Pseudosaviors: Adopting the World

pardon the spelling errors...Naomi hasnt spell-checked this yet..

From our couches in suburban homes, we scan channels on a flickering television. BBC might pop up with visions of a smoldering heap of brick and rebar, then a sight of a small bloated baby in rural Africa munching on uncooked rice. FOX News, perhaps covers a recent bombing in Baghdad; a bloodied father holds a dismembered child in his arms wailing liturgical muslum prayers. Some might be more affected than others; the most affected, desire to move to action, and rightly so. They might consider various methods to cure the global strife and pangs caused by depravity. A quick urge over comes them and they continue the search to help.

We consider scanning the world for nations more "impoverished" than us, seeking to pluck individuals out of the mess and grant them a "better life" on this Blessed soil. Adoption. It is currently viewed today by the majority of Christians to be admirable, charitable, we even say Godly. Isaiah 58 chides Gods chosen ones for mistaking a veritable fast from a pretentious one. "Is this not the fast that I choose:...to share your bread with the hungry, and to bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide your self from your own flesh?" Or, "If anyone thinks he is religious...Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in thier affliction..." James 1:26-27. Adoption is no less than a direct virtue of God, the Father. There is an error, however; not with the heart , but perhaps with the who, the cultural, psychological and sociological effect these decisions have on all involved.

First, I want to think thoroughly about the word "poor". We live in America where even the lowest salary more than doubles that of another country in Africa, or Sulawesi (for examples). Thats based on the USD. Therefore, we say that they are "poor" because in relation to the richest nation, well, yes, they are incredibly poor. These figures startle. These figures are for the lazy and ignorant. We dont take into consideration thier organic style of market place, thier native economy. Perhaps in Ethiopia a Birr is virtually useless if a man can trade a chicken for a basket of turnips with his neighbor. If its monetary poverty that moves us, perhaps we should reconsider what this actually means. What constitutes "poor" for us?

Perhaps a latent economy that cant seem to stay afloat due to lack of funds? We haphazardly throw out one time donations. This can cause more harm than good, breeding laziness or confirming economical ineptness in the very nations we strive to help. Then there are people like Muhamed Yunus, who, instead of merely giving money through lucritive "non-prof groups", creates his own Grameen Bank, generating buisness' for economyless nations through micro-loans and education, recently assisting over 100 million small business' around the world. Then Danonne, the french dairy company, who paired with Grameen to not only provide a monetary stimulus, but a nutrient stimulus. Danonne, has begun selling their products to small business' for resale at hardly no cost to the buyer. The idea is to make healthy food affordable. Not only are they now creating a money generator, but contributing to the over all health of a nation who could not do so on thier own resources.

The word "poor" is only relatable when used in context to the economy that surrounds it. Poverty in America should be viewed as those who are disabled and have very little pension to cover basic human needs, as one example. For an American to peer from a lofty spire upon a nation who in no way compares, is sheer naivete. Adoption should not be fuled from pity only on a "poorer" nation as a means to eliminate universal poverty.

After discussing the former activity of Danonne and Grameen, we see that soon, with attention and hard work, such nations who have copious amounts of parentless, husbandless, wifeless people, might be able to adopt thier own and reinforce a stable infrastructure for survival. I would imagine a main reason for Ethiopians not adopting Ethiopians is due to lack of ability, a main reason some Americans cant adopt either.

Why should a nation adopt its own? Why not "rescue" the ones we can and bring them into our affluent homes and virtuous communities, our great churches? The issue at hand is a catastrophic cultural and sociological error that we dont pay a modicum of attention to. The passionate blood has swollen out bigger than life hearts and we just dont think about the long term effects.

As believers in The Creator God we -I hope I am not naive in saying this- believe that God, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, created nations with a specific intent. The same intent that He would create a man and a woman. Reflecting the Imago Dei and His glory. Does a man refect this identically to a woman? No, how absurd to think so! How different is it to be American or Ethiopian? Do we not believe that the blood that God sends into the veins of an embryonic Ethiopian is different than that of an American? The difference it litteraly black and white and not in quality either, lest some witty person accuse me of racism. Distinct in essence, similar in nature.

