Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
The Heart and Hands of Christian Mobilization for Orphan Protection
US citizens have adopted more than 500,000 domestic-born children and more than
230,000 foreign-born children in the past decade (US Department of State 2010; US Department
of Health and Human Services 2012). Approximately a third of all children adopted by US
citizens in the past decade had to cross political, ethnic, social, and linguistic boundaries in order
to be joined with new families. Why do US citizens adopt so many children from other
countries? Solving this puzzle is important for several reasons. First, although US citizens adopt
vulnerable children domestically, there are still many vulnerable children available for adoption
in the United States. In fact, there are so many vulnerable children available that foreigners
adopt US children; between 2008 and 2012 there were 233 US children adopted by citizens of
Canada, France, Germany, and the Netherlands (US Department of State 2012). We need to
understand why US citizens are adopting foreign children when there are so many children
available for adoption in the United States. Second, understanding the motivations for adopting
foreign children can help us better understand international adoption trends over time. Third,
from a political perspective, motivations for intercountry adoptions influence which states have
power on the sending side of intercountry adoption.
Conventional wisdom, and the baseline assumption of most scholarly literature
examining adoption, tells us that US citizens turn to other countries for adoptable children for
two reasons: 1) US citizens suffer increasingly from infertility, and 2) there is a shortage of
adoptable children in the United States. But there is little empirical evidence supporting this
assumption. In fact, we can easily observe that more and more US citizens are adopting children
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
when they have existing children in their family; increasingly adopting US citizens are not
primarily motivated by infertility. There are many vulnerable children available for adoption in
the United States. Conventional wisdom cannot account for these trends.
I provide an explanation of why US citizens adopt foreign children that can account for
these trends. I argue that the joint influence of two distinct trends in US society is driving US
citizens to adopt children from other countries. First, Evangelical Protestant Christian (EPC)
churches in the United States are increasingly using language that conveys a theology of
adoption. This theological understanding of Christians’ relationship with God has shifted
motivations in Christian communities for adoption from being fertility-driven to being
increasingly mission-driven. That is, US citizens in EPC communities are not adopting primarily
because they need children, but because children need homes. As more and more families in
these EPC communities have adopted children, a culture of adoption has developed that renders
adoption the norm instead of the exception. These communities develop networks that
perpetuate adoption and publicize the plight of vulnerable children that remain in the orphanages
from which their children were adopted.
But this trend alone does not explain why US citizens are increasingly turning to
intercountry adoption. Missional adoption is entirely consistent and compatible with domestic
adoption. In fact, there are many EPC communities that are quite active in foster care and
domestic orphan care. To explain the choice of intercountry adoption over domestic adoption, I
argue that these families that have missional motivations for adopting are especially challenging
candidates for domestic adoption due to the structure and process of adoption within the United
States. I argue that it is these two trends, not a shortage of children and infertility trends, which
motivate many US citizens to adopt children from foreign countries.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
In the second section of this paper I examine changing motivations for adopting children.
I chronicle the growth in the understanding and use of a theology of adoption in Evangelical
Protestant churches. I show how this theological language is driving a growth in missional
adoptions. I contrast this motivation for adoptions against the conventional wisdom that
adoptions are primarily infertility-driven. In the third section I contrast the international and
domestic processes for adopting children. I demonstrate how the families with missional
motivations for adopting are often logistically more compatible with foreign adoption than
domestic adoption. In the fourth section I conclude with the implications of these two trends.
The joint influence of an increasing culture of adoption within EPC communities and a
logistically complicated domestic adoption process more clearly explains why some US citizens
turn to foreign countries when they adopt children.
Motivations for Adopting Children
Though children have been transferred between families for centuries, US citizens began
legally adopting children domestically in the late nineteenth century when state legislatures
started passing laws that provide for the legal transfer of children from one family to another
family (Herman 2012). Intercountry adoption became a phenomenon during and after World
War II. Prior to this time, citizens of one country could adopt relatives’ children in other
countries, but non-kin adoptions across international borders were relatively few. The influx of
vulnerable children created by World War II and the Korean Conflict changed these trends. US
citizens started adopting children, primarily from Germany, England, and South Korea, who lost
parental care during and after the war. In Germany and England, these children were largely war
orphans who were difficult to place domestically as the countries tried to rebuild economically.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
In South Korea, these were often children who had been fathered by US servicemen stationed in
those countries during the war. Because of their paternity, these children were difficult to place
domestically within South Korea.
It is difficult to pinpoint adoptive parents’ motivations for adopting children into their
family, and there is a lack of data trying to identify parental motivations. But most scholarly
literature investigating adoption starts with the assumption that the primary motivation for
adoption is infertility (Bartholet 2007:169). Recent estimates claim at least 10% of reproductive
age couples are infertile in the United States, and that does not include individuals and couples
who decide they want to be parents when they are past the typical reproductive ages for healthy
pregnancies (Henry 2006: 45-46).
If infertility is the primary motivation for adopting children, several implications follow.
First, parents who are adopting their first child could be motivated to adopt a child that looks like
them. Thus, Caucasian adoptive parents in the United States could be more likely to want to
adopt white children within the United States or children from countries that have a large supply
of children that outwardly resemble them, because it prevents them from being obviously
recognized as a family constructed through adoption.1 Even if they are not motivated to adopt a
child that looks like them, they will likely be drawn to adopt a child from a country that sends a
lot of children to the United States through intercountry adoption. Second, parents who are
adopting their first child for infertility reasons are more likely to want to adopt infants, so they
can experience every developmental stage of their child. Though there are many vulnerable
1 Though white US citizens are not the only race adopting from abroad, research suggests that they are adopting at a
much higher rate than other racial groups. One study based on the 2000 census showed that of the 5578 respondents
who had adopted internationally, 5440 were white, 50 were Hispanic, 48 were Asian, and 40 were black (Ishizawa et
al. 2006). There has not been a study based on the latest census published yet. My implications are based on the
assumption that this trend has not largely changed, though that is certainly possible.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
children available for adoption in the United States, the supply of healthy adoptable infants has
decreased in recent years with more widespread use of birth control and abortion, and the
reduced stigma for single mothers keeping their children (Bartholet 2007: 164). Thus, parents
adopting primarily due to infertility will likely be drawn to adopt children from countries that
have a large supply of adoptable infants, and countries that allow adoption of children as young
as possible.
