How many children?

If you're like me, you get annoyed by authors and commentators who casually throw out the word "biblical" like a twenty-ton trump card. Try Googling the word. You'll find polemics and recipes, books and institutions--all aimed at narrowing and defining what is and isn't "biblical."

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in family issues. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Council for Biblical Equality have been sparring over Paul's infamous words for nearly a decade. Somewhere in the midst of all this debate, the issue of children has been raised. The questions are: Must Christian couples who are able have children? And if so, how many is enough or too many?

These questions may seem strange to some. That's because they are strange--but they are not going away. Unless we are resigned to personal freedom as our only guide (and I think this is how many of us live, truth be told), we must pause long enough to reflect on the witness of Scripture and the Church.

Scripture.
The Bible says in Genesis 1 that we are to have kids and fill the earth with them. The Psalms remind us that children are gifts from God. Jesus arrived on earth not as a grown man (as had Adam), but as a child. He suffered the little children to come to Him, and said that the kingdom of God belongs to them. True religion, says James, is looking after orphans--abandoned children. Many key biblical figures (Adam, Jacob, and David come to mind) had lots of children. Others were barren and had small families after God blessed them (Abraham and Sarah, Hannah). Children are those who will continue the family line. Parents are given the privilege of passing not only possesions to them but also the faith. Nowhere, however, does Scripture mandate any couple to have a certain number of kids.

Church.
The witness of the Church in this area has been somewhat schizophrenic. For centuries, the most devoted Christians in the world abstained from sexual intercourse altogether. Nonetheless, the growth of the Church has been sustained over the years largely by the bearing of children (hence the historic strong opposition to birth control by the Roman Catholic Church). All but the free church traditions (Anabaptists, Baptists, etc.) uphold the practice of initiating children through baptism into the community of faith at infancy. The indoctrination of children through catechism or Sunday School has always been central in Christian practice. Religious families today continue to have higher than average birthrates. This is particularly true in secularizing places like Europe. This, by the way, is not just a result of the eschewing of contraception, but rather, stems from the conviction that raising children is a privilege. It is God's will. And for some (but certainly not all), the more the better.

So it seems that neither Scripture nor Church tradition provide definitive answers to our questions: If we can have children, must we? and If so, how many? Many have attempted to answer these questions, but to do so, they must introduce other elements into their reasoning. These other elements include pragmatism and virtue ethics.

Pragmatism.
Pragmatism is the reigning philosophy and ethical framework of our day. It is life according to what works best or produces a desired outcome. However, the issue of children has been handled pragmatically by married couples from the beginning of history. When Cain, the first child ever born, killed his younger brother, Abel, their parents, Adam and Eve, immediately set about having another child to replace the one who was lost. The desired outcome may have been to assuage their grief, but more likely it arose from the practical need for an heir (since Cain was cut off). Young women from the time of Eve onwards have withstood tremendous labor pains (epidruals are a fairly recent innovation) for reasons of sheer survival. The lack of an heir means that everything the family has (primarily land in agraraian societies) will be lost in one generation. A lack of children would have meant destitution in old age. To have children, therefore, is to survive. The insuffrable King Henry VIII did not have his wives put away or put to death because he believed sons were a sign of God's blessing. No, instead he knew that sons were a symbol of his legacy that would continue once his own life expired. Having no heir threatened the very legitimacy of his rule.

Although the stakes are much lower in urban, capitalistic, and democratic socieities, there are still many couples who choose to have children because of some desired outcome. Children for some couples still represent an economic advantage (i.e. someone to take over the family business, tax breaks from the government, etc.) or social security in old age. They may fill a need for companionship for some. In affluent societies, children (natural or adopted) can even be treated as a trendy accesory to show off in polite company, similar to the latest handbag or sports car. Churches, unfortunately, can be ugly examples of this kind of behavior, often making infertile couples (who make up 1/6 of the married population) feel inferior or excluded.

On the other side of the equation are couples who intentionally choose to have few or no children. Their numbers are on the increase, as declining birthrates in affluent societies bear witness. Children for some represent an economic burden. Having children severely limits the options of what a couple can do in their spare time. Some prefer having pets instead that can be easily boarded for weeks on end to make way for long holidays or other pursuits. More recently, there are arguments that children are a threat to the environment. I just finished reading an article about a professor who recommends having 2 or fewer children in order to fight not world hunger or overcrowding, but global warming due to the large CO2 output of humans.* Christians too can espouse some form of this logic. Some mission agencies, for example, have long discouraged large families that place undue burden on those supporting them financially. Environmentally and socially conscious Christians are sensitive to the concerns that children born in the West consume at exponentially higher rates than their counterparts in the developing world. Whether the desired outcome is economic advantage, social justice, or a healthy planet, couples are still left without a clear principle on the issue.

Virtue Ethics.
Loosely defined, virtue ethics is concerned not so much with a desired outcome but rather the character of those who are making the ethical choices. Prospective parents might ask themselves questions like, "What sort of family do we want to be?" or "How can we embody the values of our community in our decision?" The last question may be especially difficult to raise much less answer answer in hyper-individualistic societies. However, it is particuarly relevant in religious communities of faith. Virtue ethics must necessarily address the concerns of those who are infertile, those who are underresourced, and the concerns of creation care. However it must also address the witness of the community in history, both in Scripture and in the Church.

