Children are so valuable in God’s eyes that Christians must ensure that our practices—from how they are conceived onwards—align with God’s good design. Embracing this perspective encourages a faithful response to the complexities of reproductive technologies, grounded in respect for life and confidence in God’s provision.

Few things stir our deepest hopes and fears quite like the prospect of having children. The mere thought of children has a way of tapping into our strongest desires and deepest anxieties—often shaping the choices we make about fertility and family.

These concerns, along with the desire to delay fertility, has contributed to falling birth rates in the U.S. and worldwide. At the same time, more people are facing health issues that affect fertility, leading many to turn to reproductive technology for help. Technologies like in vitro fertilization (IVF)—where doctors combine an egg and sperm in a petri dish and then later implant the fertilized embryo in a woman to grow—promise parents more control over having children. For some, IVF offers a chance to have a child they couldn’t otherwise have. For others, it’s a way to select specific traits in their future child.

This essay explores the theological and moral implications of IVF from a biblical perspective, asserting that while the desire for children is a God-given and natural longing, the routine practice and cultural consequences of IVF often conflict with biblical teachings on human dignity, the sanctity of life, and God’s good design for marriage, sex, and procreation.

A Theological and Moral Reflection on IVF

There are three assumptions I bring to this conversation on IVF. First, the Bible is the inerrant and sufficient Word of God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16–17). So, even though the phrase “in vitro fertilization” does not appear in the Bible, the Bible is the ultimate authority for life and godliness, including any matter related to the conception of life. Second, God calls Christians to walk in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, especially when it comes to questions about life and our use of technology. This means that faithful Christian living requires more than good intentions. Finally, life begins at the moment of fertilization, and bears inherent worth and dignity. Thus, IVF does not deal with “potential” human life, but actual human life.

Many Christians may be tempted to rely on a simplistic understanding of IVF that separates this issue from other pro-life teachings in the Bible. For example, since IVF may result in the creation of new life (something that Christians celebrate, recognizing that each child is created in the image of God), some have decided that all uses of IVF are morally allowable. This assumption, however, ignores the fact that many, or most, embryos created in IVF are destroyed, frozen, or fail to implant. For Christians who believe that life begins at conception, it is essential that Christians apply this teaching to protect all embryonic life—regardless of how conception occurs.[1]

The question of how embryos are created and treated in IVF is not merely a tertiary issue for the Christian but central to the Church’s beliefs on life and human flourishing. In the same way that Christians led the charge on protecting life from abortion or infanticide, so Christians must courageously face the destructive aspects of the fertility industry.

To assess the morality of IVF, and the pro-life concerns implicit in this technology, it is important that we consider all three elements: (1) one’s intentions behind the action, (2) the action itself, and (3) the resulting outcome.

Intention and Desire for a Child

As Genesis 1–2 shows, the desire to have children is God-given. Indeed, procreation was God’s good idea, not ours, and it is central to the formation of life and the display of his glory in creation. The Cultural Mandate (Gen. 1:28) is careful to frame this desire as a blessed gift from God, and not a right. Therefore, while it is natural to desire children, such desire does not justify pursing any means necessary to accomplish that end.

When sin corrupted the created order in Genesis 3, every aspect of the human experience, including our ability and desire to have children, fell with Adam and Eve. Indeed, the natural vulnerabilities that accompany each aspect of childbearing can lead people to approach children with fear, and a desire to assert their own control over the process, especially when infertility or miscarriage accompany our experience. While this fear can feel overwhelming, outside of our control, shameful, or just plain isolating, it is important to remember that we are not alone.

Indeed, the Old Testament is filled with stories of infertility and promises fulfilled. For example, each of the six covenants that God makes with His people include future generations of children, with the Adamic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants specifically based on the promise of descendants, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ Himself in the New Covenant. But lest we assume this meant the process was always easy, it is important to remember that each of the first three Patriarchs—Abraham with Sarah, Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel—struggled with infertility.

After many years of waiting for God to fulfill His promise for a child, Abraham and Sarah took matters into their own hands. Sarah gave Hagar, her maidservant, to Abraham to bear a child on her behalf (Gen. 16:2). While these efforts were successful, resulting in the birth of a male heir, their approach violated the exclusive bonds of marriage between one man and one woman. Sarah, too, suffered the consequences of her actions as jealousy drove her to act cruelly toward Hagar and her son.

Perhaps learning from his parent’s mistake, Isaac’s experience with infertility led him to pray for his wife Rebekah, and God blessed them with twins (Gen. 25:21). In our own lives, the solution to infertility may require more than the prayer of a godly person, but never less.

And finally, Rachel, jealous of her own sisters’ fertility, relies on her maidservants and mandrakes (a fertility stimulant) to bear more children with Jacob (Gen. 30:3; 30:14–16). Despite her efforts, God still gave Leah more children. In each case, their desire for children, and the intention behind their actions, reflected God’s covenantal promise. Nonetheless, this did not justify pursuing any means necessary, especially when it violated God’s teaching on the sanctity of marriage or life.

Left unchecked, the temptation to idolize one’s fertility is one of the most powerful forces in the world. Indeed, since the fall of humanity, this idolization has led people to control (i.e., play God) rather than steward (i.e., be faithful with what God gives us) their fertility.

Such control over fertility can be seen in the examples just cited, but there is another instance of this in the way that Israel turned from worshiping the One true God to worshiping idols. And who was the false god that Israel most often turned? Asherah, the goddess of fertility (cf. Deut. 16:21; 1 Kings 16:33; 18:19; 2 Kings 13:6; 17:16; Mic. 5:14). As I note elsewhere, in their attempts to control their fertility, i.e., play God, “the Israelites would bring harvest sacrifices or perform sexual acts in front of this false goddess in hopes that they would receive fruitful crops or the blessing of children.” Going further,

It was normal in the ancient Near East to worship multiple gods in hopes of reaping maximum benefits from each; yet it resulted in sin and death for Israel. It also was normal to use one’s maidservant to bear more children, yet it violated God’s vision for marriage, and such actions brought suffering, envy, and strife.

Their desire for children and the intention behind their actions was to receive the blessing of fruitfulness that God declared over Adam and Eve in the Cultural Mandate. Nonetheless, God’s people erred when fear, futility, or idolatry corrupted their view of children and their subsequent actions. Thus, desire for children and intentions to be fruitful and multiply are not, by themselves, sufficient to justify illicit means of conception.

Read More