Above Rubies and failed adoptions

[MissusLeata]

I know that somewhere on here it has been discussed about the Above Rubies magazine and the missing children that were adopted from Liberia. Anyway, I decided to contact Nancy Campbell about it and let her know that it was affecting her credibility.

She asked me to call her and we ended up talking for about 1/2 hour. I have concerns with other things that Nancy teaches, but after talking to her, I don't think we have to worry to much about the "missing children." For the most part, in seems that the kids that are no longer in the home are not there because they didn't want to be, not because the family didn't want them. She realizes that they were very naive in their approach to adoption.

And she invites anyone with questions about it to call her.

Anyway, I thought some of you might like to know.

[cindergretta]

What is this about? I occasionally receive the Above Rubies magazine, but I am clueless about the adoption thing. :scratch Is there a link or something?

[Domina]

Interesting. So what happened to the children? Were they turned over to the state to be placed in new homes? Returned to Liberia?

[Barefoot Bookworm]

I am very curious about this because I normally love Nancy Campbell. Her Power Of Motherhood study was awesome for me.

[MissusLeata]

Serene had adopted several children from Liberia. Now she only has 2. That's where the question came from.

Nancy said that the older kids where actually older than they thought and wanted to be independent. She said only one had to be "removed" from the home for safety issues.

And as to Nancy's adopted children. She says that she still has a good relationship with them.

It sounds like they were completely unprepared for the attachment issues they were going to be dealing with with children who had been abandoned and living in an institution.

She also realized that they had been misled as to the nature of the orphanage that they were working with.

So, they've learned a lot by what they've went through and though she still supports adoption, she realizes now the issues that can come up and even recommended reading to me if I ever want to adopt. :-)

[Barefoot Bookworm]

So what reading did she recommend? Just curious, not trying to start anything. :)

[MissusLeata]

So what reading did she recommend? Just curious, not trying to start anything. :)

The Primal Wound.

It really made me feel for her, because when I mentioned the whole attachment thing, she was like, "Oh you know about it." It's like they were clueless about attachment issues.

It sounded like they really, really tried to help the older ones that they had adopted but that they really saw adoption as simply a way to independence. She said that the older "teens" were actually older than they had thought and they were basically trying to parent adults.

[TestifyToLove]

Nancy Campbell is lying to you.

There will be an article printed in the NYT, I can't tell you when because it was supposed to be printed in January. What I can tell you is that someone tracked all of the missing children and interviewed them AND their families personally (those that have families now).

Nancy Campbell is lying.

She does NOT have good relationships with all of her adoptive children. The children did NOT all leave because they didn't want to be there. Both hers and Serena's children.

I'm under orders to not say more. The research HAS been done, and the story from the compound has been tracked all the way to Africa and across the US. The children have been contacted personally and gave interviews. Their families gave interviews. NONE of it matches what comes out of the Campbell compound as the "official" story.

Not really surprising. Dishonest spinning of any negative press is not new for Nancy Campbell.

What I am allowed to say that is that *most* of the missing children are okay.

As an adoptive mother, a peer support, an adoption advocate and a birthmother, I do NOT recommend you read the Primal Wound. Furthermore, I don't trust nor recommend ANYTHING that Nancy Campbell says about adoption nor her own children, whom she never cared enough about to call anything but her "adoptive children" even when they were in her home.

I don't have "adoptive" and real children. I simply have children. Nancy Campbell never had anything BUT adoptive and real children, and makes sure everyone knows the differences, especially those poor children.

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------

Furthermore, what Nancy Campbell was UNPREPARED for was to PARENT children, honestly, unconditionally PARENT children. She shares FAR more culpability both in the treatment of her own children AND the fiasco that was the Liberian adoption nightmare. SHE led the charge for Fundies and Quiverful families to adopt from Liberia and Africa in general.

Because of her call to "rescue" the heathen children and "evangelize" them, families went to Liberia in DROVES. They ignored ethics. They ignored the LAW. They were grabbing and claiming these poor "orphanages" at a scary rate. Children were STOLEN from birthfamilies to satiate the appetite that Nancy Campbell ignited. The country was CLOSED because of the child trafficking, the money flying, the families demanding CHILDREN TO RESCUE at all costs.

Most, like Nancy Campbell, thought that once they rescued these poor heathens, they would be grateful.

Don't think she has culpability, then you need to google TWO NAMES. Lydia Schatz and Hanna Williams. Hanna was from Ethiopia, but was the SAME insatiable appetite to rescue the orphans, the same quiverful/Fundie families and the same mentalities that are threatening to close Ethiopia, the nation they turned their attention towards when Liberia was closed. Just like Michael Pearl holds culpability for those chidren's torture, so too does Nancy Campbell.

