Celebrating Death or Rejoicing in Justice

I have been pondering the range of responses to ObL's death, and have concluded that there is a very fine yet important distinction between celebrating the death of ObL, and rejoicing in the justice of ObL's death.  I think John Piper does a good job examining the entire spectrum of God’s response vis-a-vis His word.  

Love and forgiveness are individual mandates that do not negate God's commands to seek justice.  One should love every person and forgive every enemy, while still advocating that the state (aka government), with the authority given to it by God, administer justice (Romans 13:4).   If love and justice are mutually exclusive, as some seem to be suggesting in the aftermath of ObL, every Christian should seek to abolish criminal arrests and prosecutions.  God forbid! God himself is the epitome of love, forgiveness and justice: loving us, he sent his son to die in our place, that our sins might be forgiven and final, eternal justice administered. 

Justice on earth encompasses positive as well as negative consequences independent of the state of one's salvation or the love and forgiveness of one's victim.  It is just for a murderer, whether Christian or non-Christian, to be put to death (Numbers 35:31) and it is just for a widow, whether Christian or non-Christian, to be defended (Isaiah 1:17).  Final, eternal justice, however, is exclusively positive for the believer, and exclusively negative for the unbeliever (John 3:36), regardless of his earthly sins or good works (Ephesians 2).

God never takes pleasure in death (Ezekiel 18:23), but He does take pleasure in justice, including justice fulfilled by death (Deuteronomy 28:63 is one of many verses stating this fact).  Who are we to condemn this response?  Who are we, who strive to live in His image, to do less?  Justice, with all of its consequences, even death, is joy to a righteous man (Proverbs 21:15, Proverbs 11:10).   The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth vengeance (Psalm 58:10).  I fear that when we cease rejoicing in justice, we further injustice, for there is no neutrality on the issue (consider i.e. Matthew 12:30, Revelations 3:14). 

My conclusion?  Celebrating the victory in war is not celebrating war.  Celebrating the justice in death is not celebrating death.  The circumstances of ObL’s death were either just, to be celebrated, or unjust, to be denounced.  I am sickened by those who sinfully delight in the crude particulars of ObL's death, in death itself, but at the same time I acknowledge and take Godly joy in the justice of his death.   To paraphrase Revelations 18:20, "Rejoice over him, oh righteous ones, for God has given judgment for you against him!"

I encourage each of you, my three blog readers, to prayerfully consider whether you will do the same.  Whatever response you choose to have, may your decision be made in supplication to His word. 

Just another Soapbox Monologue brought to you by a fallible, sinful and depraved person who by God's grace is also a forgiven and justified saint. 

Adoption, Charity, and Orphan Care

Since bringing Isabella home, we have heard the inevitable comments about how good we are to have adopted. Rubbish!  Adoption is many things to our family, including love and joy, but it is not charity, and it is not orphan care.  Adoption itself is good -- good for parents, good for children, good for families -- but it is not doing good in the sense of charity, which (I think!) is an important distinction.  Let me try to explain...

Adoption is not charity.  If we were adopting in an effort to be charitable, we would not have been adopting in the true sense of the word.  Adoption made Isabella our own, every bit as much as if she were born to us.  We would go to the ends of the earth to bring Matthew home, just as we went to Ethiopia to bring Isabella home. We did not go out of charity, we went because we loved her and she is our daughter.

If we had thought that we were acting charitably by adopting, we would have set our family up for some tough struggles. First, as we considered the parameters to set on our adoption:  if we were adopting out of charity, then of course adopting an older or special needs child is more charitable than adopting a healthy infant, and we might have felt pressured to do so to self-righteously increase the charitableness of our act, despite God's calling. Second, as we tried to reconcile conflicting concepts: having a child in our home as an act of charity, yet having that child be wholly our own, equal in every respect to our biological children.  God may call us to adopt a waiting child, but it will be because that child is meant for our family, not because God wants us to be charitable.

Christ was both the begotten son of God, as well as the adopted son of Joseph.  The ultimate example of adoption, of course, is God's adoption of us: I am His adopted daughter, and He loved me so much that he sent his begotten son to die for me! John 3:16.  There is no greater love than this.  John 15:13. 
 
Another example that may make this point of view easier to understand:  food.  It is my responsibility to feed my family, and I take pleasure in doing so.  If I love you, I feed you.  If I love you a lot, I feed you pie, just ask any of my friends and family! Of all the time that I have spent in the grocery store, not once has someone patted me on the back and said "oh, you are so good to be buying food!" 

Which leads me to my next point...

Supporting another family's adoption IS charitable. Let's go back to the food analogy, because it is easy to understand and, I'll admit it, I like food.  If I help another family buy groceries, I am acting charitably. In Leviticus 19:10:  growing crops for yourself is not charitable, but permitting the needy to glean is charitable.

If God calls you to adopt, He will provide the means to do so, which may include having you accept support from others.  As Christians, we are to share our needs with one another, and support one another in times of need.  Accepting help is often tougher than providing help; there is a time for both.  In 2 Corinthians, the Macedonians begged for the privilege of helping.  See also Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:5, Luke 3:11. 

Adoption is not orphan care.  Isabella is our daughter, she is not an orphan, so caring for her cannot count as orphan care.  Adoption is good and right, it is a way that God chose to grow our family, and it is a way that God reduces the number of orphans who need care.  Adoption meets the needs of one family and one child, blessing both by bringing them together.  Adoption does not solve the orphan crisis.  Of the over 160 million children in the world who have lost at least one parent, only a fraction are eligible for adoption:  most are living with their surviving parent or extended family, but all are vulnerable and need our prayer and support.  See e.g. Statistics post and this post by Tom Davis. 

The call to care for widows and orphans. We answer this call not by adopting, but through our prayers, personal acts of charity, and support of widow and orphan care ministries.  Our favorites include All Gods Children International, which in 2010 served 60 children and families through their family sponsorship and outreach programs for every one adoption that they completed, and Wiphan Care Ministries, which sponsors schools for orphaned and vulnerable children as well as training programs for widows in Zambia.  Give as God leads: whether He has given you a heart for orphans in Africa or the poor in your city, give accordingly, cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:7) and sacrificially (2 Corinthians 8:2), for whosoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully (2 Corinthians 9:6).

