Dear Editor,

I write in response to your editorial in the October 1 issue of Sword & Shield, entitled “The Christian School as Demand of the Covenant.” I admit that right now I feel like a ship tossed to and fro when it comes to this whole issue of whether homeschooling is indeed condemned by the doctrine and demand of the covenant or not. I hear arguments on one side, and leave the conversation convinced that they are right, and then hear arguments on the other side, and leave thinking, well, maybe they’re right.  So I turn to the scriptures and the confessions with pen in hand to find the solid ground, namely Christ, upon which the covenant and covenant education is built. After studying Deuteronomy 6, Psalm 78 and the explanation set forth in your editorial as well as HC LD 12&21, BC Art. 27&28, and the Form for the Administration of Baptism, which all instruct us regarding our calling as members of the body of Christ and of the covenant, I have a few questions regarding exactly what the demand of the covenant is and how homeschooling in and of itself is inherently and inevitably individualistic.

I agree that there is a shared responsibility that we all have toward all the covenant children in the church. Whenever we are “by the way” with the covenant seed, we are to be an example of how they are to live as children of God
(Titus 2), we are to tell them the wonderful works that God has done (Psalm 107), and we are to instruct them in the way that they should go (Col. 3:16). However, while we are fellow brothers and sisters with the covenant children in Christ and thus have a covenantal calling toward them, we are not their parents and, thus, do not have the calling to parent them. We do not take on the calling of their parents. God has given them to a particular set of parents and God has particularly called those parents to rear and instruct them. Throughout the Bible, God repeatedly calls parents to this work of rearing and instructing the children God has entrusted to their care (Eph 6:4, Prov. 23:19-22, Deut. 4:9, Deut. 21:19). At baptism, the parents take the vow to instruct those particular children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And, at baptism, the congregation stands as a witness to that vow. As witnesses, we are responsible to ensure that the parents are faithful to their vow. We are responsible to ensure that the parents rear and instruct their children. And this is the congregation’s responsibility, not only because the congregation witnessed them take the vow at baptism, but also because, ultimately, they are God’s children (which is signified by baptism) and thus must be instructed in the fear of His name.

The truth that they are ultimately the children of God is why we often call the children in the church the children, not only of the parents, but also the children of the church. However, we must be careful that we do not misunderstand this. That the children of believing parents in the church are also children of the church does not mean that the church stands in a relationship to these children that is the same as the relationship that the earthly parents have with these children. It is not as if all the parents of a church all share children so that all the adult members of the church stand as parents to all the children in the church. This is the principle that lies behind the socialist “children of society” or “it only takes a community to raise a child” movement. We are not one big family that raises all of our children together. This idea of togetherness is not covenantal, but socialistic. The covenantal idea of togetherness is our unity and shared brotherhood in Christ (LD 21, BC 27). It is the unity we and our children and we and all the other members of the church have as members of the one body of Christ. And, as we have seen, such unity in Christ implies a certain calling one toward another to direct one another to our Father (Rom. 15:5-7, Eph. 4:1-6), to build one another up in the faith of our one Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (I Cor. 2:12-16, Eph. 4:11-16), to speak the truth one to another in love (Eph. 4:15), to rebuke one another when we do not live as children of God and do not walk in the Spirit of truth (Rom. 15:14, Eph. 5:11, I Thess. 5:14), to encourage and comfort one another in the gospel of our one Lord and Saviour as we face the temptations and trials of this valley of the shadow of death (I Thess. 5:11, Rom. 1:11-12, 2 Cor. 1:4, Eph. 4:29), to use our various gifts for the good one of another (Rom. 12, I Cor. 12, Eph. 4, HC QA 55, BC Art. 28), and, in all of this, to endeavor jointly to glorify God’s name (Rom. 15:6). Thus, just as much as we have the calling to instruct one another as adults, we have the calling to instruct the children. Again, I agree that each and every member of the church has a certain calling in the instruction of the covenant seed. However, I believe it is a calling each member has individually.

Thus, I do not understand how the doctrine of the covenant demands that all the members and parents of the church join together and cooperate in the rearing of all of their children. Is this really a demand of the covenant? Parents must join together and form a school in order to fulfill their covenant calling? It is argued that this principle is established in Deut 6:4-9 and Psalm 78. Page 11: “When God says, ‘O Israel, teach thy children,’ he is saying, ‘O Israel teach thy children together.’ Psalm 78 also requires togetherness in the instruction of the covenant seed.” However, every time I read these passages, it seems like bigger and bigger of a stretch to say that these passages are instructing the church as a whole in what they are to do all together as one group project rather than instructing the church as a whole in the common calling that each individual parent has toward his particular children.

