Last week a friend wrote me with this question: “God says be fruitful and multiply. Where does family planning fit into that?” This was my response (I welcome feedback):
I think it is important to note that even though something is a commandment of God in Scripture that doesn’t mean it is always for all places and all times. God commanded that Israel obey the Sabbath, and that they circumcise their male children on the eighth day, yet the Apostle Paul could say that after Christ these things are no longer necessary because their purpose is fulfilled in Christ (along with much of the Law of Moses). We could even examine Gen 3.17-19 where God commands men to work the ground after the curse yet we know that this doesn’t mean that men cannot have office jobs and the like now.
So what is important to ask is whether or not a commandment demands obedience in all ages and all places. We should also ask “why?” about a commandment. Most of the “be fruitful and multiply” reference occur in the Book of Genesis when humanity is young and/or the family of Abraham was young. God doesn’t limit this commandment to humans, but all species. Why? Well, because it was necessary for the survival of our species and every other species at that time.
We (1) don’t live in the same world with the same mandate now and (2) we don’t see anywhere in the New Testament where the church is told that this is necessary. Jesus himself had no children nor married and neither did the great Apostle Paul. It is apparent that the lack of emphasis on this command shows that the early church didn’t see it as binding for all places and all times. In fact, the Apostle has favorable things to say about people who remain celibate for the Kingdom as does Jesus.
So family planning, in my opinion, is realizing what stage in history it is that we reside and caring for God’s creation in light of that. If we can’t manage more children it is OK to cease having them. If we can’t manage children at this stage of life, or we don’t want children, we are under no obligation from Jesus or any of the New Testament writers to continue the mandate we find in the Book of Genesis.
the archives near Emmaus 
This seems like a well thought-out response, Brian. Thanks!
Great post, Brian.
In my conversations with couples, the struggle always comes down to an issue that has more to do with quality of living for the family and potential new baby, than an issue of obedience to God (though I agree with your view that it is no longer binding). Perhaps the questions is not “Should we still ‘be fruitful and muliply?” but rather “What are the reason we hesitate in having babies?”
I think if we are honest with ourselves, we might find that the answer has a lot less to do with struggling with a command, and more to do with us understanding our role in God’s redemptive narrative: the gospel.
Brian,
What do you see as underlying the reason more contemporary people refusing to have children in light of the majority of other civilizations since the beginning of time? Why is the subject of family planning sometimes contentious even?
Also, regarding the time/place context (“So family planning, in my opinion, is realizing what stage in history it is that we reside and caring for God’s creation in light of that”), what do you say to the post-modernist who believes that the right thing for creation today is to cease having children due to concerns with over-population or as a way to “reduce your carbon footprint?”
I would also suggest reading the command in Genesis 1 along with God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15 and then the fulfillment of that in Exodus 1:7 which has a striking resemblance to Genesis 1 (and not coincidentally I think). It seems to be the theme of Genesis which is then checked at the door of Exodus where the second part of God’s promise to Abraham (i.e., land) is taken up.
@Morgan: Thanks and you’re welcome!
@T: Would you see a couple who doesn’t want children as possibly doing so in such a way that it does function for the benefit of the gospel?
@James: I’m not sure why many contemporary peoples from Europe and the United States seem to be less interested in children. I move between interest and great disinterest in being a parent. In part, this would have to do with (A) my own relationship with my dad that has been nothing but sour for most of my life; (B) a long history of these types of relationships in my family tree; (C) the speed of life which makes it so hard to imagine adding another human into the mix to that degree; and (4) it cost like one millions dollars to raise a child to the college age and more and more children stay with their parents after age eighteen. I cringe at the thought of paying that much cash to raise a child. Of course, my “child” is only an abstract concept at this point.
As to those who think they may not want children to “reduce their carbon footprint” that is fine and dandy. If they think that everyone should do this they don’t seem very “postmodern” to me (where is the live and let live?), so I’d press them a bit on their opinionated attitude. If they really think humans should stop reproducing for the sake of the planet it may be time to discuss their anthropology to ask what good this planet would be if everyone stopped reproducing.
@Ryan: When read through the lens of “Adam = Israel” this makes good sense. If Adam was a model of what Abraham was to rewind than it was once necessary for Abraham’s family to become a “people” which they do accomplish before the Exodus which will eventually make them a nation in the land.
I actually struggle with that question.