Not everyone is called to adopt, but if you are... You are blessed among families!

Notes:

Guidestar is a free resource that is helpful in determining whether a charity is using resources wisely. Search for an organization by name and select its last IRS Form 990 filing to review its administration and other overhead expenses, including salaries.  Are they reasonable or wasteful? Will they be a good steward with that which is entrusted to them? 

As for food... did you know that "faith" is used less than three hundred times in the Bible, but the verb "to eat" apears more than 800 times?  "In the Old and New Testaments, worship does not revolve around esoteric discussion of philosophy or ascetic ritual enactments, but around a family meal." Bless This Food, 1996.  Taste and see that the Lord is good.  Psalm 34:8.

Numbers, Numbers Everywhere...

Incorrect numbers have a way of putting me over the edge, like chalk on a chalkboard.  On other blogs, I keep seeing "60 - 150 million children live on the streets [in Ethiopia]."  I take a deep breath and try to remain calm and gracious:  the total population of Ethiopia is 90 million, including 42 million children (see World Factbook).

Please, I beg of you, think about the numbers that you are sharing.  Do they make sense?  Do you have some basis or reference for them? If not, say what you mean without giving a particular number, like "many" children live on the streets. This is true, and every single one of them is precious. 

Numbers matter enough to get them right, and they are not that difficult to get. There are some great resources for current, accurate numbers (updated even since the statistics that I posted last year), including the CIA's 2011 World Factbook and UNICEF's The State of the World's Children 2010 Statistical Tables. 

Happy number crunching!

Just another Soapbox Monologue brought to you by me, myself and I.  Yes, I sometimes annoy myself too.

Please Help!

Please sign this petition to encourage the Ethiopian Ministry of Women's, Children's, and Youth Affairs to reconsider its new policy to review only five adoption applications each day.  To make an impact, 250,000 signatures are needed this weekend. 

MOWA:  The Ministry of Women's, Children's, and Youth Affairs is the government body in Ethiopia that must review each adoption application file and issue a letter of approval before an adoption may be finalized. Until this month, MOWA had been reviewing as many as fifty files each day: in 2010, it approved over 4,000 foreign adoptions, including 2,513 adoptions by Americans (see article).

New Policy:  This new policy is intended to ease MOWA's workload so that its staff may (a) spend more time reviewing each file, in an attempt to reduce instances of fraud, and (b) focus on the children who are not eligible for adoption (see e.g. Ethiopia Adoption Alert). Despite MOWA's good intentions, this new policy significantly harms the very children it seeks to protect and "is a tragic, unnecessary and disproportionate reaction to concerns of isolated abuses," according to the Joint Council on International Children's Services (see article).

Impact on Orphans:  On a conference call this morning, the U.S. State Department said that MOWA now has 800 - 1,000 files pending. Based on limited information, the State Department has suggested that families with open court files may expect a 12-month delay, with file reviews cut back to 5 per day. With an average of 20 files approved each day prior to this policy, this slowdown will have a snowball effect.  By April, the file backlog may be 1,300+.  By the end of the year, the backlog may exceed 4,000, unless families begin to drop out of the Ethiopian adoption program (which seems likely to happen at alarming rates).  At least one agency is projecting that children who are eligible for adoption will eventually have to wait in institutions for more than five years after a family has offered to provide a loving home. 

In our daughter's case, this policy could have been the difference between bringing her home at six months old, as we did, and bringing her home at two-, three-, or even five-years old. Spending a few extra months or years in institutional care can have a profound negative impact on children (see e.g. Harvard research).  Equally distressing, many children who are otherwise eligible for adoption will never have a forever family if these delays are realized.  The new policy will also jeopardize the ability of adoption service providers to continue their donation of orphan care and family preservation assistance to the 1.2 million vulnerable individuals who were helped in 2010, and will overburden already struggling orphanages, who may begin to turn away children who need help because they have no beds available.

Note: as foreign adoptions in Ethiopia have increased (to the U.S., from virtually none in 1990 to 1,724 in 2008), infant mortality has decreased from 12% in 1990 to 7% in 2008 and under-5 (including infant) mortality has decreased from 21% in 1990 to 11% in 2008 (see U.S. Department of State statistics and UNICEF report).  Intuitively, there is some causal correlation between these numbers, as orphanages have had more room and resources available to care for the most vulnerable children. Of course, even if adoption is a factor in these improvements, there are many other factors as well.

Better Alternatives: We absolutely support taking steps to ensure that each child is protected and every adoption is ethical and the best available option for the child, after all other options including family reunification and in-country adoption have been ruled out. There are better ways to improve the system, however.  The most obvious alternative to the proposed slowdown is to increase MOWA's resources.

If MOWA needs to increase its personnel tenfold to continue to thoroughly and timely review files, it should do so.  If funding is an issue, MOWA may charge an appropriate file processing fee.  In comparison, significant processing fees are already paid by adoptive parents to the state and U.S. government for everything from background checks to immigration applications. This fee would not begin to cost adoptive parents as much as the cost of institutional care of their child for the months or years that they wait to bring them home, not to mention the months or years of resources that it may take to counter the physical and emotional damage to the child that may occur while they wait.

Any administrative fee could be used to help fund in-depth file investigation and review, as well as ongoing care for the children who are not eligible for adoption. This alternative would help ensure that children who are ethically and legitimately eligible for adoption are brought home sooner rather than later, that their situations are made better rather than worse by the system that is supposed to be helping them.

Best Interests of the Children:  In the past, MOWA has demonstrated that its primary concern is, in fact, the best interests of the children. Last fall, Ethiopia's adoption program was praised by the U.S. State Department's special advisor on children's issues:  "[T]hey want to do it right. Other countries should look at what Ethiopia is trying to do." (see article).  Given its track record, we are hopeful that MOWA will reconsider this most recent policy decision and conclude that a catastrophic slowdown in file review is not the answer.

In the midst of all of this, we are again thankful that we chose an ethical adoption agency that we can trust.  We are proud that our agency is first and foremost an orphan care ministry that "finds families for children, not children for families."  In 2010, for every one child that our agency placed with an adoptive family, sixty other children and families were served through its outreach programs.  We are confident that adoption was the best option available to our daughter, and we pray that Ethiopia's adoption program will continue to protect and serve the children who wait. 

