Classis September 2022

The issue at Classis September 2022 was God’s covenant: God’s covenant of grace with believers and their seed in Jesus Christ.¹

It is striking that the issue was God’s covenant because God’s covenant was not on the agenda of classis. Classis had prepared a lengthy agenda. Classis had documented all of the protests and appeals and an overture. Classis had received all of the reports of its committees. And in that entire agenda, God’s covenant did not appear. But God came to classis, and God came to classis with his own agenda. And on that agenda he had this one item for the Reformed Protestant Churches: his covenant! And God made the covenant the agenda not only in a single point of classis, but he also made his covenant pervade the classis, so that the covenant came up in decisions where it had not been expected to come up. God did that. God came to classis with his own agenda, and he made the covenant classis’ agenda.

When God came to classis with his agenda of his covenant, he did not come to destroy the Reformed Protestant Churches. He could have. We deserved it. Everything was in place for the Reformed Protestant Churches to be destroyed, to be undone. The Reformed Protestant Churches have been ungrateful to God in the matter of his covenant, especially as that covenant applies to the Christian school. God could have come to classis and scattered us. He could have come and given us the desire of our hearts—our own way and our own will—and we would have been destroyed.

In fact, all of the material for our destruction was in the classical agenda. There was an overture to the classis to remove article 21 of the Church Order. The overture to remove article 21 was an attack on the Christian school. The overture was aimed at the teaching of article 21 that the school is a demand of the covenant. The overture never mentioned the covenant. The overture never mentioned the demand of the covenant. But that’s what the overture aimed at. I maintain that. And I maintain that because there were also at classis on Thursday morning the results of a great groundswell in the Reformed Protestant Churches that supported removing article 21. I think many men can attest to the groundswell that they heard in the churches—whether that’s our own congregation in First or in the denomination—that was very, very interested in the overture to remove article 21 because there was opposition, open hostility even, to the Christian school’s being the demand of the covenant, which article 21 clearly teaches.

God could have left us on Thursday morning at classis to have the will of our hearts. He could have given a boost to that groundswell with lying spirits to plague classis, so that the Reformed Protestant Churches would throw out on pretend grounds the article of the Church Order that most clearly teaches the school as a demand of the covenant. When God came to classis with his agenda, he did not leave us to our own devices. He came in mercy. He came in grace. He came in his covenant, his covenant love, and he saved the Reformed Protestant Churches. He delivered to us his covenant of grace and that covenant’s application in the good Christian school.

God did that. God made the agenda the covenant. No man did that, whether deacon from a Reformed Protestant church or minister or elder in the Reformed Protestant Churches—God did it. And God did it in such a way that he made us nothing. He made us men nothing, and he made himself everything.

How did God come to classis with his agenda? What was it in the providence of God that brought his agenda of the covenant to the floor of the classis? It was two things, both of which are the folly of men. It was, first, an elder in one of the Reformed Protestant Churches who attacked the covenant foundation of the school; an elder who not seventeen minutes before classis but who for weeks and months before classis attacked the covenant foundation of the school. The issue that plagued Sovereign Reformed Protestant Church was not the question of whether this man or that man had done enough to get a Christian school started. That has been presented as the issue. That was not the issue. The issue that plagued Sovereign also was not whether everyone with one voice professed a desire for the school. That too has been presented as the issue: “We all want a school.” That wasn’t the issue. The issue was that Sovereign was divided, and it was divided along this line: men who said, “The Christian school is a may. It’s permissible” and, on the other side, men who said, “The Christian school is a must. It’s a demand of the covenant.” That’s what divided Sovereign. That division is the folly of men. And God used that folly of men to bring to classis his agenda: his covenant.

The second way that God brought his agenda of the covenant to classis was through an overture to remove article 21 of the Church Order. Although that overture did not mention the covenant; although none of its grounds said, “The school is not a demand of the covenant”; that was behind the overture. And I maintain that on the basis of language in the overture. The overture argued, by its description of other denominations who respect the decision of parents to homeschool, for homeschooling over against the school. And God used that overture, which is the folly of men, to bring his agenda of the covenant to classis.

