Introduction

The burden of these editorials has been that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant. The covenant of God with believers and their seed requires that believers work together in a Christian school for the covenantal rearing and education of their children. The form of the Christian school may vary according to time and circumstances, but there must be a Christian school in which parents labor together, and whatever school is formed must rest upon the biblical principles of covenant education. In those places where it is yet impossible to establish a full school, let the parents and other believers nevertheless band together to seek ways and means for the Christian education of their covenant seed. In those places where a good Christian school exists, let the parents and other believers be vigilant in using the school and in maintaining covenantal instruction and rearing in the school.

The position that these editorials have taken is that of the Reformed confessions and Church Order. The position is clearly and succinctly expressed in article 21 of the Church Order. “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). In this article of the Church Order, “the demands of the covenant” refer not only to “instructed” but also to “good Christian schools.” The demands of the covenant are not only that covenant children must receive covenant instruction, which is true. But the demands of the covenant are also that there be good Christian schools and that the parents have their children instructed in these schools. Not only Christian education but also the Christian school is a demand of the covenant.

The burden of the present editorial is that the Reformed Protestant Churches must recover this principle that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant. This principle was abandoned and denied by our mother church in her classical and synodical decisions of 2006–09. Those classes and synods decided that the Christian school was not a demand of the covenant and that article 21 only made Christian instruction a demand of the covenant. The assemblies made the Christian school a good option, and even the best option, and even an option that the consistories were to urge the parents to use. But for all that, the assemblies decided that the Christian school itself was not a demand of the covenant. 

Most of us who are now members of the Reformed Protestant Churches lived under that decision for more than a decade when we were members of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC). Some of us may have even been involved in the making of those decisions and the teaching of those decisions when we were officebearers in the Protestant Reformed Churches. For all of us, it is possible and even likely that the decisions of our mother church have sunk deeply into our thinking by now and have become part of our own view of the Christian school. It is to be expected that our thinking regarding the Christian school has been shaped by the decisions of our mother. It is even possible that we think the Christian school may not be demanded of us and that the consistory must leave us alone in the matter of the establishment and use of the Christian school. However understandable that thinking may be, it is not Reformed or covenantal. That thinking is a departure from the biblical principles expressed in article 21 of the Church Order: “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.”

Therefore, as we stand in these early years of our churches and as we labor to establish school associations and schools in our various locations, let us also recover the glorious Reformed heritage of the Christian school as a demand of the covenant. The reformation that God is working among us is far-reaching and includes not only the recovery of the gospel of unconditional covenant fellowship, the recovery of the office of believer, and the recovery of the pulpit, but also the recovery of the Christian school as a demand of the covenant.

The Denial of the Demand

The Protestant Reformed Churches were convulsed by a controversy from 2006 to 2009 regarding article 21 of the Church Order. The controversy began with a Protestant Reformed minister who withdrew his children from a Protestant Reformed school in order to homeschool them. Members of the congregation protested and appealed to consistory, classis, and synod. The decisions of the assemblies became the occasion for further protests and appeals. All of this came to Synod 2009, which was the denomination’s last word on the matter. The details of the case need not concern us now, and the interested reader can pursue the matter in the respective Acts of Synod of the PRC. What does concern us now is the PRC’s interpretation of the phrase “according to the demands of the covenant” in article 21 of the Church Order.

The pertinent decision is found in the Acts of Synod 2009, articles 80–82, and reads as follows:

That synod uphold Synod 2008 and Classis East in their contention that the phrase “according to the demands of the covenant” in Article 21 modifies “instructed” and not “the good Christian schools.” Thus, according to Article 21, what the covenant demands is Christian instruction; but the covenant does not demand the particular form this instruction takes, namely, the Christian day schools. (72–73)

This decision makes it settled and binding in the PRC that the Christian school is not a demand of the covenant. According to Synod 2009, the only thing that the covenant demands is Christian instruction. The Christian school is relegated to being a mere option in the covenant. Perhaps a good option, and maybe even a wise option, and probably the best option; but merely an option for all that.

The grounds for synod’s decision were weak and contradictory. In support of its decision that the covenant demands Christian instruction but does not demand the Christian school, synod’s first ground was the following:

a.) This is the natural reading of Article 21. According to rules of sentence structure, the concluding phrase “according to the demands of the covenant” modifies “instructed,” not “good Christian schools.” (73)

My comment on ground a: The natural reading of article 21 does not at all limit the demands to “instructed.” One only has to read the article to see that the article is about Christian schools. “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.” The article is not suggesting the school as an option for how parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant; rather, the article is setting forth the school as the requirement for how parents have their children instructed according to the demands of the covenant. Why else, according to the article, are the consistories to see to it that there are good Christian schools, if not that this is a demand of the covenant? Why else, according to the article, are the consistories to see to it that parents have their children instructed in these good Christian schools, if not that this is a demand of the covenant? The natural reading of article 21 makes the good Christian school a demand of the covenant.

