A Crisis of the West

This guest post is from Mark Schultz, Regent Law 2L:

In the 1990’s, the State of Michigan was ground zero in a nationwide debate over physician assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a Michigan physician who seemed to have a lifetime infatuation with death. He assisted in the deaths of 130 people between 1990 and 199.[1]

The legal landscape at the time was uncertain. Michigan enacted a temporary ban on assisted suicide,[2] mostly to buy time for legislators to mull things over before crafting more permanent legislation.

Kevorkian challenged the temporary ban on assisted suicide and lost at the Michigan Supreme Court,[3] but the law soon expired. Kevorkian escalated his practice of sending elderly patients to their deaths and promoting assisted suicide. Kevorkian and his attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, who used his newfound defense lawyer publicity to run for Michigan Governor, pushed for legal physician assisted suicide across the country.

Kevorkian’s assisted suicide advocacy efforts had opposite effect he intended. His position proved to be far outside the Overton Window of Michiganders. In 1998, Michigan enacted a ban on physician assisted suicide.[4] Dr. Kevorkian didn’t care; he continued to kill old people and was soon convicted of second-degree murder under that statute.[5] Two and a half decades later, the debate over physician assisted suicide continues, even when it lacks high-profile doctors and patients to bring it to light.

Debates about assisted suicide tend to focus on theoretical concepts like the sanctity of life, personal liberty, care for the elderly, and informed consent. Both sides often fail to see real-world pitfalls of physician assisted suicide.

Older people who are nearing death think about things in a different light. They want to be on good terms with God and with as many people as possible. While this is a great intention, it can leave them vulnerable. One fear of the elderly is being a burden. They care so much for others as they prepare to leave this world that they don’t want to inconvenience others on their way out. This is when a theoretical right to die public policy measure becomes a duty to die in many people’s minds.

Many people today in nursing homes have very early childhood memories of the Great Depression. They worked and saved their entire lives so their kids wouldn’t have to wait in breadlines or hope a world war lifts them out of poverty. Their concern for others combined with financial costs associated with keeping them alive can coerce them to choose death when physician assisted suicide is a legal option.

Many people require specialized care for many years at the end of their lives. Their specific medical situation may prevent them from living with a son or daughter, even if both parties strongly desire it. While assisted living is very expensive, living in a skilled care facility magnifies that expense many times over. A Roth IRA or employer retirement account that took discipline and decades to build can quickly disappear when used to pay for a nursing home. Many people protect assets in a trust as part of a good estate plan and attempt to qualify for entitlements such as Medicaid, but many estate assets may still be subject to recovery by the government. Questions can begin to linger in people’s minds: “Is it worth it for me to spend all my money to live like this for just a few more years? I really want my kids and grandkids to have my mutual fund portfolio. Everyone says it’s ok and legal now to have my doctor help me die a little faster. Maybe I should just do that.” Beneficiaries can think things like “Would I rather visit Grandpa in the nursing home for the next 3 years, or would I rather be thankful for the good times we had together and instead have a share of his stock account that is quickly depleting?” Public policy in American must not reach the point of making physician assisted death look more appealing and valuable than human life.

Suicide is a crisis in the West, despite our status as the most prosperous and free people in all human history. We cannot simultaneously prevent suicide and promote suicide in different contexts to different people just because of various pitfalls of the human condition.

---

[1]Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, https://law.jrank.org/pages/7987/Kevorkian-Jack.html

[2] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 752.1027 (1992).

[3] People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994).

[4] MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.329a (1998).

[5] People v. Kevorkian, 639 N.W.2d 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Trauma Informed Lawyering Makes a Difference

 This guest post is from Elie El-Habr, Regent Law 3L:

"What on Earth is wrong with this person?" This is likely the most commonly asked question after just one day of observing courtroom proceedings in Virginia's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. But sometimes, the question ought to be asked differently. As lawyers, we must ask it differently. "What on Earth happened to this person?" is probably a good place to start. 

Our past trauma, whether experienced in adulthood or childhood, influences almost everything we do. It affects how we deal with happiness or grief, success or failure, love or hate, and calm or stress. Almost every human emotion is flavored by trauma. We can somehow take this precept as a truism, but still struggle with conducting ourselves in accordance with it. Am I really to consider opposing counsel's childhood trauma when I am on the verge of seeking Rule 11 sanctions against him? Do I really need to worry about my client's trauma when deciding how to advise her in a divorce lawsuit? The answer depends on another question: Who am I, as a lawyer?