When God did that, he made us men nothing—all of us men. None of us men were anything at classis. None of us in the Reformed Protestant Churches are anything. We came within a hairsbreadth of throwing out the Christian school. But God came to classis, and God made himself everything when he brought his agenda of his covenant to classis.

In fact, God changed the churches in the two days of classis. The churches are different today—they were different Friday night already—than they were Thursday morning. When we came to classis Thursday morning, we came with a pitchfork in one hand and a torch in the other so that we could burn down the Christian school. There was a groundswell of that. And article 21 of the Church Order would have been the first torch thrown into the pile. We came ready to burn down the Christian school—bit by bit, year by year, but burn it down nevertheless. In the meeting of classis, God did not send an evil spirit but the Spirit of Christ to blow through that classis with his covenant, to change our hearts and to give us a conviction together of the school as the demand of the covenant and of the covenant of God as that covenant is lived in the lives of the members. God came and gave that, so that whereas we came to classis Thursday morning with a pitchfork and a torch, God took those out of our hands and sent us away Friday night with a trowel in one hand and the call, “Now, go build a school. Go build a school in First. Go build a school in Second. Go build a school in Sovereign. Go build a school in Zion. Go build a school in Loveland. Go build a school in Wisconsin. Go build a school in Cornerstone. Go build a school in Edmonton. Go build a school in Singapore.” He sent us with trowels in our hands to build a school! And in the other hand he gave us a sword to kill anyone who stands in the way of the school, to kill anyone who stands in the way of God’s covenant and the expression of that covenant in the school—because that too happened at classis. A man was put to death, or the advice to put him to death was given: suspend him from his office of elder. God took away our pitchfork and our torch, by which we in our folly would have destroyed the school, and he gave us a trowel and a sword to build and defend the school. That’s remarkable! That’s his grace. That’s his mercy. That’s the God who is our God: a God of mercy, a God of pity. God came to Classis September 2022 and delivered the Reformed Protestant Churches.

How did God bring the issue of the covenant to classis? God brought the issue of the covenant to classis by means of the Christian school. There is such a close connection between God’s covenant and the Christian school that when the Christian school comes up, the covenant comes up. Even if we don’t write it in our agenda, when the Christian school comes up, the covenant comes up. The connection between the covenant of grace and the Christian school is this: that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant. Or you could say it this way, which is the same thing: the Christian school is the requirement of the covenant. The covenant of God requires the Christian school. That’s how God brought the covenant to classis.

God’s Covenant and the Christian School as Fruit of the Covenant

What does it mean that the Christian school is the demand of the covenant? Let’s begin with that idea of the covenant. God’s covenant is his relationship of friendship that he establishes between himself and his people in Jesus Christ. In that covenant of friendship, God is their God, and they are his people. In that covenant of grace, God takes his people to himself and brings them into his own covenant life, so that God, who himself is a covenant God—he’s the living God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—brings us into that very covenant life through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity come in our flesh. And the Spirit of Jesus Christ, whom he pours out upon us, knits us to Christ and, uniting us to Christ, brings us into the very fellowship and communion of Jehovah God. That’s the glorious doctrine of the covenant.

In that covenant fellowship God unites his people together as members of one body. We are united to the head, Jesus Christ. In fact, we are united to him so closely that we are bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. That’s why you eat the Lord’s supper. That’s the body and blood of Christ. When you eat the Lord’s supper, God testifies to you by that supper, “You are one flesh and one bone with Jesus Christ. You are united to him as one organism, so that he is the head and you are a member of his body.” And when God unites me to Christ as a member of Christ’s body and unites you to Christ as a member of Christ’s body by that very same Spirit, he unites us together as one; so that God’s people are one body, and the church may be described as the body of Christ. These are the ABCs of covenant doctrine. These are the ABCs of 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, for example. God has made us many members of one body and yet one body in Christ.