How You May Help:

1. Please sign the petition to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia.

2. Please share this information with friends and family.  Post, forward and broadcast this request via Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. Include in your email blasts, church bulletin, and church website, and announce it from the pulpit this weekend.

3. Please pray that God will help these leaders make the best decisions for the children who wait, give adoptive families peace about this issue, and guide each of us as we "defend the cause of the fatherless" (Isaiah 1:17). 

We need at least 250,000 people to sign this petition by Monday. As our agency wrote, "If you have been adopted by God, and understand the unmerited favor and love that His adoption delivers, PLEASE TAKE ONE MINUTE to answer His call to be a voice for the voiceless, to defend the cause of these Ethiopian orphans."

Numbers Matter

May we each strive to provide complete and accurate information as we diligently advocate for international adoption, lest the devil be in the detail we omit.

Grandma and The Mission. Grandma recently came across a photo of the first girl that she sponsored through *** Mission, a charity that has provided care and training to destitute women and children in India for over 100 years. Laughing, she explained that as a poor college student and later struggling teacher, she looked forward to the annual updates from the girl that she pinched pennies to support. After several years, however, she noticed that the girl never seemed to age as much as one would expect.

Grandma realized that the idea that she was supporting a particular girl was a fundraising myth, although the *** Mission itself was real and the good that it was doing in the community was real. She started donating to the *** Mission generally, giving up the idea that a particular child, whose picture she could put on her fridge and whose letter she could read, was being helped by her particular dollars. Forty years later, she continues to support the *** Mission.

Bad means to a good end. That memory led to a discussion of the challenges and temptations that charities face when fundraising. Every organization has overhead expenses, and most of its activities are carried out by “workmen worthy of their hire,” not volunteers. Yet donors are just ordinary people with the usual weaknesses, often motivated more by a particular idea than the overall charitable activity. It is more gratifying to donate to “send Mary to school for a year” then to “pay for the postage on our fundraising materials” or “pay our accountant.” For Mary to go to school, however, all of the expenses must be paid, and expenses are not easily broken down by individual. An organization’s overhead may average out to $500 per child, but each additional child helped does not add $500 in incremental expense.

So it is that good charities have given in to the temptation of having multiple donors sponsor the same child, or presenting one child as a caricature of many other children who do not have as compelling of a look, story, or letter. It would be easy to stop donating to a charity that is caught in a lie, but in the end Grandma showed compassion and understanding, and has helped support countless other children who she will never receive letters from.

Other charities have found a way to balance presenting information in a way that motivates people to give, while at the same time disclosing how funds are pooled and that your particular dollar does not go to a particular child or a particular item.  For example, we love Heifer International and the practical, helping-people-help-themselves assistance that they provide. In their Gift Catalog, one may check a box and send money for a particular animal, like "$120 for a goat" for a family in Ethiopia, or "$5,000 for Noah's Ark,"  pairs and trios of every animal on the list, to be shared with families around the world.  This motivates people. In the fine print, however, I found the disclosure that I was looking for: "Gifts made through this catalog represent a gift to the entire mission. . . . We use your gifts where they can do the most good by pooling them with the gifts of others to help transform entire communities."  

The truth matters. A lie, no matter how well-intentioned or justifiable, undermines the credibility of the entire organization and can be the death of a good charity. Likewise, numbers related to orphans matter. Using inaccurate numbers, even inadvertently, strengthens the position of opponents to international adoption and puts at risk the very thing that we are working so hard to support. One writer describes the misuse of statistics as creating a “myth of a world orphan crisis,” even as he himself admits that there are thousands of children (albeit not 160 million orphans) in need of a loving home. By perpetuating inflated numbers, we are buying into the same worldview: that it is the many that matter, not the few.

Personal bias. Before I go any further, I should confess my bias. My father passed away when I was eight. As the oldest of four children, I was acutely aware of how hard my mother worked to provide a stable, loving home despite our circumstances, which were (in hindsight) sometimes heartbreaking, often challenging, and always tougher without Dad. I am very proud of my mother, and all the more defensive when I see other widows in similar positions overlooked or dismissed despite the love and care that they are providing for their children.

160 million orphans… or not. UNICEF defines an orphan as anyone who has lost at least one parent. This definition can be helpful in a certain context: in developing countries, where life is fragile in the best of circumstances, children who have lost at least one parent are statistically more vulnerable, and single-parent households need our particular love and support to thrive.  Well-meaning people and organizations, however, often equate a child that is technically an “orphan” as a child in need of a loving home, and that is simply not the case. Most orphans have a surviving parent, and most continue to live with a parent, grandparent or other family member. Every time I read something like “147 million children need someone to tuck them in at night,” I am offended on behalf of every widow and widower out there who sacrifices daily to provide a loving home for their children.

Accurate numbers. UNICEF estimates that 13% of the orphans in developing countries (21 million) have lost both parents. Of these “double” orphans, most (over 90%) live with surviving family members. This means that there are still tens of thousands of double orphans in need of a home, not to mention the many more children whose surviving parent(s) have relinquished or abandoned them because they are unable to care for them. One child in need of a home is one child too many.  1%  (not 15%) of the population in Ethiopia is HIV positive; that is still too many.  4% (not 25%) of women die in childbirth; that is still too many.  The life expectancy of Ethiopians is 55 (not 45); that is still too short.  The most accurate statistics about Ethiopia are still heartbreaking, and help to describe the desperate circumstances facing the average Ethiopian family and explain why in-country adoption is not yet a viable option for children who are in urgent need of a home.

Christ loves the one. Throughout the Bible, there are examples of how much God cares for each individual child of His. Examples that come to mind as I type this at 2 a.m.: Abraham’s discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah, that ends with Abraham asking if God would spare the city if there were but one righteous man, the parable of the prodigal son, whose individual return is celebrated, and the shepherd who leaves his flock to search for the one sheep that is lost. We should be just as motivated, just as eager, to seek out the one child in need of a home, regardless of whether the total number is in the tens of thousands or hundreds of millions.