Synod’s second ground was the following:

b.) The third question of the Form for Baptism asked of parents at baptism and which summarizes the demand of the covenant for the instruction of covenant children makes no mention of the calling of parents to provide this instruction in the Christian day school. (73)

My comment on ground b: The third question asked of parents at baptism is, “Whether you promise and intend to see these children, when come to the years of discretion (whereof you are either parent or witness), instructed and brought up in the aforesaid doctrine, or help or cause them to be instructed therein, to the utmost of your power?” (Confessions and Church Order, 260). Perhaps it is true, as synod argued, that this question makes no mention of the Christian day school. In our circumstances today we might assume that “help or cause them to be instructed therein” refers to the Christian school, in which parents cause their children to be instructed. However, it seems that the phrase actually refers to the old and now discredited practice of having a godparent present a child for baptism, so that the godparent promises to see to it that the child is soundly instructed.¹ Nevertheless, it makes no difference for article 21 whether the third baptism question refers to the Christian school or not. Article 21 does not depend on the third baptism question but on the principles of scripture. According to those principles, article 21 teaches that the good Christian school is a demand of the covenant.

Synod’s third ground was the following:

c.) While the organic nature of both election and the covenant certainly urges upon parents the wisdom of fulfilling their covenantal calling by educating their children together, it does not demand that parents necessarily educate their covenant children together in all circumstances (cf. Acts 2008, Article 47, B, 3, a, 2, p. 41). (73)

My comment on ground c: This ground is the heart of synod’s error. The essence of the Christian school is parents’ laboring together in the covenantal education of their children. The togetherness of the endeavor is indeed rooted in the organic nature of both election and the covenant. The organic nature of election and the covenant does not allow for independentism in the matter of child-rearing. Here synod saw the principle: “the organic nature of both election and the covenant certainly urges upon parents the wisdom of fulfilling their covenantal calling by educating their children together.” But seeing the principle, synod contradicted it: “it does not demand that parents necessarily educate their covenant children together.”

Synod confused the issue by adding “in all circumstances.” Throughout its dealings with article 21, synod consistently tripped itself up by trying to make the demand depend on “all circumstances.” Synod reasoned that if the demand of the covenant that there be good Christian schools could not hold for every single child of the covenant, then it must not be a demand of the covenant after all. Synod could not imagine that there could be an exception to the rule and that there could still be the rule. The fact is that God himself might very well make an exception to his rule without abrogating his rule. God himself might make it impossible for some to educate their children together, whether because of a child’s special need or because of the small size of a community of Reformed believers or because of any number of factors. The fact that there is an exception to the demand does not overthrow the demand. This would come out in ground d as well.

d.) The position of Prof. Hanko and Mr. Kamps [who had protests at Synod 2009] makes all those who cannot establish a Christian day school guilty of failing to fulfill the demands of the covenant. A “demand” of the covenant, if words have any meaning, is a requirement, which allows for no exceptions. (73; emphasis is synod’s)

My comment on ground d: Here again, synod’s reasoning was backward. Synod began with the fact of exceptions and reasoned backward that therefore there could be no demand. But since when do exceptions destroy the demand? The demand of the fourth commandment to keep the sabbath day holy is that I “diligently frequent the church of God” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 103, in Confessions and Church Order, 128). But there are those aged or sick saints who cannot frequent the church of God on the Sabbath because of their infirmities. The fact that there are exceptions to the demand to frequent the church of God does not mean that we abrogate the demand to frequent the church of God. So also the fact that there may be some who cannot labor together in the education of their children for reasons that belong to the good pleasure and providence of God does not mean that we abrogate the demand that parents have their children instructed in the good Christian school.

With this decision the PRC made it settled and binding among the churches that the Christian school is not a demand of the covenant.