In that covenant fellowship with Christ and with one another, God sheds abroad his love in our hearts. He sheds that love abroad in such a way that we know his love, we experience his love, and we are comforted by that love and saved by that love. And God, who sheds that love abroad in our hearts by his Spirit, gives to us as his sons and his daughters love. He gives us love for him; he gives us love one for another. And that love that God gives us for him and for one another inevitably, certainly, comes to expression in the lives of the children of God. That’s why you come to church. You love God. God is here in church. You don’t come to church because you draw yourself here; God does that by his love. He loves you, and that love of him takes you here. And you come to church to sing and praise and pray and worship that God in love. That’s the expression of our love for him.

And in this covenant the love that we have one for another is also expressed, and it is expressed this way: that no man says that ought that he has is his own, but we have all things in common. The meaning of that love for each other is this: that Christ had this mind in him, that he humbled himself to be my servant, to serve me with salvation; and that mind of Christ he puts in his people, so that the mind of his people is that they become the servants one of another, and no man looks on his own things but on the things of one another.

That covenant, with regard to the seed of the covenant, is that I do not say about the rearing of my covenant children that their rearing is first. But I say that the rearing of your covenant children is first for me, before my own; so that the covenant people of God in that love one for another, with the love of God shed abroad in their hearts, form a school for the rearing of the covenant seed. That’s what the school is: it’s the love of God’s people for each other and their banding together in that covenant for the rearing of the children of the covenant.

The attitude among God’s covenant people is the attitude of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh before they crossed the Jordan. Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh, who had flocks, would stay on the east side of Jordan because it was a land for flocks. But the men of those tribes said, “We will build houses here for our families, and then we will go in front of the army over the Jordan River, and we will fight at the front of the army until all our brethren have been given their places; and we won’t rest until our brethren have their places. And only when our brethren have their places—with us at the front, bearing the greatest casualties—only then will we go back to our homes, where our wives and children live.” That’s the attitude of the covenant people: “I will go before you. I will be the casualty. I will suffer whatever must be suffered that your seed may inherit the covenant, that your seed may have a covenant rearing.” And that’s a school. That’s the school that rises out of, is founded upon, and is the fruit of the covenant.

The opposite of that mentality is independentism. And independentism is a fancy word for hatred of your neighbor. Independentism says, “Me and mine.” Independentism does not say, “You and yours.” Oh, independentism will wish you well. “Oh, yeah, I hope you get a school, and I can see that you would need that. I hope you get a school.” But independentism hates the neighbor. Independentism says, “I will get mine; what is best for me and mine I will do; and as for you, may you profit or may you perish as you are able.” That’s hatred of the neighbor. That’s not the covenant. That’s not the covenant that God establishes with his people! That’s not the one body that he makes as the body of the head Jesus Christ! That’s hatred of the neighbor. The homeschooling movement is hatred of the neighbor. The movement is hatred of the neighbor because the homeschooling movement says, “Me and mine first, and you and yours maybe.”

The covenant of God with believers and their seed builds a school. It does.

The Christian School as the Demand of the Covenant

That’s the Christian school as the fruit of the covenant. But what about the Christian school as the demand of the covenant?—because that’s the connection between the Christian school and the covenant. The Christian school is the demand of the covenant. It is the requirement.

In order to understand that, we have to go back to the very basics of a demand. There are demands in God’s covenant. There are no conditions, but there are demands. Our baptism form says so. “In all covenants there are contained two parts,” and in the covenant our part is that we are “obliged unto new obedience” (Form for the Administration of Baptism, in Confessions and Church Order, 258; emphasis added). That’s a requirement. That’s a demand. That’s an obligation. Now, the way that demand works in the covenant comes down to the question why. That’s all-important: the question why? Why must you do this thing? And if that why is taught as that by means of this obedience and obligation we obtain our salvation or obtain our covenant life or obtain covenant fellowship, then that obligation has been taught as a condition, and it’s damned. Then it’s bondage. There’s no freedom and liberty in that why of the demand.

