On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, the Philippine Daily Inquirer contained a new story  about the Catholics Bishops Conference of the Philippines’ call for the Ateneo to investigate its resident professors who have circulated a statement of support for the controversial Reproductive Health Bill which is now on its second reading in Congress.  The CBCP urged the leadership of the Ateneo to investigate the professors to see if they were not “giving instructions against the teachings of the Catholic church.”

There was uproar, to be sure.  In response, on Saturday, August 25, 2012, the Ateneo de Manila University posted on its website that it has seen no need to investigate the professors who signed the statement of support for the RH Bill.  The Ateneo recognized the opinion of the professors because it encouraged “dialogue among the members of the community and with the Church officials.”  The Ateneo concedes that “there is a spectrum of views on this ethical and public policy issue.” However, the Ateneo protected itself by saying that in its theology courses on marriage, family life and human sexuality, the Catholic position on those topics were discussed so that the students are “provided with opportunities to discern and reflect on these questions.”

What piqued my interest in these two news stories is the use of the word “heresy” as a ground for investigating those Ateneo professors.  The word “heresy” makes the hair on my neck stand on end.  It conjures up images of the Inquisition, witch trials, examination by the rack and burnings at the stake of those found guilty of being “heretics.” Millions have been tortured and killed for being heretics.  Many more have been excommunicated for propagating heresies.

Galileo Galelei was excommunicated for publishing a book on his observations of the stars and the planets in which he concluded that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  This observation was in direct contradiction of the Medieval Catholic Church’s teaching that the Sun revolved around the Earth.  Galileo Galelei was excommunicated in the 1300s, and according to Catholic dogma, he would have gone straight to hell upon his death.  After all, the Catholic Church teaches that “fuera de la iglesia Romana Catolica, no hay salvacion” [outside of the Catholic Church, there can be no salvation].  Galileo Galelei’s salvation was revoked upon his excommunication.  But then before the death of Pope John Paul II, Galileo Galelei’s excommunication was lifted.  I often wonder about that: how can an issue of science affect the status of one’s soul before God?  How can one’s stand on an academic question affect one’s salvation?

I teach Church History and every semester, the word “heresy” crops up in my lectures and discussions. The word “heresy” appears in the Bible.  Heresy comes from the Greek word [hairesis] which literally means “that which is chosen.”  According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, [hairesis] is a “self-willed opinion which is substituted for submission to the power of truth.   It leads to divisions and formation of sects” and it is usually the “outcome of personal preference or prospect of advantage.”

In the Bible, a “heresy” is a teaching that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.  The Scriptures include the Gospels and the Epistles.  Now, I have heard a lot of preaching and  I have gone to Sunday School for most of my life.  I am rather well-read and I have had quite a bit of university education.  I have not yet found a verse of Scripture that squarely supports or opposes family planning or the use of contraceptives.

Preachers have often used Genesis 9:7 (“be ye fruitful, and multiply”) to justify their stand against family planning. Well, I have a problem with that.  One, the directive was issued to Noah, one of only eight survivors of the catastrophic Flood.  Two, the context of the issuance of the directive to Noah is limited by the verses surrounding it: God forbade man from murdering other men who were also made in the image of God.  Three, the directive to multiply is also modified by the word “fruitful” which meant not only that mankind should bear children but that also mankind should plant and replenish the Earth’s vegetation so that the children that man will bear will have enough to eat.  We see Noah obeying this directive in the next chapter where he planted a vineyard.

The Old Testament is replete with admonitions to Israel that not only should they bear children (bearing children was a sign of blessedness and of prosperity), but that the children they should bear should be taught in the fear of the Lord.  Parents were directed to actively teach their children about the law of the Lord at all times in the course of their daily lives (Deuteronomy 6:5-9). One of the reasons for Israel’s captivity is that they have not taught their children the true worship of God.

