Vocal defenders of 2k are in such short supply – though practitioners are everywhere in North America (it is the default position for Reformed Protestants, after all) – that I wondered about commenting on this. But when I read this, it seemed that some comment was in order.
Matt Tuininga is a smart fellow and doing impressive work at Emory University on political theology. His blog is worth reading. In addition, he has defended 2k in the pages of Christian Renewal where Dr. K. has done his darnedest to associate 2k with all things profane. (Aside from the kitchen sink, the only charge that Dr. K. has not hurled is is that of Communism.)
In a fairly recent piece for CR, Matt tried to explain the controversy over 2k as one between those who use its logic without even thinking about it and a minority that takes the position to extremes:
The controversy arises when people appeal to the doctrine to question causes closer to home. For instance, some have used it to challenge the politicization of many evangelical churches directly involved in the political work of the Christian Right. Others have used it to challenge what they perceive as the excesses of Neocalvinism and its failure to distinguish the advancement of the kingdom of God through the work of the church with the work of cultural transformation.
Usually when I hear people opposing the two kingdoms doctrine today it is because they think it entails the abandonment of something like Christian education, or of a Christian worldview that guides the actions of Christians in every aspect of life. While there have been some recent two kingdoms proponents who do move in this direction, it is a massive theological and historical mistake to allow those people – who are most certainly in a minority – to define the two kingdoms doctrine and to control the way in which we speak of it. To do this ignores the importance the doctrine has held in establishing precisely the kind of Reformed biblical autonomy and church government that we value so highly and on which the integrity of the Reformed tradition depends.
Since I have in fact used the logic of 2k to question the necessity (as in “thou shalt”) of Christian schools and to wonder about the German idealist pretensions of nineteenth-century critiques of liberalism (i.e., w-w), Matt’s comments would appear to implicate me. Since he and I are friendly and recently had a pleasant chat at the Greenville seminary conference on Old Princeton, I doubt that Matt was necessarily singling me out. Even so, I would like to see him amend his analysis by considering the following.
In addition to the important debates about church power – with Geneva (2k) and Zuirch (Erastian) representing the main options on questions of excommunication – was the even more basic question of the authority of Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura). Ministers could teach only what Scripture reveals, and churches could require only what the Bible commanded. The doctrines and commandments of men, no matter how wise, pious, or well intentioned, could not bind a believer’s conscience. For that reason, whenever the church evaluates the integrity of a believer’s profession, it must do so on the basis only of norms revealed in Scripture. The church must have a “thus, saith the Lord.” An effort like Adam’s instruction to Eve about not even touching the fruit of the tree won’t do. Either you don’t eat the apple or you sin. Touching it, looking at it, cutting it is not a command revealed by God.
All of the Reformed creeds begin with an affirmation of sola scriptura. Here is how the Gallican Confession (1559) puts it:
We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith. (Art. 4)
For churches to require anything that the Bible does not require is akin to establishing an article of faith on a foundation other than the Bible. Kuyper and his views about w-w’s or about education may be useful, though the way that places like the Free University turned out or that Christian w-w formation is playing out in numerous so-called Reformed day schools is not the best of testimonies to Kuyper’s wisdom. Still, the point should not be missed. Unless anti-2kers (and even some 2kers) can establish that Christian education and w-w are necessary as in an article of faith, then those who raise questions about Christian education and w-w are not radical or extreme. They are only doing what the Reformers did by asking where the Bible, as opposed to influential saints, establishes the existing practices and teachings of the church. In fact, it is those who establish a hierarchy of faithfulness based on tradition and look down on those who don’t follow the doctrines and commandments of men who are extreme.
82 Comments
Terry,
You make a fair point, and I grant a distinction. But with Zrim I’m still not sure that distinction is a significant one if there is an implicit claim to divine authority. Setting Calvin college aside, why would you require an officer to send their child to a Christian school if the Bible doesn’t?
