Bible. PRE 12 6
POST 18 0
Strengths of the Project
This ministry project had some strengths which future ministry research projects could find helpful. First of these strengths was my meetings with the Association
3 Joseph, “Equipping Spiritual Leaders,” 99.
4 Williams, “Equipping Parents,” 70.
Chairman and other influential leaders in the Conference to share both the short-term goal (completing this project) and long-term vision and mission of the seminar. The support of these leaders gave credibility to the project as they became sponsors of the program to other pastors.
The second strength of this project was the vision, knowledge, and
understanding it gave to the pastors as gospel ministers to do a better job in teaching and counseling the infertile couples giving them biblical hope in this demeaning cultural context. Adoption, which has been recognized as a treatment option for infertility, has a very strong biblical and theological basis. It is therefore a double win for Christians to explore it as a ministry in solving the problem of infertility.
Third, the seminar sessions were saturated with Scripture. Bible passages were used copiously to show that the Nigerian cultural views and values attached to childbearing is at best idolatrous. Biblical and theological principles on childbearing and child adoption were espoused and extensively supported by Scripture.
Fourth, local research and articles by Nigerians were appreciably examined.
The beauty of these writeups was that the literature and research cited covered the differences in the incidences of adoption practice in the three regions of Nigeria (North, Southwest and Southeast). These give insights into how adoption is practiced in the different cultures.
Fifth, the pervasiveness of the subject matter was a strength of the project. Every pastor present knew at least one couple (a sibling, a family member, a church member, or a neighbor) struggling with infertility. Therefore, the topic and its ramifying issues were not theoretical. As the sessions were going on, there were several “aha moments” where participants were either recollecting experiences or gaining understandings into why an infertile person had acted in a particular way. The pastors also gained insight on how a better job could have been done in teaching and counseling a childless person. Everyone had a story to tell or experience to share. Seminar 3, “Assisted Reproductive Technology:
Theological and Ethical Considerations,” was thought provoking to this audience. Many pastors were not aware that some ART methods are not acceptable to Christian ethics, and the seminar was an eye opener for them. They then saw more reasons why they need to teach about challenges of infertility and share with their congregations biblically correct options of treatment and why Christians should be wary of some ART treatment options.
Sixth, some wrong notions about adoption were corrected. For instance, one pastor shared his experience of witnessing an American missionary couple to Nigeria adopt two Caucasian children from the United States. According to this pastor, both children turned bad. The girl had a child out of wedlock and the younger, a boy, ended up abusing drugs. From his sharing, this pastor concluded that these children turned bad because they were adopted, and therefore adoption is bad. This pastor shared their story as his objection to the idea of teaching about adoption in the early part of the seminar day. As the day moved on, particularly after the session on the biblical and theological basis of adoption, it become clear to him that it is unwise to conclude that a biblical position is a bad idea just because of one bad experience. I also communicated to the participant that it has been documented by research that adoptions go sour in about 15 percent of cases.5 But the question remains, do all biological children turn great in all situations?
Finally, mode of publicity was another strength of this project. I utilized face- to-face, person-to-person communication at the initial time of introducing the project and then reminded participants of the upcoming seminar day with text and WhatsApp
messages and personal phone calls.
Weaknesses of the Project
A few areas stood out as weaknesses of this project. Foremost was that all six seminar sessions were packed into just one day. This did not allow for deep reflections on
5 Allen P. Fisher, “Still Not Quite as Good as Having Your Own? Towards a Sociology of Adoption,” Annual Review of Sociology 29 (2003): 348.
the sessions and internalization of principles and concepts, and because of time
constraints, participants were not allowed to share, interact, or ask questions as much as they would have liked.
Another weakness of this project was that an accountability system was not put in place before the pastors dispersed on the day of the seminar. The pastors left the seminar with enthusiasm and a feeling of satisfaction that some of their own questions were answered about how to be more effective and scripturally balanced in ministering to church members who are mostly rejected by the culture because they are barren. But the question is, how many of these pastors will be strong enough to confront this evil cultural belief (and also refute the compromises of other preachers) in their congregations and bring relief to members who are struggling with infertility?
Another weakness of this seminar was that there were no real-life testimonies shared by either an adoptive parent (or couple) or by an adoptee of their experience with adoption. Testimonies by either of these would have increased the impact of this seminar on the pastors.
Finally, a day after the seminar, one pastor sent me a text requesting the details about one of books I used. It then occurred to me that I did not share a list of some
helpful resources with the participants for their further studies.