I don't let her off that easy.

[MissusLeata]

TestifytoLove, I'm glad you chimed in. I only know what she told me on the phone today. I did point out to her the problem of not treating her adopted children like her own and she said that it was a different situation than my family would be if I adopted because of her age when she adopted them. She's already a grandma. (I didn't think that made sense, but that's what she said.)

I tried to get her to take some responsibility for all the Liberian adoptions that happened because of her influence and she wouldn't really take any. She only "reported what she saw and families opened their hearts". I was trying to point out that if she encouraged adoption and then realized that it was tougher than she thought she should be open about it. But she didn't seem willing to print the problems that were coming out of their adoptions.

She did talk kind of icky about Serene's older daughters. She said that they wanted Serene out of the house so that they could have her husband to themselves. She was a bit descriptive about it. It was hard to reconcile the way she talked about them with the rest of the way she talked about how much love they had for them and all that.

I'm looking forward to reading the article in the NYT's. Will you let us know when it comes out?

[TestifyToLove]

My father is 62 years old. My oldest sister is 38. My youngest sister is 13. My oldest two children overlap the ages of my youngest two siblings. My niece is older than THREE of my siblings.

The excuse that she wasn't expected to be a REAL mother to those children because she was a grandmother is proposterous and shows just how disgusting her mentality towards those children is. My father is sacrificing his life and his health to be a REAL parent to the four minor children still in his home. That he was a grandfather when he became their father is irrelevant. He is their father, their REAL father.

Nancy Campbell is a racist. Her mentality towards those children was ALWAYS colored by the color of their skin. Furthermore, she did NOT merely report the facts. She issued a battle cry for Quiverful families to adopt the heathen orphans out of deep, dark Africa to rescue them. She never CARED what the outcome would be after they were adopted, because adopting them and evangilizing them was what it was supposed to be about. There was never an obligation to do anything else beyond that in the first place.

She is full of nothing but excuses. She's not going to take responsibility for what she did, not to those children, nor to any of the other hundreds of children who suffer because of her battle cry.

Liberian children are STILL being dumped into the US fostercare system unceremoniously and without ties to their past but lots of trauma at the hands of overhwlemed families who had NO business adopting them in the first place.

I did my responsiblity. I reported to the Embassy in Liberia and the Visa Clearinghouse repeatedly what I watched going on in Liberia.

[ValiantJoy07]

Question

nyt= new York times?

[TestifyToLove]

Yes, but as I said, I was told it was supposed to be published in January but the fact checkers never contacted me at all. So, I don't know what the status on the article is now.

I do know the article is a pre-cursor to a book on the issue. So, the real story will eventually be out there.

Nancy Campbell do nothing but spin a web of deciet and lies. I don't feel better about what happened, nor does it correct her reputation after what she did. She deserves the consequences of what she did. Those children never, ever did.

[ValiantJoy07]

Her curriculum "far above rubies" RRALLY RRALLY screwed my sister up. :bheart

[MissusLeata]

So, were the teens not really adults like she told me? She said that because of the war and all their birth certificates were wrong and that they basically adopted adults who didn't want to be in families but rather just wanted their independence.

[TestifyToLove]

That was the information that I was told I could not share before the article is printed. However, no, they are NOT adults. They are children. One child is a legal adult now. I'm not sure if that child was when the Campbells got rid of the child, but she is an adult now. The others are still minors TODAY, so no they were not adults then if they are not adults now either.

[MrsHutch]

Wow... I'm :popcorn to learn more.

I've always had an off feeling about how SO many people adopt from Ethiopia... it just seemed too fast and too cheap and too popular. And now that they are changing their laws, it's all moving right over to Congo, and I don't feel good about that either, even though I really couldn't count the number of friends I have who either have adopted or are in the process of adopting from either Ethiopia or Congo. I didn't know that it started in Liberia.

[MissusLeata]

I always expect people to tell me the truth. I really don't like being lied to.

[TestifyToLove]

I would love to give you more details than this. However, this information was told to me in strict confidence. The research spent over two years putting this information together. Plus, as I said, in addition to the magazine article there is a book about the Liberian adoptions being written which already has a publisher. I can tell you the researcher/journalist/writer is a VERY legitmate source, someone whose name you would recognize, and someone I have met PERSONALLY at this point.

I do not want to interfer with someone's work and career and to reveal details I was told in confidence and asked to not share would do that. I can assure that my information comes from a VERY reliable source and that all will come to light eventually. The shroud of secrecy and the Campbell ability to mask it and hide it will be short-lived at this point.