For the sake of clarification, let’s just say “some in the URC” or “some congregations in the URC” have debated requiring officers to send their kids to Christian schools.
To the best of my knowledge, the URC itself is not currently debating there, and there is no such overture on the Agenda of Synod 2012 (or any Classes that I’m aware of).
10:03 pm!!!! That’s insane. Nothing good happens after 10:00 pm everybody knows that, it’s part of the general equity grounded in creation and written on the heart.
I’m actually inclined to agree wrt church officers, although I’m not sure that things like church order, books of discipline, directories of worship, rules of synod, etc. aren’t in this category. If you want to be an officer you agree to such and such. There’s a voluntary aspect to becoming an officer that’s not the case for “just” being a church member. I’m not sure I want to rule out a “covenanting” together on some common cause. I understand the danger here. But here’s where conscience might have some bite. If you can’t do it then you shouldn’t.
Sean, true. Late meetings are when otherwise good 2kers are tempted to indulge their inner theo and start throwing rocks at the ones who keep getting things wrong.
Terry, fair enough. But I suppose what that would mean is that if I can’t “promote God centered schooling” per URC CO Art. 14 (because it seems to imply to discourage secular schooling and would be self-refuting and I’d rather promote liberty on matters indifferent), I should take a pass on any nomination. That’s fine, hello 10:03 PM at home. But the question of needing biblical warrant for any explicit duty remains. What’s the warrant for “Godly schooling”?
Darryl, no requirement of Christian schools for officers as far as i can see. CRC church order requires attending to faith formation and catchesis of covenant youth.
There is this:
Article 71
The council shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools in which the biblical, Reformed vision of Christ’s lordship over all creation is clearly taught. The council shall also urge parents to have their children educated in har- mony with this vision according to the demands of the covenant.
This seems consistent with sphere sovereignty.
Zrim, you agree with Article 71? (as a CRC elder?)
Terry, CRC 71 sounds a lot like URC 14: officers shall promote a particularly Christian delivery of schooling. I’d rather promote liberty on things indifferent.
Zrim, it does say “in harmony with this vision”. I’m not so sure that a properly grounded and corrected public education doesn’t qualify. In other words, the call to teach children to think Christianly in all of life is just the call to Christian discipleship. Hopefully, no one would suggest that it’s illegitimate conscience-binding for Christian parents to raise their kids in the Biblical faith. I will readily grant you the point that in much of Reformedom “in harmony with this vision” is and has been equated to the the local Christian day school.
Being OPC in Mecca while I was a faculty-member at Calvin put me slightly outside the mainstream of GR culture. Homeschooling was not a difficult option, although it was viewed as a bit strange. My family made the cover of the Banner when they had an article about homeschooling. The article had nothing to do with us or our perspective, just a photo opp. We were the closest thing they could come up with as Reformed homeschoolers.
But I do have to say that there is a social/communal dimension to establishing a Christian school. It’s hard to keep one going if all the Reformed folks in the community aren’t committed to it.
Additionally, I cringe at the Biblicism inherent in the ask for “the Bible’s command to send your kids to the Christian school.” That’s like asking where does the Bible teach me anything about atomic theory. Or, is Genesis discussing evolutionary theory or old-earth geology? The modern education enterprise was there in the Bible. You can’t use the Bible to answer those questions, but you can use the good and necessary consequences of Biblical teaching (and maybe a bit of the light of nature) to get to answers.
Should have been “wasn’t there” re the modern educational enterprise.
But, Terry, a secular school would never describe itself as “being in harmony the biblical, Reformed vision of Christ’s lordship over all creation is clearly taught,” or “godly schooling.” So the idea that a public school would qualify seems not a small stretch. I’ve heard this strategy before on the part of those who want to protect the Dutch Reformed legacy from legalism. It’s a nice effort, but way too much like pounding square pegs into round holes.