The cultural delima of whites raising blacks is immensely difficult. What was said earlier about blood and uniqueness contributes to this. Of course, due to general psychological truths, an Ethiopian baby -age depending- will learn to speak english, will learn the customs of an American home, thier faith (if applicable), and the American way of doing things. This is not to say more privilaged than if they had been adopted and raised in Ethiopia. The natural and -might i boldly assert- Godly intent would be to have them remain in thier country of origin and learn to engage in that culture/society/economy as they were naturally inclined at birth to do. So,do we really believe that the Nations shall reflect Him who made them? Do our actions and fund dispursements reflect it? A shift in evangelical missions shows this recognition. "Indigenous churches" they call them now. We share the Gospel, and they take it and apply it to the culture and society God gave them. Not creating little American micro-churches in Sumatran tribes.

In the same way should not adoption be viewed? Why are we not empowering these nations to raise thier own? "But America has been blessed with the ability to do so? Should we stand by as thousands of parentless go unloved?" I am fully aware that we can indeed take the problem by the horns; but are we really taking it by the horns and not the tail by adopting as a means to fix the problem? Most of us are too kind to put it this way, so I will: We're lazy and stuck in another evangelical fad; relatable to the WWJDs of a past and dark decade in our church. Good intentions, mindless approach. We need to rethink this through.

Is this to do away with adoption? No way! That would be antitheistic in every way. As Naomi and I talk, we truly belive in the heart of Isaiah 58 and are comming to find that as "would-be-missionaries" we are HERE, NOW. Not there, when. It is easy to get caught up with what happens -spiritual and economic turmoil- beyond the borders of our homes,neighborhoods, jobs, churches, states and nation. Many eyes cast over the unadopted in New York on thier way Adis Adaba. Many funds go through the USPS boxes in neighborhoods where a single mom works two jobs to pay for food, clothes and invest in her childrens education and future. You see the irony here? Is it not staggering? Our own flesh is going with out as we get preoccupied with nations many thousands of miles away! Perhaps we should plea with Ethiopia to exchange their orphans for ours, or to simply take them at all! It is putrid ungodliness to ignore Americas problems if this is where you plan to take up residence to glorify Him. The great comission was meant for the traveling evangelist as well as the resident evangelist.

-Allow me a quick disclaimer: It would be an easy error to believe I am encouraging us to withdraw our support for foreign missionaries or those who are indeed working to better the nations. In no way am I asserting this. I am, however, asserting that we need to consider our nation as primary importance, and first in line. I confess ignorance as to our own economic struggle and rate of orphans in the U.S. This comes from an awakening to the need-

Does anyone notice the quick urge that adopters have to inform you that so-and-so is adopted? If they are black with white parents or Asian with obviously unasian parents theres no need; the observer asks about the adopted with a syrupy pity. What psychological damage might this do to the adopted? What happens to identity in an age of such bioethic irrelevence? Not only are we cognate with apes, but a loneley sojourner in an unfamiliar world. "I am so-and-so, the adopted" they might unconsciously think. Nor do you have an American or an Ethiopian, you have a "fortunate adoptee". This might be, perhaps a worse case scenario, nonetheless, a veritable one.

If our neighbors orphan was brought into our home, could we as adopters refrain from setting them out as adopted? Especially if they look like us and talk like us! Oh my! No one would know! Hmmmm....

When God adopted us through His son, He gave us His very, undefiled image, as though He were looking into a mirror when He looks at us in Christ. And when scripture says to feed and clothe our own flesh, I cant help but think it is refering to our neighbors first. Did Christ send out to the Gentiles first or the Jews? How has our sight been so skewed, then?

These are thoughts that Naomi and I mull over as ones who wish to adopt locally. This was a colaberation of both our thoughts one night as we sat and talked about how the Church might reconsider its approach to these global issues.n We hope the reader might have benefitted from the fruit of prayer and much thought.