One family, one child. I am not advocating adoption from Ethiopia because of the five million children who have lost at least one parent. I am advocating adoption because of the one child left on a street corner who needs a loving family rather than a life that ends in prostitution or suicide.  International adoption, while not ideal, is that one child’s best option given the current challenges facing Ethiopia. 5% of Christians do not need to adopt to solve a world crisis of 160 million orphans, mythical or otherwise. One family needs to adopt – internationally or domestically, love knows no borders - to bless and be blessed by the one child in very real need of a loving family that he may otherwise never have.

For some of the most up-to-date orphan statistics, including those above, see The State of the World’s Children, 2010, UNICEF. For many other statistics, interpretations and extrapolations, please see my July 1 post labeled “Statistics,” which has over fifteen source citations.   

Black Gold

The Movie.  We rented Black Gold last week. An interesting documentary, worth watching especially if you have a heart for Ethiopia and a love of coffee, it  falls short of explaining the "why" of coffee farming challenges and the broader economic conditions in Ethiopia.  For example, farm subsidies in developed nations are cited as one reason Ethiopian farmers are unable to competitively market other commodities.  The challenges in fact run much deeper, and are (I think!) primarily domestic in origin. 

Economic Overview.

• The Ethiopian economy [began] to prosper in the 1960s and early 1970s, thanks to a vigorous capitalist agriculture. The growth caused considerable social unrest as peasant farmers were thrown off their land or forced to sell out . . . to create plantations or large truck farms. The military regime regarded that consolidation as inequitable and exploitative, and its land reform brought economic development to an abrupt halt. Moreover, the government assumed broad responsibility for the economy and, through a variety of parastatal organizations, sought also to become purchasing agent, jobber, wholesaler, and transporter. These activities devastated the Ethiopian economy, leading to underdevelopment. If recent history teaches anything, it is that the government must abandon the command economy, liberate the peasants to work out their own destinies, and facilitate the market. Marcus, Harold. A History of Ethiopia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Marxist Economic Policies. In the late 1970’s, the new government nationalized most industries, subsequently mismanaging them. Farming in particular suffered: “The government was so doctrinaire that it squandered its limited resources on propping up inefficient state farms and in sponsoring forms of collective agriculture.” (Marcus) With socialism came a lack of incentive to invest, a fear of investment by foreigners, and a lack of incentive to innovate. Farming methods in Ethiopia remained archaic and inefficient, floundering while their Western counterparts evolved and thrived. Exacerbating these problems, socialist land redistribution led to smaller plots, overfarming, land degradation, land insecurity, and declining productivity.

Statism - Productivity Spiral. The economic pressures on one side and the ideological commitment to socialism on the other created a downward spiral. As statism increased, production declined, and statism increased further. The state began to regulate domestic food trade by region, resulting in a fragmented national economy, further reducing production incentives, and contributing to the devastating famines of the 1980s, even while the country’s disconnected leadership was planning lavish celebrations of the purported success of its policies. Ethiopia’s ideological allies, such as the Soviet Union, were facing their own food shortages for similar reasons, while Europe and the U.S. held the surplus. When the government finally acknowledged the crisis, Westerners were quick to send aid across the ideological chasm.

Resettlement and Villagization. A forced resettlement followed on the heels of the 1984 famine. In a society that values and relies on family relationships, 600,000 displaced Ethiopians were at a particular disadvantage. Resettlement was followed by villagization -- the conversion of the highland’s scattered hamlets, located near water and fields, into more densely populated, infrastructure-challenged villages located according to communication lines rather than resources.  Another government orchestrated social planning scheme, another failure.

From Socialism to Capitalism. In 1990, the government announced (some would say acknowledged) the end of socialism, and the Workers’ party was replaced with the Ethiopian Democratic Unity party. Many “villaged” people returned to their old homesteads, and farming collectives were dismantled. The economy is now in transition between socialism and capitalism. What was lost seemingly overnight, however, will take decades to rebuild.

Ethiopia continues to suffer from the loss of its wealthy and intellectual population, who were purged or fled in the 1970s, typical when communism becomes the dominant structure.

Another impediment to economic growth is the lack of private property. Notwithstanding the pronounced end to socialism, land continues to be owned by the state, which continues to stifle productivity and encourage overuse. While land may be leased for up to 40 years, most farms are operated by individual or family farmers (“smallholders”) who cannot afford long-term leases, and foreign investors are understandably cautious. 

Agriculture accounts for 85% of all employment and 85% of exports (U.S. Embassy Guide on How to Do Business in Ethiopia, http://ethiopia.usembassy.gov/doing_business_in_ethiopia.html); coffee accounts for over 55% of all exports (U.S. Embassy Guide). Smallholders produce 90% of Ethiopia’s coffee (Coffee Growing in Ethiopia on the Horn of Africa, http://www.africa-ata.org/coffee.htm). Despite their critical role in Ethiopia’s economy, most smallholders (76%) are uncertain whether their land will belong to them in five years (Project IDEELS North-South Conference: Building Partnerships for Sustainable Development, 2009, citing study by Ethiopian Economic Association, 2002, http://www.ideels.uni-bremen.de/land.html). With that in mind, consider that it generally takes four years for coffee plants to reach full production. Predictably, struggling smallholders are tempted to replace their coffee crop with khat, a narcotic that reaches full production yield quickly and is more profitable than coffee. Yet it is coffee, not khat, that offers Ethiopia a sustainable economic future and a healthy, productive population. 

Key industries, too, continue to be state-owned, which also has wide-spread repercussions. The state continues to have a monopoly on telecommunications, internet service (which remains costly and inadequate, in use by only 1% of the population), shipping companies, electrical power, and in-country air travel (Ethiopian Airlines), and owns many banks. (Howard, Sarah. Culture Smart. London: Bravo Ltd., 2010.) While the current government with one hand offers capitalism, with the other hand it continues its statist stranglehold on infrastructure components key to economic growth.

