Pat Robertson's Adoption Remarks "Of The Devil," Says SBC's Russell Moore

Christianity Today ^ | 8/17/12 | Jeremy Weber

[marshmallow]

Southern Baptist leader defends international adoption from 700 Club comments.

It's not unusual for comments by Pat Robertson to provoke heated reactions. But this time, what's unusual is the subject matter: adoption.

Robertson recently expressed affirmation on The 700 Club for men who don't want to date women who have children adopted from foreign countries, notes Associated Baptist Press. His comments -- including, "You don’t have to take on somebody else’s problems" -- provoked a strong rebuke from Russell Moore, a Southern Baptist Theological Seminary dean who has become a prominent advocate for adoption.

"This is not just a statement we ought to disagree with," wrote Moore on his blog. "This is of the devil."

Moore continues:

The issue here isn’t just that Robertson is, with cruel and callous language, dismissing the Christian mandate to care for the widows and orphans in their distress. The issue is that his disregard is part of a larger worldview. The prosperity and power gospel Robertson has preached fits perfectly well with the kind of counsel he’s giving in recent years. Give China a pass on their murderous policies; we’ve got business interests there. Divorce your weak wife; she can’t do anything for you anymore. Those adopted kids might have brain damage; they’re “weird.” What matters is health and wealth and power. But that’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ. For too long, we’ve let our leaders replace the cross with an Asherah pole. Enough is enough.

Robertson clarified his position on Friday afternoon. Full text is below.

[marshmallow]

But that’s not the gospel of Jesus Christ. For too long, we’ve let our leaders replace the cross with an Asherah pole

Bingo! This guy gets it.

Yes, the cross is vital. Without it, there is no Christianity. This is where the "prosperity gospel" has its heretical roots; in the rejection of the cross.

[NoGrayZone]

"You don’t have to take on somebody else’s problems"

I must agree. However, if there is a divorced woman who has custody of their children, and the x is paying child support (or vice versa, which is rare), the man who marries this woman really does not take on the problem of raising children who are not his own.

The 2nd guy speaks of widows and orphans. In that regards, I agree. However, divorce is SO rampant now a days, and a lot of out of wedlock children, these women and children ARE NOT widows and orphans.

[SaraJohnson]

He was responding to a letter written by a woman who had adopted three foreign children.

The complaint to Pat was that her boyfriend was not too crazy about taking on the burden of her adopted children. What Robertson said is true: men don’t have to take on the burdens others have taken on. They are free to make a choice.

That is an act of self sacrifice and Christian service - to raise someone else’s adopted children. Not all men (and women) are up to that. She needs to let that boyfriend go and find a man who matches her own heart and cause or she and her children are going to suffer taking in the wrong man. That’s pretty obvious!

[NoGrayZone]

"He was responding to a letter written by a woman who had adopted three foreign children."

That was HER mistake. Why would a single woman adopt 3 children? It is unfair to those children who WILL NOT benefit from having a loving father.

Her boyfriend was not too crazy about taking on the burden of her adopted children. I wouldn't be either (I'm a girl).

Were her and her boyfriend together when she adopted the 3 children? If so, why didn't he have any say in the matter? Or did he and she just went and did it anyway?

[Carry me back]

Russell was way over the top imo. Robertson gave sound advice

[peggybac]

I agree. I never married and would never think of adoption as a single parent.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Why would a single woman adopt 3 children? It is unfair to those children who WILL NOT benefit from having a loving father.”

Presumably, the three kids were in an orphanage not benefiting from a loving father or a loving mother. She sacrificed to adopt them and give them a life. I applaud her “mistake” of self-sacrifice and love.

[melsec]

Wow - what a lot of derision and scorn of a man who has dedicated many years to help orphans. Pat Robertson was correct in his statements.

We expect everyone to be so careful nowadays in what they say lest someone should be offended.

STOP being so easily offended world. Especially Christians who should know better.

Mel

[married21]

I agree. The orphans from China and Russia would never have had even one parent if American women, like a friend of mine, had never stepped up.

Why did my friend do this without a man? Well, she is in the demographic of women with advanced degrees who are too old to attract men of similar age and education. They are already taken or they want a younger woman. Why won’t she try someone who is a capable father, but not academically inclined? Well, I don’t know. But she had a heart for family life, and no luck in dating, so she did the best she could.

Also, Re: Robertson. He’s right that no one has to take on a ready-made family. But what we are called to do is take on whatever God wants us to do, even if it is difficult. If a guy is not called, ok. If he is called, and a really wonderful chance to be a father is passed up because it looks difficult, I think that guy will be answering to his Maker about this. Heaven is waiting for Saints, not wimps.

[Tax-chick]

"You don’t have to take on somebody else’s problems."

As others have pointed out, that is factually correct, at least in the precise context: nobody is forced to marry someone who has {fill in the characteristic or situation} with which he doesn't wish to become involved.