In the case of Deuteronomy 6, the individual character of the calling I believe is evident from the following: 1. The immediate context. The same grammatical form is used in Deuteronomy 5 in the giving of the 10 commandments: “O Israel….thou shalt…” Yet, we understand that the 10 commandments come to each of us individually. They come to all of us in common, but they are to be applied to each of us personally. I do not see why we would not understand Deuteronomy 6 in the same way. All fathers have the common calling to rear and instruct their children, but they all have this calling personally and are to fulfill it individually within their own homes and with respect to their own children. 2. The language of the text itself. The language of the text emphasizes that this is a calling that the fathers carry out within their own homes. The language of the text depicts the life of a father among his children: “when thou sittest in thine house, and walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up” (Deut 6:7). The text (vs. 9) also speaks of “the posts of thy house” and “thy gates” which belong to that one father personally. Later in the chapter, in verse 20, we read of the sons asking their fathers, “What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?” This is a question that normally sons would ask of their own fathers rather than of all the fathers in the church. It seems clear to me that the text has to be talking about the common calling that each and every father in the church must fulfill individually.

In the case of Psalm 78:4 where we read, “we will not hide them from their children,” I believe “their children” refers to the children of their fathers, that is, the generations of their fathers, or, their fathers’ grandchildren. In teaching their own children of the works of the LORD, the fathers in Israel were not hiding those works and praises of Jehovah from the generations (or children) of their fathers. That “their children” refers to the present fathers’ own children who are also the children of the fathers’ fathers rather than referring to the children of all of the other fathers in Israel at that time is evident from the following verses 5&6. The passage reads: “1 Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. 2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: 3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. 4 We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the Lord, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. 5 For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children: 6 That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children:”

While I believe the demand of the covenant is simply that parents must rear and instruct their children in the fear of the LORD rather than that parents must rear and instruct their children together, I do not deny that a christian school may be necessary for many parents to fulfill their calling. In today’s world, which requires more and more education to live in society and fulfill one’s God-given calling, parents may find that they need help in educating and rearing their children. On the one hand, many parents cannot meet the academic demands their children need and therefore need to send them to a school. On the other hand, sending them to the public school requires a whole lot more work in rearing their children as they must now warn them of the dangers in the world, warn them against developing friendships with their ungodly classmates, scrutinize everything their children are being taught, and un-teach all of the lies presented to their children, replacing those lies with the truth regarding their Creator in every aspect of their study of His creation.  The parents soon find this to be an almost impossible situation. To fulfill their calling, therefore, the parents find that they need a christian school. Recognizing the gift of teaching given to some of the other members, they band together with like-minded parents to form a christian school in which their children will be educated and reared in the fear of the LORD. The other members of the church also support that christian school, since they are responsible to ensure that the parents are fulfilling this calling and thus must assist the parents in fulfilling this calling when needed.

Again, I maintain, however, that, while parents may come together in their endeavor to fulfill their covenant calling to rear and instruct their children, that doesn’t mean that the principle of the covenant demands that they must all come together to rear and instruct their children together in one christian school. The demand of the covenant is that parents instruct their children in the fear of the Lord to the utmost of their power and that the whole congregation sees to it and provides assistance using their unique gifts and abilities as needed. If parents are not able to fulfill their calling without setting up a christian school, then the christian school is necessary and is a demand of the covenant. However, parents that are able to rear, instruct and educate their children themselves through homeschooling are not defying the demand of the covenant simply because they do not send their children to the christian school. They have the calling to support the christian school as they are responsible for seeing to it that the other parents are faithful in fulfilling their calling and for assisting the other parents in fulfilling that calling, but they do not have to send their children to that christian school in order to fulfill the demand of the covenant. To be clear, I believe there are many benefits to educating the children together in a christian school, which benefits ought to be considered, even if one is able to instruct their children themselves. There are many things I learned at school being with children that are all different and come from different homes that I could not have learned at home. The covenant friendships developed are valuable. Certainly, there are benefits. Yet, the demand of the covenant is simply that the parents rear and instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and that the church sees to it that they are instructed in the fear of the LORD, for they ultimately are the children of the LORD. The  mandate that parents must send their children to the christian school, I believe, is a mandate that goes beyond the demand of the covenant.

