. We were thrilled. A week later, we were notified that we were ‘finalists’ to adopt a 5-member group from TX. The social worker (sw) in SC told us that we’d have the children’s history in ‘a week or ten days’. We did not receive the histories as promised. A couple weeks later we were notified that we’d been selectd to adopt the children from TX. We were open and up-front with both sws about the adoptions. The sws from both states agreed that – since we were willing – we could get both groups. Seven months later – nearly two years after our application was submitted, the sw told us (and this was on a call that I initiated – the only call she ever made was the one notifying us of our selection) that she ‘just realized that we couldn’t adopt the children afterall because we had adopted within the previous year (meaning the children from TX). We never did receive the promised histories, in fact, in 7 months, the sw in SC did not produce a single document towards moving the adoption along.
And as a ‘btw’ for SJFults – both groups are minority children. There is no shortage of people willing to adopt minority children. My wife and I have applied for hundreds of children – black, white, hispanic, and native american.
Report comment to moderator
For those interested in how race factors into adoption – if you really want to know why so many black children remain in-the-system, and, be sure you take a few deep breaths to prepare yourself – - visit nabsw.org (National Association of Black Socail workers).
I believe this organization should not be allowed to exist in its current form. I have no problem with an organization supporting these values – but I do not believe that black social workers should be allowed to join such an organization because the mission statement clearly violates the mandates set forth for governmentsl employees.
Report comment to moderator
#41 Idaho Mike
I worked in a ghetto MS for 29 years. (Birth place of the Crips.) We adopted three, 12,10 and 12 years old. They were all “hard to place.” We worked with the LA County adoption agency closely.
You are correct about the way Whites are treated when they try to adopt blacks.
It was shameful. When my black kids at school asked why we didn’t adopt black children, I told them we weren’t allowed to. They all thought it was wrong. So did we.
Report comment to moderator
One particularly insightful experience wrt this happened while we were on the staff at West Point. We applied to adopt a little black girl. The sw told said, ‘how could you care for a black girl, you wouldn’t even know how to wash her hair.’ Mumsee went to one of our black neighbors to ask what was so complicated about caring for black hair. The neighbor said, ‘I don’t know, I go to the store and buy Pert.’ At the time, we were using the same shampoo.
Report comment to moderator
Bob – from my perspective, the system is horribly dysfunctional, but to change it – we need people to change it at the ballot box. The children in long-term foster care provide so many jobs for social workers, counselors, and psychiatrists – and so much money for the drup manufacturers – - -.
Report comment to moderator
Thankfully, I have no input here, except to say that you are seeing agencies at work.
They are doing what is best for the agency, not children, not you.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve heard the hair excuse before. The answer to do exactly what Idahomike did. Ask a black friend for help. When I asked a black friend what kind of conditioner to use, instead of just telling me, she drove all the way across town to bring me a bottle.
Report comment to moderator
It breaks my heart that the big Naysayer to non-caucasian adoptive families getting non-caucasion kids is.. the Social Worker establishmt. Black kids to black parents, Native American to native American etc.
A couple I know had a child more or less yanked out of their arms . Why? Cuz they werent Indians.
In the meantime desperately poor 3rd world nations, along with the Chinese, all but shove kids into your arm the minute you de-plane.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, yes, the Native American question. They are sovereign nations within a nation. They do have rights to their own culture and laws as written into the treaties. Generally, if the child has some NA history, they are considered a gift to the Tribe. And, at least on our reservation (the Nez Perce, the ones who kept Lewis and Clark and exp from death a few times), there is at least one orphanage. They want their children to know and understand where they come from. I get that. I don’t agree it is in the best interest of the people but it is legally their right. Rarely do children from the tribes appear on the lists of adoptable and generally only registered NA’s need apply. But occassionally some are brought out of the system. Ours don’t have enough background to be wanted by the tribes.
Report comment to moderator
From what I’ve seen wrt the Dept of Health and Welfare, I certainly don’t want the gov’t involved in Health Care
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t adopted, and am not on the list to do so, but I have some experience in the system and some knowledge of the question.