If I view myself as a hired gun, then considering my client's trauma could not matter less. But I strive to be more than just that. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you," Matthew 7:12. As lawyers, we are gifted. We have the gift of stepping into the role of trusted stewards, bold advocates, and wise counselors. Our clients will most likely seek our assistance during their life's lowest moments. Being a trauma-informed advocate is thus paramount. I firmly believe that to live my life with Christ as a model, to achieve the highest possible level of self-actualization, to maximize fulfillment, and to promote the kingdom of God and His glory, I must seize every opportunity to contribute to my client's personal well-being---not just his legal well-being. It starts with knowing my client. And you do not really know people until you know what happened to them.

Personally, my childhood trauma affects nearly everything I do. It was not until recently that I discovered that, but growing up in an abusive household never leaves you (with every meaning the word carries). It's a double-edged sword. Wield it properly and it can propel you to prosper. Falter with it and you'll be on your way to failure. Through my relationship with Christ, I am learning how to wield it properly. But I also want to learn how to help others deal with their trauma and how to better serve others with an understanding of how their trauma affects them.

Children Lost from Families in Immigration

 This guest post is courtesy of Sally Glanzer, Regent Law 2L:

One of the pressing issues in navigating immigration policies is how children are impacted by the detention and deportation process. Both when families are processed at the border or during deportation proceedings, families are tragically often separated. Red tape, conflicting court orders, or immigration policies have resulted in families being separated from each other. As a result, there have been reports of “lost” children with some estimated numbers of 300,000 children missing from the system. These reports have been seen in each administration, so keeping track and ensuring safety for children when they are separated from their parents has been a consistent issue.

In 2018, an immigration regulation entitled the “Zero Policy” act greatly increased the separation of parents and children. Under this strict immigration policy, parents were prosecuted under the “improper entry” while simultaneously treating children as unaccompanied minors. The parents and children were transferred to different departments, and as a result, children and parents were navigating the immigration system separated from each other.  Although this process was eventually halted because of the harm it was causing to the children, it still had a lasting impact on those families.

Under the next administration, there were reports of an estimated number of 300,000 children that were “lost” in the system. It is important to note that these numbers primarily reflect children whose address is unknown, who missed court dates, or possibly never received notice. But these children that are lost both on paper and physically is evidence of a clear lack of organization and the increased risk of trafficking and danger that these children face in a system that overwhelms them.

Regardless of the administration in power at any time, immigration reform has become a pressing concern at the hearts of many Americans. At its core, we must ensure that our policies are protecting the most vulnerable. Families need to be reunited and kept together as they navigate the immigration system. These “lost” children are significantly at risk for trafficking in a confusing system full of adults. Whether Congress enacts laws or Homeland Security operations change, immigration reform should prioritize the best interests of the child and family reunification. That advances family restoration.

When Faith Demands Foresight: A New Year of Blessings

 This guest post is from Kainat Chaudhary, Regent Law 3L:

This past weekend, my dad became extremely sick, and our family was immediately thrown into chaos. Fear has a way of collapsing time, and suddenly, nothing mattered except getting to the hospital. On the drive to the hospital, my dad began telling me about his assets, how they must be distributed, and other important numbers. He spoke calmly, but with the awareness of someone who believed he may not survive. I was overwhelmed by the fear of uncertainty. In that moment, inheritance stopped being an abstract concept and became painfully real.

Thankfully, after spending two days in the hospital, my dad was released from the hospital. I was relieved and felt compelled to reflect on this incident.

As Christians, we confess that life is fragile. Scripture reminds us that “you do not know what will happen tomorrow” (James 4:14). We repeat this truth often, but rarely do we feel its weight until we are forced to. When mortality is no longer theoretical, clarity matters. And clarity is a gift we either prepare in advance or leave our loved ones to piece together in grief.

The life-giving words of John 3:16 must be at the foundation: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Inheritance is more than money. Spiritually, parents pass down faith, values, and example. Proverbs tells us that “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children’’ (Proverbs 13:22). That inheritance includes wisdom, order, and peace—not just assets. Yet physical inheritance matters too, because when someone passes away, the law must step in and distribute what remains.