That’s our whole problem with our mother. Our problem is not that mother says, “You must.” Our problem is with why she says you must. You must in order that you may enjoy. You must in order that you may go to heaven. You must in order that you may have forgiveness of your sins. That must is bondage. That must is accursed. The question is, why? And the answer to the obligations and demands of the covenant is not so that you may have but because you have. You have salvation; you have forgiveness; you have eternal life. You have it all in Christ. Now because you have it all, obey him. That’s what we mean by gratitude: because you have it, obey him.

And now you can run right down the line of any command you can think of. Love God. Why? So that he will love you? That’s bondage. Love God. Why? Because he has loved you. That’s freedom. That’s liberty.

Love your neighbor. Why? So that you may have forgiveness? That’s bondage. Love your neighbor. Why? Because God has given you and your brethren salvation in Christ. That’s freedom.

And that’s the way the school as a demand of the covenant works. Maintain a school! is the requirement. Why? Because salvation depends upon it? That’s bondage. Maintain a school. Why? Because God has made his covenant with you and your children. He’s made his covenant with you and the children of your brother. That’s liberty. That’s freedom.

The Christian school is the demand of liberty in the covenant. It’s not bondage to be told, “Go have a school. Go start one; go maintain one.” That’s your liberty. You’ve been delivered unto it by God’s covenant of grace.

The Old Paths

That doctrine of the schools—and it is a doctrine of the schools; it’s a doctrine of the school as a demand of the covenant—is the old paths. This doctrine of the schools, with the schools as a demand of the covenant, is not a new thing. It’s not new even in your lifetime or mine. This demand of the covenant is the old paths in your lifetime! And it’s the old paths for the whole history of the Reformed church. This doctrine of the Christian school as a demand of the covenant is the old paths of the confessions. And because it’s the old paths of the confessions, this means that it’s the old paths of the scriptures. Do not be deceived by those who would tell you today, “We’re developing something new.” No, we’re not! Not even in our own lifetimes are we developing something new! This is the old paths, this doctrine of the Christian school.

This is the doctrine of Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism—Lord’s Day 38, which explains the fourth commandment. The fourth commandment of God’s law is “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God” (Ex. 20:8–10) and then the requirements about not laboring that follow it. The fourth commandment is the commandment about the Sabbath. The old path of Reformed doctrine regarding the Sabbath is this: “What doth God require in the fourth commandment? First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained” and that I go to church (Confessions and Church Order, 128). Before I go to church, the requirement of the fourth commandment on the Sabbath is “Maintain the ministry”—God requires that of you—and the requirement is “Maintain the schools”—God requires that of you.

It is striking that that demand comes up in the fourth commandment because the fourth commandment is the covenant commandment. The Sabbath is the covenant. The Sabbath is rest. It is God’s rest in himself, his delight in himself as the overflowing fountain of all good. That’s rest for God. That’s covenant life for God. And God says to you, “Now you rest. I gave you a day of rest. You delight in me, the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and my finished work.” That’s the covenant for you. That’s rest for you. In the commandment on the covenant, the Reformed old path says, “Schools. Schools are required as your grateful life for God’s rest that he has given you. Schools are required for your children that they may be instructed in all things.” This means that lackadaisical behavior or opposition to the Christian school or the promoting of a homeschool movement is ingratitude. That’s the way the demands work, remember. Demands are gratitude. Any pushing of anything other than the Christian school is ingratitude to God for his covenant. That’s why I say that God could have come to classis and destroyed us for our thankless ingratitude. He didn’t. He came and he saved us.

