Our beautiful son, John Will is turning one this week. I wanted to share with you a few thoughts as his birthday approaches.
I always viewed adoption as a good thing, but I have to be honest: For many years, I saw it like many people do—as a sort a predicament of permanent estrangement. I mean, consider the reality: The child will not grow up with his real parents. He will never know his real siblings. He and the adoptive parents will never have that real biological bond. Then there is the most unfortunate part of all—He will always be the token adopted kid.
I know what you are thinking: What do you mean by the word real? Well, what does society say about it? What is real to most people is what they see on TV or the internet. If you listen to the armchair philosophers in the media, the above realities are real. They are real in a ubiquitous sense. Everywhere. Case closed. Settled science. Hashtag it.
Let us be honest: If the adopted baby happens to be of color, he could be looked at by his white parents and predominantly white peers as the definitive voice for the whole of the black race. What he says about social justice will be accepted as gospel for many whites. Can you hear it? “My son is black, and he isn’t offended by that flag,” or, “My son is black—I couldn’t possibly be a racist!” Because they have a black kid in the family, they think they are somehow experienced in the black experience. He is their calling card in a sense. Unfortunately, if he takes on the traits and speech patterns of his white adoptive family, he may run the risk of being an outsider when it comes to his black peers. What if he grows up to be a political conservative in the vein of Clarence Thomas? In this case, he will be cast out of the black community. He will be in a sense living in no mans land. A man with no country. They may call him things like, “Uncle Tom.” If he is nominated to the Supreme Court, men who are lifelong Lotharios (Ted Kennedy) may actually ask him during his confirmation process about his private entertainment habits. This is just the truth.
Then, some will use him as certificate of absolution for white guilt. By adopting a black child, they are absolving themselves of the great sin of the past: Slavery. They are enlightened now. They are a part of the black experience. They have evolved.
He will be seen as a racial bargaining chip in many instances.
If, on the other hand, he is adopted into a wealthy home, he could be seen as a status symbol. Some people buy expensive rugs and pets from exotic places. Today, the collector item that is style in some circles is the adoption of babies from exotic locations. It is kind of like the cult of being a vegan, using a Mac, driving a Tesla, or choosing to obey the gluten free diet. “Mine is from Nepal,” or “I got mine from Uganda.” Two international adoptive mothers come into a coffee shop. How do I know this? They announced it loudly.
Then again, he might be seen as a leverage tool for advancing the pro-life agenda. Heck, he may even be used just so that the parents feel good about themselves.
So, as for me, though I saw adoption as a positive, I saw it as the “last resort” option.
Because all the horrible things above exist, and I had just heard horror stories about them…I determined that adoption was better than abortion, but least the least preferable alternative.
This isn’t the first thing I have been wrong about.
The first thing that I failed to notice about my observations above is that they all presuppose that adoptive parents necessarily see their adopted kids as objects used for consumption rather than persons meant for relationships. In this thinking I was no different than the person who saw a black man as a piece of property. I was no different in thinking that all whites think all blacks should be slaves. My point is—though the above realities do exist—it doesn’t have to be that way. The fact that those realities exist shouldn’t stop me from adopting a baby. Why do I have to live like that?
I also failed to see that many of my objections came from an elitist progressive white Eurocentric worldview. Now, before you think I am some indoctrinated leftist who gets his news from the Daily Kos, hear me out. I was Eurocentric. Trust me: The children in Mexico, war torn Africa, the slums of India, Thailand, or Vietnam—they would give anything to be adopted into a white family in the United States. I am not even talking about a rich one. Poverty in the United States is a lifestyle of luxury to the poor people in Laos. I once heard a guy tell me about his ordeal in trying to gain citizenship into the United States. I asked him why he wanted to come here so bad. His answer blew me away: “I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”
It isn’t insensitive or against multiculturalism or diversity to realize that compared to the rest of the world, the United States is the land of luxury. This is the most exceptional place on the planet. You want proof? Go to the slums of India. Check out the way people live in Cuba. Go look at Kandahar. Go see what they do to disobedient little girls in Saudi Arabia. To presume that because I am from the West, that I couldn’t not contribute to the lives of people from the East is just absurd.
But then there is the unconditional love aspect—or sacrifice: Many of the children adopted internationally have biological parents who love them so much, they would do anything for them to be adopted—just to escape real poverty. The fact that I was unwilling to imagine such a reality shows how narrow minded I actually was.
But, then I also made the mistake of thinking that I wasn’t qualified to adopt. Sure, I had a biological child already—but adopt? I don’t look like the adoption type, do I? I have never contributed to any adoption agency. I have never been a foster parent. I have never sent money to one of those sad “Feed the Children” TV ads. I am not an activist. The only thing I know about kids is that I spoil my daughter. How could I adopt?
