The Journal of Christian Legal Thought, a
publication of the national Christian Legal Society and Regent University
School of Law, allowed me to help put together an issue on adoption. Thanks to Mike Schutt, the editor, for his
courage in publishing what may be seen as a controversial issue, and for his
trust in giving me flexibility in recruiting a diverse group of authors.
The adoption issue of the Journal of Christian Legal Thought is available online in e-mag format; click on the following link: Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2012.
(The link above first takes you to the abstracts of
the articles as viewed in the print version; to read the full article click the
link at the end of the abstract---for those with a longer version.)
The issue contains three articles on the theological
controversy (myself, with responses by Jedd Medefind, head of the Christian
Alliance for Orphans, and Dan Cruver, editor/author of Reclaiming Adoption);
two adult adoptee voices (Mark Diebel and JaeRan Kim), a personal story by a
first mother who lost her child recently and writes here under the pseudonym of
Clara Daniels; and an historical article by E. Wayne Carp, a leading historian
of adoption, on Jean Patton, a Christian, adoptee, and early critic of the
closed records system.
One message I would hope this issue sends to the
Christian world is that adoption is
controversial, and for good reasons.
The Christian adoption movement has naively recapitulated the rhetoric
of orphan babies and children being rescued by unrelated Christian adoptive
parents, putting a false veneer of Biblical rhetoric over it. (I say false veneer because the Bible itself
does not tell any such story.) Instead,
any fair narrative about adoption must begin with the conception and birth of a
child to a particular mother, father, family, and community; once this true
beginning is acknowledged, it becomes clear enough why adoption is
controversial. Immediately the
questions emerge: was a separation
between the child and her family really necessary? What is the relationship of the adoptee to
their original family (not just parents, but also siblings, extended family, grandparents,
etc.) ? What is the relationship of the
original family to the adoptive family?
Once a legitimate controversy is acknowledged, what
is the way forward?
The answer is:
Dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue.
From that perspective, I hope this issue of the
Journal of Christian Legal Thought furthers this necessary process of dialogue.
But it is only a beginning. I hope that
we can encounter one another with respect as fellow human beings made in the
image of God---and for those of you who share my Christian faith, as brothers
and sisters in Christ.
I know some of you may find my rhetoric strong at
times. But please consider: every day of my life I live, within my own
family, the long term impact of deeply exploitative and sinful practices
conducted in the name of adoption.
Nearly every day of my life I encounter those same impacts in the lives
of many others, through personal communications, reviewing new reports of
abusive practices, and continued research.
Then, when I enter the rhetorical world of the Christian adoption
movement I encounter what appear to me to be a fantasy-land of lies and
misleading inducements which continue to harm many. I recognize that most involved are
well-intentioned and worthy of respect---but the actions and rhetoric remain
deeply hurtful. So it my role to seek to
burst the bubble of the adoption fantasy.
So do not confuse strong words with disrespect.
I am quite good at listening---indeed, I’ve been
listening to pro-adoption rhetoric for longer than the current Christian
adoption movement has existed. Indeed, I
fell for that rhetoric at one time in my life, and so I understand it deeply. And if you have something to say as well
which I have not heard before, I am eager to hear that as well.
Do not confuse apparent “negativity” with a
lack of positive prescriptions. I have
plenty to say about what should and could be done to fix the problems. And indeed in my articles I’ve made very
specific proposals. But I know that my
solutions will not be palatable until and unless the scope of the problem is
acknowledged.
So happy reading, and let’s keep the dialogue going!
Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2012