There is a tactic that has been used for years to gut Lord’s Day 38. The tactic is this: to define the school as whatever you happen to be doing, to define the school any way you want to, so that the word “schools” in Lord’s Day 38 is up for grabs. That tactic was used at classis. When a man was being given his Formula of Subscription exam and the question was put to him, “Do you believe that the good Christian school institution is a requirement according to Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 38?” his answer was “Yes, that’s my conviction. The school is required.” And when he was pressed on that, he gave this description of the school: “It’s my home. My home is a school.” That’s the tactic.

That tactic is being applied today to Lord’s Day 38 to define “schools” there as seminaries. There are all kinds of reasons, so the argument goes, that “schools” must refer to seminaries. “Look. This is about going to church. Of course it’s about seminaries.” “Look, this Lord’s Day is about the ministry of gospel. Of course it’s about seminaries. The ministry of the gospel and the seminaries in which the ministers are trained must be maintained.” And I say that’s a tactic to gut the meaning of “schools.” The meaning of “schools” is not up for grabs. It is not up for grabs in Lord’s Day 38, nor is it up for grabs in Church Order article 21 or any other place that the Church Order refers to schools. The meaning of “schools” is one thing. It is not the home. The home is a good Christian home, for which we thank God. “Schools” is not the seminary. A seminary is a good gift of God, for which we thank him. The “schools” are the Christian day schools. They are the schools where the youth of the church are instructed. They are the schools where all the works of God that he has made are taught in the curriculum. The schools are schools.

That can be demonstrated by the preface to the Heidelberg Catechism that Elector Frederick III wrote. When the Heidelberg Catechism was written and first published in January of 1563, Elector Frederick, who had commissioned the writing of the Catechism, wrote a preface to it. He had a title page to his preface and to the whole Catechism, and in the preface he explained his purpose in having the Catechism written. In his preface Elector Frederick showed that he meant one thing by schools. Schools was not a term up for grabs for Elector Frederick, and it was not for Zacharias Ursinus or Caspar Olevianus or any of the other men in the Palatinate, in the region that is Germany today. None of the men in that region would have known anything else by the word schools except schools for children, for the instruction of the youth together.

From the title page of the Heidelberg Catechism as first published in 1563: “Catechism or Christian Instruction as This Is Carried on in Churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate.”² On the very title page, the word “schools” appears because everybody knew what a school was.

In the preface Frederick refers several times to schoolmasters—teachers in the schools—and the schools. On the very first page of his preface he greets the “Pastors, Preachers, Officers of the Church, and Schoolmasters, throughout our Electorate of the Rhenish Palatinate” (183). Later on, when he is describing his purpose in commissioning the Heidelberg Catechism, he says, “Therefore we also have ascertained that by no means the least defect of our system is found in the fact, that our blooming youth is disposed to be careless in respect to Christian doctrine, both in the schools and churches of our principality” (189). The youth in the schools were negligent in doctrine, and therefore the Catechism was intended to correct that. “Schools” meant something.

And now, whereas both temporal and spiritual offices, government and family discipline, cannot otherwise be maintained—and in order that discipline and obedience to authority and all other virtures (sic) may increase and be multiplied among subjects—it is essential that our youth be trained in early life, and above all, in the pure and consistent doctrine of the holy Gospel, and be well exercised in the proper and true knowledge of God. (192–93)

Later yet: “…in order not only that the youth in churches and schools may be piously instructed in such Christian doctrine…but also that the Pastors and Schoolmasters themselves may be provided with a fixed form and model…” (195). And then later yet: “To the youth in our schools” (197). How many references is that in one brief preface to the Heidelberg Catechism. If Frederick III would somehow be resurrected today, he would be mystified by the churches’ inability to know what a school is. The “schools” meant something, obviously meant something, so that when “schools” comes up in Lord’s Day 38, that word is not up for grabs. That word means exactly what Frederick meant by it in his preface. Lord’s Day 38 says with regard to the fourth commandment, “Maintain schools. That’s my covenant, my sabbath rest.” Ursinus may have had his own reason or at least one expressed reason to have those schools—so that the men who had been trained in those schools all their lives would be prepared to argue with false teachers—but what is meant there is not seminaries and not homes. It is schools where there were schoolmasters.