Initially, I think it is conceivable (haha) for a couple to not have children for the benefit of the gospel Immediately, though, another question enters my mind: Would not being married benefit the gospel even more? I think this question comes from a mindset that perceives the most natural progression for couples as being unmarried (no sex), married (sex), babies. I wrestle with whether or not this is an appropriate response to the question you posed.
Because on the other hand, marriage seems, in many ways, to be the most intimate context for experiencing the realities of the gospel: love, forgiveness, grace, all in the midst of sin. Great questions, Brian. Thanks for the challenging thoughts.
@T: I tend to think that while the most natural progression would be the one you provided there is also legitimacy in not following all the steps, like Jesus and Paul did when they did not marry so a couple could do by not having children. If they determine to partner to “parent” a church or cause instead of children it could be a valid expression. At least I am open to it.
Are you an undercover dispensationalist, Brian? 😉
@Bobby: Let me provide an easy answer: no. 🙂
@Brian, I know, just kiddin’ 🙂 .
@Bobby: I fear that such a rumor would spread far and wide!
@Brian, Yes, I may have to start a campaign 😉 .
This is my personal opinion but deciding not to have children in an effort to reduce our carbon footprint is probably one of the silliest things I have ever heard, and frankly I would contest the “godliness” of such a notion. The whole notion of reducing our carbon footprint, in my opinion is not biblical, but worldy and maybe even anti-biblical. Obviously we are to care for the earth and such but I do not see not having kids part of the solution because reducing our carbon footprint implies the need to reduce our presence on the earth not “increase” it.
I agree more with the idea that the decision not to have kids is entirely personal and practical thanh anything else (and for many is often rooted in selfishness and materialism then for more “noble” reasons such as not contributing to over population, etc), but like I said, this is my personal opinion. the couple needs to explore the real reasons why they don’t want kids and begin to engage those issues.
Thats a timely response. I was always unable to reconcile the concept of being fruitful and such with Jesus and Paul. Thank you brian!
@Brian F: I think language like “carbon footprint” can obscure the issue because of the socio-political contention related to global climate change, but as I attempt to think through it biblically one thing comes to mind. First, as I have stated, the NT no where reiterates the command to have children and in multiple places exalts eunuchs of the Kingdom. Second, in Rom 8.18-22 the people of God are directly connected with creation in a shared destiny.
From this I gather that one area in which Christians can be faithfully living toward the age to come is creation care since in the context of Rom 8.18-22 it seems that Paul envisioned a return to Eden type scenario (at least this is how Irenaeus and many others have read it). If creation is waiting for the new humanity, which reverses the actions of the Adamic humanity, then creation care in this age is a sign of things to come while reproducing isn’t. Just food for thought.
@Roger: You’re welcome!
Brian,
How does this reading square with the sort of canonical reading you have argued for elsewhere? How does this reading square with the historic teaching of the church or of Judaism?
It doesn’t seem like your normal approach to exegesis. In fact, and as a theological liberal I mean this as a compliment, it sounds like a very liberal reading (in the sense of a maximal acknowledgment of the claims of modernity).
@Dan H: Irenaeus of Lyons interprets this passage as I do. He argues that it must be so because the promise of Abraham must be fulfilled that the land is given to his children. This is in Against Heresis Book V. John Chrysostom reconciles it with 2 Peter 3 by suggesting we see both continuation and discontinuation. To build on Chrysostom we may use the analogy of bodily resurrection where there is both radical continuation and discontinuation in one breath. I’d have to dig back through the notes I am using for my current thesis to give more, but I know Calvin and Luther interpret it in a similar way (Calvin is more precise). Athanasius seems to hint at creation (including humanity) being in view. Augustine is harder to understand because he focuses almost entirely on the human redemptive aspect of 8.18-25.
Brian,
The fathers and reformers have indeed made readings similar to yours but with completely different context and intent. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all condemned family planning (In fact they were all harsher than even the contemporary Catholic Church seeing no validity to non-procreative sex). They would not have made the argument that persons should attempt to divorce sex from procreation under any circumstances. The testimony of the ancient church (Or at least the ‘orthodox’ contingent is pretty unanimous in this belief).
@Dan: Ah, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about my reading of Rom 8.18-25. I completely agree that on this matter I would be swinging opposite of most of the church. It is complicated because the church herself has been very supportive of monks and nuns, but you are right that this is a different context because they are abstinent. My argument that this can apply to married couples lacks the historic support, but we must seriously consider our context wherein the world is moving much, much faster and we have the ability to prevent pregnancy without having to terminate one. It would be a fair argument (and I’ve heard it) that I am wrong to care about career and finance and time spent alone with my wife when I could be fathering children. Maybe, but I still maintain that it follows logically that if Christ doesn’t demand we are married then he doesn’t demand that we are reproducing, even if most view this as less respectable than those who have children.