Then I learned the reality:
Had we not adopted…our child—John William would have been aborted.
But my last objection was perhaps the most insidious of all: He will not share my genes! He will never fit in at family reunions! How will he carry on our family name—really? He may have our name, but he isn’t one of us. It could cause problems later on! There might be challenges. Oh No!
I can say it: What a bunch of narcissistic and selfish petulant idiocy.
It is actually possible to adopt a child and love them for who they are—a distinct, unique, beautiful person—of infinite value.
Oh I forgot the other one: We cannot afford it. Ok. My goodness…where is the faith?
Well, on a Wednesday in September of 2014, my wife got a phone call. It was through a convoluted maze of connections; but, there was a woman giving birth the NEXT day that wanted to give her baby for adoption. Could we be at the hospital for the “C-section?”
After picking my wife up off the floor, we rushed to get ready for the birth of our…son. We actually went that day and met the mother. My son was in her belly sitting across the room from me. She told us that she was at Planned Parenthood ready to abort the child–but something stopped her. What? Really?
Well, it happened. He is our son.
Can I tell you that I have never viewed John William as adopted? I mean, I know he is, but—other than people bringing it up, or the doctor asking about his family medical history—I never think about it. There has never been a moment in time that I knew about him that I didn’t think of him as my son. What else could he be? Who else could he be? When he had trouble taking his first breaths, I felt pain. When he had to have the chest tube and stay in the NICU for over a week—I felt the stress—and worried. Me. Not someone else. I felt innate pain.
It may sound strange to you, but I see him in exactly the same way that I see our biological daughter, Ava. Even in the hospital, once he was born—with the birth mother just down the hall—he was my son. Even as we waited the mandatory 72 hours for the birth mother to change her mind, I saw it as 72 hours for her to dispute the truth: that I was the father of this baby! When I first touched him, I didn’t feel that I was touching some child that we were going to take home—and learn to love. I felt I was touching my son. What womb he was carried in was the last thing on my mind. I couldn’t have cared less. When we went to visit him in the NICU, and had to use the name “Baby Boy White” to gain access, because they weren’t legally allowed to accept the name we had given him yet, we called him John Will. You think that’s strange? Can I tell you that when I look at him, I find myself involuntarily comparing his appearance to us? “Oh, he looks like Ava when he does that.” “Andrea, he has your smile.” “I think he has my…well, hopefully nothing.” Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but I identify him as ours.
Identity. What a word. I don’t think I can remember hearing the word identity growing up. Today, you cannot turn on a television set without hearing some blowhard pontificating about identity. We live in a day and age where a man can use a woman’s restroom, so long as he self identifies as a woman. If a woman in that restroom is offended by the presence of this man who identifies as a woman—it is HER problem. She is the bigot. His identity cannot be challenged.
Can I just say, our idea of identity is wrong? Our identity isn’t wrapped up in our sexual proclivity, our color, our intelligence, or our size. Our identity is wrapped up in the idea of who we are. Let me ask you a question: Who are you…really? How would you describe, you? Most people would respond with a name and their occupation. That isn’t what I asked. I asked who you are? There is more to who you are than what you do, your skin color, or what your name is. If what you do is what defines you—then we have a pretty sad world.
Many today see themselves as objects to be consumed. They desire to be used as a commodity. Just look at the clothing that many young people wear—or the outspoken statements on shirts that read, “I am a porn star.” Even the LGBT movement—they will identify by their sex. Ask them who they are and they will respond with their name and at some point their sexual proclivity. If I were to walk into a room and say, “Hey, I am John and I am straight,” how would that be received? It’s odd isn’t it? So many of us place our identity in what we do, that we have no clue what a real person is. If you think like that—that people are just objects, it will not only affect you: It will affect how you treat those around you. If we are nothing but the product of a mindless unguided process (Darwinian evolution), why would we treat each other as if we were more than just a bunch of matter? What is the point? But that question turns around: If I am nothing but the product of evolution, why should anyone treat me as more than a heap of dirt? There is no purpose. The universe just is. It’s all blind pitiless indifference.
Pathetic. If you want to expose the malarkey in that, just walk up to the person that thinks that way—reach into their pocket—and take out their wallet. Their real presuppositions about how they should be treated will emerge.
Why do I believe that people have worth? Well, quite frankly, it is because I believe that God created us in His image.