Let that be the end of the tactic that has plagued us in mother and now in our own churches to redefine the school as something other than a school. It’s a school! That’s the Reformed faith: maintain a school! That’s the covenant: maintain a school! The “schools” in Lord’s Day 38 mean schools. And that settles the matter as far as the Reformed Protestant Churches are concerned.

Have you noticed that the battleground has shifted? It’s a wonderful thing. The battleground used to be Church Order article 21. Two weeks ago the battleground was the Church Order. I love the Church Order. I love what the Church Order says about the schools. But what glory that the battleground may be in the Catechism! That’s where the battle has shifted. That’s where you find the tactic to redefine the school now, in Lord’s Day 38. What glory for the Reformed church that this battle may be fought in the confessions!

The confessions are what we hold when we make confession of our faith: the articles of the Christian faith and the doctrine taught here in this Christian church, I believe to be the true and perfect doctrine of salvation. Those are the creeds. The officebearers make a vow regarding the creeds. The vow they make is this: I believe that every point of doctrine in the confessions—including the point of doctrine about the schools and their requirement—is in harmony with the word of God, and I will not privately or publicly militate against those doctrines. This is where the battle needs to be fought because this divides out the Reformed from the un-Reformed and the anti-Reformed. The creeds settle this issue for us. It’s not a hard issue when you take hold of the creeds. This is the gold lying on the surface of the ground. You don’t even have to dig for it. You come to Lord’s Day 38, and it says, “Schools required,” and that’s the end of the debate. Let this be the end of the debate and the settling of the matter for the Reformed Protestant Churches. Lord’s Day 38, the confessions, says “schools,” and schools are required in God’s covenant.

This is the old paths, then, with regard to all of the creeds. And you can start going through the creeds. I won’t do that now; I had some listed; but you can go through the creeds, and you can find the covenant woven throughout the creeds. And as you start digging—you’ve taken the gold that’s on the surface—as you start digging into the doctrines of the confessions, you start seeing the schools everywhere in the confessions too. Though they’re listed once by name, the schools are everywhere in the confessions. The old paths are that the schools are a demand of the covenant. That’s nothing new for you even in your lifetime.

Old Paths of Herman Hoeksema

This is the old paths also with regard to our own church history. Herman Hoeksema was involved in three—not two but three—church splits in his life. And now when I talk about church splits, I’m not talking about the Janssen case in 1922; I’m not talking about the Danhof departure in 1925; I’m talking about controversies in which Herman Hoeksema by his doctrine caused splits in the churches. And that’s not a bad thing, that he caused splits. He called for a split in certain instances. Herman Hoeksema went through three church splits. We usually think of the first as 1924 over common grace and then the formation of the PRC, and the second as 1953 and the unconditional covenant and the departure of De Wolf and others. Before any of that Herman Hoeksema was involved in a church split in his own congregation of Fourteenth Street Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in Holland, Michigan.

In the year 1917 his church split, and the issue that the church split over was Hoeksema’s insistence on the Christian school! As a seminary student even, before he was called to Fourteenth Street, he prayed in such a way that there were prominent men angry with him in his insistence on the Christian school. In 1917, when he was minister of Fourteenth Street CRC, he preached the school and taught the school until many members left. And they not only left Fourteenth Street CRC for another Christian Reformed church; they left the Christian Reformed Churches altogether. And the issue was the school.