Though infertility is undoubtedly an important motivation for adoption, my personal
encounters with those who have adopted children both domestically and internationally confirm
that most of them have no infertility problems, and they are adopting children into their family
after having several birth children. These same families are increasingly adopting children
outside their own racial, ethnic, or national identity. I argue that the developing “culture of
adoption” within EPC mobilization for orphan protection is driven more by a missional view of
adoption than infertility problems (Moore 2009:18 and 75-79), in direct challenge to the
conventional wisdom about why US citizens adopt internationally. Methodologically, this
entails examining how the theological framing of adoption and mobilization for orphan
protection coevolve and influence each other. It would be overreaching to argue that the
theological understanding is driving EPC mobilization for orphan protection, because in many
ways, theological framing of adoption has responded to large numbers of Christians adopting
children. But it would also be misleading to claim that the fact that Christians are adopting large
numbers of orphans is driving a theological understanding of adoption, because the language of
adoption in the Bible predates the practice of adoption in the contemporary world as we
understand it.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
One key to understanding this coevolution of theology and mobilization is grasping the
difference, as EPCs understand it, between what they would call “horizontal adoption” and
“vertical adoption.” EPCs understand horizontal adoption as the adoption of humans by other
humans. It is the practice of legally making a child a member of a family that is not their birth
family. Vertical adoption, as EPCs understand it, is the adoption of humans by God, making
them sons and daughters in His family. The EPC theological understanding of vertical adoption
compels them to pursue horizontal adoption, and their experiences with horizontal adoption
inform their understanding of their own vertical adoption, and the way the two are
interconnected. The theological framing of adoption compels EPC mobilization for orphan
protection, and responds to that mobilization as well. EPCs believe they are adopted into God’s
family through Jesus’ life and death (Moore 2009:33, 45, 49). Jesus, as the elder brother,
represents Christians to the heavenly father even while he represents the love of the Father to
Christians. EPCs believe their very identity has been changed through this adoption into God’s
family, from estranged orphans to beloved sons and daughters. This understanding is
intrinsically connected to EPC mobilization for orphan protection. I highlight several mobilizing
aspects of the theology in the next section, before moving on to examine EPC mobilization for
orphan protection in the section that follows.
The Theology of Adoption
The first mobilizing aspect of the theology of adoption is a belief that in vertical
adoption, the adoptee is a person who is in need of rescuing (Moore 2009:83). EPC scholars
point to multiple passages in the New Testament which present a picture of alienated children.
For example, in his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul claims that before adoption humans
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
were all by nature objects of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3-4). The passage portrays humans as
dead in their transgressions, but made alive by the Father’s great love for them (Ephesians 2:6-
7). It is the picture of the ultimate judge of humanity suffering death (through his son) in order
to set his adopted children free (McCracken 2001).
Another example of alienated children in the Bible that scholars highlight is found in the
parable of the prodigal sons presented in Luke 15. Luke presents a picture of two prodigal sons,
one who foolishly squanders his father’s wealth, and the other who tries to manipulate the
father’s love through his own ability to perform good deeds. The father meets both sons where
they are and brings them back into his home (Luke 15).2 The father is pictured as one who runs
to meet his sons where they are without hope in a shocking counter-cultural display of fatherly
affection. EPC adoption advocates present this passage as a story of God making room in his
family for estranged children (Cruver 2011:14). Thus, they claim that the focus in horizontal
adoption on the fact that there is a child who needs parents is intrinsically connected to the
picture of vertical adoption in the Bible. Vertical adoption is primarily about a human who
needs rescuing, and it is accomplished by God bringing that child into his family (Cruver
2011:15; Hosea 11). Theologian and Pastor Scotty Smith describes it as follows:
“When the Father lavished his love upon us and made us his children, we weren’t
just street-wandering orphans looking for a good meal and a warm bed. We were
self-absorbed slaves to sin and death. Indeed, we weren’t in the orphanage of
loneliness; we were in the morgue of hopelessness (Smith 2011:69).”
The second mobilizing aspect of the theology of adoption is the EPC understanding that
with vertical adoption, the human is adopted into God’s family, not as a slave but as an actual son
or daughter. For example, in the parable of the prodigal sons, the younger of the estranged sons
2 Theologian Tim Keller has done extensive work on the image of the father and the sons in the parable of the
prodigal. For further reading see: Keller, Timothy J. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian
Faith. New York: Dutton, 2008. Print.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
returned home with an offer for his father: “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make
me like one of your hired men (Luke 15:18-20).” But when the father ran to meet the son, he
responded by crying out: “This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is
found…(Luke 15:24).” EPC scholars point to this story to show that the estranged son was
brought back into his family through the love of the father. They highlight that this theme is
further developed in the letter to the Romans when Paul tells those adopted by God:
“You did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit
himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children (Romans 8:15-16).”
In fact, the Apostle Paul gave such importance to the idea of sonship3 in adoption that he
presented the same idea in his letter to the Galatians:
“But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born
under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the full rights
of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the
Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and
since you are a son, God has made you also an heir (Galatians 4:4-8).”
EPC scholars present the theology of adoption as communicating that orphans are not merely co-
opted into families as members of lesser status. God accepts them as children with the full set of
privileges to which Jesus himself is entitled (Smith 2011).
The third mobilizing aspect of the theology of adoption is the EPC understanding of the
privileges that are granted to sons and daughters through vertical adoption. EPCs understand
vertical adoption is a change in legal status; adopted children are changed from the enemies of
God to beloved sons and daughters (Phillips 2011:60; Moore 2009:48). Scotty Smith calls this
the “quintessential freedom for which we long, and for which we have been redeemed (Smith
3 In the ancient world, only sons inherited from their fathers. Thus, Paul’s use of the word “sonship” is not intended
to exclude women from being adopted into the family of God, but rather to situate the concept within the Roman
legal understanding of inheritance (Phillips 2011:65; Smith 2011; also see Moore 2009:37).
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
2011:69),” because the change in legal status has nothing to do with humans’ “effort, deserving,
or feelings (Smith 2011:70).” In Galatians 4:4, the Apostle Paul situates this idea of vertical
adoption within the Roman economic and social construct of adoption by claiming that Jesus was
sent to “redeem those under the law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” In Rome,
people with the financial means could “buy a slave out of his bondage and legally make the slave
into a son or daughter” with all the legal rights and privileges of biological sons and daughters
(Smith 2011:72). The change in legal status is intrinsically intertwined with a change in
relational status (I John 3:1-3; Romans 8:15-17; Smith 2011:75-80), and a liberating sense of
belonging within that relationship (Moore 2009:34). This includes the privilege of relating to
God as a Father instead of a judge (Hebrews 12:7-11; Smith 2011: 74-75). The cry of ‘Abba
Father’ (Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:16) “conveys the dignity of a respected father and the rich
intimacy of Dad (Smith 2011:79).”