“My argument that this can apply to married couples lacks the historic support, but we must seriously consider our context wherein the world is moving much, much faster and we have the ability to prevent pregnancy without having to terminate one.”
We have always had the ability to engage in sex acts which do not naturally result in pregnancy (The fathers and reformers themselves speak out strongly against such acts). What has changed is our general attitude towards human sexuality which has largely been formed by modern psychology, biology, and our own personal experience. I’m in total agreement with your stance on the issue but it seems to me a maximal acknowledgment of the claims of modernity and not, as it were, the product of the tradition of the church or a plain reading of the scriptures.
This is not an indictment of your position or your larger project but I found it rather strange in light of our previous discussions around theological liberalism. What, for example, would be your take on the question of homosexuality in the life of the church? A straight forward reading of the scriptures and tradition would make a strenuous case against it but modern psychology, biology, and the personal experience of many seems like an analogous argument for a consideration of our context and revaluation of theological commitments.
@Dan: I would depart on this matter in that we do not find any straightforward biblical statements in Christian Scripture condemning not having children as being sinful or idolatrous. For those of us who wish we could toss homosexuality in with family planning there are those nagging passages like Rom 1.18-32 where homosexual behavior is pretty much outlined. I don’t think this denies psychological, biological, or existential insights, it simply maintains that one can be born with a propensity toward sinfulness. Whatever Paul’s opinions may or may not have been in regard to not having children once married he nor any other canonized writer ever sat down to make it a mandate. It may be a thin line that separates the two, but that is where I see the line.
Brian,
I think it would be helpful if we took the focus away from simply not having children as this would include celibacy which we both agree was not only permitted but the recommended by both canonical authors and the early church.
The real question is if all non-procreative sexual acts are included in what the New Testament writers call Porneia.
I think we both agree that the the vast majority of both the early church fathers and the reformers would have considered all non-procreative sex acts Porneia. And as St. Paul tells us Porneia is the equivalent to idolatry.
What would you consider to be “Porneia”?
Dan: The only passage that comes to mind would be Heb 13.4, but that seems to equate the defilement of the marriage bed with unfaithfulness to one’s spouse, not sex without the intent to reproduce. When Jesus speaks of it as grounds for divorce it seems like a bit of a stretch to assume he would have included the lack of desire to reproduce as reason to opt out. As far as it being includes in a Pauline definition there doesn’t seem to be any obvious reason to include it. We’d have to merely assume that he did. So it seems that porneia is used in reference to sex away from the marriage covenant, not sex within where both partners consent that children are not the aim.
If the “fruitful and multiply” portion of Gen 2 is to be read in a contextual and limited view (which your thoughts and arguments on that point are quite compelling IMO), do we treat the command to “replenish the earth” as a once-for-all command as well? And is the “replenishing of the earth” specifically applicable to child-bearing?
Many Christian environmentalists (which should be all Christians) point to Genesis as evidence that we are stewards over Creation, and our behavior should bring replenishment to the earth. Would it be an errant exegesis to use this passage to support Christian’s redemptive work in the earth? It would seem odd that one part of the command was for the immediate audience only, and the other parts of the command are once-for-all
If it were grounded in the Book of Genesis only, then we may have trouble. That being said, we often find Israel and the land being tied together in the prophets so that Israel as the people of God are responsible to care for their lot of earth (the Promise Land) like Adam and Eve were to care for Eden. When they did not give the land rest (or a Sabbatical) this showed that Israel was failing to care for the creation God had given them. The Apostle Paul seems to make this connect in Rom 8.18-25 as well, connecting the people of the New Covenant to the created order in such a way that creation cannot be freed from her curse until the children of God are resurrected. We know that the resurrection is part of the age to come, therefore the renewal of creation must be at that time as well.
This is why I am arguing not only from “beginnings” but also eschatology. In the age to come creation is free because we are the new humanity who oversee her. In the age to come we will not be married or given into marriage. The eschatological trajectory provided by Paul suggests that humans will care for creation even into the age to come after the curse is lifted, but we will no longer marry or reproduce.