Here is one author’s description of it, who may or may not be sympathetic to Hoeksema by his description of him:

The militant Hoeksema came to Fourteenth Street Church right out of seminary, after three ordained ministers had declined the call. Rev. Hoeksema claimed that “under his predecessor some 90 percent of the families in the congregation opposed Christian education and were very lukewarm in their support of Holland Christian School,” which had been established the same year as Fourteenth Street Church. Rev. Hoeksema “brought the disagreements to a head by pushing Christian education and doctrinal orthodoxy.” The membership of the congregation declined considerably between 1917 and 1918, because his approach alienated a number of the families, with the result that “there was a grand exodus…mostly to Trinity RCA, and primarily over the issue of the Christian School.”³

Herman Hoeksema had his very first church split in his very first congregation, and the issue was the Christian school. Do you see what that marks Hoeksema as? A covenantal theologian! The issue that carried Hoeksema through every church split was the covenant! It was the issue in 1917 in Fourteenth Street; it was the issue in 1924 with regard to the conditional well-meant offer of the gospel; and it was the issue in 1953 over against Klaas Schilder and Hubert De Wolf. Hoeksema was a covenantal theologian, and the church split around him again and again and again over that issue.

That’s your forefather! That’s mine. That’s the old paths of Herman Hoeksema for the Reformed Protestant Churches.

The Claim of the Covenant

Also God brought the covenant to classis with regard to the claim of the covenant. The first topic of the covenant was the demand of the covenant. The second topic that God brought to classis was the claim of the covenant.

What we mean by the claim of the covenant is this: when God establishes his covenant with his people, he claims them. He says to them, “You are mine. You and your children are mine, as many as I have called, all my elect among them.” That’s a claim. We are not our own in the covenant but belong to God through our faithful savior Jesus Christ. That’s the claim of the covenant.

That issue of the claim of the covenant is as big as, and maybe will yet prove to be bigger than, the issue of the demand of the covenant because in the Reformed Protestant Churches there was and is a mindset that no one may tell me as a parent how to raise my children. “I have the final say with regard to their covenant rearing, with regard to their schooling and how I’m going to teach them. No elder may come to me and say, ‘That’s wrong!’ No minister may preach to me that my decision is wrong. My decision is inviolable as a parent. Why? Because those are my children. God gave them to me.” The claim of the covenant destroys that. As parents we do not have the last say on the rearing of our children. The covenant does! Which is only to say, God does. God may come to you and say, “What you are doing is wrong.” And he may say that because those children are not your children! They’re God’s children! They’re the heritage of the Lord (Ps. 127:3). God has made you a steward of those children, so that—not to be too crass about it—you say the same thing with regard to your possessions that you say with regard to your children. “That money isn’t mine. It’s God’s. He gave it to me, and he made me a steward of it. And so also those children aren’t mine; they’re God’s. He made me the steward of them, but they’re God’s children.” God has the last say on our children. The mentality that is found throughout the Reformed Protestant Churches, that the children are mine, is a denial of the covenant of grace with believers and their seed. It’s a denial of the claim of the covenant.

Classis said, because God’s Spirit said, no. And when an overture came that had in its grounds this statement, that the keys of the kingdom—preaching and discipline—may not be exercised in a family with regard to the family’s decision of the rearing of their seed, classis said, “No, the keys may be exercised there.” And that too is the ABCs of the covenant. When you have your child baptized, why in the world do you stand up here and say, “I promise to bring my children up in the aforesaid doctrine,” if you have the last word on it? The very fact of that baptism vow means that God has the last word on it. And this means that when God came to Classis September 2022, he also restored the office of elder and the office of minister to their places in the oversight of the family. An elder may come into your home and say, “No, you mayn’t do that.” That elder brings the word of God. That elder must bring the confessions. That elder may say, “No, you mayn’t do that—not because I say so; because God does, and he claims your children.” And the minister may preach and say, “This is wrong, if you make this decision, and this is right, if you make this decision.” He brings the word of God, and he brings the confessions in that; but he may say that, not because his word means anything but because God says so. God wrought that victory in our midst at classis as well.

What happened in September 2022 is that God came to classis—which means he came to you—and he came with his own agenda, which agenda is his covenant of grace. Thank God that he came with that agenda, because that agenda is a foundation you can stand on in your generations until the Lord Jesus Christ returns: God’s covenant with believers and their seed.

Catechism or Christian Instruction as This is Carried on in Churches and Schools of the Electoral Palatinate