Below is an article I wrote for my own blog over a year ago discussing the disturbing trend of white couples journeying to all corners of the earth to uproot children of other races to adopt in a fit of self-righteousness and white guilt rather than having children of their own or adopting children of their own race. As this trend shows no sign of ending, I’ve decided to repost it here.
I have observed with some alarm the Christian fad of interracial adoption. More and more people I know are doing this and I thought a contrary perspective might be useful. Since the spirit of our postmodern age is to meet any disagreement with one’s lifestyle choices with personal offense, it is best that this critique is offered anonymously here.
I understand that I will change few minds, especially among those who have already adopted interracially. Nevertheless, I feel I must say my piece and perhaps influence and encourage a few souls out there who feel social pressure (masquerading as superior spirituality) to do this but know somehow it’s probably a bad idea. This is addressed particularly to men, who as heads of their families may be able to better evaluate this choice in an objective manner.
Let’s discuss a number of reasons why interracial adoption might be a bad idea.
1. The Feminization of Christianity
This reason is fundamental to the rest, as all of my arguments are to some extent based on reason. However, in most of the evangelical church these days, reason is seen as unspiritual while following the wisps of one’s emotions is seen as very spiritual.
Life, of course, would be meaningless without emotion, but emotion without reason is insanity. The head must lead the heart, yet much of Christianity today consists of Christians using their heart (which they assume is the true voice of God in their life) to overcome the perfectly rational objections of their head.
For example, churches go into deep debt to build new facilities because the pastor has a vision, and the emotion of that vision trumps the Biblical wisdom on debt. Much of this can be attributed to the feminization of the church, where the male tendency to analyze objective facts to arrive at a decision is derided as inferior spiritually to the more feminine decision making process.
Biblically, of course, both approaches are important, but it is also clear the husband is placed in authority over the wife at least partially because of this difference in reasoning styles. Neither is superior, as both are necessary for good decisions, but ultimately facts and reason must enjoy a privileged position over emotion. Men and women are fallen creatures who can use their emotions to justify any decision, whereas facts tend to be more stubborn things and more resistant to our vanity.
In interracial adoptions, I have noticed that many if not most of these are driven by the female half of the couple, and the decision is reached very emotionally. First, the excitement of discovery that you could adopt and the natural excitement that accompanies the idea of a new child. Second, the reluctance and fear of the unknown. Third, the thrill of the rescue fantasy, which appeals to our vanity as we think of ourselves as “rich Americans” (Americans are rich in debt as a rule, but little else) traveling the world to save a poor little orphan. Fourth, the drama of the process, meeting the child, and taking them home.
For many people, this process produces an emotional high more attractive than simply bearing their own child (though in many cases it must be noted these adoptions are done by Christians who cannot have any or more children for whatever reason).
The man in the relationship is at a significant disadvantage in attempting to process this through his natural thinking process. Any objection is either chalked up to A) the devil is trying to stop us or B) you’re not as spiritual as me because you won’t “let go and let God”. It never occurs to them that ANY foolish idea can be justified in this manner, where rationally assessed roadblocks are seen as tools of Satan and any progress is interpreted as a “sign” of God’s approval.
The truth is that God’s Will is simply whatever happens, and it’s impossible to know in advance what His Will is, because it’s impossible to know the future as a human being. The best we can do is pray for wisdom and use the brain God gave us to make a good decision. This endless spiritual navel-gazing, tea-leaf-reading and drama is not Christianity.
I really wish every Christian would read the book Just Do Something. There’s really not a whole lot I can add to that book’s take on the will of God. It’s quite liberating for those stuck in “prayer paralysis.”
So let’s move on to the practical reasons. Feel free to disagree with one or all, but here they are.
2. The Fundamental Nature of Race and Tribe
The Bible is very big on tribes and genealogy. Western individualism is a foreign concept to Old Testament Hebrews, who were very aware that tribal and racial distinctions were important to God. I will not belabor this point, as it will be covered more thoroughly in a subsequent post on interracial marriage, but let us just consider an example.
The logical end result of interracial adoption and interracial marriage is a world of people with no identifiable single racial heritage, a total mixing of all peoples, tongues and nations. Such a situation is ideal for the establishment of a world government.
I believe the Bible makes it clear at Babel that such an outcome would multiply evil in our world. John Calvin attempts to explain the Providence of national and racial distinctions:
“Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries. [In this manner,] God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused.”
3. Potential Psychological Issues Among Adopted Interracial Children
One obvious problem with interracial adoption is that the child knows they are obviously different from the rest of the family from a very young age. One benefit of intra-racial adoption from birth is that the tender child enjoys a time of “plausible deniability” and the fact of their adoption can be dealt with when the child is more mature and able to handle the situation.