I doubt it will make a difference in their ministry. Those who buy their line of garbage don't use critical thinking to analyze their naysayers in the first place. If those followers were going to use critical thinking and listen to unbiased and definitive information, then the entire Liberian fiasco wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Liberia was a DISASTER. When it got closed, they mostly moved to Ethiopia. Now that they turned a strong, ethical adoption program into a child grabbing nightmare, yes they are moving to the Congo and they will do the same thing there. THIS behavior by "Christians" is what is slowing putting a stranglehold on international adoption. Their Machiavellian all means are acceptabale to rescue an orphan and teach them about Christ is what is destroying an institution that was meant to be a measure of hope for children with no other options left in their lives.

[Barefoot Bookworm]

I cannot wait until that article comes out. I really want to read it.

[yellowheart]

Slightly OT...but, not everyone who adopted from Ethiopia has/had ill-intentions. I have seen this first hand. :yes

[PaperMomma]

This is the first I've heard of any of this. But wow, seems like a big deal.



Is this why so many people are wanting to adopt from Ethiopia? And why the wait times for a child from ethiopia have just gotten really long? :shifty :think

[MrsHutch]

Slightly OT...but, not everyone who adopted from Ethiopia has/had ill-intentions. I have seen this first hand. :yes

I totally agree. :yes Like I said, I have many friends who have adopted or are adopting from there and they would all agree that ethical regulations should be in place, and would be horrified to know that anything less than honest was happening there. From what I can tell, it has been so popular because it was the fastest and cheapest country to adopt from, and now Congo is, so many are moving to adopt from there instead.

Sorry if it seemed like I was casting doubt on the *families* who adopt from there. It was meant as more of a question of the country/orphanage side of things.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

Is this why so many people are wanting to adopt from Ethiopia? And why the wait times for a child from ethiopia have just gotten really long? :shifty :think

No this isn't why so many people wanted to adopt from Ethiopia. So many people were going to Ethiopia because it was relatively fast when the programs started to catch on. You could have an infant in six months start to finish. Most people who adopt have ZERO idea about child trafficking, and that is a big part of why some of these countries are so quick. People want a baby, they want a baby quickly. Most people have zero clue about the ethical pitfalls that can and are present in adoptions and want to give a child who needs a home, a home, and at the same time fill their home that they think needs a child with a child. Adoption is *hard* and for a lot of people it comes at the end of a really long and hard infertility process too. Missionary adoptions exist, but they aren't the largest motivating factor for adoption by any stretch of the imagination.

However if you see a large family with a mix of biological and African children there is a good chance that missionary adoption was a part of it, but not always. TTL is a good example of a large family with biological and adopted children who never was a missionary adopter.

Yes, missionary adoption exists. It is a sad motivation for adoption. But it is a small percentage of all total international adoptions.

[Mommainrwanda]

People are adopting from CONGO? :hunh Wow. I live a little bit too close to that craziness to be comfortable with that idea.

Of course, the president here is trying to close all of the orphanages in Rwanda so kids are being fostered out at a rather, in my opinion, alarming rate. But the stats sure look good [/sarcasm].

I'm also curious about TTL's recommendation against reading Primal Wound - I thought that was standard adoption fare? But I haven't read it.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

.

[MrsHutch]

Of course, the president here is trying to close all of the orphanages in Rwanda so kids are being fostered out at a rather, in my opinion, alarming rate. But the stats sure look good [/sarcasm].


Slight derail:
That happened in Romania when they had to close their orphanages as part of the requirement to join the EU... most of the kids just got kicked to the streets. I'm afraid the same is going to happen in Moldova because the are desperate to join the EU, even though the EU will NEVER take them, now that they have seen what money pits the poorer countries are.

End derail. :)

[TestifyToLove]

No, not all families adopting from Ethiopia are or ever were this brand of missionary adopter. However, the craze of missionary adopters who were sent by Above Rubies into Liberia and shut the program down turned the majority of their attention towards Ethiopia after Liberia closed. Their ilk is a HUGE part of why Ethiopia is having trouble and trafficking issues are cropping up. And yes, they are turning their attention towards the Congo. It doesn't mean ALL adoptive families in ANY program are this style of adoptive family. It doesn't mean all large adoptive families are this way.

However, the Quiverful readers of Above Rubies who "answered the call" Nancy Campbell put out to adopt for conversion are by huge percentages this way, and they have swarmed programs across Africa to swoop up children to evangelize and rescue them.