So I tend to see this “already, but not yet” era as one in which we must think theologically and creatively about what Scripture says for us. Scripture doesn’t say, “All married people in every age must reproduce if possible, because this is the outcome of sex.” Scripture doesn’t say, “All people everywhere must recycle because in the age to come the earth will be renewed, you will be her caretakers, and therefore you ought to live now as you will then.” As N.T. Wright and Kevin Vanhoozer have written, we are in the act of God’s cosmic drama where we must improvise yet not stray too far from the Script[ure] given to us. We don’t have to reenact acts that have come and gone (i.e. we do not have to leave Ur or go into Egypt to tell Pharaoh to let God’s people go), but we must seek to be part of the same narrative.
So I ask myself, “Does having children connect with the previous scenes?” Yes, it does, so having children is not a bad thing. “Does having children make sense when anticipating the age to come?” Yes and no since we are not there and every child who comes into this world may one day be given the resurrection unto life, so our reproduction offers “them” a chance to know our God. “Does caring for creation appear in previous scenes?” Yes, God demanded it of Adam and he demanded it of Israel. “Does caring for creation make sense when anticipating the age to come?” Yes, because if we believe this creation is “good” as God called it, if we are now grafted into Israel’s tree so that we are God’s people, and if in the age to come God is going to renew (Rom 8.18-25) and purge (2 Pet 3.10-13) this planet, in order to make this very creation “new” like we are “new” at the resurrection, then if I share the values of God’s already, yet still coming Kingdom I will behave toward this creation in such a way that it shows her respect and it lets her realize that I am one of those children of God upon whom she waits for her redemption. If we believe creation is “groaning” as Paul says then we will do what we can to relieve that pain.
Even at that we share this planet with others. So it is not merely Genesis-Commands and Eschatological-Previews that determine this for us, but it is also principles such as stewardship and loving our neighbor as ourselves (i.e. dumping waste in the river doesn’t do much for my neighbor down stream). It is also faith in the God that we believe redeems the land. If we believe God wants to do this, and we think it is right, why destroy creation? I apologize for the lengthy answer, but I hope it makes sense of why I see a difference between the mandate to reproduce and the mandate to replenish creation.
Conjugal love with an openness to procreation – Beyond the Birth Ape ad hominem of PP
Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae 1968 provides insight into why “be fruitful and multiply” is inherently a basic principle that should not be swept away by the currents of modernity, po-mo deconstruction, and whatever else that results from the consequences of ”eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” His address was in a response to the question of artificial contraception (family planning) and a principle even transcending that issue.
As Roman Catholic Bishop Seratelli opines: “Pope Paul VI taught that “By means of the reciprocal personal gift which is proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife tend toward that communion of their beings whereby they help each other toward personal perfection in order to collaborate with God in the begetting and rearing of new lives”(Humanae Vitae, 8). In a word, he said that the unitive and procreative aspects of conjugal love should be joined together. When they are separated by artificial contraception, the exchange of love between a husband and wife no longer expresses in its fullness true mutual love and its ordering to the vocation of parenthood (Humanae Vitae, 12).” This to me reveals what is the essential flaw in the advice provided. It neglects the perfections that come through an openness to God’s provision of a being greater than the two selves joined together, a being that will test and hopefully purify the sanctification of both.
Other problems are resident as well. First, the use of “reproduction” discloses language that has a subtle embrace modernity’s notion of a child as a choice and product along with the epicurean and utilitarian aspects attached. Procreation which includes, but is not reduced the pleasurable state of consciousness of a good orgasm, is separated from the notion that the two ‘come together’ in the presence of God asking His blessing upon their union of love for on another in Him. Should He decide to bless their sacred offering with a child (Psalm 139) then praise be to Him. Reduction of sacred sex to mere biological grunts and groans returns humanity to copulating humanoid animals prior to Genesis 2:7 or worse the naked and ashamed hidden from God’s presence after the Fall.
Beyond this travesty is thinking that “we are like God” in insight in “Family Planning” being duped by the medico-industrial complex into believing that hormone therapy for suppression of ovulation, for instance, will free the woman from her “reproductive” cycle (see the Enovid debacle only to find her subjected to unforeseen breast cancers and other untoward side effects (i.e. exploitation of woman, infertility, eggsploitation etc).
I wonder if the blog and its comments, which I consider expressions of some really gifted young minds in theology, magnificently reveal an aspect of an unwitting Hegelian intrusion and totalization of the human person. It is an unwitting totalization that sees the human person at a new progressive “historical stage” where we can plan our children among our many products which fulfill our personal and progressive social wants while forgetting God’s call to “give oneself totally to the other” (Familiaris Consortio, 14 John Paul II).
