Warning: I am not asking for money, I am encouraging you to give to others. Give the most to the least of these.
My rhetorical question is this: if you are in a certain tax bracket is there a set of children that are only open to you? For example if you make over $150,000 you get the "healthy" children, but if you only make $100,000 you get the not so healthy children, etc. Or reverse the order, whichever way you like. Thank God we are not matched this way, biologically or through adoption.
You can play god if you want to, but I didn't have a whole lot of "choices" in adoption. I was told which countries I could/could not adopt from, I was told the age they would prefer us to adopt, I was told that we couldn't choose gender. I even get told when my child will come home.
We did choose the special needs we were open to in the beginning, however that didn't exactly turn out as "planned/chosen" either.
I wouldn't normally donate money for someone getting an IVF (or other fertility treatments) either. In my eyes adoption and fertility treatments are two separate, not-at-all equal subjects.
I have several people in my family that don't understand why we are adopting. They also don't understand why we would pay fees for a WC. We tried a "more affordable" route of adoption and that path was not ours to take.
God tells us to speak the truth in love according to His Word. Our sermon today was subtitled, "Why Should I Care?". It just so happens that this was one of our Bible verses during the sermon today:
Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
Does God only call the rich man to adopt? Adoption is a leap of faith and a leap of love. Adoption is for God's glory and not ours.
Why does fundraising for adoption have to have a negative connotation? Especially, if it is raising money for it is no way illegal or unethical. Asking for money for any God chosen path (whether it be missions or adoption) is humbling. When did helping orphans turn into something that is not a mission? I see the helping an orphan mission ending in one of two ways 1) they stay with their birth family (or extended family) or 2) they end up with their AP. I guess there is the 3rd way of aging out of care, but that path is not a choice of mine. Speaking to mission #2: I view the mission of helping an orphan stopping the minute they are your child (for me that happened even before we were referred a child because I view her as being created for me to raise).
Matthew 25:45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' (NIV)
Why can't we celebrate those who want to help get a child home? Should they not only turn their back on adopting themselves, but also turn their backs on others who are willing to open their homes to orphans? I would hope not.
Why be a reason to cause more orphans by discouraging others not to adopt? Why is money a big factor anyway? AAAAaarrggghhh!
So should we not give money to organizations that help families afford adoption that helps a "specific" family/child in the end?
I agree that it is not a good thing if you ask for donations and then you take a trip to Disney World.
Once we are slightly more financially able, my mission is to help others afford adoption, as well as, donate to help children stay with their birth families.
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV)
I care because God cared first. I hope you can soften your heart and share with the needy.