GO READ THIS ARTICLE from The Christian Post, http://www.christianpost.com/news/adoption-the-best-option-109268/, right now, DO IT!
Ok did you read it, on a scale of 1-10 how offended are you? I'm not sure if I am more offended because I am single, adoptive parent, or a Christian!!
If he would have stopped about halfway through the article, I would have agreed with him. I strongly believe that abortion should NEVER be an option. Where he totally lost me was this:
"Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home. A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have. Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother's and the baby's economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways.
If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have. The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child's life. In other words, she was thinking of the child's best interest, not her own."
Where do I even begin with that?? Let's break it down:
"Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home." WHAT?! Keeping a baby is almost ALWAYS preferable to adoption, unless the child would be unsafe, abused, or neglected. The removal of a child from their birth mother is a TRAUMATIC event for both the mother and the child, some are able to recover, some live with lifelong issues because of that trauma. Furthermore, why is it assumed that the Single Mother's household is not a solid, faithful Christian home? And just because a child is placed in a Christian home doesn't mean that the child will in turn be a Christian or even embrace the parents moral values. Just as there are many people who grew up in non-Christian homes who have found the Lord. And where exactly does one find all these solid, faithful Christian two parent homes? They aren't exactly stepping up to the plate around where I live, unless of course we are talking about a perfectly healthy Caucasian baby from a healthy drug/alcohol free college educated birth mother.
"A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have." So what happens when a woman from this solid, faithful Christian home is widowed, is she to give up her children then? Are we to assume that there are no divorces in the Christian church? No cheating or abusive husbands that a woman may leave? Isn't God our real true father anyway? I adopted my children as a single mother, there weren't any married Christian couples lining up to adopt three special needs boys. Would it have been preferable to let them sit in foster care till they turned 18? Furthermore, even if a "father" would have stepped up to take in the boys, it would not have been a preferable placement. The abuse that my children suffered at the hand of a male figure would have made that bond extremely difficult to form at that time in their lives, trust would have been far fetched to come by further harming their emotional development.
"Furthermore, in most circumstances, keeping the baby circumscribes and forecloses both the mother's and the baby's economic futures in tragic and unfortunate ways." WOW, what a stereotype we have here, the poor single mother. First every single mother I know is financially comfortable, I cant say the same for many married couples I am in contact with. I would also assume that for most single mothers who are "poor" whether or not they keep the baby they will still be "poor". Just because someone is poor does not mean they cant be a good parent and provide for their child. Splitting up a mother and child merely because the finances aren't ideal is astronomically wrong and un-Christian in my view. Can you imagine Jesus saying to a hungry mother and child, here let me help you by taking your child and giving it to this couple over here? NO, he would feed and clothe them, shower them with unconditional love, invite them into his family. There are MANY solid, faithful Christian homes whose finances are in dire straights, going into debt to have the nicest car on the block or traveling to Disney world when they can't afford it. There are also those who have managed their finances well but been hit with an unexpected job loss or medical issues putting their financial future in jeopardy. Economic futures should not be anywhere near this conversation!
"If the mother is doing what is best for her baby (one of the defining marks of maternal love), she will part with her baby so that it will have the future God intended for him or her to have." Who are you to tell God what future he has planned?? Doesn't God use people from all walks of life, all socio-economic classes for his good? I for one can tell you that the marks of God working in my boys lives leading them to be with me, a single mother, are ALL over our story. I have no doubt this is the future God intended for them to have. If God wanted a husband/father in these single mothers lives, or wants the child raised in a solid faithful Christian home, couldn't he easily make that happen right where the child is at? Couldn't the struggles a single mother family have be exactly what that child needed in order to learn/develop/experience what God needed them to so he could use them in the way he needed them?? Someone should let Jackie Robinson, Whoopi Goldberg, President Barack Obama, Angelina Jolie, and Tom Cruise know this wasn't the future God had planned for them, being raised by single moms and all.
"The Old Testament story of the two harlots who both had babies and one died in the night comes to mind (1Kings 3). Both women claimed the surviving baby was their child and wanted the king to give the baby to them. King Solomon decided to have the baby divided in two and each be given half. Immediately, the real mother told the king to give the baby to the other woman in order to save the child's life. In other words, she was thinking of the child's best interest, not her own." Ah yes, lets talk about the King Solomon story, I seem to recall that in the end of that story King Solomon gave the child to the "real" mom, a prostitute nevertheless! Furthermore, King Solomon gave the women a choice and that is what Adoption is all about. A loving mother making a choice for her baby. As Christians I believe it is our calling to support a birth mother in that choice, whatever it may be, to show her love and compassion in a difficult time. Let's all get behind that Dr. Land. If we as Christians all did that, love and support without judgment, wouldn't that be a testament to each of those people of God's love?
Another poster on facebook had a brilliant idea:
"SINGLE MOMS- Do everyone a huge favor and bless Dr. Richard Land this Christmas with a photo card of your family. Because we can't peel the podium away from this misguided soul, tell him to stick a stocking in it, or take away his megaphone, we'll just have to counter his foolish and uninformed talk with proof. READ the article, PICK UP your jaw off the floor, put a STAMP on your Christmas card, and MAIL it here:
Dr. Richard Land
3000 Tilley Morris Road
Matthews, NC 28105
Feel free to include a sweet note or yummy cookies. Or not. But at least send the photo card of your SINGLE MOM FAMILY! Now! Get on it!"
I will be sending my card out this month, that is if I can afford cards since my economic future is tragic and unfortunate :)
This article is gross.
ReplyDeleteI actually know a child in foster care who is being adopted by a single lady. And the child is doing GREAT in this home. This is the best place FOR THIS CHILD. The previous placement was a married couple and the child struggled. Though I can't prove it my gut tells me that one of the reasons for the child thriving in the adoptive placement is the fact that there is no Father in the home, no guy around. Add to that a strong Christ centered home and healing has been fabulous. (made me cry the first time I saw what a change this home had made.) Previous abuses can leave scars that are triggered by something as seemingly benign as having a male figure in your life daily (sometimes even having a male teacher can trigger a kid). Is it better to re-trigger a child daily or to have them heal in a home of a strong single mom? I will go with the later every time.
ReplyDeleteAnd just for the record, I'm glad to have my husband as part of my team. There is no way I could do this without him. The kids we have need that role model, even if healthy attachment took a while due to past traumas. This really is the best FOR THEM. And that is what is all comes down to, what is best for each child.
Yeah, the article started out okay, but quickly went down hill. My jaw hit the floor; I couldn't believe it. Though it is a good reminder that this line of thinking still exists.