There's a several hundred year old missionary fervor amongst ultra Fundamentalist Christians that they need to convert deepest, darkest Africa. They don't generally enter adoption programs outside of Africa because of this mindset. They also have NO concept nor understanding one of the oldest churches in the WORLD is in Africa, nor that most areas of Africa have been at least percentages of Christian while Europe was still in tribal affliations and worshipping druid gods.

When these missionary adopters enter adoption programs, they don't CARE about ethics, morality, or legality. They believe they are fighting for the very souls of children and thus ALL MEANS ARE ACCECPTABLE. They don't care how children are obtained, nor do they care what happens to the children after the message has been provided for them. They adopt with the mentality that they will evangelize these African children, teach them morals and worth ethics, then set them loose into the world grateful that they were rescued by Americans and without family and support. These children are held apart from the "real" family. They and all of the biological children are constantly reinforced that they are different than everyone else.

They are not even the bulk of the call to the church to adopt. They are a minor subset of adoptive families, but the damage they cause is tremendous for everyone. They existed before Nancy Campbell entered the fray. However, she sparked a movement a cause, and a momentum that hasn't stopped even today, despite the destruction left in it's path.

As for Primal Wound, it's not that I don't recommend the book ever. It is NOT a book I would recommend to someone before adopting. It is NOT a book that should be read without balance and experience. Even as a birthmother, I resent a great deal of what is written in the book because it paints ALL adoptees and birthmothers with the SAME cloth--which is ridiculous. It is NOT a book that will prepare you to actually adopt, but will scare you away. It provides no pratical advice on helping an child of adoption with their struggles and healing. I would FAR more likely recommend something such as The Weaver's Craft, Attaching in Adoption, or even Adoption Nation LONG before I would recommend Primal Wound to someone preparing to adopt. Nancy Campbell is recommending that book because she is essentially stating that none of the disaster is HER fault, afterall all adoptees are like this and were doomed to do what happened whether they entered her home or another home. That is malarky.

[CelticJourney]

Pulling this back around to the Campbells.... I think that what you are seeing with their adoptions is a result of their view of children and their view of themselves. They believe they have a corner of Truth and only they can 'save' these people. They believe their ends justifiy their means, but it abuse of what I see as a sacred promise of adoption or abuse of the child itself. They are so convinced they are 'above' that nothing else seems to matter. The rush of others within their group to participate in the Campbell's 'vision' is just another symptom of an abusive community.

(and yes, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse study really is giving me insight to some of th dynamics we see play out with punitive parenting teachers - I find myself saying that a lot lately :shifty)

[bliss]

Well, since I wasn't sworn to secrecy by a journalist, I will share that my friend P who is very close to Nancy and runs the AR retreats for this region once got a phone call from one of the Liberian girls who was out of the Campbell home. She contacted P because she was contacting everyone with contact info in the AR magazines, attempting to counter what Nancy was saying about her. She made it plain to P that she was abandoned by the family because she wanted more out of life than watching kids, cooking, and cleaning. She wanted to come to America to get her education and make something of herself, and that's not what AR is about :shrug. They want women in the home, having babies. So they shipped her off to another home and basically wrote her off, and then told people that she was 'rebellious' and off the rails behaviorally.
P, being a good little AR Bunny :shifty didn't really believe any of it :-/.

[schmamy]

this is certainly an interesting and eye-opening thread...

so what can you do, as someone thinking of adopting or preparing to adopt, to make yourself aware of the ethics issues and avoid sketchy or downright evil child trafficking practices?

and, back to Stacy's derail - why do countries have to close down their orphanages in order to join the EU?!

[MrsHutch]

and, back to Stacy's derail - why do countries have to close down their orphanages in order to join the EU?!

I'm not really sure. Bulgaria still has them and they are EU, but they had to clean them up quite a bit before joining. I'm pretty sure the EU prefers the foster care system, but there probably weren't enough foster parent volunteers to take in all of the kids. Maybe Romania's orphanages were beyond cleaning up to EU standards, so they shut them down instead. :shrug That's total speculation, but educated speculation, having lived in Moldova and visited Romania multiple times, including two Romanian orphanages in 2001.

[Annainprogress]

Romanian orphanages are infamous in Europe I think. certainly in the UK. they used (in the 90s) to be absolutely atrocious for the main part. I had understood they were much better and didn't know that the EU had asked for closure but it may be linked to the historical stuff. or maybe they hadn't cleaned all of them up that much :shrug

[Hermana Linda]

What I am learning in this thread shines a new light on the Williams Tragedy (http://whynottrainachild.com/2011/09/06/why-blame-pearls-2/). :cry

I'm considering linking to this thread in that post, since it is public. :think What do you all think?