Scholars highlight that this change in legal and relational status entailed the privilege of
provision from the father (Phillips 2011:62; Psalm 37:25). In the EPC understanding of vertical
adoption, the change in legal and relational status gives adopted sons and daughters the privilege
of an inheritance (Romans 8:17; Colossians 1:12; Phillips 2011:65; Smith 2011:73-74). EPCs
believe that the privileges of adoption free Christians to live a missional life instead of a life
consumed with proving their own worth (Smith 2011: 80), because they believe that God has
accepted them as children through His own mercy when they had nothing of value to offer
(Smith 2011:81). “Christians should be the front-line lovers and servants in the world of human
trafficking, poverty, hunger, injustice, and indeed, in the world of orphans (quoted from Smith
2011:81; see also Kovacs 2011:86).”
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
There are two final components of the EPC presentation of the theology of adoption that
play an important role in EPC mobilization around orphan protection. The first is idea of
suffering. EPC scholars claim that in the Bible, adoption is not portrayed as a glorious “happily
ever after” story, but almost always connected with suffering and pain, because it is rooted in
loss. In vertical adoption, the loss is Jesus’, because the Bible highlights how the adoption of
sons and daughters is only achieved through the suffering of Jesus (Moore 2009:46; Romans
8:17, Galatians 4:4; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 2:10). In horizontal adoption, the loss is the
orphan’s, because adoption is only needed in the aftermath of loss. Even the process of
becoming the part of a new family is wrought with pain, because the strangeness of the new
environment can seem like a death—the death of all the orphan knew as familiar, even in an
environment that most would think of as hindering their ability to thrive (Moore 2009:43-44).
In addition to the idea of suffering, the final mobilizing aspect of the theology of adoption
is the focus on the orphan. EPCs claim that vertical adoption takes a person who is suffering in
slavery, the ultimate picture of a failure to thrive, and makes him or her a beloved son or
daughter. Though there is no vertical adoption without the Father; there is also no vertical
adoption without the human who is incapable of thriving without a dramatic rescue. “You can’t
talk about the theology of adoption apart from the theology of the orphan. A theology of
adoption starts with a picture of the disenfranchised and abandoned (Smith Interview 2011).”
The articulation of the theology of adoption has shaped EPC mobilization for orphan
protection, just as the mobilization has shaped the articulation of the theology. Though most
EPCs have a sense of the spiritual metaphor of adoption, there is variation in the presentation of
the theology of adoption across EPC denominations and individual communities of faith. Much
of the EPC use of the metaphor of adoption, at least initially when adoption became a growing
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
phenomenon in EPC communities, was an attempt to take the human understanding of horizontal
adoption and “force the definition of vertical adoption into the same mold (Cruver 2011:11).” In
response, EPC theologians have been attempting to more clearly articulate the theology of
adoption in an effort to remold a human understanding of adoption through foundational texts
that articulate the theology of adoption (Cruver 2011:12). Thus, the actual EPC mobilization for
orphan protection has influenced the intentional grounding of the theology of adoption in
foundational texts, which in turn is shaping the way EPCs mobilize for adoption.
Christian Mobilization for Adoption
EPC orphan care advocates claim that mobilization for orphan care is about responding to
systematic brokenness (Smith Interview 2011) in a way that is increasingly theologically driven,
and answering the cry that “it’s not right” by finding a way to set things right (Medefind
Interview 2011). It is common to see churches that frequently discuss the theology of adoption
to have large numbers of members adopting children (Kovacs 2011:83). At the same time,
churches that have many members adopting children also start to grapple with how that picture
of horizontal adoption is related to a theological understanding of the relationship between God
and humans. EPC scholars chronicle how church cultures are being transformed one family at a
time as adopting families’ choices challenge the way the church approaches orphan care (Kovacs
2011:88). In this section I connect the theology of adoption with EPC mobilization for orphan
protection, and give examples of how EPCs are mobilizing at the individual, community, and
international levels. This section is by no means fully representative of the ways that EPCs are
mobilizing for orphan care. Rather, it is meant to be a brief introduction into the hands of EPC
mobilization, and the ways it is informed by the heart of the mobilization.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
There is a spectrum of viewpoints on how adoption protects orphans within EPC
mobilization. On one end of the continuum are those within EPC mobilization who argue for
adoption as the last resort in the range of options for caring for orphans. These advocates argue
that empowering people to care for the orphans in their country is a crucial component of
missional living and creates lasting solutions that are more redemptive than exporting children.
Though this group still agrees that horizontal adoption is a redemptive reflection of vertical
adoption, that specific solution is viewed as a calling that some families might feel as a response
to the plight of orphans. Regardless, they would argue that all Christians are called to seek
justice for orphans and to seek out ways to help orphans thrive regardless of their location,
political context, or availability for adoption. On the other side of the continuum are advocates
within EPC mobilization who advocate for any type of adoption, domestic or international as the
best way to protect orphans. In this camp, more attention is focused on helping orphans thrive in
new locations (in families), and influencing political change to allow for adoption of children
into families (Moore 2009).
Figure 1: Continuum of Christian Views on Adoption
How do the different components of the theology of adoption, the heart of EPC
mobilization for orphan protection, influence the practical advocacy for orphans, the hands of
EPC mobilization? First, EPC mobilization is focused on the plight of vulnerable children, not
primarily on facilitating adoption. EPCs fundamentally identify with orphans, and the
metaphorical language of spiritual adoption deepens the power of the identification. Individual
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Christians in EPC communities are increasingly seeking ways they can individually contribute to
change for the most vulnerable in society. For example, after adopting her first child, Gwen
Oatsvall founded 176 Million Orphans, an organization that raises money for orphan care and
helps families raise funds to process adoptions.
”I feel like we are in a movement, and believers are spearheading it. It is driven
by Christians seeing things…they see children, and Scripture comes alive to them
as they see more. They want actions and not just words (Oatsvall Interview
2011).”
A focus on orphans instead of just adoption motivates churches with orphan care front
and center in their mission to build partnerships with organizations in foreign countries to enable
domestic solutions for orphan problems. For example, Tapestry ministry at Irving Bible Church
partners with Lifesong, and organization that helps fund Ukrainian families to adopt Ukrainian
children, instead of primarily funding US citizens to adopt Ukrainian children (Monroe 2011).
