Should We Sterilize Ourselves in Order to Adopt More Children? My Response
— Monday, February 21st, 2011 —
Way, way, way too long ago I posted a question from a newlywed couple wondering about whether, since they have a burden for adoption, they should sterilize themselves in order to have more resources for more children. The question can be read here. Y’all gave your thoughts, and here are mine. By the way, what’s your ethical dilemma? Send it to me at questions@russellmoore.com
Dear Friend,
The people of God, it seems to me, are perpetually pulled toward replacing a “both/and” ethic with an “either/or.” That’s what I think might be happening here.
Don’t get me wrong. The Scripture is often “either/or.” It is either God or Baal, either Jesus or Mammon, either Spirit or carnality. A “both/and” ethic in any of these places leads to disaster. But think about how often a “both/and” ethic is wrecked by a false “either/or.” The Scripture teaches both grace and obedience, both mystery and clarity, both Jesus’ humanity and Jesus’ deity, both local discipleship and global missions. To choose one in opposition to the other leads to a false choice that winds up tearing down the whole conversation.
I am glad that you see the Christian imperative to care for orphans and widows. I’m glad you see it through the grid of the gospel of Christ. I’ve spent the last decade of my life calling for such a vision. What you’re suggesting here though doesn’t serve the end you think it serves.
Family isn’t simply an incidental matter of biology. You’re right about that. Family is built on an already existing pattern, the pattern of the gospel. That’s why our adoption in Christ means we ought to care about the adoption of children. The gospel leads us to the mission, and the mission leads us to back to the gospel. That pattern is missional, yes, but the pattern is also incarnational. Both matter.
Adoption, in Scripture, doesn’t form a different type of family. This isn’t an altogether unique sort of relationship. Instead, in the gospel, we are adopted “as sons” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5). This language of “sons” is really important because God has already trained humanity to recognize the concept of fathers and sons, parents and children, and he has done so through procreation.
At the very beginning of the biblical story, God commands humanity to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Then God, almost immediately, takes us to the “begats” of the various genealogies. God’s favor and God’s mercy are seen in the birth of children, which the Scripture everywhere regards as blessing.
Why? Well, this is because procreation (like marriage) is a picture of the gospel. God’s love for us took on flesh, in the person of our Lord Jesus (Jn. 1:14), an Incarnation that causes us to be “begotten” as the children of God (Jn. 1:12; 3:6-7; 1 Jn. 5:1). The love between Jesus and his church is fruitful, and it multiplies. He stands before his Father, with his people, and proclaims, “Here I am and the children God has given to me” (Heb. 2:13).
Adoption only makes sense in light of procreation. A child who is adopted is adopted into an already existing concept, that of parents and children. Scripture uses both archetypes, that of adoption and that of procreation.
If we idolize procreation, as though family were merely about bloodlines, we repudiate the gospel that has saved us. But if we turn away from procreation altogether, adoption is no longer adoption “as sons.” The metaphor then attaches merely to a living arrangement, not to the natural family. Adoption is more, cosmically more, than a living arrangement. The adoption of children makes sense in light of the begetting of children.
Before we can care for orphans, we must ask why there are orphans in the world. The answer includes a variety of reasons, from divorce to poverty to warfare to natural disasters and the list goes on and on. The best thing that can happen for orphans is for children to be welcomed and wanted, to be received as Jesus always receives little children. Before we can love children as orphans, we must love children as children.
The congregation that disciples its own members and cares for those immediately around, but refuses to join with Jesus in reaching the ends of the earth is not a faithful church. Likewise, the congregation that sends missionaries all over but refuses to love its own local neighbors is unfaithful. In either case, an “either/or” leads to error. It should be “both/and.”
I would counsel you not to permanently incapacitate your procreative capacity. Even apart from Christian disagreements about contraception or family size, we can all agree that the birth of children is pictured by God as blessing not burden (Ps. 127:3).
Don’t see your potential future love for your birthed children as some scarce commodity, that then must be taken away from your children you might adopt or foster. Love isn’t a commodity, and it isn’t parceled out. Love isn’t limited, and it isn’t a barrier to ministry.
Love “bears all things…endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). Have babies, and love your babies. Minister to orphans, and pray for God’s wisdom in how best you might care for the orphans and widows in your neighborhood and around the world.
Yes, you are right that marriage and family inhibit the freedom one has to do certain things in ministry. The Apostle Paul celebrates those who give up family for the sake of ministry, but this, in the apostolic example, entails a giving up of marriage itself (1 Cor. 7:1). Once there is marriage, one cannot simply cut apart the conjugal realities for the sake of ministry.
That’s why, for instance, Paul warns against those that would toss aside marital sex for ministry’s sake (1 Cor. 7:5). The decision to have sex with one another, the Bible indicates, was made at the altar. When a couple has sex, then, they are not “depriving” any other ministry of anything. When they refuse for an extended period of time, though, they are “depriving” one another.
