Those aren’t my kids

Nothing like some tickle-tackle time at Life Group with iThemba mentor Mashinini

Nothing like some tickle-tackle time at Life Group with iThemba mentor Mashinini

“Your idea will never work,” the head of Child Protection Services said to David Anderson, “You will never be able to get people to voluntarily open their homes to kids on a temporary basis until they can get back with their families. It just won’t work.”

When David asked why, the CPS official explained, “Children are not valuable in our society.” 

That seems weird, right? In the West, it seems that it’s the children and youth that are idolized and the elderly who are forgotten. You can hardly get a small-group Bible study going, because parents are spending all their time shuttling their children between ballet class and soccer club and karate and extra math. In the US, parents will move to a different neighborhood to get into a different school district so their children can get into a better school. Children are encouraged to share their ideas, and the whole “be seen and not heard” thing died out in the Victorian era. How is it that children are not valuable in our society?

The CPS officer went on. “Our OWN children are valuable. We’ll do anything for them. We’d die for them. But children that are not our own– nope. That’s why adoption is so much more appealing to people– we’d rather take individual adoptable children and make them part of our tribe, make them our own. Then we’ll sacrifice and pour love and attention on them. But someone else’s kids? Someone else who is probably battling drug or alcohol addiction and that’s why their kids were removed by the State? No one wants those kids.”

David Anderson is the head of a movement called, ‘Safe Families‘. It’s got branches in the USA and in the UK. The goal of Safe Families is to give hope to parents and children in crisis. Rather than waiting until abuse or addiction forces the State to intervene and terminate parental rights, plunging their children into a dysfunctional foster-care system, Safe Families steps in before things get really bad. Volunteers take in kids until parents can get counseling and find their feet, and then reunite them with their parents. You should check it out.

But this idea that children are not valuable in our society is something that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. The director of iThemba Projects brought it up a while ago as well, this time from a Christian perspective.

“Do you think God loves my child more than he loves the children in Sweetwaters?” he asked me. “Then why is it that we pray for God to bless our children, and pour money and energy into them, but never consider the thousands of children just a few kilometers away who don’t have parents?”

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with pouring money, energy and love into your own children. It makes sense (and I think it’s good and right) to care for your immediate family first. I’ve been around too many bitter missionary kids who feel like their parents would have paid more attention to them if they were an orphan in a township rather than part of their parent’s family to say otherwise.

But on the flip side– I think we idolize the nuclear family too much sometimes. God’s plan of redemption for this broken world will probably include us taking in orphaned and abandoned children into our nuclear families. But I think it also includes us thinking differently about what “family” means, and how far our care should extend. What would it look like to really love someone’s kid, knowing that they would never be “ours”? Could we do it? 

  • Could we put aside money to send a kid from Sweetwaters on camp every time we fork over money to send our own children on camp?
  • Could we put aside money to improve education for kids in Sweetwaters every time we pay our own child’s school fees?
  • Could we even say “no” to a few of the wants of the children in our nuclear family, so that we could say “yes” to some of the needs of children in Sweetwaters? Could we help the children in our nuclear family to understand that decision and be excited about it?
  • Rather than seeing our giving of time or money to kids in Sweetwaters as an “extra and above” whatever our nuclear family needs, could we see the kids in Sweetwaters as part of our family, and factor them into our budget in the way we do for our own children?
  • Could we give our time to children who are not in our nuclear family? Could we volunteer to visit children in hospital, even though they are not our own? And could we do this with commitment, not just dropping in and out when we feel like it, but being a consistent presence in the life of a lonely child?
  • Could we start to see the kids in Sweetwaters as part of our family, even if they’re not part of our nuclear family? Could we defend them, stick up for them, and sacrifice for them?

Jesus has a pretty wobbly definition of family by Western standards anyway. When his nuclear family came to visit, and everyone in the crowds was praising his biological mom, for being such a great mom, he said, “Who are my mother and brothers and sisters?” Then he pointed to the disciples and said, “These are! Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my mother and brother and sisters.”

