Back to names: A solid argument can certainly be made in support of the idea that a child will be influenced by the meaning of his or her name, if that meaning is made to be significant within the family. For example, in all intents and purposes, "Kuya" was J.'s name at the orphanage in the Philippines. (That means big brother in Tagalog. It is common in Eastern cultures for people to refer to each other primarily with a title like, auntie, cousin, or littlest brother.) That's the only name he responded to when I brought him home. We celebrated it, and still use it. I'm sure by the sly grin on his face that he tries to hide, but can't, every time we call him "Kuya", that it influenced his ability to be a nurturing big brother. We don't put him in charge of a dozen babies here, but we love that he has a caretaker's heart and wraps up Sunflower in a blanket when he thinks she's cold.
I'm sure you're thinking this is an odd post for a mom who doesn't reveal her children's real names on her blog. But I'm taking time to do it because I've been asked about names and adoption several times lately. So here goes.
First, it's controversial. There are families who staunchly believe that a child should retain his or her birth name as a first name when adopted. Others don't see any significance at all in the birth name and whimsically change the child's name to something that they like, that may or may not have any meaning; the new name just sounds nice. Personally, I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, and of course the age of the child has to be taken into consideration. For this post, I'm speaking of children 0-3, though the concept could work and has worked for many older children as well.
Let's get this out now: Tim and I are in the "change their names" camp. This is why:
Think about Abram. God called Abram out of Ur and sent him on a quest to the Promised Land. God made a covenant with Abram-to give him land and descendants, and Abram was to follow God. When leaving one life and beginning another, at the core of an intimate covenant,was a name change. God changed Abram's name to Abraham.
Then there was Saul. He took a journey down Damascus Road, was struck blind, taken in by a Christian, convicted and converted. Saul was given a mission, called to leave behind a life of hatred and hopelessness and begin a new life with Christ. God changed his name from Saul to Paul at this anointing.
Jacob became Israel. Sarai became Sarah. Esau means hairy. Jacob means tricky. Peter means rock. I think God places some significance and value in a name! In addition, He made a habit of changing peoples' names at the commencement of a new life.
Tim said once, thinking of our children's first lives, "After they get to us, life gets boring!" True, a warm bed, a family, nutritious food, unconditional love and commitment may be boring compared to traveling through tribal wars, scary court hearings and placement delays, Nipa hut life and questionable tomorrows, but we'll take it! Undoubtedly, our children have left one life with little to no future and have entered into a new life with hope and promise. A new covenant between us and them was made, and in this new life, they have begun the journey to grow into Christian Ambassadors. Sound familiar?
This is why we choose to re-name our children. God did. We get the significance. Names are a big deal.
"But what about losing their heritage? What about respecting the birth family's wishes? The children lose so much by leaving their homeland, the least you can do is keep their name; it's the one thing that they can never lose!" I told you it was a heated debate...
We, like so many other adoptive families, have found the balance in giving the children a new first name with meaning, and retaining their birth names as middle names. Really, one has to consider that sometimes, the birth first name would make for a very awkward life here in the States. Foreign names can be difficult to pronounce, have a meaning that is inappropriate here, be a name of the opposite gender here, etc... And sometimes, families just don't like the name. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think that the family disgraces the birth family by changing it, especially when it's retained as a middle name. Surely, the birth family would want the child to have a name that is functional and appropriate for their child.
We honor our children's birth families in other ways besides just keeping their birth names in their new official name. Birth family members are never disrespected in our home. We go out of our way to retain some of our children's heritages. We eat Filipino food; we say, "Mabuhay" and "Selam" in greeting; J. could find the Philippines on a map when he was three; and they have traditional clothes. Is this as good as living in their homelands? No, of course not, but that's another post! The point is that I don't think changing their birth name to a new name of meaning to mark a new covenant robs them of their culture anymore than what is already inevitable by circumstances beyond our control.
Slightly related story: A Filipino girl joined J.'s gymnastics class. J. noticed her right away. Tim spoke with her mom and learned that she was from the Philippines and told J. about this on the way home. J. proudly came in to me after class and announced, "Mom! I have a new friend! She's from the Philippines, like me!" If there were ever a kid who loves his homeland, a place he sadly doesn't even remember, it's our J.! AND he started out with a Filipino name...that we chose to change.
So, there you have it. "No," those of you who know the real names of our children, "that isn't their birth name." We change their names to mark the significance of their new life, truly a life or death matter for a couple of them, and retain their birth name as one of their middle names. As a result, all three of them have strong-though sometimes long :) - names of hope, healing, faith, and beauty, and if they are influenced at all by their names, as I suspect people are, then they're off to a good start!