And is it really Biblicism to demand where the Bible binds a conscience or good old fashioned Protestantism? I thought the RPW was Reformed, not Anabaptist. Now you are sounding like the Catholics who conflate the Radical Reformation with the Protestant Reformation.
Zrim, read carefully. It doesn’t say that the school be in harmony, it says that the education provided by the parents be in harmony. Public education supplemented with appropriate Christian thinking provided by parents or pastors could well qualify. I doubt that it’s superior to from the ground up Christian education, but it could meet the church order’s mandate.
The call to train our children in our faith (and all that that entails) is pretty clear in the Bible. Schooling options are applications. The principle is certainly Biblical.
Terry, well, there you have it. The social/communal dimension of Christian schools. That is an important reason for immigrants to maintain group solidarity and I have admired ethnic loyalty among the Dutch. It is when the immigrant experience of one ethnic group becomes a transforming vision for all the other Calvinist mutts that I get annoyed. I wish the Dutch the best in maintaining their ways. But once they give up the mother tongue and begin to assimilate, then they need to back off the Kuyperian convictions and try a little Machen once in a while. We’re not in Amsterdam anymore.
Terry, come on with the reading carefully and tap into your experience around the Dutch Reformed. The plain reading is pushing Christian day schools for covenant youth. Quit torturing the reading. But if one wants to make the point about the primacy of parents in the matter (to say nothing of respecting conscience), give me instead the RCC 2229:
As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help them in their task as Christian educators. Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise.
With Darryl, I respect the desire for cultural cohesion that day schools give an immigrant group. But it’s time to admit that this is really what animates things like URC 14 and CRC 71 and then re-assess what it all might mean this side of cultural assimilation, not to mention in light of Christian liberty. And I’m not antagonistic about the biblical mandate of training covenant youth in the faith. My point is about HOW that is done. And it is done via catechism, not curriculum. If only the CRC took its confessional heritage as seriously as it does its day school tradition. Sigh.
Zrim, well out here in Colorado, at least in Fort Collins, it is the natural reading not a strain at all. Some families pursue the local more fundamentalist Christian school, some attend a neighboring town Lutheran Christian school, some homeschool, the by far the majority attend the local public schools. I’ll have to do research on the history of the wording but I suspect that the language was altered to grant more flexibility to churches, councils, and families.
Clearly, the main motivation of Kuyper to establish Christian schools in the Netherlands is because of the immigrant experience. You guys are ridiculous. And the embracing of the newly formed OPC by the CRC in the 30′s was because the OPC was so Dutch. Reminds me a bit of those in the CRC who think the Reformed Confessions are part of the Dutch ways and if they want to truly become a diverse church then they have to give up the Reformed Confessions.
Terry, so the local Fundie, Lutheran, and SECULAR(!) schools teach in harmony with “the biblical, Reformed vision of Christ’s lordship over all creation”? How is it to be ridiculous to truly puzzle over how secularism can possibly be understood as in accord with a Reformed vision? Talk about the mind boggling. But if the language was altered to grant more flexibility, I still say the Catholics have worded things much better.
But now you also seem to be hinting at the recent efforts in the CRC to revise the Form of Subscription (more evidence of a wayward denom). I’m not sure what this has to do with the discussion exactly, but as long as you bring it up, evidently the day school devotion hasn’t done much to instill a confessionally and militantly Reformed identity and commitment, now has it?
Zrim, not hinting at that at all. And, actually, the final version of the form is pretty true to the CRC’s confessional heritage. You might want to read it for yourself. I don’t particularly have a problem with the original Form of Subscription other than its “doth fully agree” phrase. I think that the Presbyterian (OPC, historic PCUSA) is superior. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in updating language every few hundred years.