Because I do not believe “all together” is an essential principle of covenant education, I do not see how a home-school could not be considered one of the christian schools that CO Art. 21 directs the office-bearers to maintain. As you pointed out, the necessity of the christian school is the necessity for ministers and office-bearers in the church. Thus, it makes sense that Art. 21 follows a series of articles regarding the office of the ministers of God’s Word in the Church Order. The children need to be instructed in the arts and sciences and must see God in all of these subject areas so that they can apply themselves unto wisdom in every area of life and may be equipped for their callings both in the world and in the church. However, I contend that this can be done in a home-school just as well as in a more formally instituted multi-parent run school. I see no reason why a home-school cannot be a good christian school. Considering the home-schools to be good christian schools as well, I believe CO Art. 21 directs us to take care that they are also maintained.

When it comes to the covenantal instruction of the covenant seed, therefore, I believe these four principles must be understood:

1. What is the “togetherness” of the covenant? Our togetherness is in Christ and in our calling to build one another up into Him as members of one body, using our gifts for the edification one of another. Our togetherness is not that we get together and all together educate our children in one christian school. Together means that, as members of one body, we are all corporately responsible, so that we assist the parents in fulfilling their calling as needed using the gifts God has given us in order to ensure that all of the children are reared in the fear of the LORD. Together does not mean that, as one body, we together become as one parent of all the children of the church so that we form a school in order to instruct all the children together. We together, as one organism in Christ, share in one purpose and calling and are united in our commitment to ensuring that all of the children are instructed in the fear of His name. Although we all have a common calling, we do not have to fulfill that calling together.

2. Who has the calling to rear and instruct the covenant seed? God has established families comprised of parents and their children, and God gives the calling to rear and instruct their children to the particular parents that God has given those children to. The language of Deuteronomy 6:4-9 emphasizes this calling of parents within their homes.

3. What is the calling of the church with respect to the parent’s calling to rear and instruct their children in the fear of the LORD? The calling of the church with respect to the rearing of the covenant seed is to instruct them as fellow members of the body of Christ as they are “in the way” with them, to ensure that the parents are fulfilling their calling to rear and instruct them in the fear of the LORD, and to help and assist the parents in fulfilling that calling if needed. This is where a christian school often comes into the picture as parents seek help in fulfilling their calling.

4. Is the formation of the christian school and sending one’s children to the christian school the demand of the covenant? While a christian school may be the fruit of parents’ endeavoring to fulfill the demand of the covenant to rear and instruct their children in the fear of the LORD, the school as such is not demanded by the truth of the covenant. That parents can fulfill their calling without banding together to form a school is evident from the fact that parents in the OT fulfilled this calling without forming a school.

If I am completely missing a crucial aspect of the covenant and working together is indeed a covenant principle, then my question is: How far does this demand to rear all together extend? At least 2 families in the church working together (since the form of the school isn’t essential, perhaps it takes the form of a few families here and a few families there homeschooling and getting together to share ideas and curriculum and to spend time fellow-shipping together once a week)? Or, at least half of one congregation working together (perhaps one half of the congregation prefers one form of education and the other half another form so that two separate christian schools are formed in which the children are educated)? Or, does the covenant demand that all parents of one congregation send their children to one and the same school? Or, does this “all together” extend to all the parents of one denomination within a certain mile radius? Or, all the parents of one denomination wherever they might live throughout the country? Or, all like-minded parents that know of each other in the world? To be honest, the more questions I ask, the more I feel like I am beginning to legislate godliness. But, what exactly does rear together mean?

When it comes to judging whether a member of the church is being covenantal or individualistic, my question is: Is homeschooling in and of itself individualistic? I find it difficult to understand how one can support the christian school financially, show interest and support for the christian school by being a member of the association, be involved in instructing the other children of the church on an individual level as they are “in the way” with the other children of the church in their life together, and yet be guilty of individualism simply due to the fact that they home-school their own children rather than send them to the christian school. When I consider how I as a single member of the church fulfill my calling in this regard, I confess that I do nothing more than such homeschooling parents do. How do I explain to them that I am not being individualistic but they are?

