After Individualism: When the Family Re-entered the Room
By Mims Schluter Atkinson, Director of Development at the Jubilee Centre.
“The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.”
The applause began as a speaker in a slick striped suit stepped into the spotlight and took their place behind the podium. The room fell quiet; notebooks opened, pens hovered, and the speech began.
Then a baby cried, cutting through my concentration as a couple in front of me, negotiated chairs, stilettos and a stroller.
The interruption was mildly inconvenient but also revealing. The conference I was attending had not simply made room for children; it had organised itself around the assumption that relationships and responsibilities belong within public life rather than outside it.
That assumption is worth examining. Why do families continue to matter, even in societies that increasingly define identity through individual achievement?
Among the academics, professionals and polished speeches were families: mums, dads and children sharing the same space. It made the policy conversations on stage feel less abstract and much closer to everyday life. Even amidst the roar of football fans, trends surrounding the Fifa World Cup have included many babies in ear defenders!
Watching this, I found myself wondering whether our renewed interest in family is simply a pragmatic response to demographic decline, or whether it reflects something more fundamental about human flourishing. If the family matters for more than economic sustainability, what theological account can explain its enduring significance?
That same tension is showing up beyond the conference room. A recent New York Times article on Usha Vance’s “pregnancy style” captured a wider shift in how family and fertility are being discussed in public life, noting that hers is the first public pregnancy in a vice-presidential family since 1870 [1].
Against the backdrop of pronatalism and growing concern about demographic decline, the family has re-entered the policy conversation, not only as an image, but also, as I saw at the conference, in practice. In the UK the fertility rate has been in decline with the lowest birth levels on record last year [2]. The Social Market Foundation (SMF) warns that this trend could result in fertility falling below 1.4 children per woman per 2030 [3].
Although renewed interest in fertility and the family has been associated with voices on the right, the SMF, in association with centre-left contributors, has argued that Keir Starmer and that the governing Labour party cannot continue to overlook the issue. This decline could see public services under strain as an ageing population results in the retired to working aged people ratio falls, causing new economic pressures.
The impact on our schools is also indicative of this trend too. The Education Policy Unit projects that by the end of the decade they expect there to be 400,000 fewer pupils than there are today [4], exacerbating the strain on our economy.
Concern about falling fertility rates is often framed in economic terms: labour shortages, pressure on public services and ageing populations. Yet these debates raise a prior question. Why should societies care whether family formation declines at all? The answer cannot rest on economics alone. Any concern about demographic change already assumes that relationships, intergenerational continuity and stable households possess social value. The biblical tradition offers an account of why that might be so.
To examine whether these concerns rest on normative assumptions about the centrality of family, we need to consider them alongside their philosophical and theological foundations. In the 2005 Jubilee Manifesto’s chapter on family, Michael Schluter suggests three main roles the family is intended to perform, drawing on biblical accounts [5].
As Christians we know the foundation of the importance of family life is rooted in the fact that we are inherently relational as image bearers of the eternally relational triune God. We know that from the beginning of creation it was firstly, ‘not good for man to be alone’ (Genesis 2:18), and secondly, the nature humankind being man and woman, expresses in their difference and union, the relational nature of God (Genesis 1:27).
To reflect God fully, the biblical foundation for the individual is to be in context of personal relationship with others. The family becomes the most fundamental and enduring expression of this principle (Genesis 5:1-3).
I would encourage readers to engage with the wider framework set out in Chapter 5 of the Jubilee Manifesto. As for Schluter’s three main roles as drawn from scripture, I will briefly address them in turn.
1. To provide individuals with context and a sense of identity
The earliest account of human creation in Genesis states that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). The Psalmist similarly writes that “God sets the lonely in families” (Psalm 68:6).
In Israel, systems of law gave the family significant social responsibilities, and the family unit, often identified by name and lineage, became a primary source of personal identity. It offered individuals economic, social and legal security.