Similarly, Seed Adoption Ethiopia, an organization that is a partnership between EPC churches
in the United States and Ethiopian churches, empowers Ethiopian Christian families to adopt
Ethiopian children (Seed Adoption Ethiopia). International partnerships of this nature are
growing as EPC churches are critically thinking through the most effective ways of caring for
orphans within their own countries instead of focusing exclusively on exporting children out of
their home countries to families in the United States. Social work analysts have identified that in
many countries with orphan crises, poverty and rising deaths from AIDS epidemics have made it
difficult for families to take in their relatives’ orphaned children (Roby and Shaw 2006:202).
EPC organizations are making efforts to provide resources that enable families to care for their
relatives’ orphaned children, and to change the status of orphans within their extended families.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Second, because the destination of the vertically adopted human is the family of God,
many EPCs feel compelled to make room in their families and their communities for orphans,
regardless of social, ethnic, or racial identity of the adoptive families or the vulnerable children.
Because such interracial and intercultural adoption is radically visible, it is common for even a
few such adoptions to have a domino effect of families pursuing international and domestic
interracial and intercultural adoptions one after another, creating a culture of adoption within
EPC communities across the United States. Unlike many of the adoptions that were common
thirty years ago where a childless couple might adopt one or two children that looked remarkably
like the parents,4 in the EPC culture of adoption families with multiple birth children are
adopting their third, fourth, fifth, and more children that look nothing like them and do not share
their language, culture, nationality, or even skin color (Moore 2009:18; Kovacs 2011:83). When
one mother adopted her first child (she has since adopted a second) from Ethiopia, after having
four birth children, her family was the first in her church to adopt interracially and
interethnically. Within two years, her church developed an adoption ministry and an orphan care
ministry.
“We kept coming in contact with all these people who are adopting and making a
difference. In the beginning, I just wanted to give this kid a better life, and in the
end she gave us a better life. It took about three families in our church adopting
before our church got on board with the idea, and now they have an adoption
ministry. We just brought in the kid, but the effect spread. Now even families and
people who aren’t adopting are going on mission trips to advocate for orphans.
Not everyone is meant to adopt a child, but now others are doing orphan care
(Adoption Interview 2011a).”
EPC churches are increasingly restructuring their communities to support this growing
culture of adoption, integrating orphan care into the very fabric of their community instead of
4 These children “look” like their parents either because they are domestic white adoptions, or international
adoptions from East European countries that have white children. Except for Korean adoption, it was relatively
uncommon for white US citizens to adopt children that did not look like them physically until the late 1990s.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
just as a separate ministry. Though this restructuring is often in response to members who adopt,
in turn it also drives further mobilization for orphan protection. For example, one mother of
three adopted children (two from Ethiopia and one from South Korea) cites her church as a major
impact on her family’s decision to adopt, even before they had tried to have birth children.
“We were going to a church that was pro-adoption. I don’t think we would have
adopted without having faith that God commands us to care for orphans. As
Christians we are a living illustration of adoption, because we are adopted by
God. These three little kids are going to be our legacy. Everyone wants to leave
a legacy, and they will be ours (Adoption Interview 2011b).”
Beyond a change in individual church community structures, these EPC churches are
networking with each other in larger coalitions of churches within the United States that are
advocating for orphans. For example, the Christian Alliance for Orphans is a networking
organization that connects Christian orphan care organizations to a national network of churches
to “inspire, equip, and connect Christians to defend the fatherless (Christian Alliance for
Orphans).”5 This organization is at the forefront of the stimulation of orphan care initiatives
within EPC mobilization.6
Third, the idea of suffering within the theology of adoption is informing the way that
EPC churches care for their members that adopt children. As one pastor highlighted, Americans
love a happy ending, and American expectations of international adoption are no exception
(Monroe Interview 2011). Adoptive parents are often unprepared for the practical challenges
they will face post-adoption. These families can feel cut off from their communities of support,
in particular their faith communities, because of shame that their adoption has not been a “happy
5 The phrase “defend the fatherless” is a Biblical reference to Isaiah 1:17. Because God is presented as a heavenly
father, orphanhood was most often termed in the Bible as a child being fatherless. I (and those I quote) use this term
not to degrade the importance of a mother in a child’s life, but to reflect the Biblical language underlying the
theology of adoption. 6 For a list of the more than 80 Christian organizations tapped into the CAO network, check out their website
(reference is in the works cited page).
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
ending.” EPC churches are starting to recognize the importance of focusing on the suffering that
underlies the theology of adoption (Monroe Interview 2011). A lack of support when adoptions
“go wrong” can lead to events such as an adoptive mother in Tennessee shipping her seven year
old adopted Russian son back to Russia on an airplane without adult supervision, claiming that
his psychological and behavioral problems were more severe than she had been led to believe
upon finalization of the adoption (MSNBC 2010). Michael Monroe, leader of Tapestry Ministry
at Irving Bible Church explains his church’s response to the theology of suffering:
“The reality ends up being that if you can have a “good” experience you feel you
can turn to the church. If you struggle, you feel like you have to turn elsewhere.
As early as we can catch families, we talk expectations. We talk realities. There
is no adoption without loss. If there is a theology that draws people into
adoption, there is also a theology that sustains people into the depths of adoption.
God doesn’t promise us a happy ending, he promises us his presence. We have to
find that voice somewhere in this process (Monroe 2011).”
At the individual, community, and international level, EPC mobilization is wrestling with
how the theology of adoption can inform the movement for orphan protection.
The Logistics of Domestic and Intercountry Adoption
The growth in missional adoptions impacts trends in adoption beyond a shift in
motivations. When parents adopt for infertility reasons, the child(ren) being adopted are usually
the first for the family. But families that are adopting for missional reasons are not necessarily
adopting their first children. In fact, many of these families are adopting after having multiple
existing children in the family. Families with existing children have different considerations that
can motivate them to choose international adoption over domestic adoption. This section
examines the differences in domestic and international adoption in order to demonstrate how
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
shifting motivations for adoption can lead to a choice of international adoption over domestic
adoption.
It is important to understand two things at the onset of this section. First, I write these
sections from the perspective of adoptive parents, not birth parents. As a mother, I am aware of
how impossibly difficult it must be to decide to release a child for adoption. My analysis seeks
to remain sensitive to this decision on the part of the birth parents. But because I am specifically
chronicling the difference in process and protections for adoptive parents considering domestic
versus international adoption, my analysis is focused on how, from the prospective of adoptive
parents, international adoption can often be a more logical choice. Second, I write these sections
from the perspective of adoptive parents who already have children in their family, because this
is the major difference resulting from shifting motivations in adopting children. If adoptions are
infertility-driven, most adoptive parents are adopting their first children. On the other hand, if
adoptions are increasingly mission-driven, as I have argued, families are frequently adopting
after having multiple existing children.