I am thankful for this opportunity to discuss these matters. Truly, they are matters of division between us within the congregation and thus are matters which we must discuss in the light of God’s Word in the endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I am thankful for the editorial, but I must conclude that I do not believe it accurately sets forth the principle of the demand of the covenant. Let us beware of the error of making the covenant to be all about togetherness. This is where many churches today have gone astray and have become more of a social institution than a church. While our unity in Christ as various members of the one body of Christ is what draws us together, so that we delight in one another’s fellowship, the demand of the covenant is not that we do things together, but that we do things for one another as servants one of another and fellow members of one body. Let us use our gifts for the good one of another. Let us recognize the gifts of the other members. Let us encourage and assist one another in fulfilling our callings. But let us not mandate more than what God mandates for parents. God calls parents to instruct and rear their children in the fear of the LORD. I do not see, however, that God demands of parents that they must cooperate with the other parents of the church by forming a christian school to fulfill this calling. They may, but must they?

Sincerely and respectfully in Christ,

Sara Doezema

REPLY

The strength of the above letter is that it makes the strongest possible case that the Christian school is not the demand of the covenant. If any reader of Sword and Shield has disagreed with the position of my editorials that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant,¹ then this is the letter for you. The letter sets forth a certain interpretation of scripture and the confessions on the matter, and the letter lays out a mostly cogent argument. The letter affirms what I trust everyone agrees with: the demand of the covenant is Christian education by the parents. But with regard to the Christian school, the letter only permits the Christian school. According to the letter, the covenant allows the Christian school for those who need it, and the letter even recommends the Christian school as good and even preferable and even necessary for many. But the letter’s chief argument is that the Christian school is not the demand of the covenant. The letter states the position clearly in its conclusion:

God calls parents to instruct and rear their children in the fear of the LORD. I do not see, however, that God demands of parents that they must cooperate with the other parents of the church by forming a christian school to fufill this calling. They may, but must they?

The strength of the letter is also its weakness. The letter makes the strongest possible case that the Christian school is not the demand of the covenant. But the strongest possible case is still not a strong case. The letter is contradictory and deals erroneously with scripture and the confessions. This does not mean that the letter is weak and erroneous throughout. The letter says many stirring and beautiful things about our unity and shared brotherhood in Christ and our calling in the covenant to serve one another with the gifts that God has given. There is much in the letter with which I can agree wholeheartedly. But on the specific issue before us, which is whether the Christian school is the demand of the covenant, the argument of the letter falls short.

In this reply I do not intend to deal with every question or every argument in the letter. As the letter states, it was written in response to the first editorial in this series. Subsequent editorials have developed some of the ideas laid out in the first editorial, so that some of the letter’s concerns have already been dealt with elsewhere, at least on a tangent. In this reply there are three things that I would like to focus on.

No Foundation

First, the letter destroys the foundation of the Christian school. The foundation of the Christian school is God’s covenant of grace with believers and their seed. God himself lays this foundation of the school in the scripture passages that these editorials have explained, especially Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 78. In these passages God commands his covenant people to rear their covenant children in the fear of his name. God demands of Israel that she labor together in the upbringing and instruction of the covenant seed. Israel—all Israel—is called to teach God’s words “diligently unto thy children” (Deut. 6:7). The members of the church confess that they will show God’s words to others than their own immediate children and to later generations than their own in which they may be alive: “That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children” (Ps. 78:6). The letter maintains that these passages refer strictly to the parent-child-grandchild relationship. The letter denies that these passages refer to others who would cooperate with the parents in the rearing of their covenant seed. According to the letter,

Every time I read these passages, it seems like bigger and bigger of a stretch to say that these passages are instructing the church as a whole in what they are to do all together as one group project rather than instructing the church as a whole in the common calling that each individual parent has toward his particular children.

By this argument the letter destroys the biblical foundation of the Christian school. The school that the letter envisions has no foundation in scripture. The school does not rest upon God’s command to parents to raise their children in the fear of God’s name. The necessity for the Christian school is not found in God’s covenant. The vital connection between the Christian school and God’s covenant is severed. God’s command to raise the children is only for the parents, and maybe for the grandparents, but for no one else. When a school is formed, it is not because scripture requires it. It is not because the covenant requires it. After all of the other scripture passages have been cited, it will have to be acknowledged that none of them actually require the Christian school. After all of the beautiful statements about covenant fellowship and unity in Christ have been made, it will have to be acknowledged that the covenant does not actually demand the Christian school. Whatever the foundation of the Christian school may be, it is not the covenant, and it is not scripture. In the covenant and scripture, there is no demand for the Christian school.

But a school must have a foundation. What is the foundation that the letter envisions? What is it that makes a school necessary, if that necessity is not the demand of the covenant? The foundation is merely the inability of the parents to train their children adequately.

In today’s world, which requires more and more education to live in society and fulfill one’s God-given calling, parents may find that they need help in educating and rearing their children.