It might be that God will not give you children biologically, and instead will spur you all the quicker toward adoption or foster care. It could be that God will show you how to welcome children both by adoption and by the more typical way. And it could be that your love for the children you welcome by birth might be the signal to your church and your neighbors to love children, and thus welcome children who have been orphaned.
It’s “both/and,” not “either/or.” Adopting for life doesn’t demand accepting the knife.
What’s your ethical dilemma? Send it to me at questions@russellmoore.com
11 Responses to “Should We Sterilize Ourselves in Order to Adopt More Children? My Response”
Trackbacks
- Twitter Trackbacks for Moore to the Point by Russell D. Moore [russellmoore.com] on Topsy.com
- What I Read Online – 02/22/2011 (p.m.) | Emeth Aletheia
- Quote of the Day - Birth Control Family Fatherhood Orthopraxis Quote of the Day - - A Pauper in the Court of the King
- adoption and the gospel « Our Adoption Fund
>> It’s “both/and,” not “either/or.”
I believe that sentiment is good where applicable, but also believe it would be irresponsible to adopt a child if one is incapable of caring for him monetarily. In that sense, the choice could amount to “either/or” if “both/and” totals to more than can be reared responsibly.
Good word.
If there is a criticism of the “adoption movement” this is it: to exalt what is atypical (adoption) over that which is typical (fruitfully multiplying) makes adoption lose its significance. Adoption only makes sense in the context of biological family. I am all for adoption, yet shouldn’t obedience to the command “be fruitful and multiply” be taught first as a foundation for the second emphasis of adoption? To push adoption without supporting natural birth undermines both family and adoption.
Is “permanently incapacitate your procreative capacity” the nice way of saying “surgically mutilate one’s genitalia”?
(Let’s be honest - that’s what it is…)
Thanks for taking time to make this post. I am encouraged by this dialogue.
1. We have to make choices all the time. While false dilemmas are real, I don’t think this is a false dilemma. The key issue is that we are limited and cannot do everything. That’s why rest is so important. Rest means saying NO to certain options. It is recognizing our limitations. For example, should we open an orphanage or start a local church or reach an unreached people group in a far away land or study to become an astrophysicist or care for physical needs by becoming a doctor? We cannot do all of these. We have to make choices. And it seems that with adoption and biological it could be the same thing. We COULD do both or we COULD do one or the other, but ultimately we have to say no somewhere. However, and I think this is the important part that I think was not discussed above - the church as a whole MUST be about all these things, but as individuals, we often have to make limiting choices (both/and is still an option, but we have to limit ourselves somewhere).
“Don’t see your potential future love for your birthed children as some scarce commodity, that then must be taken away from your children you might adopt or foster. Love isn’t a commodity, and it isn’t parceled out. Love isn’t limited, and it isn’t a barrier to ministry.
Love “bears all things…endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). Have babies, and love your babies. Minister to orphans, and pray for God’s wisdom in how best you might care for the orphans and widows in your neighborhood and around the world.”
But we are not God, so at one level we are limited. If this were not the case, and there is no limit to our love, why not adopt 1,000 kids or more? It seems we as human beings do have physical limitations, and our call to rest is a reminder that we can’t do it all.
4. A family that chooses adoption only is not necessarily rejecting biological. We have to think less individualistically on this. That family may have nieces and nephews and members of their church with biological kids. Absolutely procreation is a picture of the gospel. And absolutely adoption only makes sense in light of biological. But I don’t see how it therefore follows that the biological child must be from each individual family.
It’s not about one being better than the other, but about recognizing our limitations and going hard after what a family believes is its calling.
Our oldest son was born four week early by an emergency c section due to my wife’s dangerously high blood pressure. Fortunately, both are fine today, but the experience left us with a decision about future children. We both wanted more children, but questioned if it was wise due to complications that were sure to repeat themselves in another pregnancy. We opted not to have more children, but very soon afterward became foster parents. This was the best decision we ever made. For the past two years we’ve been foster parents to a little girl just two years younger than our son. This week, we were granted court approval to adopt her!
I appreciate Matt’s post on limitations. I agree, but would take it a step further. Our limitations were used by God to open us up to the possibility of adoption and foster care. I agree that we have idolized procreation and thus many Christians who are in the moral and ethical jungle of unnatural fertilization. I fear as Matt pointed out that many Christians lack a Biblical understanding of God given limitation that should lead us to godly alternatives.
God gave one plan to support a stable civilization. “Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth”. We have many procreative technologies today but God did not provide for options. Most of the technologies are wide of the mark and are usually driven to place children in less than scriptural “family: situations. God does not sanction “Junior has two daddys” nor any of the other perversions which abound today.
If God does not permit normal family procreation it perhaps points to permission to adopt.