Domestic Adoption
Families that want to adopt domestically have two options; they can either adopt through
the social welfare system or adopt through a private agency. The social welfare system
processes adoptions of children already in the care of the state. These children are typically
considered special needs children, if nothing else because their age prevents easy placement
(NACAC 2013b). Private agencies typically are involved in infant adoptions and they match
birth mothers with adoptive parents (USDHHS 2013). Sometimes private agencies can also
handle the adoption of special needs children (NACAC 2013a). The options differ according to
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
financial and emotional costs. Financially, families that adopt through the social welfare system
have little financial cost, outside of completing the required home study. On the other hand,
families that adopt through a private agency usually must pay around 20 percent of their income
or at least $20,000.7 These fees pay for the services the agency provides, like providing
temporary care for the child during the processing of the adoption, as well as the agency’s
operating costs.
Though the financial costs are higher with private agencies, these are offset by lower
emotional costs. Families that adopt through social services must foster the child they are
adopting for at least six months before the adoption can be processed; sometimes this
observation period can last a year or longer (NACAC 2013a). During this foster period, the
adoptive parents have little legal rights as parents, even though they are temporarily appointed
the legal guardians of the child (American Adoptions 2013). On the other hand, families that
adopt through a private agency typically do not cohabitate with the child until the adoption is
legal and final. These agencies often have foster families that serve as temporary caretakers for
the children while the adoptions are being processed. Though it can be difficult for any family to
become attached to a child and then have that child removed from their care, families with
children already in their family have the additional consideration of the emotional damage their
children could suffer as a result of losing a sibling. Thus, families with children already in their
family are likely to choose an agency adoption when they adopt domestically, which requires
significant financial cost.
7 There is conflicting information about the ability of these agencies to provide “sliding fee scales” for special needs
children. Because the definition of “special needs” differs by state, many reputable agencies have a flat fee that is
the same regardless of the child. Other agencies may charge less for children of minority race or children with
health problems. Instead of having a sliding fee scale, some agencies instead offer “grants” for families adopting
special needs children.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Besides financial and emotional costs, families adopting must also consider the legal
security of the process. Families adopting domestically, whether going through social services
or through a private agency, have to consider how their adoption will be the most legally secure
while balancing the legal rights of the birth family. This is one of the most painful balances in
adoption. It is a simple fact that birth parents often change their mind about adoption, even after
adoptive parents have bonded with the child. US Government statistics reported that in 2008,
only 19 percent of children who exited foster care were adopted, 60 percent of the children were
reunited with family (American Adoptions 2013). This reality of adoption is painful for any
family, but families with existing children in their family, the legal reality can be difficult to
process. Because adoptive and birth families’ legal rights differ by states, and adoptions often
happen across state lines, it can be difficult to ensure that the legal rights of both parties are
protected. Situations where children are removed from adoptive families with little warning are
highly publicized in the United States. Regardless of the situation, and whether or not this
removal was in the child’s best interests, it is a difficult and painful experience for the adoptive
family. Adoptive families adopting domestically must consider the possibility that they will
experience such a separation, and if they have existing children, be prepared for those children to
lose a sibling with which they have bonded.
Finally, families adopting domestically also have to consider the placement process
within the United States. Again, this process differs depending on whether the family is
adopting through social services or a private agency. When adopting through a private agency, a
likely choice for families with existing children, the birth parent(s) choose the adoptive parent(s)
(NACAC 2013a). Though there is not existing data chronicling such choices, anecdotal
evidence suggests that birth parents are more likely to choose parents without existing children in
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
their family than parents with existing children (Adoption Interview 2011a). This makes sense
because a mother placing her child in an adoptive family is highly concerned with whether or not
that child will be accepted as part of his/her adoptive family. Birth parents are understandably
more likely to be concerned that this will be a problem with a larger family where their child will
be one of several children in the family. This problem is also likely more pronounced for a birth
mother of a minority child, because their child will not only be the only adopted child in the
family, but also the only minority child in the family (Adoption Interview 2011a). For families
with existing children in their family, the placement process for domestic adoption makes it
difficult to be considered as a potential adoptive parent.
International Adoption
Families that want to adopt internationally also face the same choice of going through a
private agency or adopting directly through the social welfare system in the country from which
they are adopting. But because of the logistics involved, most families go through a private
agency. Families that adopt directly from the social welfare system in a foreign country must
hire a lawyer within that country to navigate the system, and they often have to travel to
orphanages in order to identify available children. Families that adopt through private agencies
have the benefit of tapping into a network of professionals who are accustomed to navigating the
legal system within that country in order to process adoptions. Often, agencies even have their
own orphanages in which they house available children and care for them until they can be
placed within families.
Financially, the costs of adopting a child internationally differ depending on the country
from which the child is being adopted. There are certain fees that are standardized regardless of
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
the country from which the child is being adopted because they are the costs associated with
being approved to adopt internationally on the US side. These include home study costs,
document processing, legal fees for readopting the child back in the United States, and parent
interviews and classes mandated by the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, to which
the United States is a signatory. But some fees differ depending on the country from which the
family is adopting and the agency the family is using to process the adoption. Agencies typically
have published fees charged per child being adopted. These fees go toward agency operating
costs and the services provided during the adoption. Different countries charge different fees per
child being adopted. China for instance charges around $5000 per child (sometimes more,
sometimes less depending on whether or not the child has special needs or other special
circumstances), while some African countries charge as little as $500 per child. The travel costs
also differ depending on the country from which the child is being adopted. Russia requires
three trips in order to process an adoption, which can be very expensive for adoptive families.
South Korea, on the other hand, allows children to be escorted to the United States; adoptive
families do not even have to travel to South Korea in order to process the adoption. With these
costs combined, some international adoptions can cost as little as $10,000; others, especially
from countries like Russia and China, can cost as much as $50,000 to $60,000.
The emotional costs of adopting internationally are also quite different from adopting
domestically. Regardless of the method for processing the adoption, parents typically do not
bring an international child into their home until the adoption is legal and final.8 Some countries,
8 There are some countries which require that parents live with the child in the country of their origin for several
months to several years in order to process the adoption. These residency requirements typically prevent most
foreigners from applying to adopt children from that country. Most adoptions processed to foreigners from these
countries are conducted by foreigners who are permanent residents of the country from which they are adopting
even though they are citizens of a different country.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
like Russia, require multiple trips in which the adoptive parents interact with the child being
adopted. For these countries, adoptive parents can become emotionally attached to the children
being adopted before the adoption is processed. But some states do not have these requirements
and parents only have a picture of the child they are adopting until the adoption is legal and final.