As a single woman, I’m not a first-choice ideal adoptive parent, but I decided that I’m a Christian woman who works from my home (and thus is home all the time) with a lot of experience with children, and thus could offer more than some parents, and indeed I thought of the possibility Mumsee listed earlier, that my home might be ideal for girls with fear of men. (No man living here, but godly men in my church and my family.)
I thus took in foster children. Because of my home dynamics, I was open to take in one or two girls from five to ten (no preschoolers because I have to work and no older kids because they’d be in middle school and I’m “good” with older kids only if I have watched them grow up). In three years of being “approved,” I had kids for only six weeks (the same sibling group twice). I was willing to keep the kids as long as they needed a home, even if that meant adoption.
But realistically when I didn’t get children sent to me very often, I could not keep open the possibility of taking in children. Normally I rent out that bedroom for income and companionship; while I was willing to sacrifice and take children instead, I was not willing simply to keep it available while year after year I do not have children. (I don’t have financial surplus, nor do I want to live alone, especially since I work from my home and have limited people contact.) And some in my family ended up being quite unsupportive of a single woman taking in foster kids, and certainly wouldn’t have liked me adopting.
If I were to marry and my husband wanted to adopt, I’d be open to it. At age 43 and past my own chance to bear children, I would no longer see “willingness to adopt” as a requirement in a husband, however. Indeed adoption is very hard work and a unique calling; a man might well have a very different ministry focus.
I am very glad I took in the kids I did, but a five- and six-year-old were incredibly hard work for this experienced “mama,” and I wouldn’t wish teens on people who didn’t really know what they were doing. Kids in the system aren’t easy to parent. (I have friends who have adopted and who told me I was much stricter than they are–my kids didn’t “get away with” stuff, and they knew they were loved and they really liked living with me. By everyone’s assessment, I was a “successful” foster parent. But parenting those kids and still keeping up with my usual work was just about the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I was scratched, kicked, bitten, spat on, called ugly names; I got lice; I was up all night with a vomiting child. And much more. And this with young kids with limited “baggage.” Taking in teens who’ve been in the system for years is an almost impossible calling, something to be done only by those who feel a true calling to it, not to be done by people out of guilt.)
Report comment to moderator
One last comment from me regarding this topic:
There are many, many children (probably at least 100) that are still listed as available for adoption (on various websites) that Mumsee and I have applied for. In some cases, we submitted applications over three years ago. I believe you would be shocked to see how many home studies have been submitted for ‘hard-to-place’ children. Six months after parental rights have been terminated, an audit should be conducted to see how many home studies have been received and the state agency should be required to explain why none of the home studies would be suitable match for the children. Audits should be conducted every six months thereafter.
Report comment to moderator
To answer Anthony’s questions:
Is the American church so dead that we cannot find 115,000 Christian families willing to adopt?
In, my opinion, it is very weak, selfish and largely unresponsive, not dead. This is largely due to the main system of American church – institutionalized faith. The institutionalized system demands that 78% or more of the “giving” be pooled to buy hired experts and build special facilities for crowd oriented gathering. Jesus told us that where our treasure is, there will our heart be also. American saints have hearts chained to the pews and providing hired services largely for themselves. There is a way for believers to devote 100% of their giving beyond themselves and still do every element of church life the Bible asks for and thus have hearts free meet huge needs in the community.
I have never heard Anthony question any systemic element in the institutionalized system of church so I don’t think he has any basis to challenge anyone. He wants things to be different without changing anything systemically. I think it was Einstein who designated this approach to change as the meaning of insanity- expecting to get different results without changing any part of the system.
One of the families in our organic fellowship has adopted 8 children out of the foster care system-one group of 3 siblings and one group of 5 siblings. We and other saints around them support them in this huge venture of faith. I do up to 5 big loads of laundry whenever they get behind. Other families help with food prep or school tutoring.
Or maybe churchgoers are simply following their leaders?