I am sure there is some selling out to a modern mindset, but I am not as convinced that this is wrong. If a couple does not use that extra time allotted to them for the health of their relationship and the good of others, it may be wasted. But if a married couple can maintain the time given to them that they had while single, yet do so in loving partnership for others (rather than children of their own), then why is this not similar in one sense to what Paul did by choosing to not marry in a day and age when it demands one create a family?
I see modern science as benefitting us here and I don’t think all of us are cut out to be parents in a day and age that is moving at a pace faster than any generation has ever seen. I know I’m not ready, nor interested, in being a father. I am interested in other aspects of Kingdom work though, and I am thankful for the time I have to give to those tasks rather than the task of rearing a child.
Quite an interesting discussion going on here. I’ll throw a few questions into the mix.
Brian, you’ve used the examples of Paul and Jesus not being married to support the idea that “be fruitful and multiply” is no longer binding. The NT makes it clear that it is okay, and may even be better at times to not marry, but is it possible that the command could still be binding on those who do make the choice to marry? Obviously an unmarried person(Jesus or Paul) is not bound by the command, but does it necessarily follow that it isn’t binding on married couples? (I’m not necessarily arguing for this position, just wondering)
Is it possible that those Christian couples, my wife and I included, who don’t have children, and have actively chosen that (insofar as one can), have their priorities somewhat skewed? Once married, they seem to maintain the state of not having children that exists prior to marriage, as the norm, and view having children as something they are unprepared for, don’t desire, or want later. A decision to have children would require a great deal of prayer, consideration, planning, etc. I’ve been wondering lately whether we should view the decision to not have children in that way, and view contraception with the lens that we reserve for having children; as something that we would only pursue if we felt God leading us there for some specific reason, or after a great deal of prayer of seeking counsel.
Lastly, I think that in our freedom to not fulfill “be fruitful and multiply”, a great many Christians have made use of many of the contraceptive methods out there, without really understanding how they work. I think the research suggests that the pill and many other methods, equally common among Christians as anyone else, not only work to prevent conception, but also can and do cause abortions when they fail in that. It doesn’t really speak to the point of your post, other than to point to a practical issue often overlooked in how one would go about avoiding children.
I appreciate the insightful discussions here as always.
@Luke: Yes, it is very, very possible that I am incorrect in bringing the eunuch discussion into the mix to discuss whether or not married people must have children, but then again we have little help otherwise. Sometimes Paul would give his opinion on a matter and tell the church that he has “no word from the Lord” so that he as an apostle had to make an apostolic declaration absent of subsequent teachings by Jesus. In some sense we are analogous here. We have nothing that goes back to Jesus and the apostles where they say, “In the Kingdom of God a man and a woman who are married sin against God if they do not seek to serve as God’s conduit for creation when they have sex.”
We could suggest that people in Jesus’ day would have assumed that sex is for creating a family. That is worth considering, but not a clinching (or even strong) argument for me since they believed many, many things about the world that we know today is not true. So their basic worldview is worth considering, but I don’t think that this makes it inherently better than our own in all areas.
If we are going to discuss the quality of the matter we may say the ancients had a better life because they didn’t minimize sex to pleasure (though I hardly find sex between married people as being minimized since it is a strong and essential bond for marriage itself, even for couples who cannot have children!), but we could also say they had better conversations because they didn’t discuss these matters on blogs. In some sense it is neither here nor there since we live now and they lived then and there is no reason to pretend this is not so.
As far as how contraceptives work, each couple must be responsible for the Lord to know how it works in good conscience. And I think that is my understanding of the whole matter, it is a conscience thing. We have no command and I don’t think the simple fact that we can have children means that it is always best that we do.
What’s interesting about this debate is precisely how it is not about personal or confessional beliefs about cosmology. The Butler Act and more contemporary legislation demanding “equal time” for intelligent design are attempts to mandate the teaching of confessional beliefs in public schools as science. There wouldn’t be a debate as such without the political component. Millions of people, for instance, believe in astrology. Astrological forecasts are published in papers around the world every day yet there is no grand ‘debate’ in the sense of our debate over evolution. The reason for this is that those devoted to astrology make no attempt for it to be taught as science in public schools as opponents of evolution do. Lets remember that the Templeton Foundation actually sought to fund scientific research in intelligent design and solicited research proposals, they simply never came in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
Sorry for the above! Wrong post for that comment.