[Can'tTurnLeft]

What I am learning in this thread shines a new light on the Williams Tragedy (http://whynottrainachild.com/2011/09/06/why-blame-pearls-2/). :cry

I'm considering linking to this thread in that post, since it is public. :think What do you all think?

Please remove my posts before you do that :)

[Hermana Linda]

If the info here was not meant to be public, please remove it. :hug2 I was not planning to copy anything, only to link to what is already a public thread which is probably being indexed by Google even as we speak. If the info is going to be removed, I will not bother to link. :no

[CelticJourney]

For general adoption information PLEASE spin off a thread in the adoption forum.

[schmamy]

a thread already exists, actually:

http://gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=443716

:heart

[Hermana Linda]

a thread already exists, actually:

http://gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=443716

:heart
:ty but I meant a public thread, like this one. ;)

[Ajani]

Really looking forward to the article & book. I know some Above Rubies fans and I imagine they're quite clueless about all of this.

[SilverMoon]

I'm looking forward to the article, too. I know several Above Rubies fans, and one of which the family that adopted from Liberia. Some are not clueless, and it's sad to watch from the outside, what little the outside world is allowed to see.

[Synesthesia]

I am horrified by this.

[nikki k]

I am horrified by this.
Me to.

[hey mommy]

I've never heard of any of this. It's disturbing and interesting.

[dakotablue]

I haven't heard about any of this, but am extremely interested and will say I had looked into above rubies before as Dh and I are boarding on quiverfull...we'll see how true it ends up being.

Her recommendation of "Primal Wound" discredits anything she could possibly have to say in my book. Seriously, that book is horrible. Crude, horrible and misleading. As a women who was not raised by her birth mother I can honestly say this is the most offensive 'adoption' book. Not pro and does excuse adoptive parents of all responsibility.

[Hermana Linda]

I haven't heard about any of this, but am extremely interested and will say I had looked into above rubies before as Dh and I are boarding on quiverfull...we'll see how true it ends up being.

Her recommendation of "Primal Wound" discredits anything she could possibly have to say in my book. Seriously, that book is horrible. Crude, horrible and misleading. As a women who was not raised by her birth mother I can honestly say this is the most offensive 'adoption' book. Not pro and does excuse adoptive parents of all responsibility.
:ty3 for that insight. :heart

[weerach]

Ummm, is this a bad time to say i am a member of Above Rubies :-/ :shifty ????

havent heard any of this though. I dont get the magazine or anything, i am part of their email listing for the UK and am quite close friends with a few of the ladies who go to all the AR retreats here in teh UK and get the magazine.

[SilverMoon]

I don't think it's a bad time, at all! I'm sure there are many GCMers who are part of the group. You can lend a different perspective since you're able to view this from the 'inside'.

What are your thoughts on the disappearing adopted children? Do you find there was a push for evangelistic adoptions, and are the children accepted as fully part of the family?

I imagine that Above Rubies in the UK would be different than Above Rubies in the US, and that different from how people in other countries follow them.

[Hermana Linda]

Ummm, is this a bad time to say i am a member of Above Rubies :-/ :shifty ????

havent heard any of this though. I dont get the magazine or anything, i am part of their email listing for the UK and am quite close friends with a few of the ladies who go to all the AR retreats here in teh UK and get the magazine.
You might want to look further into their teachings. :think Here is an old thread (http://www.gentlechristianmothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=351210) about her.

[weerach]

I don't think it's a bad time, at all! I'm sure there are many GCMers who are part of the group. You can lend a different perspective since you're able to view this from the 'inside'.

What are your thoughts on the disappearing adopted children? Do you find there was a push for evangelistic adoptions, and are the children accepted as fully part of the family?

I imagine that Above Rubies in the UK would be different than Above Rubies in the US, and that different from how people in other countries follow them.

I dont actually know anything about the disappearing children tbh. I hadnt heard of it before this thread. It is something i would have to look into. I must admit, i havent heard of anyone over here (from the ladies i know) who have adopted from abroad :shrug3, but the ladies i do know myself, well if they adopted they would adore the child and the child would be very much a part of their family. They arent the sort of ladies who would go and adopt because the ministry says they should. They are very much led of their husbands. As far as i know none of them have adopted as yet but i do know some who are seriously thinking on it, but they arent the type to go in to it blindly. But its so hard to adopt over here, esp if you are a christian, its something DH and i hope to do at some point, but it would definately need to be a miracle for it to go through. Things are getting worse over here re adoption when christian families are the adopters, from what i have heard first hand its their faith thats put on trial, not their potential as parents if that makes sense?

