So . . .
As I hinted at in a previous post, I have a few things to say about adoption, most of them really positive. I think adoption is a great idea, and applaud the government for trying to make the process a bit faster and easier for all concerned. Some friends of mine are seeking to adopt a little girl that they are currently fostering, and I admire them hugely; they already have loads of children, so to take in another is a real gift, both to the child and the local authority that currently supports her. I won't mention them by name, if there's even a chance it could affect the adoption process negatively, but if you know who they are, you probably admire them too :) .
I know there have to be careful assessments of the prospective adopters, but the thing that keeps coming back to me is how demonstrably harmful it is for children to not be living in a family. Some children simply have to be taken out of a dangerous home environment, I recognise that too, and fostering is a good short-term solution to keep a child from significant harm, but nothing replaces the knowledge that they're in the family for good.
I think adoption is such a good idea that I hold a belief which will seem obvious to most "on the left", but is unusual for an evangelical Christian like myself. I believe that gay couples should be actively encouraged to adopt, just as much as straight ones, and that sexuality should play no part in the assessment for suitability for adoption. The improvement in the life outcomes for a child who is successfully adopted (and yes, I know that adoptions can and do break down sometimes) is so great that any of my issues with homosexuality as a lifestyle, whether my concerns are legitimate or just prejudice, are trivial compared to the thought of a child being welcomed by loving, committed, sensible parents.
Fellow Christians will probably be aware that Paul, in several of his letters in the New Testament, uses the concept of adoption as a picture of our being accepted by God, our heavenly Father. The sense of acceptance and security, of joining a new family and truly belonging there, makes the analogy very appropriate.
In short, yay adoption!
Reminds me of a very different argument in the Cycling community, that of Cycle Helmets:
ReplyDeleteWe desperately need more people cycling: it helps cities, health, climate, et c. A lot of people are traing to get people cycling.
Another very small but vocal group are screaming that everyone on a bike must wear a cycle helmet, because it is dangerous to cycle otherwise.
Unfortunately their campaigning has put a lot of people off cycling, because if you need a helmet for it, it must be very dangerous, so why do it?
So instead of helping us all get cleaner air, and getting people on bikes with the health benefits this brings, we have less people able to cycle because one group is insisting we do it a certain way. They could be correct -the evidence is unclear- but they are stopping a lot of people getting the benefits...
I'm not going to try and give a definitive answer in either case, but I do wonder if we should possibly all step back and ask: "Hang on a minute: what is the really important thing to aim for here?"
Andy in Germany (Who gets told off by fellow Christians for 'unsound' views)