In the Kingdom, blood ties and nuclear family don’t matter as much. When we’re following Jesus, anyone who ends up in that rag-tag band of followers is family.

I’m interested in hearing what you guys think of this idea– it’s something that has been bouncing around in my head, but isn’t fully formed. How do you care for kids that are not in your nuclear family? 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Those aren’t my kids

  1. I don’t have kids of my own, but I’m a teacher and I struggle with this every day.
    I love my kids and I can see that many of them are not having their needs met at home, but there is only so much I can do when I only see hem once every other day and only during the school year. I try my best to do the things I can, like bringing in extra food, giving hugs, etc. but it’s hard.

    • Thanks for sharing this! I’m sure you’re making a big difference in your classroom. That is such a hard balance, and something I am trying to figure out as well– while I think our care should extend beyond our nuclear family– how far does it extend? We’re only human and we’ can’t just burn ourselves out. I’m interested to hear your or other people’s ideas on that part of it as well!

  2. Steph, I think you are asking some very good questions. Not sure I have many answers! On adoption, which I must admit I am very m,such in favour of, we have to get rid of the idea that some kids are “adoptable”. God adopts us as his children and to quite honest none of us are adoptable! Adoption is not about looking for the right kids who fits the profile we have in mind. We don’t shop around for our biological kids, though maybe that is coming or has already come in some societies, but we take what we get and love them. On the definition of “family”, as Christians we need a pretty big definition. Jesus’ definition of neighbour gives us some idea what we should look at. Really anybody with needs who comes across our path has to be considered as family. With some it may be a very minor, temporary engagement and with others it may become an extended intense engagement. What the teacher above does is so important. Makes a lasting impact in young lives. What you and David do having people in your home is also key. We have to become much more open to extending our homes, meals, resources, time and love to those around us. It sounds big, but it starts with small steps. I remember one woman who had a real role as a mother to students away from home for the first time. For her it all started by cooking one extra potato for Sunday lunch to invite a student home. After years she had influenced hundreds of young lives. Keep those family definitions pretty elastic!!

    • Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Alan! Your take on this subject is so valuable! I love that story of the “extra potato”– starting small with what we have, and being faithful in sharing and extending hospitality and “family” in whatever way we’re able. I’d also like to clarify that I agree with your definition of “adoptable” in the sense that we should not have a shopping list when one decides to adopt! I guess what I am trying to communicate is that often there are children who are in the orphanage/foster care system that for various reasons could not be up for legal adoption because of their family situation, but those kids still need love and “family” and we need to be extending care to them too. So encouraging to hear thoughts from like-minded people, thank you for taking the time to share them here with others!

  3. Pingback: Hospitality: Giving more than spare change | bridginghope

  4. Pingback: You’re still here: Adoption month | bridginghope

  5. Hey Steph,
    Such good thoughts. Safe Families are starting up in Scotland, having been involved in the system there, I’m hopeful that this will hugely help families.
    I love the broad definition of family here in SA, it’s great being ‘auntie’ to so many kids. The issue of boundaries is a constant balancing act, how do I love my family well, and love and serve other families in an empowering way.
    I also believe that loving our immediate family well can also speak powerfully to communities where there are many broken families.
    Thanks for sharing.

    • So cool Debbie! I’m sure as a social worker background, you know more about the ins and outs– I know that HomeforGood is a big thing in the UK, with Krish Kandia (sp?!) and I’ve heard him speak several times. I heartily agree with what you’re saying, this is something I feel strongly about as a “missionary kid”– I was always so glad that my parents saw us as their first priority… it would have caused major bitterness if I felt like “serving those people over there” was more important than me (sounds so selfish, but true!) so I definitely think there needs to be priorities and boundaries. Which is hard! I think the flip side is that in my community, I see people like this in the “How Much is Enough” Nebank adverts … where’s it’s all about securing the best possible for your own child, and having no sense of responsibility towards the greater community ..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7Lme6MvIM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s