I have always believed in the equal dignity of all human beings as creations of God, regardless of their mental or physical well being. It is a central theme of my preaching each week to my inner-city high school and junior high students. It is at the core of my pro-life beliefs, and informs my commitment to the social welfare of all people. It is why I find the ELCA social statement on abortion so inadequate, with its belief that the value of a human life is dependent on the willingness of the parents to participate in the sexual activity, the access of the parents to contraception, and the physical health of the unborn child. (ELCA Social Statement on Abortion - IV.b)

It was eye-opening, therefore, to once again wade into the world of adoption for research on an article that will be appearing in an upcoming issue of Lutheran Forum. In an industry that is dominated by many well-meaning people, many who share in a pro-life belief in the dignity of all of God’s children, it was shocking to see how children are viewed as rankable commodities.

Perhaps it is the amount of money that is spent in an international adoption, but for many parents there is the expectation that they will be given a child that is healthy and “free from defect.” So pervasive is the attitude that many agencies now require prospective adoptive parents to sign a statement of risk as part of their contract, forcing them to accept that there is a chance that their adoptive child may in fact be less than perfect physically or mentally. When you are able to plan your parenthood through adoption by rejecting and accepting children based on your idea of perfection, it is not surprising that the language that is used is no different than much of the language that is used by Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates to justify the abortion of “less than perfect” unborn children.

Domestically, children that are in high demand are newborns, particularly “light skinned” newborns.  Those children who are described as “hard to place” on state and agency websites are older children, children with disabilities, and African-American or biracial children. The difficulty in placing these children, coupled with restrictions on gays adopting internationally, has led to a disproportionate number of homosexual singles and couples adopting these hard to place domestic children.

If the church believes what the Scriptures tell us about the ideal family, to write these “hard to place” children off to what the Missouri Synod in its 2007 convention calls “intrinsically sinful situations” (Resolution 6-03A) is a great failure on the part of the Christian church. That homosexuals have been disproportionately more willing to open their homes to these children speaks as much about the church as it does homosexuals.

It is incumbent upon the church to remind its members of our responsibility for caring for the least of God’s children. Pro-life language and calls for limiting adoptions to heterosexuals ring hollow if not coupled by a groundswell of Christian homes that are opened to God’s “less then perfect children.” The Scriptures are full of pro-adoption language – God adopting imperfect humans into his family and loving them with a father’s love. If the church can’t advocate for its members to do the same, then who will?

For the most thorough study, to date, of adoptions by homosexuals see the Evan Donaldson Adoption Institute’s Report on Adoption by Lesbians and Gays. In addition to confirming a disproportional number of “special needs” adoptions taking place by gays and lesbians, it contained this information of interest to Lutherans:

"Most likely to place children with homosexuals are public, secular private, Jewish- and Lutheran-affiliated agencies, and those focusing on special needs and international adoption." (pg. 2)

"67% of Lutheran Agencies accepted Homosexual applicants"(pg. 3)