So too, we see examples of Old Testament men of God who failed in their duty to teach their children well.  Jacob had too many sons: they envied each other that they conspired and plotted to kill Joseph. They ended up selling him into slavery in Egypt.  David the King had too many sons.  His son raped his daughter and his other son killed his brother who raped his sister.  In the New Testament, bishops were admonished to “rule their households” and to keep their children in “subjection.” The number of children was not the issue.  The issue was how we raise the children we have.

Personally, I think….

1)      The size of the family is an issue not of public policy but of prayerful submission to the will of God. It is a private matter that husbands and wives should discuss and submit to God.  It does not matter what the law states is the “ideal family size.”  We are not to live up to what man says as “ideal” we are to submit ourselves to God because it is He who has made us.  Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost and we are to honor God with our bodies.

2)      The RH Bill does not legislate how many children we ought to have.  It states rather that limiting the number of children a family feeds will alleviate maternal and infant death, poverty and the rapid depletion of waning food resources. Having too many children is also responsible for man denuding forests to make fields to plant rice and to build subdivisions to house the burgeoning population.  This denudation has resulted in floods.

3)      We ought to be responsible.  We cannot keep on having children if we are not capable of providing for our own.  We have to take stock of our physical strength and our economic ability and only have the number of children that we can feed, educate, teach and raise in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If we continue to have children year by year, thinking that anyway, God will supply our need, we presume upon the graciousness of God who has given us discernment in matters of Christian liberty.

4)      We should remember that Apostle Paul himself expressed that often marriage, child-bearing and keeping house take our time and attention from godly things.  Many Christians turned away from the faith not out of rebellion but of necessity: they needed time away from godly pursuits to provide for their family.  They have taken moral shortcuts and they have exposed themselves to unethical practices because they needed to put food on the table.  They have allowed the enemy to take advantage of them.

5)      We should stop thinking of the number of children as an issue of boasting or pride.  While children are a blessing and an inheritance from God, we ought not to think that the number of children we have is an indication of the unequivocal approval of God.  We are not better Christians because we have many children.  Sometimes, we do not become as effective parents precisely because we have too many children.  Child-bearing is not a competition. Having so many children is not a solution to waning church attendance either: you don’t bear many children to populate the pews! Childbearing is not a substitute for soul-winnng!

We were together yesterday, my husband, my children and I.  We were discussing the RH Bill. My son asked us why we didn’t have any more children after the two of them were born.  I said we waited four years before he came along, I thought we weren’t going to have any children at all.  I was happy I was given one, a son.  I wasn’t expecting any more.  I thought God had been so gracious already.  Imagine our surprise when I found myself pregnant again when my son was just nine months old!  We had a girl.  I thought our cup was full and overflowing.  We had been blessed twice over. No room here for greed: more is not better.

Hubby recounted to my son how when he was born, as we were holding him for the first time, we were overwhelmed. We were in tears. We felt so unworthy of the gracious gift God had given us and we felt we might be unable, of ourselves, to care and provide for him.  We ended up worshipping, thanking God and trusting fully in Him because we were not, of ourselves, able to raise this child in the fear of God. Hubby and I married late and we had children late. Our biggest worry was that we would die and leave them orphans: unprovided for and without a home of their own.

Our son had two brushes with death in his infancy: he had surgery at seven weeks and he had a life-threatening allergic infection at age twenty-two months.  When he recovered, we were convinced that God had truly been gracious to us.  We were content to have just two.  We told the Lord that if he entrusted us with more, we were willing but we were happy already.

We took parenting seriously.  When people congratulate us for having beautiful, healthy and talented kids, I often demur.  They are not ours: they are on loan; they have been lent to us for a time.  They belong to God and we are raising them to become worshippers and servants of the True and the Living God.

Let us look at child-bearing as a ministry and as an issue of faith in God and faithfulness to God. Let us make a godly choice in our way of thinking as well as our way of living because people around us are looking at us to see how we put into practice the doctrines we hold dear.