Conclusion. I am overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems facing Ethiopia, heartbroken by the human consequences, and encouraged by the spirit and resilience of Ethiopians. They have a wonderful and rich history and will, God willing, overcome the challenges compounded over the past forty years, not because of any transient foreign aid, but because of their engrained domestic values, commitment, and resources. “It may take several generations before the logic of geography and history works to recreate the larger political and economic sphere necessary for a better future. In the end, Ethiopia will rise again.” (Marcus)

The director of our agency’s transition home in Addis Ababa is a beautiful, educated woman who, after living in Boston for a number of years, returned to Ethiopia to serve her country’s most vulnerable children. In her wisdom, she shares a couple of insights that weigh on my mind in particular. First, she reminds travel groups that while she appreciates adoptive families, she works for the children, and their wellbeing is always her primary motivation and concern. Second, her parting words to adoptive parents are reportedly this: You can’t save Ethiopia, but you can go home and be your child’s parent.

It is our privilege to be Isabella’s parents, and we pray for the future of the country that is entrusting her to us. 

Excellent OpEd

WashingtonPost.com - International adoption: From a broken bond to an instant bond

Gain vs. Loss

In the many hours of adoption education that we completed, one thesis statement still nags at me: "Adoption is built on loss." Yet, is not life itself built on loss? Because we live in a sinful world, we are immersed in loss - our very lives are lost without Christ. The most acute losses in our child's life predate adoption. To me, adoption is about gain after loss -- gaining a home, gaining a family, gaining opportunities, gaining love -- and I will gain every bit as much as she will.

I appreciate the following story, shared by another adoptive family:

***They recently spoke with an Ethiopian pastor in their hometown. The pastor grew up in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. Raised Orthodox, he became an engineer and worked in that career for six years. After being introduced to Christ, he became a believer and came to the U.S. to get a seminary education so that he can eventually return and minister to his own people. He kept thanking this family for adopting two little boys. They kept assuring him that they are the ones being given the gift.

They then asked him how he felt about people saying negative things about Americans adopting Ethiopians - what was his opinion of taking children out of their heritage and culture and raising them as Americans? He just smiled and said, "Who is saying this? Americans or Ethiopians?" They told him they had only heard it from Americans.

He said, "Yes. Americans do not know poverty. Ask any person who has seen the real situation and they will not say these things." He was very passionate about this subject. He said, "The one thing these children need is someone to call Mom and Dad and to love them and make them part of their family. That is the most important thing. Does not compare to culture." He was very clear that he believes adoption is a very good thing for his people.***

I have never seen her photo, yet my daughter is the most beautiful girl in the world to me. I have never kissed her cheek, yet I can sense its softness beneath my lips. I have never held her hand, yet I can feel her tiny fingers grasping mine. I have never heard her laugh, yet my heart fills with joy as her voice echoes in my heart. I have never heard her cry, yet I feel her pain and my heart breaks. I know her diapers stink and her temper flares. I know she will bring me joy as well as sorrow, blessings as well as challenges. I know her, yet I have never met her.

She is my daughter, and I love her. Ruth 1:16

Saving My Own Child

I just enjoyed reading this NPR artiel, Adopting a Baby from Africa, Famous or Not, by Melissa Faye Greene, and especially the concluding quote: "Adoption is not rescue, not exactly, and yet I saved the lives of these children. Writing that, I feel no sense of nobility or virtue, nothing lofty at all. I saved the lives of my own children, which is a selfish act. I saved them for myself." (Sallie Tisdale)

Responding to Challenges

The following challenges are a common theme in some of the comments that we have linked under "Reading List." They nevertheless caught me off guard and unprepared when they were made to me in person.

Despite the gentleness with which the views were expressed, I found myself getting defensive and struggling to find the words to respond. I resolved to better prepare for future challenges, so that I will have a "ready defense" that can be delivered calmly and thoughtfully. I will continue to hone these responses as time goes on - this will always be a work in progress.

In the end, there are many people who are critical of international adoption, and I will probably not change their minds, whatever I say. That’s okay, as long as I am satisfied that I have articulately explained my position and perhaps - just perhaps - given them another perspective.

Challenge: I think that it is better to provide families in [Ethiopia] with the resources to keep their children, instead of taking their children from them. (Bluntly, the “rich American parents stealing the poor African children” perspective.)

Response: There is absolutely a need to provide voluntary charity to assist families in every country to care for their own children. One of the reasons we selected AGCI as our agency is the in-country support that it offers expectant mothers. Such support, however, will not eliminate the need for adoptive families for Ethiopian children, any more than similar resources have eliminated the need for adoptive families for American children. We understand and treat with kindness parents in the U.S. who give their children up for adoption, and the families who adopt them (unwed teenage parents who chose adoption were recently lauded by Dr. Drew on national TV). Why should we do less for parents in Ethiopia and the families who adopt their children?

In addition to a higher rate of abandoned and voluntarily-relinquished children, there is generally a much higher rate of orphans in Ethiopia. This is not a “myth,” despite what some critics loudly proclaim. In a country that has been devastated by AIDS, the U.N. estimates that there are 10 million children in Ethiopia who have lost at least one parent.

Challenge: We should be careful judging living conditions in [Ethiopia] by Western standards.

Response: I agree that we should not judge a child's welfare by the living conditions she may have, whatever country she is in. I believe that a child is better off living in a cardboard box - whether under a bridge in Seattle or on a street corner in Addis Ababa - with a loving biological parent, than in a log home in *** with a loving adoptive family. I also believe, however, that there are parents in both the U.S. and Ethiopia who have legitimate reasons for giving up their children, and that there are parents in both the U.S. and Ethiopia who fail to provide minimal safety and care for their children. Adopting these children into loving homes, whether within their birth country or internationally, is preferable to raising these children in orphanages or leaving them on the streets. Note: 70% of children adopted internationally were previously in institutional group homes. http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/

Challenge: Adoptive children are robbed of their culture.

Response: Ethnicity should not limit a child's paramount right to a loving family. Children, regardless of where in the world they are born, do not deserve to grow up in an orphanage, nor do they deserve to be physically abused or neglected, in the name of culture or otherwise.

In parts of Ethiopia, 54% of girls are subject to painful and dangerous female "circumcision." The procedure, completed without anesthetic or antibiotics, can result in infections and hemorrhaging at the time, and complications during childbirth later. unicef.org/infobycountry/ethiopia_18246.html
Child marriages are also traditional in Ethiopia. Although illegal, child brides (some pre-puberty) are still common, and over 56% of girls are married before they reach the age of 18. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6560441 In the U.S., we remove children from their homes and prosecute their parents when they participate in (sub)culture with similar practices.