The Decline of the Christian School

The denial that the Christian school is a demand of the covenant will lead to the decline of the Christian school. It may very well be that a Christian school always exists, but the support for the school, the use of the school, and the covenant character of the school must necessarily decline. As soon as the school is seen as merely an option—even if it is urged as the best option or the wisest option—then the vital connection between the covenant and the school is severed. Either the covenant of God with believers and their seed is the foundation and necessity of the school, or the covenant is not. If the covenant of God with believers and their seed is the foundation and necessity of the school, then the school is founded upon God himself and can stand. If the covenant of God with believers and their seed is not the foundation and necessity of the school, then the school must stand on some foundation of man that will only crumble.

If the Christian school is not a demand of the covenant, then why have a Christian school and why use a Christian school? Someone will say, “Because the complexity of modern society means that parents are not equipped to teach their children all that they must know today.” But today there is a plethora of comprehensive homeschool materials and curricula complete with textbooks, video lectures, homework assignments, and even institutions that will grade the homework. Yes, modern society is complex, but a parent has all of the resources at hand to give a sound education that will prepare his child for his calling. Someone else will say, “Because it is wise that we work together in the education of our children.” But wise according to whose standard? Apparently, not according to the standard of the scriptures, for it has already been argued that the principles of scripture do not demand the Christian school. It must be wise, then, according to the standard of man. The problem with the standard of man is that it is constantly changing. Any group of men can convince themselves that anything is wise, so that what is wise for them today is not wise for them tomorrow.

Only if the school arises out of the covenant of God with believers and their seed and is made necessary by the covenant of God with believers and their seed will the school endure. If the school merely arises as a good option and is made necessary as a good option, the school will necessarily decline. In a denomination like the Protestant Reformed Churches, the school may remain relatively strong for a long time after the connection between the covenant and the school is cut. Denominations like our mother, the PRC; and our grandmother, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), can coast along for a long time on the strength of their tradition and form. It takes a generation or two for the principles to work through. But principles always work through, so that there comes a day when the Christian school finds itself in steep decline, its vital connection to the covenant severed.

This can be illustrated in the case of our grandmother, the CRC. In 1955 the CRC received a report from one of its committees regarding the principles of education. The report throughout is characterized by strong support for Christian schools and even uses the language of obligation and duty with regard to these schools. However, the report does not ground the Christian school in the demands of the covenant but in the complexity of modern life.

The family and the church are institutions called into being by divine mandate. This cannot be said of the modern school. It is a product of human civilization, and therefore a social institution. Formal schooling as we know it today has become a necessity in the complex society, of the modern day. Parents cannot fulfill their God-given mandate in our culture and civilization without calling upon others to assist them in their task. This is recognized in the Form for the Baptism of Infants in these words, “…and cause them to be instructed therein.” (CRC Acts of Synod 1955, 199)

At the key point in the report where the foundation and necessity of the Christian school is set forth, that foundation is not the covenant of God with believers and their seed. That foundation is not even the family and home, of which the school is an extension. Rather, that foundation is said to be the complexity of society, so that the school is a social institution. The rest of the report, which the Synod of 1955 adopted, is obviously very supportive of the Christian school. The report urges a Christian character for the education in the school. It even speaks of the church’s obligation.

The church is obligated to see to it that parents as members of the church fulfill their promise made at the baptism of their children. Since the Christian school is the only agency that can provide a Christian education for the youth of the church, the church is duty bound to encourage and assist in the establishment and maintenance of Christian schools. (CRC Acts of Synod 1955, 199)

However, without a foundation in the demands of the covenant, the Christian school must decline. By 2005, the CRC found a sharp drop in the use of the Christian school.

What we can say with confidence, therefore, is that the churches report that only one-half of their children attend a Christian day school. Furthermore, of the churches that report that their children attend a Christian school, 31 percent report that none of their children attend a Reformed Christian school. (CRC synod agenda 2005, 417)

The reasons that the CRC synod proposed for this decline are many. There is no doubt that the challenges to the school may be different from denomination to denomination and from place to place. I propose that what is at the root of the decline is cutting the Christian school lose from the demand of the covenant. If the school does not arise out of necessity from the covenant of God with believers and their seed, then the school will fall to all of the challenges that it faces.

Recovering the School as a Demand
of the Covenant

In the Reformed Protestant Churches, we must recover the truth of article 21 of the Church Order that the good Christian school is a demand of the covenant. There is no specific action that we must take, whether overture or protest or study paper or the like. We have article 21, as well as the other references in the first editorial in this series.² Recovering the school as a demand of the covenant does not involve making a formal decision but living up to the confessions and Church Order as we already have them.

The only way to live up to those confessions and Church Order is to be gripped with what it truly means that the Christian school is a “demand of the covenant.” 

Next time, Lord willing.