Legally, if no will or estate plan exists, the state applies intestacy rules, default formulas that decide who receives property and in what share. These rules do not account for spiritual priorities, family complexities, or international assets. When property spans more than one country, the absence of planning can leave families navigating multiple legal systems while grieving, multiplying confusion at the worst possible moment.

Scripture consistently teaches stewardship. Everything we own belongs to God, and we are accountable for how we manage it. This responsibility does not end with our last breath. Creating a will or estate plan is not a lack of faith; it is an act of love and obedience to wisdom. It is a way of caring for others when we can no longer.

What struck me most was not just the fear of loss, but the burden my dad carried in trying to communicate everything at once. No one should have to compress a lifetime of work, sacrifice, and intention into a conversation overshadowed by sirens and uncertainty.

Christian faith calls us to trust God and also to act wisely. Planning what we leave behind is part of loving our families well.

Blessings to you and your family this new year.

The Birth of Christ & the Marital Presumption

 

Celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ is a special time of year for so many reasons, but most of us never think about the family law rule that protected the Holy Family.

The marital presumption is the legal assumption that a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the child of her husband. This presumption helps to establish paternity and supports the stability of the family structure in a legal context of marriage.  It provides a beautiful context for the child's safety and stability.

That presumption is at work in Matthew chapter 1 when the birth of Jesus Christ is told:

"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.' 

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' - which means, 'God with us.' [citing Isaiah 7:14]

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."         Matthew 1:18-25

Even at the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ God Almighty was at work protecting him with the law, and with parents married to each other for his benefit, stability, and continuity.

Rejoice this Christmas for His holy birth, and God's legal protection in the midst.

An Inheritance of Faith over 250 Years

 This guest post is from Dillon Stafford, Regent Law Wills, Trusts, & Estates Student:

            Recently, I embarked on a journey to trace my Stafford lineage to the first Stafford to immigrate to the “New World” from England. In this search, I found that, before my family arrived in Kentucky (my home state), the first of my line landed in Virginia in the early 1600s. While poring over documents that survived over the years, I discovered the Last Will & Testament of William Stafford III. What struck me about this relatively common document was not the earthly possessions that William left to his children, but rather the language of his opening paragraph, which showed the most valuable thing William passed on to his heirs, a knowledge that faith in Christ is the ONLY thing of true value we have in our earthly lives. The language in that opening paragraph is below (typos and all):

              “In the name of God amen the seventeenth day of February 1727, I, William Stafford of the precinct of Currituck in the county of Albemarle in the province of North Carolina whreof being very sick and weak of body but of perfect mind and memory, thanks be unto the almighty God for it, calling unto mind the mortality of my life and knowing it is appointed all men are to die, do make and -- this my last will and testament, that is to say principally and finally first of all I give and recommend my soul into the hands of God that gave it and my body I recommend to the earth to be buried in decent manner as a Christian ought to be at the discretion of my Exector, nothing doubtiing but at the general resurrection I shall receive the same again by the mighty power of God and as touching such worldlyestate wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this life, I give, deem and dispose of the same in the following manner and form:” After this paragraph, William outlines in detail how the earthly possessions are to be distributed amongst his wife and children.

              What was so beautiful to me was William’s emphasis that his earthly possessions meant very little without the eternity that follows death by one’s acceptance of Christ. This inheritance of faith in God carried through my family for 250 years to my birth and was a gift that passed down to me by my parents as it had been by their parents, and so on. I wonder if William Stafford III knew that his powerful belief in God and his documentation of that faith would live on so long and be inherited by so many generations. I intend to renew William’s language as I begin to draft my own will soon and hope to pass this remarkable gift of knowing Jesus Christ to my children.

Legal Risks for International Couples & their Families

 

This post is from Laura Allen Kawasaki 2L at Regent University School of Law:

International relationships are great—but they come with legal complexities. Here are a few important questions to think through for anyone in an international relationship:

1. Can you legally live in the same country?

It sounds simple, but immigration can be one of the biggest hurdles for international couples. For instance, immigrating to the United States can take anywhere from several months to several years depending on the visa type. If living together in the U.S. (or any other country) is part of your plan, it’s best to start preparing well in advance—gathering documentation, understanding timelines, and planning for possible delays.