Because international adoptions are sometimes interrupted due to political developments, this
lack of interaction with the child being adopted can emotionally be easier for the adoptive
family.9 On the other hand, identifying a child for adoption and then having to leave the child in
a foreign country for months and sometimes years while the adoption is processing can be quite
painful for adoptive parents.
Though there is just as much emotional risk when adopting internationally as there is
when adopting domestically, there is a perception that international adoption is more legally
secure than domestic adoption. International adoption seems more secure because once the
adoption is finalized the child’s citizenship is legally transferred from their birth country to the
country of adoption. It is extremely rare for a child to be returned to their country of origin
except for a few extreme cases where the child was adopted illegally.10
Political interruptions in
adoptions are also rare. Adoptive parents are typically much more familiar with publicized
stories of domestically adopted children being removed from adoptive families, and perceive that
this is more of a danger than political events interrupting an international adoption. This
perception is not that unrealistic; because an international adoption is a legal transaction across
state borders, it is much less likely that this legal transaction will be challenged or undone.
9 The most recent examples of such interruptions are 1) Russia banning adoptions by all US citizens in January
2013, and 2) Guatemala and the United States halting adoptions while Guatemala works out corruption in the
adoption process. In both these situations, adoptive parents had received referrals for adopting children that have yet
to receive final processing. 10
For example, there was a case where children were smuggled out of Samoa to adoptive families in the United
States. Once this illegal activity was discovered, the children were returned to their families in Samoa.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Finally, the placement process for international adoptions is quite different from the
placement process for domestic adoptions. For domestic adoptions within the United States, the
birth parents choose the adoptive parents, unless the child is already in the care of the state. For
international adoptions, the state is typically responsible for placing vulnerable children with
adoptive parents. In some cases, the adoptive parents choose the child they want to adopt first
and then start processing the adoption.11
Though the requirements for adoptive parents can differ
across countries, once an adoptive family identifies a country from which they will adopt, there
is little question they will receive a referral for a child once their application is submitted to that
country. Families adopting domestically can wait for years for a birth mother to choose them as
adoptive parents for her child.
International vs. Domestic Adoption for Missional Adoptions
After considering the financial and emotional costs, legal security, and placement
process, there are several reasons why families adopting for missional reasons, particularly
families with existing children in their family, would choose international over domestic
adoption. First, the financial cost of international adoption is not much more expensive, and in
some cases even cheaper, than adopting domestically through an agency. Families with existing
children are more likely to try to adopt through an agency, even if they are adopting
domestically, because this eliminates the requirement of fostering a child for at least 6 months
before the adoption can be processed. Because foster families have few legal rights as parents,
there is a chance that adoptive families could foster a child in order to adopt the child into their
11
For example, in some cases, US families identify available children through networks of advocates like orphanage
workers or missionaries. They then pursue an adoption specifically for the purpose of adopting that child. In other
cases, US families only identify a country from which they want to adopt and the state decides the child to place
with the family based on the criteria the family specifies.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
family, and then the adoption fall through before it can be processed. For families with existing
children, such a circumstance would not only cause emotional and psychological harm to the
parents who bonded with the child during the fostering period, but also to the children who bond
with a new sibling during the fostering period. Thus, families with existing children are just as
likely to choose an international adoption through an agency as they are to choose a domestic
adoption through an agency, based on the financial costs involved.
Second, international adoptions are perceived to be legally more secure. Rarely do
adoptive parents cohabitate with the adopted child until the adoption is legal and final. Once the
adoption is legal and final, the child’s citizenship is transferred to a new country. This legal
transaction is final and binding; rarely have children been returned to their country of origin after
being adopted into a new family in a new country. Domestic adoptions are more frequently, in
highly publicized cases, reversed legally. Children are returned to their family of origin after
being placed with adoptive families. While this is devastating to families adopting their first
child, for families with existing children there is a whole other layer of people affected by an
adoption failing. Adoptive parents with existing children undoubtedly consider this risk when
considering whether to adopt domestically or internationally.
Third, from the perspective of adoptive families, the placement process for international
adoptions is more streamlined and standard across all applicants than the placement process for
domestic adoptions. Once a family fulfills the legal and procedural requirements for an
international adoption, their dossier is placed in a queue. When their dossier reaches the top of
the queue, that family will receive a referral. This process is evenly applied across all applicants,
except for situations where adoptive families identify specific children and then initiate the
adoption process. Domestically, adoptive families must wait for birth mothers to choose them as
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
adoptive parents. Families with existing children are less likely to be chosen as adoptive parents
because of the perception that the adopted child will not as easily integrate into a larger family.
Although there are many families with existing children who adopt domestically, there are
several reasons why these families are more likely to choose international adoption than
domestic adoption.
Conclusion
The joint impact of two trends in US society is motivating some US citizens to pursue
international adoptions. First, the growing culture of adoption within EPC mobilization for
orphan protection challenges the conventional wisdom that US citizens adopt primarily because
of age-related infertility problems (Kovacs 2011:86; Cruver Interview 2011; Moore 2009), with
several important implications for how analysts understand advocacy for orphan protection
generally and intercountry adoption in particular. Adoption for missional reasons does not
preclude the fact that Christians also adopt because of infertility problems. But there is a large
part of the EPC community pursuing adoptions after having several birth children.
These same US citizens are particularly challenging cases for adopting domestically. The
structure of domestic adoption in the United States makes it difficult for families with existing
children to be considered by birth mothers, particularly birth mothers of minority groups, as
adoptive parents for their child. Insecurity in the legal process domestically has also led to
highly publicized cases where adopted children are removed from their adoptive family and
returned to their birth family. If the adoptive family works through a domestic adoption agency,
the cost of domestic adoption is relatively similar to the cost for international adoption. As a
result, many families are motivated to adopt children from other countries with significant child
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
welfare problems because the adoption is legal and final before the child joins his/her new
family. As more families have adopted children from foreign countries, a culture of adoption has
developed in which many adopted children are racially and culturally different from their
adopted family unit. This culture of adoption publicizes specific child welfare problems in
specific countries, and as a result influences adoption patterns when families are adopting for
missional reasons. In this concluding section I offer implications for this new explanation I
provide for why US citizens are adopting internationally, as well as avenues for future research.