Or the foundation is merely the extra benefits that some people may find in a school setting.

To be clear, I believe there are many benefits to educating the children together in a christian school, which benefits ought to be considered, even if one is able to instruct their children themselves.

But the foundation is not the covenant. The foundation is not the demand of the covenant or the demand of scripture. Scripture and the covenant only demand Christian education but not the Christian school.

Yet, the demand of the covenant is simply that the parents rear and instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and that the church sees to it that they are instructed in the fear of the LORD, for they ultimately are the children of the LORD. The mandate that parents must send their children to the christian school, I believe, is a mandate that goes beyond the demand of the covenant.

What a bleak and dreary vision for the Christian school!

There are two significant consequences of destroying the biblical and covenantal foundation of the Christian school. First, the Christian school itself will eventually fall and be destroyed. The Christian school cannot stand on any other foundation than God’s covenant of grace revealed in his word. If the covenant and scripture do not demand the Christian school, then the vital connection between the covenant and the school is severed, and the school will die. If the letter’s view of the Christian school prevails in the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC), the fall of the Christian school will happen much more quickly than in our Reformed ancestors. At least in the Christian Reformed Church and the Protestant Reformed Churches, for example, their schools can coast along for many years yet on their form and tradition. The RPC, which is not interested in coasting along on anyone’s form, will much more easily cast off the Christian school. When a Reformed Protestant school is challenged as being a wicked thing or an unnecessary thing or a vain thing, as has already been done by Reformed Protestant members, the school will have no firm foundation upon which to weather the storm. When the pressures and difficulties of establishing a new school and finding teachers and operating the school mount, as has already happened or will happen in every location where there are Reformed Protestant churches, the school will have no firm foundation upon which the members can stand to endure the difficulties. With no foundation in the covenant, those Reformed Protestant schools that already exist will more and more be abandoned for homeschooling or for Protestant Reformed schooling or for some other option. With no foundation in the covenant, those places that do not yet have a Reformed Protestant school will much more willingly and eagerly fail to establish one.

The second consequence of destroying the biblical and covenantal foundation of the Christian school is that the churches may not even permit Christian schools to be formed. Instead of seeing to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed, the consistories must see to it that the parents are not using any Christian school but are themselves exclusively instructing their children. After all, according to the letter, God exclusively commands the parents, and maybe the grandparents, to rear their children. God does not command anyone else to rear the children. What right, then, would any parent have to join with any other parent to hire a teacher to stand in one’s place? For a parent to do so would be for that parent to abdicate his calling from God. In such a case the parent’s own inabilities are not the issue. In such a case any additional benefits of a Christian school are not the issue. The issue is what God requires! According to the letter, God commands the parent alone, “Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children” (Deut. 6:7). The parent who hires a teacher to help or cause his child to be instructed in the truth is not himself doing the teaching, as God commands. Therefore, the parent may not tolerate another to instruct his children. The consistories may not tolerate the parents’ finding others to teach their children. God says to the parent, “Thou shalt teach,” and teach thou shalt. The parent and the church must become the enemy of the Christian school and seek to dismantle it. There may be no peace between the school and the home, so that some homes maintain a Christian school together and some homes do not. In obedience to the word of God, the parents and the consistories must oppose the Christian school as an abdication of the God-given calling that comes exclusively to the parent.

Over against this position of the letter, the word of God does give to all Israel the covenant calling to rear the children. The calling comes primarily to parents, who will most often be by the way and in the home with the children, but the calling comes to all Israel. God’s address to Israel in Deuteronomy 6:4 is not what might be called a distributive use of the word thou, so that God is addressing the whole nation in common but speaking to every individual parent about his own individual children. Rather, God addresses Israel. Throughout the passage, he does not stop addressing Israel. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou [Israel] shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine [Israel’s] heart…And these words, which I command thee [Israel] this day, shall be in thine [Israel’s] heart: And thou [Israel] shalt teach them diligently to thy [Israel’s] children” (Deut. 6:4–7). For a fuller explanation of the passage, see the first editorial in the series.²

A Curious Interpretation of Article 21

The second thing that I would like to address from the letter is its curious interpretation of article 21 of the Church Order. Article 21 reads: “The consistories shall see to it that there are good Christian schools in which the parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant” (Confessions and Church Order, 387). The letter interprets the “good Christian schools” of article 21 to include homeschools.

Because I do not believe “all together” is an essential principle of covenant education, I do not see how a home-school could not be considered one of the christian schools that CO Art. 21 directs the office-bearers to maintain.