2. Does your country allow dual citizenship?

Not every country allows dual citizenship. Some countries automatically revoke your citizenship if you become a citizen of another country. Before applying for a second passport—or for your child’s dual citizenship—it is ideal to confirm your country’s rules to avoid unintended consequences, such as the loss of your original nationality.

3. Will your children qualify for citizenship in both countries?

Children born abroad do not always entitled to citizenship. Many countries require registration within a certain time frame, and missing the deadline can mean your child loses the right to claim citizenship later. Understanding these timelines early can save a lot of paperwork down the road.

4. How do inheritance laws apply to your family?

Inheritance laws vary across borders. In the U.S., individuals can decide who inherits their property. In contrast, some countries enforce “forced succession,” which means certain relatives must receive a portion of the estate by law. Renouncing citizenship or failing to maintain your child’s citizenship could unintentionally affect their rights to inherit from relatives abroad.

5. Is your prospective spouse single?

This one may seem obvious, but it is worth checking. Not all countries have marriage records, and in some, polygamy is legal. Before getting married, confirm that your partner is legally and actually single in every country where they may have been married. Otherwise, your marriage could face serious legal complications down the line.

---

The bottom line: International couples face unique legal risks that non international couples will not encounter. A bit of research—and early legal guidance—can prevent years of stress and costly mistakes later on, and help keep families together.

 

Natalism and Family Formation: A Christian Perspective

 

This guest post is from Parker Brown, Regent Law 3L:

Questions regarding population trends, birth rates, and intergenerational care affect estate planning, social policy, and family law in consequential ways. Yet the contemporary movement known as "natalism" approaches these questions from a perspective that merits careful scrutiny.

Natalism. Noun: “an attitude or policy favoring or encouraging population growth.” This ideology is distinct from those of groups like the pro-life movement (which seeks an end or heavy restriction to the practice of abortion) or the consistent life ethic (which opposes war, euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion from an anti-death perspective).

While natalism shares concerns about demographic trends with pro-life advocates, it approaches these questions primarily through the lens of birth rates and population growth. The interest with birthrates arises from a number of considerations, be they spiritual, social, political, or economic. The natalist lens sees the existence of children as an anodyne for familial, community, and national tensions/strife/dissolution. Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation view lower rates of child having as a spiritual malaise impugning trouble for “the state of our souls.” And a variety of voices, from investment banks to advocates at the National Natal conference, view lowered levels of child-bearing as an existential crisis. Yet this position assumes inherent benefits (beyond a rational preference calculus) that having a child is a first order benefit for all persons as a first order consideration. Moreover, regardless of the severity and scope of natalists’ identified harms, their solutions present a metaphorical cure perhaps far worse than the disease.

 

Beginning with the first issue, we should recognize that universal parenthood as a policy goal presents significant challenges. Many potential parents would be poorly suited to the task, through either a lack of material resources, an absence of training, or a poor temperament mismatch. While the first two concerns could be alleviated with government intervention and aid, it does not follow that parenthood for all should be pushed before such considerations are weighed. The latter concern, however, is the simple truth that many people are ill-suited to be parents: through selfishness, propensity to violence, routine narcotic abuse, habitual indigence, and more. Given that more than 340,000 children remained in the US foster care system in 2023 and the rates of adoption from foster care have declined by 19 percent since 2019, it merits further consideration of why more children should be born before finding suitable and loving homes for all children already here. These realities suggest that our focus should include not only encouraging new births but also strengthening support systems for existing families and children that provide stable, loving homes (such as blended, multigenerational, multifamily, and adoptive arrangements). Additionally, though having children is tied to numerous prosocial benefits, there are numerous costs (pecuniary and personal) in having a child. Two studies in 2004 and 2012, respectively, found that recent parents report lowered levels of life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and day-to-day levels of happiness (lasting for several years, including and up to the point at which children move out). These arise from factors such as less sleep, stress over a child’s wellness, and quarrels over the direction of child rearing. SoFi also estimates the cost of raising a child, in 2024, at $23,000 per year (totaling $414,000 over 18 years). These costs demonstrate that the decision to have a child should not be entered into lightly.

Natalists counter that parenthood is a duty, even if you do not want or enjoy it. Their reasons arise from the aforementioned economic concerns (“we need a supply of workers; we need more young people to pay into entitlement programs to ensure longevity”), societal dogma (“without children, humanity will die out!”), and religious postulations (“God commands us to have kids”). I will discuss these points next.