[SilverMoon]

I remember a GCM having a lot of trouble adopting there. Their faith was definitely put on trial, not their fitness as parents.

[weerach]

I remember a GCM having a lot of trouble adopting there. Their faith was definitely put on trial, not their fitness as parents.

The family my family know of who went through the adoption process, they had the child from a newborn (or close to newborn) and it took two years. He was a Magistrate, she was a primary teacher. Their own two children who were 7 and 11 i *think* at the time, were both grilled for an hour each (and seperately) by social services about their faith and why they believed what they did, and their parents werent allowed in with them :sick. And that family were a professional family. DH and i arent, so it would be even more difficult for us if we were to do it. And tbh, it really puts me off.

[Elibellamiah]

I'm finding this very interesting. I've never paid much attention to AR, but I have some magazines from 2007 that a friend lent me and I never remembered to give back. I do remember them making some comment about the "African girls" and it came across strange to me, but I never thought anything else about it at the time (and I can't find where they said that now). Anyway, 2007 seemed to have been a big time for them with adoption and pushing adoption. One of my best friends adopted a 1 year old girl from Liberia in 2007. I don't know if they went through this corrupt adoption agency or not or whether they heard about Liberia because of AR. I know when they were in Liberia picking up their daughter it turned out all the paper work wasn't done and they had find the birth father and have some papers signed. So, if these other children were being trafficed, was the paper work all forged? Hopefully the fact that the birth father signed the papers means my friend's daughter was given up legitimately. I think she was because she had some medical issues.
Back to the magazine, I was struggling a lot with this idea of evangelistic adoption being wrong. I figure any reason to do a good thing like adopt is a good reason. But I read an article in one of these 2007 magazines today where Nancy Campbell talks about how her daughter was only 30 but the mother of 11 children (6 through adoption and all adopted that year if I read it right) and how she just had a baby and how the 2 oldest adopted girls took care of everything and cooked and cleaned for everyone when the baby was born. It just makes me think, who was serving who? Did they adopt these teens to minister to orphans or to buy live in nannies? It just didn't come across right to me. And being 30 years old myself, I can't imagine adopting 6 kids this year while also being pregnant or any adoption agency letting me. I still don't see how evangelistic adoption in general would be wrong, but I do see how it's wrong to adopt if you aren't doing it as a ministry to the children and putting them first and including them fully as part of the family.

[Stiina]

:popcorn

i got a couple of magazines after some encouragement from some really respected friends...and then asked for my subsription to be stopped. It was just too *weird*...I didn't really know what was off about it. then I read on gcm about sally clarkson and I think I understand a little bit now.

i just wonder what her motives are...?

[Barefoot Bookworm]

I do read Above Rubies and own most of Nancy Campbell's study manuals. This was *before* I knew anything about this. Not quite so sure how I feel about her now. :-/

[Llee]

:popcorn

i got a couple of magazines after some encouragement from some really respected friends...and then asked for my subsription to be stopped. It was just too *weird*...I didn't really know what was off about it. then I read on gcm about sally clarkson and I think I understand a little bit now.

i just wonder what her motives are...?

Sally Clarkson is good. We :heart her :shifty ;)

[LilySue]

Ummm, is this a bad time to say i am a member of Above Rubies :-/ :shifty ????

havent heard any of this though. I dont get the magazine or anything, i am part of their email listing for the UK and am quite close friends with a few of the ladies who go to all the AR retreats here in teh UK and get the magazine.


I don't think it's a bad time to say it, after all you didn't know about the failed adoptions. I also think that because, at least where I live in the UK ,we're quite starved of encouragement on the Christian/home-making front ,so if I see anything uplifting online, I tend to jump on in. When I first went online, I joined a very supportive Christian site that is pro-Pearl, but initially that meant nothing to me because I had not heard of him. Of course now I know that has provided me with some problems......

[Can'tTurnLeft]

Back to the magazine, I was struggling a lot with this idea of evangelistic adoption being wrong. I figure any reason to do a good thing like adopt is a good reason.

What you described in your post is one of the reasons why so many of us adoptive families balk at the idea of adoption being a "good deed" I don't know anybody personally who adopted with the purpose of doing a "good deed" We adopted to grow our families.

---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------



i just wonder what her motives are...?

To bring people to Jesus. :shrug3 Nancy Campbell is part of the extreme quiverfull and wife only submission movement. It is a fairly common teaching among those people that adopted children have to do a penance of sorts for the generational sins that landed them with the need to be adopted. Extra spankings, extra service, etc... It is, according to these people, a way to attain salvation for them.