You’re still not getting the point of Article 71. No one said that Fundie, Lutheran, or Secular schools teach in harmony with the Reformed vision. That’s not what the church order article requires. My confidence in your reading skills diminishes with each exchange. The church order articles instructs councils to encourage members to set up Reformed schools. Separately, tt instructs councils to urge parents to have children educated in harmony with the Reformed vision. This can happen in any kind of school as long as the parents supplement any missing piece or correct faulty instruction. Once so adjusted the schooling is in harmony with the Reformed vision.
Zrim,
CRCNA Church Order 2011
Article 71
The council shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools in which the biblical, Reformed vision of Christ’s lordship over all creation is clearly taught. The council shall also urge parents to have their children educated in harmony with this vision according to the demands of the covenant.
CRCNA Church Order 1976
Article 71
The consistory shall diligently encourage the members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools and shall urge parents to have their children instructed in these schools according to the demands of the covenant.
I think that the 2011 version is more flexible. Wouldn’t you agree?
This can happen in any kind of school as long as the parents supplement any missing piece or correct faulty instruction. Once so adjusted the schooling is in harmony with the Reformed vision.
So, Terry, why not just say catechize the kids at home and in church? What’s schooling of any variety matter as long as that’s happening? Here’s all that would have to happen to URC 14:
The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practiced. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the minister(s) and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, (DELETE) promote God-centered schooling (DELETE), visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, engage in family visiting, exercise discipline in the congregation, actively promote the work of evangelism and missions, and insure that everything is done decently and in good order.
But I see no principled difference between CRC 71 (1976) and (2011). RCC Catechism 2229 beats both and URC 14.
Zrim, as good as catechism is (very good!), it’s not all there is to Christian education. I would readily admit that a well-catechized person will likely have the worldview envisioned by most neo- Cals. It doesn’t hurt to model it in the concrete however. And that’s Christian schools do when operating properly.
Terry, yes, that seems to be the worldviewist take on catechism: good, but not good enough. Not unlike the neo-Cal culturalist take on the confessions themselves, high opinion (sometimes low) but low view. High view is reserved for epistemology. But at least paleos and neos share an infallible view of the Bible. So there is that. Who says we’re pessimists?
Terry, what in hades does Heidelberg say about biology? How could the catechism possibly have much to say beyond there is a creator and then man fell? That’s not going to get you very far in a biology text book. Oh, I forgot. And as you teach biology you glorify God.
Darryl, you’re well on your way to figuring this out. Creation, of course, is a fundamental aspect to thinking about all of reality, including biology. The lawfulness and regularity that we observe in the biological world is grounded in and founded upon God’s decrees, laws, statutes, etc. Understanding aright the biological world means understanding its createdness. I would add the doctrine of Providence to the mix–the catechism and confessions have something to say about that. Necessary, contingent, and free secondary causes are all rooted in the execution of God’s decree in providence. If you don’t start with these things you end up with your science promoting materialism, reductionism, autonomy of nature, etc. I’m not so sure about the consequences of the Fall for our biology other than the darkening of the knowledge of the Creator that should come from our study.
We could also talk about the doxological notions and the service to God notions (vocation) that are embodied in the catechism’s teaching about the 10 Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer.
And, yes, teaching biology, studying biology, biology itself (even the stones cry out, let everything that has breath…) glorifies God.
You’re right about the biology textbook. If you think that’s what we’re talking about then you’re mistaken. I’m talking about the religio-philosophical roots of the disciplines including biology. The technical details at least in the physical/biological sciences are largely shared between Christians and non-Christians. There is common ground but not common foundations. Non-Christians still operate in God’s Creation whether they admit it or not.
I know you have little use for religio-philosophical foundations for thinking. I find that to be strange for a scholar. I suspect that you don’t really think that about your own discipline and that you’ve given lots of thought to the practice of history and how one’s fundamental perspectives (worldview) impact one’s scholarship. My impression is that this is even more important in disciplines outside the natural sciences.