Economic

At the first national Natal Conference in 2024, speaker Kevin Dolan succinctly remarked on the natalist economic perspective: “The entire global financial system, the value of your money. . .depends on growth.” This is factually true—our present economic system (oriented toward macro measurement of GDP [gross domestic product]) is principally concerned with growth in the short and long term. As a descriptive statement, however, we must be careful not to conflate it with a normative one: mistaking what is from what ought to be. The mere existence of a system does not presuppose its preeminence or positive benefits. Indeed, the distinction of concepts like the “GDP” move focuses away from other measures of economic success and prosperity for individual citizens, such as real wages, unemployment, domestic investment, housing affordability, et cetera. Each focuses on prioritizing an economy that exists for the people, and not a people existing for the economy. (This also ignores models showing that a reduction of birth rates, in some contexts, actually raises GDP growth). We will not dwell at length on these counterfactuals, though; they could not be adequately discussed in a few hundred words.

Societal

This concern relates to a topic called the “fertility rate,” a metric that measures the number of children each woman capable of having children is expected to have. Natalists speak about this subject extensively. This framing continues the above mindset of perpetual growth as inherently good. The question, here, revolves around something called the “replacement rate,” equal to a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman of childbearing age.¹ If the fertility rate is exactly 2.1, then the population size will be unchanged over two generations (~40 years). If the fertility rate is higher, e.g. 2.6, then the population will grow. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 2.6 will result in a population of ~156 million in two generations (~40 years).² By contrast, a fertility rate below the replacement rate, e.g., 1.6, will cause the population to shrink. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 1.6 will result in a population of ~56 million in two generations (~40 years).

In 2025, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.79. This amount is below the replacement rate (and below the apogee of the U.S. fertility rate of 3.65 in 1960). But this paints an incomplete picture: the U.S. fertility rate has risen from an all-time low of 1.62 in 2023 (an increase of 17 basis points and 10.49 percent). Furthermore, despite the U.S. fertility rate being below 2.1 since 2008, the U.S. population is not decreasing but increasing. The total U.S. population was 308.745 million in 2010; in 2020, the U.S. population was 331.449 million (a 7.4 percent increase). The U.S. population continues to rise as of 2025, too, currently estimated at 342.660 million. Given that the American population is not decreasing, why the concern from natalists?

The reason for their concerns and the reason for the population increase each point to a common thread, immigration,³ and the relationship between fertility concerns and immigration policy deserves careful scrutiny. Since they are interested in boosting the birth rates of their own citizens while the overall fertility rate around the world remains quite high, it is reasonable to view natalism as a subset of nativism. Given that the ostensibly first-order problem of overall population decline is not occurring (on the national or global level), the natalists’ viewpoint is thus ultimately concerned with fewer numbers of children from particular persons. Intended or unintended, the natalist movement at present has, unfortunately, attracted speakers whose views on race and immigration raise serious concerns.

The 2025 national Natal Conference found itself in precisely this quagmire. Though officially positioning itself as apolitical and ideologically unaligned (and the abstract idea of promoting child rearing could find support across the political spectrum), it has tethered itself to thought leaders on the radical right. Assembled at its last gathering was a consortium of eugenics supporters, white nationalists, and anti-immigration hardliners. Alas, they appeared not in the audience but as the keynote speakers. These included alt-right YouTuber Carl Benjamin (who publishes content online under the moniker “Sargon of Akkad”), Jonathan Anomaly (an academic and senior staffer at Heliospect Genomics, a startup that screens human embryos for high IQ points and other “superior” characteristics), Jordan Lasker (who, under the moniker “Cremieux,” publishes treatises on debunked pseudoscientific “race science”), and Jack Posobiec (an inveterate promoter of baseless conspiracies such as the Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax, PizzaGate, and the white genocide conspiracy, and who has repeatedly posted antisemitic symbols and comments on social media). The connection between natalist advocacy and racialized population concerns was made plain by keynote speaker Posobiec, who stated at the conference, “Western civilization isn’t just worth preserving. It’s worth fighting for. . . . This is a war, and natalism is our sword and shield, and we will not abandon the front line.” His framing of reproduction as civilizational warfare against demographic change echoes longstanding far-right rhetoric about ethnic preservation. These troubling associations significantly detract from and undermine the movement’s stated goal of a bipartisan consensus to promote families.