[CelticJourney]

What you described in your post is one of the reasons why so many of us adoptive families balk at the idea of adoption being a "good deed" I don't know anybody personally who adopted with the purpose of doing a "good deed" We adopted to grow our families. :yes but it is such a complex issue that there are many, many shades of gray. We chose adoption as the form of expanding our family over more biological children and the fact that children existed that needed a family played a part in that decision. On the third hand :shifty if anyone considered my SON as my 'mission project' they would be asking for a long, long lecture about the meaning of family and blessing - he has blessed us in ways incalculable. And you know, it think maybe that is the dividing line - everyone I know increased their families, where as what the Campbells were advocating was 'ministry to 'others' '.:think Did I just come full circle :scratch

[Stiina]

This is interesting! I read the other thread now as well - thanks ManaLinda for the link :hug

I think there are definitely good things that Sally and Nancy do, and they seem like very nice ladies...I guess you'd just have to be able to weed through the yuck in order to get to the good. But knowing their stance on this now, for *me*, I don't think it's worth it to weed through the yuck. I've got GCM :gcm

She does seem like she's very earnest and following God in the way she believes it. So you're probably right...and what I said about her having motives was probably not fair :bag But ... didn't she read the part in the Bible that said, ya know, that things we do (or their adopted kids do) don't earn you salvation?? :scratch

:bheart

[Elibellamiah]

[QUOTE=Can'tTurnLeft;4573968]What you described in your post is one of the reasons why so many of us adoptive families balk at the idea of adoption being a "good deed" I don't know anybody personally who adopted with the purpose of doing a "good deed" We adopted to grow our families.[QUOTE=Can'tTurnLeft;4573968]


Thank you for saying that. I don't know if it will ever happen, but I've thought a lot for many years about adopting or foster parenting someday. I think there are a lot of reasons behind why I would do it, but recently I was on a foster parenting board to learn more about it and at some point felt really attacked and like people thought I was just doing it for selfish reasons. It was after I asked if most people want babies, because if I fostered I think I would like to foster babies but I have the impression everyone wants babies. Is the fact that I would like to care for more babies selfish? So I wondered a lot after that, is there a not selfish reason to foster or adopt? Most people do so because they want children. Is it better to do so just because you want to help someone? It's not like my focus would be on fulfilling my own desire, I just think there are babies who need to be taken care of and even though this is probably my last pregnancy, I don't feel ready to be done taking care of babies. Or if I adopted, I would really like another daughter and I would like my daughter to have a sister. Is that wrong? Should I be more focused on just wanting to help a child in need? I don't know if this makes any sense, it's just part of where I was coming from with that.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

Thank you for saying that. I don't know if it will ever happen, but I've thought a lot for many years about adopting or foster parenting someday. I think there are a lot of reasons behind why I would do it, but recently I was on a foster parenting board to learn more about it and at some point felt really attacked and like people thought I was just doing it for selfish reasons. It was after I asked if most people want babies, because if I fostered I think I would like to foster babies but I have the impression everyone wants babies. Is the fact that I would like to care for more babies selfish? So I wondered a lot after that, is there a not selfish reason to foster or adopt? Most people do so because they want children. Is it better to do so just because you want to help someone? It's not like my focus would be on fulfilling my own desire, I just think there are babies who need to be taken care of and even though this is probably my last pregnancy, I don't feel ready to be done taking care of babies. Or if I adopted, I would really like another daughter and I would like my daughter to have a sister. Is that wrong? Should I be more focused on just wanting to help a child in need? I don't know if this makes any sense, it's just part of where I was coming from with that.

I think for a lot of people there is a "selfish" element to wanting to adopt. I wanted to be a mom. My body wasn't cooperating. So I adopted. It was about *me* in a lot of ways. Our children were both newborns when we adopted them. We were in the delivery room both times. They weren't in "need" per se. It wasn't about that. I'm not going to go into more of their story on a public board, but I will say this. The FAR vast majority of infants who are placed by their parents voluntarily are not in "need" in the traditional sense, and never would have been. That doesn't mean their parents don't have valid and important reasons for placing them, but they weren't in "need" because they were true orphans, or removed from their families because of severe abuse.

Everybody needs to pray about their adoptions, and what they want them to look like. Wanting to raise more babies is a fine reason to want to adopt, but it is vital, no matter what path you choose, to be as educated on ethics as possible. You can't approach adoption from the point of view of wanting to save a child, or rescue a child. Sometimes there is an element of adoption in that, but to move entirely from that motivation is dangerous. It leads to children being put in the position of needing to be "grateful" No child should be made to feel grateful that they were adopted. If they choose that feeling, that is one thing, but when parents go into it with the express purpose of rescuing a child, that sets up a bad dynamic.