Yes, protestant churches are much like their Catholic predecessors, the orthodox church system, and the Israel nation in the OT. They prefer human leaders over God’s direct leadership of each individual and the group. They expect a chain-of-command or power pyramid of humans. The functional headship of Christ is almost completely missing in the institutionalized system of church life. Thus the organic body design God gave to us cannot function. There are several severe translation errors in almost all translations that are used to justify this system. The leaders like the pay check out of the offering plate and the special title and dominating the personal expression of truth during the saints gathering. The saints like outsourcing a large amount of their God given duties to hired experts. As long as the money doesn’t run out, it’s all good. It’s all normal. God is using it! Right?
But Tim, our church does huge things out in the community meeting needs! I say check the percentage of what goes out the door. It may shock you how tiny it is. It may even be less then 25%. God never asked you to sit in a pew each week with 100 – 10,000 other saints to hear a Bible lecture. He asked for something very different. Hebrews. 10:24,25
Another example:
I live in wealthy silicon valley in CA. God has raised up a small group of saints to lead in helping mothers give birth in difficult situations rather than kill their child. They have been doing this with great energy and passion for 30+ years yet only 14% of evangelical churches in this valley will support this HUGELY IMPORTANT AND STRATEGIC ministry. And most of those 14% only give a tiny percentage of their “giving”? Why? Because of the giving-to-buy-goodies-mostly-for-me is a key dynamic in the institutionalized system of church.
I praise God He helped me and my wife to see these huge fallacies and get out of the system so our family could walk in the truth, not perpetuate bad human traditions.
Report comment to moderator
Tim A., for the record, I’m a member of a church with a building and one-and-a-half paid pastors, and I don’t recognize your stereotype of the “insitutional” church. Among our members, we have had adoption and foster care, prison ministry (with several ex-cons in attendance), ministries with pregnancy care centers and a health clinic, and much more. One of our members is on his way to Zambia to help finish the building on a missions building there, whose original builder tried to finish but his fight with cancer made it impossible; others in our church have gone to India and ministered there. I’ve seen other churches that are “institutional” involved in other, different neighborhood ministries.
One can love God and love His church, and those outside the church, even if the church body meets in a large brick building with a steeple. Really.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
“But Tim, our church does huge things out in the community meeting needs! I say check the percentage of what goes out the door. It may shock you how tiny it is. It may even be less then 25%.”
Check what percentage of giving goes out the door. If it’s 25% or less, then your church is just like the average one that is marginalizing it’s ability to serve outside of itself. It is eager to brag about what it does do. Those very things blind them to the much greater return on investment they could get. Just like the guy who buried his talents, he was prideful in what he had and was blind to the reproduction levels achieved by obeying his master. What percentage of your church talents are being consumed by the givers? That is burying their talents. Institutionalized faith has many excuses to justify this system.
Report comment to moderator
That’s a confusing post. Oh, TIMA is quoting himself, not CheryD. OK. Sorry, carry on.
Report comment to moderator
Tim,
We’ve been down this road before, and it isn’t the point of this post.
However:
–Biblically pastors and elders can legitimately be paid for their work. Paul chose not to be, but the right to be paid was never rescinded, and is both an Old Testament and New Testament principle.
–Even apart from paying the pastor(s), the biblical principle is to “do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith.” That might fit your concept of “pooling” too, but it is also still biblical. One person in the church might need help with tens of thousands in medical bills; another, help repairing a storm-damaged home. That’s perfectly biblical that service and help are done largely within the body, and after that, outside it.
–My church personally sends much more than 25% “out the door.” I have no way of knowing “how much more.” I do know my pastor has said numerous times that not all giving needs to go through the church, and of what DOES come through our church, a fairly large percentage goes elsewhere.
–Not all “giving” is financial. I spoke of people in our church during service in our community and in other lands, and immediately you turned to the question of money. Is there really a way to put a price tag on volunteering one’s professional services ten hours a week, taking in orphans, or giving six weeks to an overseas need?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!