I am not advocating removing children from their parents because of cultural practices, however reprehensible they may be. I am also not criticizing Ethiopian culture as a whole. In fact, Ethiopia has a rich culture filled with many laudable features and practices. We are excited and proud to link our family with Ethiopia. My point is simply this: leaving children to grow up in orphanages to preserve their birth culture wrongly idolizes culture and places general cultural practices ahead of an individual child’s well being.

Challenge: Everyone wants a baby from Africa these days!

Response: Some people incorrectly characterize international adoption trends as “fads.” In fact, trends can be understood in light of country conditions.

A few decades ago, many U.S. parents adopted children from Korea and Viet Nam. These countries were devastated by war that left tens of thousands of children orphaned or abandoned. Many were Amerasian, subject to prejudice and mistreatment. Requirements placed on adoptive parents were low, and timelines were accelerated.

China continues to be the #1 country for international adoptions. Its poorly funded orphanages are overflowing (because of its 1-child law) and orphanage infant mortality rates were at one time above 50%. Today, while there are countless Chinese children who need homes, the process can take over 3 years, the standards placed on adoptive parents are uncommonly high (income requirements alone disqualify many middle-class families), and the cost of an adoption is 20%+ higher than other countries, discouraging many prospective adoptive parents.

Now, adoption trends are shifting to Ethiopia and certain other African countries. Ethiopia has a relatively high number of orphaned and abandoned children, and pervasive poverty resulting in low in-country non-relative adoptions. In addition, age, income, assets, education and other adoption requirements in Ethiopia are among the least restrictive of any country. Parents who are single, overweight, under 25, have been married only a few years, have more than two children in the home, have a modest net worth, and/or have an annual income of less than $10,000 per family member may not qualify to adopt from many countries other than Ethiopia.

Challenge: [some statement that ends with] Madonna!

Response: Madonna met Mercy when she was an infant in an orphanage. After waiting [2] years, during which Madonna donated significant money to fund in-country improvement projects, Mercy was still in an orphanage. Madonna finally chose to adopt Mercy into her family, rather than watch her continue to grow up in an orphanage. Critics suggest that Madonna should give Mercy's father money to keep Mercy in his home. Mercy's father - who abandoned her mother and did not visit her once in the orphanage, even as he was appearing on national television decrying Madonna - is presumed by these critics to be a loving man who would adequately care for his daughter if only he had the resources. If this entire scenario had played out in the U.S., the critics’ responses would be very different. Why should the response change - why should assumptions and the rights of the child change - based solely on geography, cloaked in terms like “culture?”

Challenge: Mothers in [Ethiopia] are paid to give up their babies.

Response: Actually, when a mother in Ethiopia chooses adoption, the adoptive parents may not pay her living expenses or give her any kind of support or payment. Even nominal gifts must be preapproved by the adoption agency to confirm that they do not rise to the level of a payment or bribe. In contrast, when an expectant mother in the U.S. gives her baby up for adoption, the adoptive parents can pay her living and medical expenses for several months leading up to birth.

Challenge: Children are kidnapped off the streets in [Ethiopia] for adoption!

Response: Children are kidnapped off the streets in the U.S. too! Children who are kidnapped by strangers - in any country - are almost always kidnapped for illegal, immoral purposes, not otherwise legal adoptions. There are more children over the age of 2 seeking homes than there are parents seeking to adopt them. In economic terms, the "supply" of children (other than babies) outweighs the "demand." There is little incentive to kidnap children - no economic reward - unless the purpose is something other than to have the children join a loving family. Yes, there is overall a greater demand for babies, and in very rare cases babies are stolen and sold in the context of adoption. This happens in every country and is unconscionable and illegal. Most children who are available for adoption, however, are voluntarily relinquished by their parents or caregivers, are orphans, or are removed from their homes with due process. We are confident that our baby will not have been bought or kidnapped, and we will likely have an opportunity to meet her biological family.

Conclusion: Of the nearly 150 million orphans worldwide, approximately 5 million orphans are in Ethiopia. http://www.unicef.com/ In 2009, there were 12,753 international adoptions in the U.S., including 2,277 adoptions of Ethiopian children. http://www.adoption.state.gov/ Yes, there are a host of underlying issues that need to be addressed. As we've said before, however, children grow up fast - faster than the problems of the world will be solved. In the meantime, our prayer is that the number of adoptions will increase exponentially, until every child has a "forever family" regardless of the child's - or the adoptive parent's - race, ethnicity, age, culture, martial status, sexual orientation, health, wealth, politics, or religion.

Book Commentary

There Is No Me Without You (Melissa Fay Greene)

Because I am recommending this book (see Reading List), I am compelled to briefly counter some of the conclusions drawn by the author, Melissa Fay Greene. Please take this for what it is– my personal analysis of the underlying facts– and do not let my conclusions or Greene’s conclusions deter you from experiencing the heart of this story. In the end, you may not agree with me, but at least you’ll know where I stand!

1. Greene concludes that Americans are (a) stingy (b) with Africa. In the Q&A epilogue, Greene reiterates a theme throughout her book: “We think we are big givers, we Americans, but, proportionately, our nation is at the very bottom, the very stingiest of the Western democracies sharing their wealth with Africa.” Both parts of this statement are incorrect.

(a) Americans are stingy. On the contrary, Americans are empirically among the most charitable in the world. Three out of four U.S. families donate money to charity at an average rate of 3.5 % of pre-tax household income, or 2% of U.S. GDP. 50% of Americans also volunteer their time. To head off an obvious objection, note that most of Americans’ charitable giving – about two thirds – and a majority of their volunteer time does not go to “religious” activities. Arthur C . Brooks, Who Really Cares, Basic Books, 2006, citing various sources.

Greene correctly states that the U.S. government gives less foreign aid as a percentage of GDP (less than .02%) than some other countries, but this number ignores the total giving by Americans. Americans, unlike many in the rest of the world, generally value private charity above public funding, so it is no surprise that individual giving far outpaces government aid by any measure.