And: 

Considering the home-schools to be good christian schools as well, I believe CO Art. 21 directs us to take care that they are also maintained.

This interpretation of article 21 is curious because it acknowledges that the school is a demand of the covenant after all. It acknowledges that article 21 demands that the school be maintained. It acknowledges that the school is a matter of necessity for the covenant children. It acknowledges that the school is “the necessity for ministers and office-bearers in the church,” which necessity includes seeing to it that there are schools and that the parents use them. Whereas the entire letter argues against the Christian school as the demand of the covenant, the letter acknowledges that article 21 requires Christian schools as the demand of the covenant, and the letter agrees with that requirement.

The letter tries to get around that requirement of article 21 by including a homeschool in the definition of the good Christian school. With this redefinition the demand of the covenant is really nothing more than the demand for Christian education all over again, but it is not the demand for a Christian school. This redefinition of the Christian school as also including a homeschool is not correct. The history of article 21 shows clearly that the Church Order referred to a teacher who stood in the place of the parents in the instruction of the covenant seed. The Church Order never referred to and never intended to refer to a home but to a school.

Nevertheless, in trying to include a homeschool in the definition of a school, the letter recognizes that article 21 makes the school the demand of the covenant. Instead, one should oppose article 21 as unbiblical. One should call for a revision of article 21 or its removal from the Church Order. One who does so will also have to call for the removal of question 3 in article 41, the removal of the reference to the schools in Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism, and the removal of question 18 of the church visitors’ questions. In all of these confessions and documents, school means school, not home and not homeschool. And in all of these confessions and documents, the school as school is treated as the necessary demand of the covenant.

Confused and Contradictory

The third thing that I would like to address from the letter is the fact that it is confused and contradictory in its argument. The letter is arguing that the Christian school is not the demand of the covenant. But the letter at the same time says there are circumstances when the Christian school is the demand of the covenant. 

If parents are not able to fulfill their calling without setting up a christian school, then the christian school is necessary and is a demand of the covenant.

But on what basis could the Christian school sometimes be a demand of the covenant? The letter has argued that there is no demand for the Christian school in scripture. The letter has argued that there is no demand for the Christian school in the covenant. The letter has argued that the only demand of the covenant is Christian education. On whose authority will the Christian school now become a demand of the covenant? At one point the letter rightly fears the attempt to legislate godliness. But that is exactly what the letter’s position will do. Denying that the Christian school is God’s demand in the covenant but saying that sometimes the Christian school is the demand of the covenant requires that someone other than God decide when the school is a demand. Who is that someone going to be? Me? You? Someone is going to have to legislate godliness with this position.

Another example of the confused and contradictory argument of the letter is its treatment of the relationship between the covenant members and the covenant seed. The letter argues that the parents are responsible for the rearing of the covenant seed, but the other covenant members are not responsible for that rearing. For example:

Throughout the Bible, God repeatedly calls parents to this work of rearing and instructing the children God has entrusted to their care (Eph. 6:4, Prov. 23:19-22, Deut. 4:9, Deut. 21:19).

The letter also makes this point by putting some serious spin on the argument of the editorials:

We are not one big family that raises all of our children together. This idea of togetherness is not covenantal, but socialistic.

And:

Together does not mean that, as one body, we together become one parent of all the children of the church so that we form a school in order to instruct all the children together.

That is putting some English on it, but the point is being made with some vigor that the parents, but not the covenant members, are responsible for the rearing of the covenant seed.

However, the letter also maintains that the covenant members do have responsibilities toward the covenant seed after all.

I agree that there is a shared responsibility that we all have toward all the covenant children in the church.

And what might that shared responsibility be?

Whenever we are “by the way” with the covenant seed, we are to be an example of how they are to live as children of God (Titus 2).

But the language of “by the way” is from Deuteronomy 6. That passage was already ruled out for all Israel and was limited to the parent but now must be applied to others than the parent as God’s demand also upon them.

I believe that this confusion and contradiction in the letter are not due to some weakness in the author but are due to the inherent contradiction of the argument itself. It is impossible to isolate the covenant seed from the other members of the covenant with regard to their rearing but at the same time try to recognize the relationship of the covenant members to the covenant seed. This inherent contradiction is solved by recognizing that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant.

Conclusion

The letter makes the strongest possible case that the Christian school is not the demand of the covenant, but the argument actually destroys the Christian school. Let the parents and the church not depart from the biblical and confessional view of the Christian school as the demand of the covenant.