However, every Christian is called to love his neighbor as himself, which may, indeed, involve "taking on somebody else's problems." If my neighbors are suffering, I feel an absolute responsibility to assist them in any way I can, even if it's only with pray and sympathy and a batch of cookies.

More specifically regarding marriage, every married person must take on every problems of his or her spouse, and if someone thought, at the time of marriage, that the other would never have any problems that would demand effort or inconvience or sacrifice of suffering, that's no excuse. You "cross-up" and learn to die to yourself, or you are not a Christian.

[CyberAnt]

The key is .. did God tell you to marry that person or adopt that child ..??

If you’re a Christian .. you better have the answer before you make the decision.

If God is not in it .. it will fail.

[Tax-chick]

I think God will step in and bring good out of decisions that perhaps weren’t well-planned in advance. My own marriage might have been considered misguided, but we have both worked with God since then and have a lot of fruit (ten children, and uncountable hours of Scouting, and a Spanish choir, and whatnot) to show for 23-1/2 years.

However, it would certainly be helpful if more people made their plans while diligently seeking guidance from God.

[CyberAnt]

Thanks for telling me that great testimony .. God’s grace and mercy still amaze me.

[newzjunkey]

the man who marries this woman really does not take on the problem of raising children who are not his own.

Of course he does of he's not really an equal partner in the relationship. If he can't discipline them because they're "her" children, what is he?

I don't like Robertson, in general, but I think he's right. Men are not obligated to court any and all woman. If a man knows he'd make a poor husband and father in a situation with children from prior relationships, he's wise to avoid those situations because it protects all parties.

Fresh from college and starting his career, a friend took up dating an older woman with a child, was asked to marry and did, adopted her child as his own and in that first year they had their own child as well. Not a year later, my friend was killed leaving behind a widow with two young children to raise on her own rather than one.

While it can work out, as it did for an uncle who remarried to a woman with children when he approached 40, men really need to tread carefully but young men in particular.

[papertyger]

So far as I can tell, this has very little to do with adoption (international or otherwise) per se.

This is more about an admittedly kind-hearted woman trying to (at least in her own mind) coerce a man she “wants” into accepting characteristics about her he does not (for whatever reason) want to accept.

In effect, he’s told her “no,” and she wants God to change his mind.

[Tax-chick]

You’re welcome. I’m constantly filled with gratitude for what God has done with us and with our children. Anoreth has been in the Coast Guard for three years, and had adventures she won’t talk about until after I’ve gone to bed. (She knows I’m weak and nervous!)

Bill’s an Eagle Scout and planning to apply to art school next year. Tom could go into medicine, or be a dangerously brilliant and corrupt Southern politician ;-). And on down to Kathleen, the finest Pink Baby ever. And we also do reptile rescue!

[ravenwolf]

Adoption is fine for some people and for others it would be hell, i would not marry a woman who had her own kids, much less adopted ones.

You can help the widows and orphans with out marrying and adopting them.

[CyberAnt]

At least life is never dull or boring.

Sometimes I wish mine was a little more that way .. Ha Ha!!

[dmz]

if there is a divorced woman who has custody of their children, and the x is paying child support (or vice versa, which is rare), the man who marries this woman really does not take on the problem of raising children who are not his own.

<><><><

LOL. I married a divorced woman with 2 children from her first marriage. It was (is) my first and only marriage. The kids were 6 and 3, now 30 and 27. The ex did pay some child support (when the courts found him and forced him), but even if he had paid religiously, the suggestion that I did “not take on the problem of raising children who are not [my] own” is patently absurd. But you’re right, I didn’t have to, I chose to.

I was there every day for them as they lived with us. I coached their sports teams. I walked the young lady down the aisle at her wedding. I was at the hospital when the first grandchild was born (even though no blood of mine flows through that child’s veins, her parents wanted me there).

I am not all that unique in this regard. I learned it from my very engaged stepfather (RIP).

[NoGrayZone]

"I am not all that unique in this regard."

Actually, you are. If they were 3 & 6, now 27 & 30, that was 24 years ago.

A LOT has changed since then. Even just 24 years ago, man and woman committed (not all, no broad brush).

Now a days, men and women are on their 3rd, 4th and even 5th marriages. I do not know 1 divorced woman or man, in my life, where one or the other adopted the others child/children.

I do know quite a few divorced/out of wedlock women who have married/remarried, but no adoption of the children by the current spouse.

Except for everyday living expenses, it seems the male takes the brunt and winds up bitter about it.

We have one at work. Seems the hubby is getting quite frustrated. Frustrated enough, she opened a "secret" bank account.....just in case he decided enough is enough.

Granted, I do not know all the details of what this guy knew or didn't know about the situation prior to their marriage (she is a compulsive liar). He may just be figuring that out now.

She has gone repeatedly to court regarding child support (supposedly), to no avail.

But yet I've heard of men being locked up for NOT paying.