Implications of a Culture of Missional Adoptions
What are the implications of a culture of adoption, characterized by missional adoption,
which motivates some citizens to pursue intercountry adoption over domestic adoption? How
does this trend change the way we understand intercountry adoption and advocacy for orphan
protection? First, on the international level, it challenges our understanding of which states have
power in intercountry adoption. If US citizens are motivated by infertility and desire to adopt
children that look like them, they are more likely to pursue adoptions in sending countries in
Eastern Europe and Latin America over adoptions in African and Asian countries. This is the
case because the majority of adopting US citizens are Caucasian. On the other hand, if US
citizens are adopting for missional reasons, they are motivated to adopt children from countries
that have large populations of vulnerable children, regardless of the ethnic or racial background
of the orphans. This should challenge the way we understand state power in negotiations over
intercountry adoption. For example, a country like Russia is no longer the most powerful
sending country for intercountry adoption, simply because it has a large supply of white
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
adoptable children. This shift in perception should challenge policymakers as they negotiate
state-to-state relationships on intercountry adoption.
Second, at both the international and domestic level, this trend challenges our
understanding of the connection between adoption and advocacy for orphan protection. Instead
of exporting another country’s children to fill the demand for adoptable children within the
United States, adoption is one of many solutions orphan advocates pursue. Increasingly,
advocates provide a continuum of services in countries with orphan populations including family
support, childcare worker training, temporary care, intercountry adoption, and social system
development (Andreas Interview 2010, Feaster Interview 2010). Author Dan Cruver explains
the connection between adoption and orphan care:
“Those who haven’t adopted are just as important as those who have! God has
called all to the care of the fatherless, even those who haven’t adopted. This is
mobilizing people to participate in orphan care, however God has hardwired
them to participate (Cruver Interview 2011).
Third, at the domestic level, particularly within the United States, EPC mobilization
challenges understandings of what constitutes family. When adoption is pursued for infertility
reasons, and adopted children tend to look similar to their adoptive parents, adoption is not
always visible.12
When adoptive parents pursue adoptions of children regardless of race or
ethnicity, the culture of adoption becomes an opportunity to challenge community
understandings of what constitutes a family, and what constitutes identity (Moore 2009:39).
These families illustrate how differences can be accepted and celebrated within and without the
12
I in no way intend to imply with this statement that adoptive parents who adopt their children because of infertility
reasons are trying to hide the fact that they adopt, or that they are ashamed of their adoptions. But anecdotal
evidence from my interactions with adoptive parents indicate that adoptions happening 20 to 30 years ago were not
openly discussed or even commonly accepted or understood in US culture.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
confines of a family.13
Even if the families were not constructed for this purpose, they can end
up being examples for others in their community (Smith Interview 2011).
Fourth, at the domestic and international levels, EPC mobilization is creating cross-
cultural and cross-national partnerships of EPCs who are advocating for the protection of
orphans, even in countries that do not permit international adoption of their orphans. The
common theological language is helping to create cross-cultural understandings of orphan
protection. The infertility model would lead us to believe that US citizens are primarily
interested in exporting children from other countries into the United States, but EPC mobilization
as a driving force is just as concerned with developing others’ ability to care for their own
vulnerable children as it is in exporting those communities’ orphans.
Finally, at the community and individual level, EPC mobilization is challenging the way
that communities care for and support families that adopt children. Greater support for post-
adoptive parents helps reduce abuses of adopted children, and prevent incidents of adoptive
parents returning the children they have adopted because the struggles seem too great to handle,
or adoptive parents abusing the children they have adopted. Orphan care is becoming a part of
the fabric of the culture of churches, instead of just one of the ministries in an array of programs
(Kovacs 2011:87-88). Pastor Russell Moore highlights this in his recommendations on how
churches can support adoption:
“Adoption can be a priority for everyone within the church in ways that reflect
the diversity and unity of a church that is one body with many members. Adoption
can be part of our congregational lives, fully recognizing the different gifts and
callings of individual Christians within the church. If adoption is to be a priority
for us, we must transform the local community—the internal ministry of the
13
This statement is not intended to minimize the difficult adjustments that many children of transracial adoption
suffer post-placement. It is a difficult walk to celebrate an adopted child’s difference while still integrating them
into the family as full sons and daughters. I do not intend to minimize the pain that can accompany families
struggling through how to do this effectively.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
church—and the global vision—the external witness of the church (Moore
2009:169).”
Avenues for Additional Research
How does this new understanding of why US citizens adopt from abroad challenge
current research and provide avenues for future research? First, it is no longer sufficient to
assume that US citizens, or even the citizens of other Western receiving countries, are adopting
primarily because they are infertile. This assumption, stated explicitly or assumed implicitly,
influences the way we frame questions, search for answers, and interpret data on intercountry
adoption. When stated explicitly and supported with evidence, this assumption might be
appropriate for many studies. But I have demonstrated a number of the implications of EPC
mobilization for orphan protection as a motivating force behind missional adoptions; considering
motivation when investigating intercountry adoption will produce a more nuanced understanding
of the phenomenon.
Second, the implications of EPC mobilization, as highlighted in this paper, can
potentially illuminate intercountry adoption patterns that seem puzzling at first glance. For
example, the recent decrease in the number of intercountry adoptions does not necessarily signal
that orphans are not being cared for in other countries when you take into account EPC
mobilization. Instead, they could signal that more countries are developing domestic solutions
for their vulnerable children through international partnerships as highlighted earlier in the paper.
The connection between decreasing numbers of intercountry adoptions and the development of
domestic solutions should be investigated.
Third, if EPC mobilization is influential in patterns for intercountry adoption, we can
expect to see several changes beyond increasing domestic solutions. There should be an increase
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
in the number of older children who are adopted by US citizens, instead of the focus primarily
being on the adoption of infants and young toddlers. Similarly, adoption of sibling groups
including older children should increase. Finally, adoption of children with special needs, severe
or easily correctable, should also increase. Because EPC mobilization is primarily focused on
the orphan and the need of the orphan, we can expect to see that more families will turn to these
high-need groups of orphans that will likely not receive placement within their home country.
What are avenues for continuing this research? First, quantitative work can be done to
investigate how the ideas are impacting numbers. For instance, at the individual level, how
many EPCs in the United States are adopting interracially compared to non-EPCs? Of those
EPC families, what percentage is adopting their first children compared to families adopting after
having birth children? How do those numbers compare with non-EPC families? At the national
level, how many EPC churches have adoption or orphan ministries? What has been the growth
in such ministries in the last decade? How many of those ministries are connected to each other
through church-to-church contact or through tapping into mobilization resources like Christian
Alliance for Orphans? Internationally, how many US-based adoption or orphan ministries have
international cross-border partnerships? How many of those partnerships are focused on
countries that do not allow intercountry adoption? How many of the partnerships are focused on
in-country orphan care compared to those that are focused on facilitating intercountry adoptions?