But, let us look at it a bit more philosophically: If you take any philosophy in the world, you will find that it is based or grounded in one of three systems of thought. They are epistemological, existential, and pragmatic. Or quite simply, right thinking, right feeling, or right doing. If you think the right things or acquire the right knowledge, or feel a certain set of feelings or have the right intentions or motives, or if you do the right things—you will have achieved what is ‘the good.’
Now the idea of good needs to be fleshed out. G.K. Chesterton once talked about what is good. He wrote an essay called The Medical Fallacy in which he lamented the use of medical terminology when talking about social issues. He noted that many politicians will say, “Our country is sick. It needs a remedy. Vote for me and my benevolent policies and we will see true healing begin.” The problem Chesterton points out, is that social science is not medical science. In medicine, doctors all agree on what a healthy body looks like. They disagree on the malady. In social science, it is the malady that is agreed upon. We all can agree on what a dysfunctional society looks like. It is the idea of what is good that we rip each other’s eyes out over. One person sees this “solution” as a remedy—but the other guy sees the remedy as worse than the original problem. Chesterton goes on to say, it may be necessary medically speaking, for a man to walk into a hospital and come out with one leg less. But he quips, you will never see that man go into an operating room, and in a moment of ‘creative rapture,’ come out with one leg more.
The good. Can we find it in right thinking? Many philosophies say yes. How about in feeling or experience? Many say yes. How about in doing the right things? Many say yes. If our philosophy is based in these three areas, there are arguments to be made for which persons should be treated as objects. Maybe they don’t have the right knowledge—or they are incapable of it. Are they a drain on the taxpayers? What is the solution? Perhaps they haven’t experienced what they ought to—or they have the wrong feelings on a certain issue. Can these bigoted people live in a tolerant and just society? Then again, maybe they have done something that isn’t ‘o.k.’ by conventional standards. Maybe they put up a flag on their flagpole that represents something awful. Can we tolerate them?
Certainly arguments can be made that would subjugate each of these individuals to a second class.
The reason I believe people are of infinite worth is because I believe in a system that isn’t rooted in any of those three things. I believe in Jesus Christ. Christianity is a system that is rooted in being—specifically—the being of Christ. When I became a follower of Christ, my being was conformed to that of his. I am no longer who I was before. Now, I am an image of Christ. This life isn’t rooted in right thinking, although there is no greater knowledge than knowing Christ. It isn’t about feeling, even though I can think of no greater feeling than experiencing God’s presence. And it isn’t about doing, even though Jesus said that true Christians will be known by what they do.
It is about being. I see people as beings—not machines.
Back to adoption:
Now, the conventional wisdom says children who are denied their biological parents—despite how wonderful their adoptive situation might be—face more challenges than other children. Those views all presuppose that we are purely biological. I don’t buy this. I have seen too much evidence to the contrary. Plus, the Bible doesn’t teach this. God told Jeremiah that He knew him before He formed him! How could he know him before he was a living, breathing person? Well quite simply, there is more to us than our bodies. There is something to this knowing before forming business. When I think about my biological daughter…I can safely say I didn’t know her or have any knowledge of her before she existed. But God did. There is something to that.
Ephesians says that before the creation of the world God chose us! That has some serious implications. First of all, to be chosen before the creation of the world, means that before the first act of creation—we had some sort of existence. We at least existed in the mind of God before “In the beginning.” Let us put it this way: The crucifixion of our Lord was foreordained long before the first verse in Genesis. Why? Because there would be a need for redemption. Why? Because of us. Second, the Bible says that God chose us. Out of all the things in His creation that are beautiful—out of all the capable animals—he chose us. Why us? There is obviously something different or unique about us. C.S. Lewis once said that we aren’t bodies with a soul; we are souls with a body. There is indeed something that I cannot see—or test in a laboratory—that makes my son who he is. His physical appearance is a joy, but this is not who he is. He is connected to us, despite what his DNA might say. You could run a paternity test all day long, and I would fail it every time. But you could put man after man in the room with my son and I am the only one he knows as “Da da.” Despite the reality of what his DNA says he is, he is ours. He is a person created for relationship! He is a soul created in the image of God. He has an identity that is beyond his blood and chemical makeup. He was chosen before time itself. God knew that this little boy would need a Mom and Dad who were not his biological parents. A real sacrifice would need to be made for this little boy. But more importantly, God knew that for this little boy, The ultimate sacrifice would have to be made on Calvary.
“Before” time began, my son and all his needs were known.
Likewise, you and I are connected to Christ despite what our pasts might say. My spiritual DNA says sinner. It does not say holy. I am unworthy of the name Christian. Despite that, Christ has adopted me as His child. I am connected to Christ despite the sins I will commit today.
Despite the reality of who I am, I am His.