“[G]iving at the private level is a foreign concept to [Europeans].” Studies ten years ago found that Americans overall give 3.5 times more than the French, 7 times more than Germans, and 14 times more than Italians. Adjusting for variables like average income and tax burden, the results barely change. Charitable giving in recent years has become so irrelevant in Europe that it is no longer evaluated. Who Really Cares, citing John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.

Private Charity vs. Public Aid. Like many people, Greene seems to confuse charity (which is, by definition, voluntary) with tax-based (compelled) public aid. One is not generous because one supports tax-funded programs: giving away other people’s money is easy. There may be legitimate reasons for government social programs and foreign aid– that is a discussion for another day– but personal generosity is not one of them. Yet, “[f]or many people, the desire to donate other people’s money displaces the act of giving one’s own.” Studies show that people who believe that the government is responsible for increasing income equality are substantially less likely to volunteer their time or donate their money than people who do not believe this. Who Really Cares, citing various sources.

I prefer private (voluntary) charity to public (compelled) aid for a number of reasons. First, charity is Biblical: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. 1 Cor. 13:13. In addition to or as a subset of charity, tithing is called for broadly, including a 10% “social” tithe (Lev.27:30-33, Num. 18:20-26) and an additional 3% “poor” tithe (Deut. 14:28-29). The “social” tithe funds health, education, and welfare ministries, worship, missions, and administration of justice, while the “poor” tithe is earmarked solely for the needy.

Second, charitable organizations are more efficient, effective, and responsive than government agencies. Charitable donations experience less reduction by bureaucratic overhead and “middlemen,” including corrupt foreign officials who divert aid for their own purposes. If a charity squanders money, donors shift their support to more responsible organizations. If a government agency squanders money, tax-payers are asked to pay more to fix the problem. The effectiveness and responsiveness of non-governmental entities is even evident in anecdotal accounts throughout Greene’s book.

(b) Americans are not sharing enough with Africa. Some would say more generally that Americans are not sharing enough with the world. After all, only about 2% of U.S. charitable giving is “international,” with 98% remaining in the U.S. In fact, American charity internationally is competitive, when both foreign aid (.01 - .02% of GDP) and foreign charity (.04% of GDP) are factored together.

Indonesia 2004. Consider foreign aid to Indonesia following the 2004 tsunami disaster. Germany gave $674 million, Japan $500 million, Australia $380 million, and the U.S. $350 million. Comparing government aid alone would lead one to conclude that the U.S. did not do its part, and some publicly berated President Bush himself as being personally uncaring because of the lack of U.S. government aid. (Whether he personally donated his own money was irrelevant: he did not give away enough of his constituents' money.) Ultimately, however, Americans donated $1.5 billion, outpacing nearly every other country by any measurement, with individual, private donations outpacing government aid three-to-one, a phenomenon largely confined to the U.S. Who Really Cares, citing “Helping the Survivors,” Economist, January 8, 2005. Nevertheless, the focus remained on the amount the government pledged, and Americans as a whole were harshly criticized.

Foreign Aid Budget Presents Incomplete Picture. Focusing on the U.S. foreign aid budget in a vacuum erroneously ignores the disproportionately high level of private charity in the U.S. In addition, the U.S. foreign aid budget taken on its own may be misleading because it does not reflect significant indirect aid, nor does it account for the variety of types of aid or the wide range of motives and results.

[Foreign] aid is seldom given from motives of pure altruism, for instance it is often given as a means of supporting an ally in international politics; it may also be given with the intention of influencing the political process in the receiving nation. . . . Besides criticism of motive, aid may be criticized simply on the grounds that it is not effective: i.e., it did not do what it was intended to do or help people it was intended to help. Excerpt from Wikipedia.com, Aid, 2009.

U.N World Food Programme. To examine one specific type of aid may be anecdotally helpful. The world’s largest humanitarian agency, the U.N. World Food Programme, receives approximately 40% of its funding from the U.S. government. Of the 87 donor countries contributing $2.7 billion in 2007, the U.S. was the #1 donor, contributing $1.2 billion, or .01% of its GDP. In contrast, France, a vocal critic of U.S. aid, contributed only $32 million, or .001% of its GDP. Contributions to WFP 2007 report at wfp.org.

Value Judgments. Are some charitable purposes more important – more valuable – than others? To someone who values art and education, donating time and money to public broadcasting may be more “right” than donating to a children’s hospital. To some, relief efforts in Africa may be “better” than relief efforts in Indonesia, and Ethiopian orphans may be more “deserving” than Costa Rican orphans. (An increasing number of people seem to oppose foreign humanitarian aid altogether, instead arguing that those dollars should be allocated to domestic needs, as cuts are made across the board.) Many people criticize how U.S. foreign aid is allocated, and no two people can agree on how best to spend those dollars. That is the beauty of charity: if each person voluntarily and generously gives his time and money to the charitable purpose close to his heart, whether domestically or internationally, religious or secular, the world as a whole will be a better place. Rather than asking “what can the government do to help” and then searching the tax rolls to find “better” ways to spend other people’s money (which is neither generous nor charitable), we should ask “what can I do to help” and then search our own hearts to find “better” ways to allocate our own resources.

2. Greene blames pharmaceutical companies and U.S. patent policies. There may have been specific wrongs committed by drug companies in connection with AIDS medications in Africa; I have not researched Greene’s particular allegations in any depth. I can say with certainty, however, that some of the criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry by Greene are gravely misplaced. I start with the premise that AIDS medications are no more valuable than other life-saving and life-changing medications. Of the record number of drugs now in development in the U.S., 750 are cancer-related, over 300 are heart disease/stroke-related, nearly 100 are for Alzheimer’s/dementia, the list goes on. Accordingly, whatever justification one finds for regulating the pharmaceutical industry’s policies on AIDS medications must apply equally to all medications and across all borders. Equally tragic are the experiences of an individual dying of cancer and an individual dying of AIDS, an individual in Ethiopia who cannot afford a life-saving drug and an individual in the U.S. who cannot afford a life-saving drug.