Brian,
When you say, “We have nothing that goes back to Jesus and the apostles where they say, “In the Kingdom of God a man and a woman who are married sin against God if they do not seek to serve as God’s conduit for creation when they have sex.”” you are correct. However we do have both the cultural milieus of first century Judaism and the early church and it seems pretty clear that former would have kept the commandment to be fruitful and multiply (Some communities in the most literal sense of having children until at least 2 boy and 2 girls are born as in contemporary ultra-Orthodox Judaism) and the later would have condemned all non-procreative sex acts as sinful.
One can make a similar case that neither Jesus nor Paul made an explicit argument against pedophilia and I think you would rightly not support such an argument.
Such literalistic and minimalistic readings of the text are problematic and seems at great odds with your usual method of reading (Following the likes of Wright etc.)
@Dan: I have already conceded that there may be some inconsistencies in my overall methodology of moving from Scriptural text to Second Temple Jewish culture to early Christian interpretation when attempting to understand how we should move from text to theology on a given matter. This isn’t the first subject where I’ve made this move (e.g. my local church has no Bishop though early in Christian history a hierarchy emerged and has the weight of history), but I am cautious when doing so.
While we may have a cultural understanding of the role of sex (though I wonder if the Greco-Roman world would have shared this view with the Jewish world as the day-to-day level), but I maintain that we do not have words from anyone in the earliest days of the church suggesting that this was important. It may have been assumed, but it is hardly a command. To treat it like one is to appeal to a cultural perspective that is never stated to be a necessary normality.
As regards pedophilia I am fairly sure you can see the weakness of this comparison. Jesus is very straightforward that if any child is offended by someone they’d be better off tying a rock around their neck and jumping in the sea. Also, what is clear, in Scripture, unlike this discussion, is that sex is for the marriage bed, so sex with a child whom one is not married to violates plenty of Scriptural principles that a couple not having children does not.
“I don’t think the simple fact that we can have children means that it is always best that we do.”
completely agree!
“I have already conceded that there may be some inconsistencies in my overall methodology of moving from Scriptural text to Second Temple Jewish culture to early Christian interpretation when attempting to understand how we should move from text to theology on a given matter. This isn’t the first subject where I’ve made this move (e.g. my local church has no Bishop though early in Christian history a hierarchy emerged and has the weight of history), but I am cautious when doing so.”
What is interesting here is that you break with your methodology when it’s outworking runs contrary to your personal experience. You experience your church as church and thus the theological method is thrown out. You experience your relationship with your wife as a genuine Godly relationship and thus the theological method is thrown out. I’m sure you weigh these matters carefully and make these decisions prayerfully but at the point when your theological method cannot be applied to affirm your ecclesial community and your relationship with your wife I think it’s worth re-evaluating your theological method. It doesn’t seem to resonate with the deepest and most meaningful parts of your day to day existence.
“As regards pedophilia I am fairly sure you can see the weakness of this comparison.”
I was speaking here of the cultural practice of taking child brides (as young as 11 or 12) a common practice nowhere addressed in the New Testament. Something we would clearly label as pedophilia in a contemporary context. Should the church approve of such unions because Paul and Jesus were silent in their day?
@Luke: Good to hear, lest it be time to have children for you!
@Dan: I break with the methodology when the Scriptural principle lacks clear data. In other areas there may be strong data and the appeal to contemporary culture and the early church is for the sake of clarification. When the data is weak, as it is in this case, then the culture and the early church are helpful, but they are not clarifying anything. They are only providing secondary options where there is no primary option.
As to child brides let’s reexamine your question itself. You ask if the church should “approve” of this as if there is some sort of doctrine to which we can appeal that provides moral language for addressing this issue in all places and cultures. We have no such data. I don’t know that it is “wrong” (Jesus’ mother was probably fairly young when she was wed to Joseph). In our modern world we may suggest that it is not ideal or the best option, though I am sure that peoples from other cultures can provide reasons for why it is the best option.
Obviously by your wording you consider this pedophilia. I am sure you can nuance it to suggest that a young woman whose father marries her to a man participates in her subjection unwillingly, but it is not that easy of a one to one. It is not a subject that we can position ourselves to say, “This is what the early church would have thought and what Scripture teaches, therefore we should do A.” Rather, we must ask ourselves whether or not in the world in which we live if this is the best way to love our neighbor as ourselves, to raise women and give them opportunities, and so forth. That is a very different discussion that the direction it seems you seek to take it.