Race and tribe are also fundamental parts of who we are. The child already has the emotional burden of not being raised by their biological family, but also the burden of not even being raised among their own people, but being raised by strangers in a strange land. Since everyone wants to have an ethnic identity, this could lead to serious problems as the child approaches adulthood and starts to form their self-image.
For example, see here.
Barack Obama is the epitome of the psychological issues associated with mixed race families. Here is a man abandoned by his black African father, raised by his white mother, Asian stepfather and white grandparents. Yet his whole life he has desperately sought to prove himself “black enough” because of his confused heritage. Though a talented individual, he has embraced poisonous left-wing ideology in a continual attempt to earn his father’s approval.
4. Financial Issues
Part of the reasoning of international, transracial adoption is the idea that we as Christians in America are very “blessed” and we should seek to share this blessing. You would think America was a nation of people living on majestic estates, nobly allowing foreign peasants to work their fields. In reality, the middle class lifestyle enjoyed by many American Christians is a hollow edifice built on easy credit and debt.
These adoptions can cost north of $20,000 net of travel, fees, etc. Most of the people paying this outrageous amount don’t even own their house, not to mention car notes and student loans. American Christians assume the good times will go on forever and so think nothing of spending this kind of money on an adoption. The fantasy of being someone’s benefactor is irresistible to people who are in reality debt and wage slaves in need of liberation themselves. If the family’s income were cut in half, how long could these “rich” American Christians maintain their lifestyle?
If their house were paid for, would they borrow against their equity to pay for the adoption? It’s the same question when Christians put $20,000 towards an unnecessary expense like international adoption, money that could be used to liberate themselves from debt bondage. The New Testament commands us to (legally) seek our freedom if we are slaves. Debt slavery is in some ways worse, as it gives the illusion of freedom and hides the true nature of our situation.
5. Moral Issues with Some Transracial Adoption
Many of the children adopted are special needs. While it is truly a terrible lot to be born special needs in a poor country, why do you think their home countries are willing to allow Americans to adopt them? Simply, because exporting these children relieves their home countries of social costs and places them on American society.
American laws require employer health insurance to cover adopted special needs children the same as natural born children, some of whom immediately need hundreds of thousands in medical treatments, and a lifetime of continuing care (disabled children can remain on their parent’s health insurance indefinitely regardless of age).
I am an employer who runs a small business. We have a group policy whose cost is driven by the usage of the plan. If one of my employees were to deliberately seek out a special needs child to adopt, that child’s immediate and continuing medical needs would drive the premiums for the rest of our group sky-high. It’s one thing if a natural born child is afflicted with a problem. This is the purpose of insurance, to insure against unpredictable risks. But when we deliberately add known risks to an insurance pool, it unfairly drives up costs for everyone.
So “rich” American Christians delay paying off or go into debt to finance the adoption, and then sponge on their employer’s health insurance to pay for special needs medical care. Everyone pays the cost in increased insurance premiums, but the individual family gets the credit for “saving” a child from a Third World existence. It is fundamentally immoral in my view to burden one’s employer and fellow employees in this way. No one has the right to force someone else, even under cover of law, to participate in their charity.
6. Birthright / Legacy Issues
My postmillenial tendencies cause me to take a long view of my family. My natural-born children have a birthright in their inheritance, the accumulated capital of their family. This is the vision of the Biblical trustee family. I do not believe it is fair to force my natural born children to share with someone who is not, and to seek this out. However, most Christians are debt slaves with no capital to speak of, and when they “die broke” there’s nothing left for any children to get anyway. This is yet another problem with the debt slave mentality of most American Christians, always seeking out a short-term spiritual high instead of focusing on a multi-generational legacy.
7. Technology Issues
Adoption has historically been a local act of charity, most often among relatives and sometimes among unrelated people of the same race and nation, to meet a specific need of a specific orphaned child. There is a world of need out there, and technology makes it easy to find this need. However, there is more need out there than can ever be met with the limited supply of charity available. Simply, adopting the Third World is not a sustainable strategy for helping the Third World (many Americans have a provincial naivety of the sheer number of people out there: there are 5 billion people on this planet poorer than the average Mexican), though the importation of millions of Third Worlders can certainly ruin a First World country.
I would only consider adoption if Providence literally placed it in my path: a relative or local orphan with no other options who could be easily integrated in my family. If I could not in good conscience integrate the child, I would work hard to find a family who could so the child could grow up with as natural an environment as possible.