Interethnic Adoption

Interethnic adoption, the practice of adopting a child of a different ethnic background, holds profound significance within Christian communities, reflecting God’s redemptive love as revealed in the gospel. However, cultural narratives like critical race theory (CRT) and critical adoption theory (CAT) present challenges to this biblical vision. This essay explores the theological foundation of adoption, the impact of CRT and CAT on the adoption process, the specific pitfalls of CAT, and practical guidance for Christian families navigating interethnic adoption, emphasizing a Gospel-centered approach to family and identity.

Adoption as a Reflection of God’s Love

From a traditional Christian perspective, adoption is not a secondary choice but a vivid illustration of God’s salvific plan. Ephesians 1:5 declares that God “predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will” (NIV). This theological truth positions adoption as a mirror of God’s divine love by including believers from every ethnicity into His supernatural family.

For Christians, interethnic adoption helps to rescue children who have experienced the tragic loss of their parents, prioritizing love over over genetic connections. This aligns with James 1:27, which defines pure religion as caring for orphans and widows, emphasizing love for the vulnerable regardless of ethnic differences.

The Impact of Critical Race Theory on Adoption

In recent years, interethnic adoption has come to face significant challenges due to the influence of Critical Race Theory and Critical Adoption Theory, which has infiltrated adoption agencies, including some Christian organizations. Critical adoption theory (CAT), a subset of critical social theories, exacerbates these challenges by applying a Marxist-inspired lens to adoption, emphasizing power dynamics and systemic oppression. CAT views the child, particularly a minority child, as the oppressed and the adoptive parents, especially white parents, as oppressors.

These ideologies often portray white adoptive parents as “colonizers” who racially traumatize minority children, particularly Black or brown children. This narrative shifts the focus from a child’s need for love and permanence to an obsession with racial and cultural matching, often to the detriment of vulnerable children.

Some agencies have adopted policies prioritizing racial matching, suggesting that placing Black or brown children with white parents is inherently harmful and traumatic. Such practices contradict the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994, which prohibits using race as a factor in adoption placements to prevent children from languishing in foster care. Accusations of “colonization” elevate race above God's call to love orphans. Christians must reject this divisive rhetoric and fight to help orphans have security and permanency in families.

Pitfalls of Critical Adoption Theory

CAT introduces several pitfalls that undermine the biblical foundation of adoption and harm both families and children.

1. Imposition of Racialized Narratives: CAT insists that white parents are inherently unfit to raise minority children due to their “unconscious racial bias” or lack of “cultural competence.” This assumption is evident in many adoption agency trainings that require white parents to undergo extensive “cultural competency trainings” as a condition for transracial adoptions, while minority parents adopting across ethnic lines often face no such requirements. This double standard implies that only white parents lack the ability to understand cultural differences, fostering division rather than unity.

   
   

2. Problematizing Normal Interactions: CAT problematizes everyday interactions as “microaggressions” or expressions of “white privilege.” For example, a Caucasian parent’s inability to style a Black child’s hair is seen as an evidence of racism, rather than a simple lack of knowledge and something that can be learned. Such interpretations reduce complex human interactions to racial stereotypes, creating unnecessary guilt and self-doubt among adoptive parents, who are told they are “traumatizing” their children by failing to meet arbitrary cultural standards.

   
   

3. Rejection of Biblical Identity: CAT prioritizes racial and cultural identity over a Christ-centered identity. Training sessions—even at Christian adoption agencies—often frame the issue around secular concepts like “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and “critical consciousness," omitting the Christian context of adoption.

   
   

4. Coercive “Struggle Sessions”: Adoption agencies that employ CAT tactics often engage in coercive “struggle sessions” to enforce ideological conformity. Adoptive parents who resist the CAT framework face pressure and accusations of racism. These sessions aim to re-educate parents into accepting critical consciousness, creating a culture of shame rather than support for building loving families.

   
   

5. Undermining Family Autonomy: By requiring ongoing oversight and trainings, sometimes until a child reaches adulthood, agencies that use the CAT approach infringe on family autonomy, treating parents as perpetual students of critical theory rather than capable caregivers. This approach can discourage couples from engaging in the adoption process altogether, leaving children stranded in foster care.

These pitfalls reveal CAT’s departure from a Christian worldview, replacing love and biblical unity with a focus on racial power dynamics and ideological conformity. Christians must critically evaluate these narratives, grounding their adoption decisions in scripture first, rather than secular theories.

Navigating Cultural Challenges in Interethnic Adoption

Interethnic adoptive families often face societal pressures regarding cultural authenticity, particularly in predominantly white communities. Parents may worry about providing “authentic” cultural experiences or fear their children will be seen as disconnected from their ethnic heritage. These concerns are amplified by CRT and CAT’s emphasis on race as a primary identity marker, which can lead children to question their place in their family or community, especially in settings like college where critical theories are prevalent.

The key to navigating these challenges is rooting family identity in Christ. Parents should celebrate each child’s unique background while fostering a family culture grounded in faith. Overemphasizing cultural authenticity can reinforce CAT’s narrative that identity is primarily racial, potentially causing confusion or resentment. Instead, parents should integrate cultural learning naturally—through books, friendships, or community connections—without making it the sole focus.

Open conversations about cultural dynamics and societal expectations are essential. Parents can prepare children to resist racial stereotypes by teaching them to see themselves and others as image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27). For example, rather than adopting racially specific approaches (e.g., a unique “police talk” for Black children), parents can teach all children to respect authority and treat others with humility, fostering a unified family identity grounded in Christian values.

Conclusion

Interethnic adoption, from a traditional Christian perspective, is a powerful testament to God’s redemptive love and the unity of His kingdom. Despite challenges from CRT and CAT, which impose racialized narratives and coercive ideologies, Christians are called to embrace adoption as a reflection of God’s adoption of believers into His family. By rooting their families in biblical truth, rejecting shame, researching agencies diligently, and fostering a culture of love and unity, Christian adoptive families can bear witness to the gospel’s transformative power. Interethnic adoption is not just an act of love but a declaration of God’s heart for all His children, transcending ethnic boundaries and reflecting the beauty of His diverse yet unified kingdom.

Further the Discussion