Additionally, there is interesting qualitative research that can be done to deepen our
understanding. For example, how are other receiving countries for children influenced similarly
by the theology of adoption and a growing culture of adoption? For example, the Netherlands, a
country largely influenced by the Dutch Reformed tradition, is also one of the largest receiving
countries of children through intercountry adoption. Is this connection theology-driven as well?
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Are the same things happening for other receiving countries that I have observed happening in
the United States? Across religions, how are others using theology to legitimize or delegitimize
the practice of adoption in general and intercountry adoption in particular? How do other
religions connect adoption to orphan protection? Within Christianity, how are denominations
outside Evangelical Christian denominations mobilizing for orphan protection? A nuanced
understanding of the framing of orphan rights by various advocacy groups and mobilization to
protect those rights will deepen our understanding of the phenomenon and produce a more
accurate explanation for intercountry adoption patterns.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Works Cited 147 Million Orphans: Fundraising for Adoptions. 147 Million Orphans. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
http://www.147millionorphans.com/.
"Adopted Boy, 7, Sent Back Alone to Russia - World News - Europe - Russia - Msnbc.com." US
& World News- Msnbc.com. 09 Apr. 2010. Web. 07 Nov. 2010.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36322282/.
"Adopting Children from Foster Care." Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and
Families, US Dept of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/adoption/adoptive/foster_care.cfm
"American Adoptions -- America's Adoption Agency." The Differences Between Private and
State Adoption Services. American Adoptions, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/private_or_state_adoption
Bartholet, Elizabeth. 2007. "International Adoption: Thoughts on the Human Rights Issues."
Buffalo Human Rights Review 13: 151-204.
Christian Alliance for Orphans: Adoption, Foster Care, and Global Orphan Initiatives Rooted in
the Local Church. Christian Alliance for Orphans. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
http://www.christianalliancefororphans.org/.
Cruver, Dan. 2011. Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living through the Rediscovery of Abba
Father. Adelphi, MD: Cruciform. Print.
"Dan Cruver Interview About the Theology of Adoption. President and Founder, Together for
Adoption." Telephone interview. Jan. 2011.
"Dennis Feaster Interview on Global Orphan Care Initiatives. International Projects Coordinator,
Bethany Christian Services International." Telephone interview. June 2010.
Empowered To Connect. Empowered to Connect. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
www.empoweredtoconnect.org.
"Gwen Oatsvall Interview about 147 Million Orphans. Adoptive Parent and Founder of 147
Million Orphans." Personal interview. Feb. 2011.
Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Adoptions of
Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement by State FY 2003–FY 2011.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/adoptchild11.pdf
Henry, Martha, Daniel Pollack, and Aaron Lazare. 2007. "Teaching Medical Students About
Adoption and Foster Care." Adoption Quarterly 10.1: 45-61.
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
Herman, Ellen. 2012. "Adoption History: Adoption History in Brief." Adoption History:
Adoption History in Brief. Department of History, University of Oregon, 24 Feb. 2012.
Web. 15 Feb. 2013. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/adoptionhistbrief.htm
Ishizawa, Hiromi, Catherine T. Kenney, Kazuyo Kubo, and Gillian Stevens. 2006. "Constructing
Interracial Families Through Intercountry Adoption." Social Science Quarterly 87.S1:
1207-224.
"Jedd Medefind Interview about Orphan Care Initiatives and Church Orphan Ministries.
President, Christian Alliance for Orphans." Telephone interview. Jan. 2011.
Keller, Timothy J. 2008. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith. New
York: Dutton. Print.
Kovacs, Jason 2011. “Adoption and Missional Living.” Adoption: Missional Living Through the
Rediscovery of Abba Father. Adelphi, MD: Cruciform. 83-94. Print.
"Interview about Adoptions. Adoptive mother of two from Ethiopia." Personal interview. Feb.
2011.
"Interview about Adoptions. Adoptive mother of two from Ethiopia and one from South Korea."
Personal interview. Feb. 2011.
Lifesong for Orphans: Bringing Joy and Purpose to Orphans. Lifesong for Orphans. Web. 18
Mar. 2011. http://www.lifesongfororphans.org/.
"Marc Andreas Interview about Global Orphan Care. Vice President Bethany Christian Services
International." Telephone interview. June 2010.
McCracken, Sandra. "O Love Incomprehensible." By Augustus Toplady and Anne Steele.
Pilgrim Days: Indelible Grace II. Indelible Grace. Kevin Twit. CD.
"Michael Monroe Interview about Orphan Care Initiatives and Church Orphan Ministries.
Leader of Tapestry Ministry at Irving Bible Church in Dallas, TX and Founder/Director
of Empowered to Connect." Telephone interview. Jan. 2011.
Moore, Russell D. 2009. Adopted for Life: The Priority of Adoption for Christian Families and
Churches. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
"NACAC| Adoption Types." NACAC | How to Adopt. North American Council on Adoptable
Children, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. http://www.nacac.org/howtoadopt/adoptiontypes.html
Becca McBride
Presented at ISA 2013
"NACAC | How to Adopt." North American Council on Adoptable Children, n.d. Web. 22 Feb.
2013. http://www.nacac.org/howtoadopt/howtoadopt.html
Phillips, Richard D. 2011. "The Good News of Adoption." Reclaiming Adoption: Missional
Living Through the Rediscovery of Abba Father. Adelphi, MD: Cruciform. 57-68.
Roby, Jini L., and Stacey A. Shaw. 2006. "The African Orphan Crisis and International
Adoption." Social Work 51.3: 199-210.
"Scotty Smith Interview About the Theology of Adoption. Theologian, Author, and Founding
Pastor at Christ Community Church in Franklin, TN." In-person interview. Jan. 2011.
Seed Adoption: Ethiopia. Kidmia. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. http://www.seedadoption.org/.
Smith, Scotty 2011. “The Freedom of Adoption.” Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living
Through the Rediscovery of Abba Father. Adelphi, MD: Cruciform. 69-81.
Sobrino, Jon. 2001. "Human Rights and Oppressed Peoples: Historical-Theological Reflections."
Truth and Memory: the Church and Human Rights in El Salvador and Guatemala. By
Michael A. Hayes and David Tombs. Leominster: Gracewing. 134-58.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.
Together for Adoption: Providing Gospel Centered Resources to Mobilize the Church for Global
Orphan Care. Together for Adoption. Web. 18 Mar. 2011.
http://www.togetherforadoption.org/.