[Synesthesia]

!!!!!!!!!!! What? Why are they are allowed to do that? What bothers me is the idea of hurting these children for life. They've had enough trauma and don't need more! Those poor cubs!
I would like to be a foster parent. I've done some research on older child adoption and I am not sure if I am mature enough for it because those poor kids will act out and if folks can't have the patience and compassion to deal with them without pain and extreme punishment... urg. It will make it so much worse for them. Adopting because you want to save them is a horrible idea. These kids must be your family and you must be ready to respond to their acting out with love and compassion!






What you described in your post is one of the reasons why so many of us adoptive families balk at the idea of adoption being a "good deed" I don't know anybody personally who adopted with the purpose of doing a "good deed" We adopted to grow our families.

---------- Post added at 12:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------



To bring people to Jesus. :shrug3 Nancy Campbell is part of the extreme quiverfull and wife only submission movement. It is a fairly common teaching among those people that adopted children have to do a penance of sorts for the generational sins that landed them with the need to be adopted. Extra spankings, extra service, etc... It is, according to these people, a way to attain salvation for them.

[SilverMoon]

This is interesting! I read the other thread now as well - thanks ManaLinda for the link :hug

I think there are definitely good things that Sally and Nancy do, and they seem like very nice ladies...I guess you'd just have to be able to weed through the yuck in order to get to the good. But knowing their stance on this now, for *me*, I don't think it's worth it to weed through the yuck. I've got GCM :gcm

She does seem like she's very earnest and following God in the way she believes it. So you're probably right...and what I said about her having motives was probably not fair :bag But ... didn't she read the part in the Bible that said, ya know, that things we do (or their adopted kids do) don't earn you salvation?? :scratch

:bheart

I think it's important to point out that Sally Clarkson is not anything like Nancy or Above Rubies. Instead, she's an example of graceful mothering.

[saturnfire16]

:popcorn

i got a couple of magazines after some encouragement from some really respected friends...and then asked for my subsription to be stopped. It was just too *weird*...I didn't really know what was off about it. then I read on gcm about sally clarkson and I think I understand a little bit now.

i just wonder what her motives are...?

To raise a bigger army than the Muslims. :shifty Seriously, I heard her say it. :doh

[SilverMoon]

Yeah, our last church said the same thing, and was pushing QF mentality.

[Synesthesia]

How dumb. You can't build a strong army if you are doing some of the same stuff they are doing. EI, Reducing women to ONLY having tons of babies, tormenting said babies with soul destroying hitting, women not having an equal education to men. What are they THINKING? It doesn't seem like a healthy mentality at all...

[Stiina]

I think it's important to point out that Sally Clarkson is not anything like Nancy or Above Rubies. Instead, she's an example of graceful mothering.

:ty
I guess I don't really know the difference between them. Sorry for lumping them together!

[Barefoot Bookworm]

Sally Clarkson is wonderful. Her blog is www.itakejoy.com. She has some amazing books out on mothering such as The Ministry Of Motherhood and The Mission of Motherhood. Definitely check her out.

[HadassahSukkot]

How dumb. You can't build a strong army if you are doing some of the same stuff they are doing. EI, Reducing women to ONLY having tons of babies, tormenting said babies with soul destroying hitting, women not having an equal education to men. What are they THINKING? It doesn't seem like a healthy mentality at all...

And that is exactly what I said without the colorful sailor wording when I kept having that mentality shoved onto me as "the way" that all "biblical women" should be. :yes

It isn't healthy.

[Annainprogress]

The family my family know of who went through the adoption process, they had the child from a newborn (or close to newborn) and it took two years. He was a Magistrate, she was a primary teacher. Their own two children who were 7 and 11 i *think* at the time, were both grilled for an hour each (and seperately) by social services about their faith and why they believed what they did, and their parents werent allowed in with them :sick. And that family were a professional family. DH and i arent, so it would be even more difficult for us if we were to do it. And tbh, it really puts me off.

I'm not comfortable going into details on so public a forum, but I know (to varying extents) several Christian families who have fostered (or are still fostering), adopted from the UK care system and also from China. They are not all "professionals". I haven't discussed the details with them but I know that they would normally talk to older children about their attitude to their family fostering/adopting and I wonder if it was as a result of those kids saying that their family wanted to adopt because of their faith that led to much of the interview being about their faith? I have to admit also to curiosity (which you should feel under no compulsion to satisfy) as to how they adopted a baby in the UK when they already had children unless it was a private adoption. (For US readers who don't realise, there are not many babies available here and it's extremely rare for birth parents to choose who adopts their child - it's a totally different system in that respect).