Angela and Denise are two women in their mid-forties who both welcomed their first children at age 46. Angela conceived spontaneously after struggling with unexplained infertility for decades, while Denise conceived after receiving fertility treatment with Clomid, a medication prescribed by her physician to stimulate ovulation.
One Sunday morning, both women stand before their congregation to share their testimonies.
Angela goes first. She tells the congregation how she struggled with infertility for years, prayed faithfully, and eventually became pregnant without medical intervention. The congregation erupts with excitement. People shout, "Hallelujah!" and "Praise the Lord!" Others declare, "God opened her womb!" Her testimony is celebrated as a powerful demonstration of God's miraculous intervention.
Then Denise stands to share her testimony. She explains how she and her husband struggled to conceive, sought medical assistance, underwent fertility evaluations, and eventually conceived after her physician prescribed Clomid.
But this time, the reaction is different. There are no enthusiastic shouts of "Hallelujah!" No one declares that God opened her womb. Instead, the congregation responds with polite smiles, quiet nods, and scattered applause.
Why the different reactions?
Both women struggled with infertility. Both desired children. Both prayed, and both eventually welcomed their first babies at age 46. Yet one testimony was celebrated as a miracle, while the other was treated as an ordinary medical success.
But who determined that God intervened in Angela's pregnancy and not Denise's?
Angela conceived spontaneously, but does that automatically mean God supernaturally opened her womb? Are we suggesting that God literally touched her reproductive organs or sent an angel to facilitate conception?
Perhaps Angela conceived because previously undetected fertility issues involving her or her husband had improved. Perhaps certain biological conditions finally aligned in a way that made conception possible. The truth is, without knowing the precise circumstances, we cannot say exactly why Angela became pregnant after so many years.
Yet because her pregnancy occurred without medical assistance, the congregation automatically interpreted it as a greater demonstration of God's power.
Meanwhile, Denise's pregnancy involved something that is not always celebrated with the same enthusiasm in certain Christian circles: human cooperation.
Denise had to make a doctor's appointment, undergo medical evaluations, and discuss treatment options. Her husband also participated in the fertility evaluation process. They had to follow medical instructions, attend appointments, and take practical steps toward achieving their goal.
It required time, effort, and a willingness to confront potentially uncomfortable information about their reproductive health.
And perhaps this reveals another issue within our understanding of faith.
Sometimes, as believers, we would rather God intervene supernaturally than participate in the process ourselves. We may fear what a doctor will discover. We may not want to take time away from work, undergo medical procedures, change our habits, or confront difficult realities. Instead, we pray that God will simply remove the problem so that we never have to face it.
I understand that mindset because I once approached certain difficulties in my own life that way. I believed that if I prayed sincerely enough, God would resolve the issue without requiring me to confront it through ordinary human means.
But I have begun questioning that understanding of faith.
Why do we sometimes treat human participation as though it diminishes God's involvement?
In 1 Corinthians 4:7, Paul asks, "And what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" This question reminds believers that even the things we accomplish through our own efforts are not entirely independent of what we have received.
Similarly, James 1:17 declares that "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above."
If Christians believe that God created humanity with the intelligence to study reproductive biology, develop fertility medications, and assist couples experiencing infertility, why should Denise's pregnancy be considered less worthy of praise simply because medical science played a role?
Psalm 139:13–16 beautifully describes God's intimate knowledge of human development in the womb. Yet nothing in that passage suggests that a child conceived with medical assistance is any less wonderfully made than a child conceived spontaneously.
Perhaps both Angela and Denise have reasons to be grateful. Perhaps both pregnancies can be understood within God's providential care, even though the circumstances surrounding their conceptions were different.
And perhaps the congregation's contrasting reactions reveal more about our expectations of how God should work than about God's actual involvement in either pregnancy.
We have become accustomed to celebrating the testimony in which God seemingly bypasses human effort, while overlooking the courage, perseverance, medical knowledge, and cooperation involved in another person's journey.
But why should the woman who prayed and visited a fertility specialist receive less enthusiastic praise than the woman who prayed and conceived without treatment?
Perhaps we need to stop measuring the greatness of a blessing by how little human involvement was required to receive it.
No comments:
Post a Comment