Today, by contrast, identity is often shaped more by work, income or public profile. In biblical thought, lineage roots a person’s identity in past relationships and locates them within a continuing story. Even the genealogy of Jesus suggests that this ordering of society carries lasting significance.
While some may argue that New Testament writers place less emphasis on lineage, defining identity mainly through profession, wealth or status can weaken the social connectedness through which people understand themselves.
2. To ensure cultural continuity
The transfer of traditions and values from one generation to the next plays a vital role in the biblical story of salvation.
In Jesus’ ministry, Jewish law and culture provided the context in which he taught and through which his sacrificial death was understood. The household, including the wider multi-generational family, helped preserve and pass on these shared cultural and religious markers, as seen in the traditions of the Passover meal (Exodus 12:24–28).
One question is whether this pattern was unique to Israel, or whether it has wider significance today. The New Covenant suggests that every culture — every nation, tribe and tongue — has a place in God’s eternal purpose (Revelation 7:9).
It therefore seems unlikely that God would establish patterns for Israel’s family life, children’s education and intergenerational teaching if these were wholly irrelevant to other societies.
Under the New Covenant, the church becomes the primary community of formation. Even so, Paul’s reference to Timothy’s grandmother and mother shows that faith was still be transmitted through family relationships (2 Timothy 1:5). The care of one’s extended family is Christian’s principle responsibility (1 Timonthy 5:8). Be it parents, siblings, grandparents or indeed children.
Christian faith must ultimately be personally received rather than merely inherited yet, the family continues to have an important role in shaping identity, memory and belief.
3. Economic and welfare roles
In Genesis 1, the command to ‘subdue the earth’ is given to both man and woman. ‘Subduing’, perhaps better phrased as ‘stewardship’ through agrarian, economic and technological activity, become a primary context for cooperation.
Within Israel’s system of land ownership and inheritance (explored further in the original chapter) the family functioned as the primary economic unit for both income generation and wealth accumulation.
Schluter argues that one of the major pressures reducing this expansive role of family has been the growth of state responsibility in areas once carried primarily by households and extended kinship structures.
Conclusion
These biblical principles help explain why some argue for giving greater recognition to the family as an institution that shapes both culture and economic life.
Practically, this could involve encouraging closer geographical proximity between relatives to support rootedness and strengthen both relational and economic resilience. Because marriage remains a key institution within this framework, public policy could consider how social and legal structures support stable family life.
Families should also be treated as a protected and valued institution alongside professional aspirations.
As the conference sought to demonstrate, creating space for spouses and children within the design of the event allowed families to remain together throughout the gathering.
If families play such an important role in shaping cultural identity, transmitting values, and supporting economic and welfare functions, then greater attention should be given to how we sustain and nurture those relationships.
The conference was striking not because children were present, but because their presence challenged the assumption that serious public life and family life must remain separate, be it conferences, football stadiums, the office, concerts, festivals, citizen assemblies, gyms and universities. If family is more than a private preference, if it helps shape identity, transmit culture and sustain economic and social life, then how we structure institutions around relationships carries a theological, as well as economic, imperative.
References
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/style/usha-vance-maga-pregnancy-style.html
[2] https://www.jubilee-centre.org/blog-/demographic-decline-the-real-population-crisis
[3] https://www.smf.co.uk/keir-starmer-shouldnt-laugh-off-uk-birth-rate-challenge-think-tank-warns/
[5] Family, Michael Schluter, Jubilee Manifesto (2005)
[6] Think tanks such as the Centre for Social Justice have done extensive research into marriage and parenthood: https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/about/the-five-pathways/family
[7] Reactivating the Extended Family: From Biblical Norms to Public Policy in Britain. Michael Schluter: https://jubileecentre.sharepoint.com/Research/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2FResearch%2F0%20%2D%20ALL%20Jubilee%20Centre%20Intellectual%20Property%20%281985%2D2021%29%2FReactivating%20the%20Extended%20Family%20%281986%29%2Epdf&parent=%2FResearch%2F0%20%2D%20ALL%20Jubilee%20Centre%20Intellectual%20Property%20%281985%2D2021%29
