I know it's always good to care for children who do not have
their biological parents [James 1:27].
However, I've struggled a bit with how right it is for us to accept a
child to raise while their parents are still living. I do realize most of these children are being
saved from the atrocity of an abortion.
However, I feel there is a fine line between a person who finds themselves
in a situation they did not ask for and someone who made (sometimes habitually)
decisions to engage in activities that lead to children knowing full well they
lack the resources to care for those children.
Again, responding to what I've read in 'Dear Birthmother' by
Kathleen Silber and Phylis Speedlin, I read over and over that the birthparents
simply want something 'better' for their children. They want their child raised in a comfortable
home with a loving mother and father.
Who doesn't want that? But here's my issue...please read this excerpt:
"I realize he's your son now. We all have played such a vital part in his beginning. I gave him life and then I gave him to
you. You will shape that life and make
him into a fine young man. I am so glad
he has you. I am so glad you're there
for him. I couldn't have found two
better people to be his parents if I had done the choosing myself. After he was born, I started believing that
God does work in mysterious ways. He
gave me the son I had always dreamed of.
Then He made it possible for me to give my baby a family. Something I wanted so much for him to
have. And He gave you the child you
wanted so much. I'd like to think God planned this from the very beginning."
Now, God certainly can use anything to work out His
plan. Based on almost every account
recorded in the Bible, He enjoys using the broken, weak, small, and lost to do
incredible things; it brings the glory to Him. However, I have a
problem with thinking giving a child to be adopted is ever 'really' "His plan from the beginning". (if you really wanna
split hairs, God’s plan from the beginning was shot in
the foot as soon as Eve had herself a little snack, but I digress…)
I don't fret about this for my sake, but for the
birth-parents. How much should I really
encourage/enable them to give me their child when I feel like I 'should' be
encouraging them to create an environment that would enable them to keep and
care for their own child? I know these
women spend, ideally, months in counseling before the birth of their child to
determine if adoption really is the best option. I have to have faith that they understand
what they are doing.
I'm having a hard time articulating exactly what's in my
heart, so stick with me...How can I tell, and is it really for me to know, if someone is giving
their baby away because they would otherwise abort the pregnancy, or if they just
don't feel they can afford a baby or give them a 'stable' life? How do they
know God didn't give them that baby to do something amazing in their life?
Perhaps making the selfless decision to give their baby to someone who
desperately wants one IS the something amazing?
The only biblical example I can think of is Moses' birth. First, his mother selflessly sends him off in
his basket, trusting God to spare his life.
Then, when he is found, Pharaoh's daughter sends for Moses' own mother
to look out for him until he was weaned, probably two or three years! Now, every example from the Old Testament
has to remain in the context of God bringing His plan of salvation to the
world, so not sure I should read too much into that example. However, I know the practice of wet-nursing
was fairly common for hundreds of years.
Also, thinking about people who employ nannies to essentially raise
their children...Plus the idea of boarding schools...are you not sending your
child to be cared for by another? Are these concepts really so different from
an open adoption? It may very well be that I'm putting way too much into
this...Proverbs 22:6 says 'start children off on the way they should go, and
even when they are old they will not turn from it'. Whichever way a child comes into my life,
'starting them off on the way they should go' is really my only job and
concern. Right? I hope so.
Here's another gem that kept me up for most of a night...again a
quote from the book previously mentioned:
"The realities of adoptive
parenthood”
1.
Adoption is a lifetime experience.
2.
Adoptive parents will never totally parent their
child; and adoptees will never be totally parented by their adoptive parents.
3.
Birthparents remain a part of the adoptee's life.
Number 1 – sure, I got that.
Number 2 – say what now?...you wanna bet? (feel free to picture the best 'momma-bear' face you can imagine right now)
The book goes on to explain in this way:
“There are no first or second-best
parents in this human experience. There
are only adoptive parents who can never give their biological heritage or
genetic future to their child and birthparents who cannot raise a child born to
them. Both sets of parents in reality
experience an incompleteness and loss.
The child, in turn, can never be parented by one set of parents. He needs
the adoptive set to provide the nurturing and shaping part of parenthood. He needs the biological set to provide
genetic past and future.”
One may say, well the nurturing and shaping is really the ‘most
important part’…ok, then how come people spend HOURS
on Ancestry.com? Because we want to know where we came from! It IS important! So, before my over-defensive response
completely ruined my entire night of sleep, I recalled one phrase from
orientation, “we’re not talking about co-parenting”. I have to keep telling myself this when I
begin to feel defensive. We are not
co-parents, but the birthmother/parents will ALWAYS be a part of my child’s
life whether through their presence or their absence. Period.