“Conscious co-parenting” is not marriage

Author and activist Van Jones recently announced the birth of his third child, a baby girl. The news was unexpected, given that Jones and the mother of his first two children divorced in 2018. Jones has explained that he and a friend decided to take on what he calls “conscious co-parenting.” They wanted a baby, so they had one, and now they will endeavor to raise their daughter as friends.

Many questions arise: How will this practically work? What happens if the two have a falling out? What if one moves out of town? What if one or both get married to someone else? What if they have other children with other people?

True, these questions could be asked of any “co-parents,” but that’s precisely the point: Raising children outside the bonds of marriage will always present the potential of serious insecurity and instability, no matter what kind of sophisticated or enlightened terminology is used to describe it.

“Conscious co-parenting,” like many modern euphemisms (such as “bodily autonomy” and “social justice”), is a paradoxical—if not entirely Orwellian—phrase, for to advocate or participate in “conscious co-parenting,” one must be entirely unconscious to the consequences of unmarried parenting.

In a study by the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, researchers concluded: “The intact, biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States.” Children from cohabitating homes, they found, are far less likely to thrive socially, educationally, and psychologically than children who lived with their married biological parents. Additionally, the transitions required of a child because of cohabitation, divorce, and single parenthood “are linked to higher reports of school failure, behavioral problems, drug use, and loneliness.” These findings are consistent with decades of social science data. Marriage is the gold standard.

This is not to say children who grow up in fractured families and broken homes cannot live successful lives; it is simply to acknowledge that the presence of a married mom and dad is the best foundation for a child’s well-being. Thus, to deliberately create a child, only to rob them of the stability-giving, identity-securing, safety-protecting institution of marriage between his or her biological parents, is unethical and immoral.

Children are always the unconsenting subjects of progressive social experiments. From abortion to reproductive technology, to unscientific school mask mandates, to the redefinition of the family, to the surrogacy industry and “conscious co-parenting,” children are consistently placed on the altar of adults’ wishes and societal change. Very few ever seem to ask: What consequences will children be forced to endure because of this change?

That is the very question Christians must seek to answer. In fact, Christians are always obligated to examine the gap between what is natural and what has been made possible through technology and political or social change. Within that gap may exist unintended ramifications that are often felt by those with the least power. When it comes to the reconfiguration of the family, children are the powerless party, and as voices for the voiceless, Christians are called to stand in the gap for them.

The same Jesus that beckoned the little children to Himself created the nuclear family for their protection (Matthew 19:4,14). While the world would have us believe that defending the traditional definition of marriage and family is bigoted or hateful, Christians know that agreeing with God is the most loving thing we can do. God is love, which means everything He creates, defines, and orders, is created, defined, and ordered in love—including and especially the family (1 John 4:8).

Why should Christians care if another person, particularly an unbeliever, acts in a way that opposes God’s order, like by purposely conceiving a child to be “consciously” co-parented? We care not only because the decision affects a vulnerable person, but also because we care about the society in which God has providentially placed us, whose welfare we seek. Any society filled with fragmented families and insecure, vulnerable children who are less likely to thrive as productive adults is too weak and broken to last.

Because we love our neighbors, we want a strong, stable nation. To have a strong, stable nation, there must be intact, cohesive families. To have cohesive families, Christians must reject trends like Jones’ “conscious co-parenting” and affirm that God’s creation order, including marriage, is infinitely better than any alternative.