Virtue ethics is more complex than asking what others might think of a very personal decision. It is the willingness to submit to the values of the community and the kind of character it seeks to instill. Perhaps that is why semi-closed religious communities (such as in Mormomism, Amish communities, or in more communal forms of Protestantism) have higher than average birthrates. There are sociological reasons why missionary communties overseas free from institutional constraints are full of large families. Large families (particularly in societies where children are undervalued, treated as commodities, or limited by law) are often a living testimony to the value and worth of human life created in the image of God. The discipline and indoctrination of children often happens outside the walls of the home, even in the West. How or whether we discipline our children says much about what we value and the kind of people we are. In a society where autonomy and anonymity are high values, virtue ethics may make us quite uncomfortable.

Toward a Solution...
Pragmatism is an easy solution in that the question of children is answered by what works best in a given situation. However, couples who choose large families for, say, econcomic reasons yet fail to properly care for or discipline their children are not doing society (or their children) any favors. Likewise, couples who choose not to have children in order to promote a trendy cause or travel the world certainly do not usually win many admirers. Despite the obvious defincies of pragmatism alone, however, no one can ignore the practical issues involved in having and raising children.

For Christians, it is the lack of a specific biblical command on the subject that makes us scratch our heads. "Be fruitful and multiply" cannot possibly be universalized in a day in which so many couples who want to have children cannot, and a day in which poverty and human suffering are true epidemics. The Bible itself forsees a time in which pregnancy and having children will be a curse as opposed to a blessing (read, for example, the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24, specifically verse 19). This seems to be referring to the time immediately preceding Jesus' return, but the shadows of such a time can be seen in our own day. The same world that keeps Wal-Mart and McDonalds turning record profits allows more than 30,000 children to die each day from hunger-related causes. Headlines of child homelessness, forced child prostitution and school shootings allow us to ask questions some might consider unthinkable such as, "Could it be better that some children are never born at all?" And yet, children still represent the hope of innocence and renewal in a fallen world. Are we suprised that the Bible uses language like "born again" and "children of God" to describe the community of faith?

The questions I have raised, "If we can have children, must we?" and "If so, how many?" must be answered by every married couple. They are not new questions, and they will not be going away anytime soon. There are no easy answers, nor should there be. The decision to have a child is one of the most significant (having eternal consequences) that any human being can undertake. Adopting ontological positions such as "children are biblical" or "children are bad for the planet" are insufficient grounds to make such a decision. For example, if having a child is always the right thing to do, then why not have as many as possible? Why stop at 3 when you can have 10? If having a child is always wrong, how can that ethic be propogated or enforced when those who hold to it have threatened their own ultimate survival? If having a large family is always right, what about those who cannot support their children financially? If having a large family is always wrong, then why do we seek to end human suffering in communities with high birthrates? Are religious communities, therefore, always a threat?

These are real questions, not just an academic exercise. Katrina and I are planning to move to a part of the world where the number or children a couple can have is restricted by law. Nonetheless, many of our colleagues have chosen to have several (three or more) children. For us to follow suit would mean financial and relational hardship. We call three countries of the world "home." Plane tickets get more expensive as children get older. We must ask the question whether the need for our respective families to see their grandchildren is more or less important than the need for our partners to be satisfied with how we spend our money. We must ask how important it is to model the parenting of multiple children in a society where single children are both terribly spoiled and put under tremendous pressure to succeed by their parents and grandparents. We must consider how fair it is to raise children who have no say in the matter as to where we call "home." We must consider how valuable it is for children to grow up with one or more siblings. We must consider how long we can realistically live overseas as our children get closer to university age. We must consider the long-term impacts of birth control. We must consider our role and witness within our organization and within the universal Church.

None of these questions is unique to us. In fact, most of them are as old as life itself. Some societies have tried to make an end run around the questions by issuing a decree from the top down. Others, like our own, leave it up to the individual (yet fallen) conscience of the couple. Neither approach, in my mind, is sufficient. We must look to the Bible, but more than that, to the God who is revealed therein. We must look to the world He has created. We must look to the community of faith, the embodiment of Jesus on earth. We must look to our families, and even, down the road, to our children. We must talk to the One who has adopted us into His family.

In case you were wondering (if you've read this far), we are not expecting another child that we know of. However, we are asking the questions. Katrina and I love Ella Grace more than we could have imagined before that day in February when we found out she was coming. We pray that she will grow to be a follower of Jesus who will go where the questions lead. We believe that she will grow (as some have spoken over her) to be an ambassador of reconciliation in the world. And we think that she would do mighty fine with a sibling or two.

As followers of Jesus ourselves, the very least we can do for our children is ask the hard questions.



*One is left wondering whether the affluent intelligentsia of the world will soon be outbred and overwhelmed by those who still consider children a means of survival. Birthrates are still highest in sub-Saharan Africa, which is also the whereabouts of the world's worst HIV/AIDS epidemic. Would the same professor suggest that we stop our fight against the disease so that expensive beach homes in Cape Cod don't end up underwater? Just curious where this thinking leads. Furthermore, I have never heard of any tenured professors volunteering for suicide or isolation from modern conveniences in order to combat global warming. How, then could they apply for grant money? Global warming is a serious issue that must not be trivialized or made anathema for people of faith due to such foolishness.