It’s just struck me that somewhere around the time (in the twentieth century) that we stopped talking about marriage as God’s tool for propagation, we also stopped taking evangelism seriously. I wonder if there’s a connection? It used to be that, when a couple got married, the minister talked about the purpose of marriage and included words to this effect (from the 1689 Book of Common Prayer):

“First, It was ordained for the blessing of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.”

• Perhaps the injunction to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Lev 26:9) was needed in Biblical times, to stop the family or tribe or clan from dying out, since there were few enough people around. In Abraham’s day, having children was a blessing to both father (because his name was carried on down through the ages, and was his passage to such eternity as he understood), and mother (God blesses her by giving her children – 1 Sam 1:5-7, 27). However, today we don’t need to propagate the species – we’re in no danger of extinction.
• Or perhaps the move from farm to city during the industrial revolution fueled the decrease in family size – on a farm, you need lots of hands; in the city that’s a lot of mouths to feed.
• Or perhaps the recognition at the beginning of the twentieth century that the world population was growing geometrically, that there were too many people already, and smaller families were preferable, encouraged the de-emphasis on having children.

So family sizes became smaller in the West, and (late twentieth century) in USSR and China as well. According to Gapminder.com, only India is still growing furiously.

In Ephesians 5:31-32 Paul speaks of marriage as a metaphor for Christ and His bride, the Church. In this metaphor, a case could be made for the time before marriage (in the family of one’s youth) representing the old pre-Christian life, and the time from the marriage onward as the new Christian life. As such, once married (having become a Christian), it is important to ‘procreate’, ‘bear fruit’ or birth new life.

(Which begs the question, “Is the parallel true to the point that, just as it takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world (with One notable exception!), does it take both parties to bring a Christian into salvation?” – and of course, the answer is ‘yes’. You obviously can’t do it without the Groom, but the Bride is, without exception, involved in the birth as well.)

At some time – in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century? – we evolved the decision that the focus of marriage was really not on having children, but on the relationship of the man and wife. The passage from the Book of Common Prayer began to be dropped, along with the bit about the bride obeying the groom. Being married to ‘have babies’ was not a nice or genteel thing to think about in Victorian times. (We weren’t too keen on the ‘with my body I thee worship’ bit, either!)

My point is that – somewhere around the same time – we began to think that although missionary work overseas was important, and the Salvation Army work in the cities was important, the church was not supposed to invite others to Christ who lived locally. This was a time when almost everybody went to church, so if I didn’t go to your church, then I must have been going to another one down the street. If I went to church, then of course I was a Christian. It was an intrusive and even offensive invitation. My minister viewed it as poaching by your church; I viewed it as none of your business, and you wouldn’t catch me talking about a topic that had become uncomfortable and controversial.

Any thoughts? Stick ‘em in the comments below…

   Send article as PDF to