At the apex of God’s creative workweek, we find him crafting a man, then a woman, and directing them to “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28).
It might surprise younger Baptists to know that Article 18 wasn’t included in the 1925 BF&M. Or the 1963 version. It was added through a revision, adopted by messengers in 1998.
The foundations of marriage and family are unmistakable in Genesis 1 and 2. The Father brings his daughter to the man (2:22). The bridegroom makes a vow that he and his new bride are united as one, and she takes his name (2:23). Verse 27 puts a period at the end by declaring that this is the origin of marriage. And in case you missed it, Jesus quotes it when teaching about marriage (Matt. 19:5). So does Paul (Eph. 5:31).
So why wasn’t this foundational theological issue addressed in earlier faith statements? Southern Baptists likely never felt there was a need. Through the first half of the 20th century, marriage and family were highly regarded in American society. But attitudes toward this institution began to change in the 1960’s, when divorce rates, and cohabitation, began to climb. By the 70’s and 80’s, feminism was challenging gender roles, and LGBT culture was pushing out of the closet and into the streets. The 90’s saw the legal definition of marriage under serious pressure.
The decades-long erosion of the biblical ideals of marriage and family had led to ground that felt about to give way. As in 1925 and 1963, Southern Baptists responded by clarifying their beliefs on what they saw as a theological foundation—God’s design for the family.
When Article 18 states, “God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society,” it is not just speaking to the chronological timing of the creation of marriage. It is establishing the importance of the subject. The ordered experiences of all human relationships, from the individual to the village to the nation, are built first and foremost on the family.
In writing the article, the committee did not intend to scold culture, but to reaffirm a better way for all. “We are saying to the culture this is God’s direction for family life. The end result of it is a better life for everybody,” Anthony Jordan, chairman of the committee that drafted Article 18, wrote at its 1998 adoption.
In an era of shifting definitions of what can be a family, Baptists drew a circle around the extended family, with room for grandparents, cousins, and children, with a female mother and male father, covenanted together for life, at the core. They also included those adopted into the family. After all, if the earthly family ultimately points to God’s heavenly family, adoption holds a significant place, as Paul writes in Galatians 4.
What is the purpose of marriage? Its highest purpose is revealing the union between Christ and his church (Eph. 5). But God also laid out the earthly purposes of intimate companionship and procreation in Genesis 1.
Paragraph three, unsurprisingly, has received the most criticism, especially from those outside the convention. It presents a thoroughly complementarian view of the relationship between husband and wife. God gives the man and woman equal value but different roles in the family. The husband is to love and lead as Christ loves the church. The wife is called to submit to the husband’s leadership and be his helper in managing the household and raising the next generation.
And lastly, in an era of declining birthrates, due to choice rather than biology or medicine, Article 18 speaks loudly that children are “a blessing and heritage from the Lord.” It urges parents to authentically live out and teach their children biblical truth. In turn, children are to honor and obey their parents.
If the vision cast sounds challenging, it is. But it’s God’s vision. The family was instituted before the fall of Genesis 3, and we won’t do it perfectly. Yet when people seek to follow God’s plan for family, we can feel a bit of the pre-fall goodness inherent in its design.
Article 18 posits the centrality of the family in culture. Specifically, it speaks to biblical values related to the marriage relationship, the unique roles of spouses, and the value of children from the moment of conception. Without using the words, it cites the issues of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, divorce, complementarianism, and abortion.
Does this approach (elevating broader positive Scriptural concepts) encourage debate of specific current issues? Does it leave room for new issues to emerge?
Making it relevant:
Article 18 does not name transgender or sex-change medical procedures. Is that issue addressed with this hermeneutical approach?
Can you name another emerging social issue that the article on family addresses, even though it was written 25 years ago?
The growing traditional wives movement (“trad wives”) shows a recent shift away the liberalization of marriage roles. Is there evidence of this shift among younger families in your church or community?