In addition to speakers from Heliospect, the through line of eugenics was further bolstered by adverts for the company Orchid (another prenatal screening company that analyzes embryos for their risk of having any of thousands of genetically linked diseases) and Bootstrap Bio (that goes beyond the mere filtering of embryos to the genetic modification of embryos via CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology (selecting, again, for the most “superior” of genetic traits). Each calls to mind the dystopian film Gattaca, which imagined a world bifurcated between the genetically engineered first class and the genetically “inferior” invalid class. Altogether, this shows a concerning revival of eugenics discourse (the belief that society ought to have more of the genetically “fit” and less of the “unfit.”) 

To be clear, not every attendee or supporter of natalist policies endorses these extreme positions. However, when a movement’s marquee national event features multiple speakers with documented histories of promoting racial pseudoscience and white nationalist talking points (and when this has occurred at successive conferences), a reasonable observer must question whether these associations are incidental or integral to the movement’s animating concerns. Given that prominent natalists advocate for raising rates of children not just with tax credits but also with political maneuvers (such as restricting contraception access, banning no-fault divorce, and giving parents of minor children extra votes in elections), one can reasonably be skeptical of a movement that is neither pro-life nor pro-family but merely pro-birth.

Religious

Given the above fiscal and sociological points, what should a Christian response be to the topic? Children are counted as a blessing from God (Psa. 127:3-5;⁴ Deut. 7:13-14⁵), yet there is no Biblical command that all must wed and have children of their own. Indeed, marriage is labeled as good but not mandatory practice for Christians (1 Cor. 7:1-2).⁶ Far from extolling a universal view of married parentage for all, both Jesus (Matt. 19:12)⁷ and Paul are clear that singleness is a calling for some (1 Cor 7:7-8;⁸ 1 Cor. 7:38).⁹ Life is a sacred gift that is a monumental responsibility to steward (1 Tim. 5:8)¹⁰ and at times a heavy yoke to bear (Ecc. 6:3-5).¹¹ When children are understood as a blessing yet not a duty, and when pretensions to ethnic supremacy are thoroughly refuted and disgraced (Deut. 10:17-19;¹² Acts 10:34-35;¹³ Gal. 3:28¹⁴), the Christian response should be one of freedom and support, not coercion. Prospective parents should prayerfully consider and discern their calling, resources, and circumstances when deciding whether to have a child (biological, adopted, or otherwise). Our hope rests in God's sovereignty, not cultural power. A natalism that privileges certain populations over others (whether explicitly or implicitly) risks subordinating the gospel to nationalist ideology. This is not merely a political error but a theological one, as it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God’s kingdom (which is built through spiritual regeneration rather than biological reproduction).

A Christian approach to family flourishing must extend beyond increasing birth rates to restoring and strengthening families in all their forms. Scripture’s call to care for the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner (James 1:27)¹⁵ directs us toward supporting struggling families, facilitating adoption and foster care, and creating communities where children already born can thrive. Rather than viewing low birth rates primarily as a crisis to be solved through political pressure, Christians might better address the root causes: Why do young adults feel unable to afford family formation? What barriers prevent willing parents from providing stable homes? How can churches create a culture that genuinely supports parents through the demanding seasons of child-rearing? I thus encourage the Church to champion healthy and happy families via promulgating policies that remove barriers to having children: affordable health insurance, paid parental leave, childcare support, and more. This push should be coupled with honor for those without children, whether or not by choice. The kingdom comes through disciples made, not babies born.

 

Endnotes

¹ The 0.1 is the mathematical representation of the tragedy of early deaths in childhood.

² Formula for population change in one generation: (initial population ÷ 2)*(fertility rate - 0.1)

³ Net migration to the U.S. has exceeded 1 million persons per year since 1990, with the exceptions of 2020 and 2021. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/net-migration

⁴ "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate." [ESV]

⁵ "He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock." [ESV]

⁶ "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." [ESV]

⁷ "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." [ESV]

⁸ "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am." [ESV]

⁹ "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." [ESV]

¹⁰ "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." [ESV]

¹¹ "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life's good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he." [ESV]

¹² "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." [ESV]

¹³ "So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'" [ESV]

¹⁴ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [ESV]

¹⁵ "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." [ESV]