Price-gouging or cost-averaging? For every “hit” drug that is developed, years of research and development and millions of dollars are invested in drugs that never make it to market, or make it to market and are later pulled in the face of lawsuits regarding unforeseen side effects. According to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, U.S. pharmaceutical companies invested $65 billion in R&D in 2008, or 8 times the level of R&D investment per employee of all other manufacturing industries, according to a study by The Wharton School. The cost of a “hit” drug must, inherently, absorb the staggering costs of the “miss” drugs as well as generate profits averaged over all the “hits” and “misses.” What looks like price-gouging to one examining the cost of a single drug in a vacuum may look like legitimate pricing to another examining the overall cost of the industry.

A Recurring Theme: Value Judgments. To a person who is starving, the wheat farmer may be acting unconscionably by charging $5 a bushel. To a person who is freezing, the hotelier with empty rooms charging $200/night may be price-gouging. At the end of the day, free market capitalism remains the most efficient economic model resulting in the most productivity, and private charity remains the most efficient social aid model resulting in the most benefit. These two models, grounded in Biblical principles, have historically set the U.S. apart from the rest of the world, and practiced in conjunction with one another make the world a better place.

Patent protection. Drug companies rely on patents to protect their property. Intellectual property may be more costly than real property, and generally receives less protection. A farmer may spend $2 million to purchase a wheat farm. That farmer will own that wheat farm – generating life-sustaining food – indefinitely. His ownership does not expire in 10 or 20 years. In contrast, drug companies spend an average of $800 million to bring one new drug to market. Without worldwide patent protection giving the pharmaceutical company the time – and the right – to recoup its investment and make a profit, investment in R&D will decline and fewer new, life-saving drugs will be available to anyone.

Public research, private profits. Greene criticizes the U.S. policy that permits government-funded research to be given to for-profit drug companies, with profits shared 50/50. Overall, this is in practice a good policy. After a new drug is initially identified, it still takes many years and tens of millions of dollars to develop the drug and bring it to market. Greene herself acknowledges that the rights to the “interesting molecule” that became the anti-AIDS/HIV drug AZT were purchased by Burroughs Welcome before its impact on HIV was confirmed. How many other “interesting molecules” are purchased and amount to naught? (Other claims to AZT and challenges to the patent were resolved in favor of Burroughs Welcome by neutral judges.)

Because the U.S. government is not, and should not, be in the pharmaceutical business, 50% profit sharing for little more than an idea, with no ongoing R&D to market hard dollar investment, is appropriate. How much longer would it have taken, and how many more people would have suffered in the interim, if the government had been relied upon to bring AIDS medication to market. If drug companies then “price gouge” the new medicine, the U.S. government may earmark its 50% share of those profits to subsidize the purchase of the drugs. Better yet, private charity may be used to subsidize life-saving and life-changing medicines.

Regulation has a steep cost. We should avoid “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” or, more accurately, “splitting the baby” by adopting policies that effectively guarantee that until everyone will have the drugs, no one will have them. Put more eloquently by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health: “Any government form of price control on pharmaceuticals represents a case of killing the goose who laid the golden egg. . . . It is crystal clear that countries with price controls do not have companies that produce new, innovative drugs. The United States stands alone now as the leader in new drug production – accounting for approximately 90 percent of new medicines.”

Work to get your piece of the pie, share it, and change the world. Glaxo Welcome f/k/a/ Burroughs Welcome, the owner of the AZT patent that expired in 2005 that is harshly criticized by Greene, is part of GlaxoSmithKline, a publicly traded company. If you believe that GlaxoSmithKline or any other company is “wrongly” profitable, or if you just want to influence their practices, invest your hard-earned dollars in the company and use your investment earnings– a direct reflection of the company’s profits –and shareholder vote to “do good,” however you may define that.

*Note: GlaxoSmithKline’s stock price, reflecting their actual and expected earnings, has declined 40% over the past year. Despite the former “extravagant price tag” on AZT cited by Greene, in 2004, the year before its AZT patent expired, the value of GSK stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange increased 17%, not a particularly outrageous increase relative to other non-pharmaceutical companies, despite alleged price gouging.

Whether my paycheck or dividend check says “ACME DRUG CO.” or “ACME SCHOOL DISTRICT,” I have a personal choice to make with respect to what I do with the resources I have. I can buy AZT for one suffering person. I can love one hurting child. I can do my part to change the world.

*Note: Because my net worth is over $100,000, I am one of the wealthiest people in the world. If my net worth were over $500,000, I would be in the top 1% (I’ll be there in my lifetime, God-willing). The typical (median) person worldwide has a net worth of only $2,200. Eduardo Porter, Study Finds Wealth Inequality is Widening Worldwide, The New York Times, December 6, 2006. The average worldwide income is around $7,000/year, with the world median income at only $1,700/year. Average Income Worldwide, The Boston Globe, October 7, 2007. Because my income is over $1,700/year and my net worth is over $2,200, I may not point my finger at the “wealthy” other person (or company, or government) and cry “do more,” for he is me.
_______________________________________
Who Really Cares. America’s Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? In this provocative and controversial study of America’s giving habits, Arthur C. Brooks, a Louis A Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, shatters stereotypes about charity in America – most notably, the myth that the political Left is more compassionate than the Right. Brooks, a preeminent public policy expert, spent years researching giving trends in American, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he identifies the forces behind American charity: strong families, church attendance, earning one’s own income (as opposed to receiving welfare), and the belief that individuals – not government – offer the best solution to social problems. Beyond just showing us who the givers and non-givers in America really are today, Brooks shows why charity matters – not just to givers and to recipients but to the nation as a whole. He demonstrates conclusively that giving is crucial to our economic prosperity, as well as to our happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. Back Cover, Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, Basic Books, 2006.

 

One Child

There are both critics of and apologists for international adoption (see Reading List). In the midst of the debate, we believe that:

- Our family wants and needs a little girl, and somewhere out there a little girl wants and need us.

- Famine and poverty are like many other challenges at the individual, family, community, state, national, and global levels: funding alone will only mask the symptoms, not solve the underlying problems. If the underlying problem is not addressed , money - even given with the best of intentions - will become an enabler, not a solution.

- Children grow up quickly, far more quickly than the debate will end or systematic change will occur.