As someone fairly squarely in the 2K camp, I can’t see many consciences being bound in “promote God-centered schooling” as a task of the elder in URCNA CO 14. Sure, it’s not a positive statement of liberty on the issue (as Rome articulate due to the history of persecution and liberties being restricted). But it is a good bit better than CRC (’76 or ’11), in that it doesn’t call for the council to establish schools. I would guess this change is less driven by any latent 2K spirit in the drafters than by a desire to be more open-ended for home schoolers and less domineering (or more suspicious of institutions).
Zrim, do you have kids? I must say, my views on this have changed since my only daughter began attending an LCMS school operating on a classical model (we are in an area where public schools frankly aren’t an option). Namely, I’m far more grateful for her Christian education (and the Christian aspects of it) than I anticipated.
Let’s take music, surely a proper subject of “schooling” on a classical model. She is being trained by her Lutheran teachers to know music primarily for the purposes of worship. Within weeks of her starting up last fall, my four year old began waking me up in the morning singing Kyrie Elieson. Yes, I’m a pastor, and I should have been teaching her music at home. I was, some. But her musical education has skyrocketed this year, as well as her interest and ability to engage with psalms and hymns we sing at church. I recently awoke from a Sunday afternoon nap to see her copying out Psalm 51 from our bulletin. Sure, she could learn the elements of music from anyone. But how much better that she learns the elements while learning Christian forms, to boot? [Though I am afraid the debts/trespasses battle will be pitched and protracted]
I’m a product of Catholic parochial schools (1-8) and public high school, but I think in this day and age it is appropriate for elders to “promote god-centered schooling,” especially if this instruction is read with a 2K lens (i.e., “parents, your godly training of your children extends beyond catechesis, to how to think well.”) I don’t know Kuyper’s motivation, but I know that the Reformation was a great boon to literacy in general, as more households read and studied the Scriptures, and churches emphasized he importance of this study. Sure, this took on a totally different meaning and significance in an immigrant community, but to jettison this concern entirely for fear of constraining liberty seems a bit foolish.
Many parents today are clueless about the importance of ideology in education. Increasingly, our state schools will produce illiterate citizens (barely “citizens”), who may not be well equipped intellectually to be church members or officers. Officers should promote god-centered schooling — an education that equips our children to worship. Was that the original intent of the CO? Maybe, in part, with charitable reading. But I think that’s a good reading in the light of the broader Reformed tradition.
Brian, CRC CO #71 does not call for the Council to establish schools. That’s not the work of the church. It calls for the Council to encourage members to establish and maintain schools. I think this is an important distinction when we’re quibbling over sphere sovereignty and the spirituality of the church.
Brian, yes, we have two daughters. And ss advocates of public schooling who have in the past decided against local public school options, and as one who whose vocation is within the larger public education arena and sees the weaknesses, I can readily admit that it’s very difficult to maintain public school advocacy in theory and in practice these days. But we do nevertheless. And it might help to try and see things from this perspective to begin to understand how even statements like “promote God-centered schooling” might imply something troubling. It may not be as readily apparent to one with your background.
Good public school advocates know the importance of variety in schooling (private, home, religious), so your points about what parochial schooling has afforded are well taken. And some of us would like to see the favor returned. One place I might point you to is WA Strong’s “Children in the Early Church,” which helps make the point that the early believers weren’t quite as concerned with worldview as moderns tend to be and also saw the virtue of learning along side those who have vastly different religious convictions.
If it helps, we have decided against continuing in the mainstream public school where we are for our oldest (so far the transformers in Little Geneva have yet to impact public education) and have instead chosen an academically oriented preparatory high school for her–but it’s a charter, so we still get the public aspect we esteem. Still not what anybody could construe as “godly,” but I’m still not clear why that matters so much that my elder needs to promote it.
Terry, do you really mean to imply that scientists in the West do not build on the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans or the Muslims for that matter? If you look at the history of science, the distinctness of Christian outlooks becomes less convincing. Which again leads to the point that neo-Calvinism is guilty of triumphalism and doesn’t give Christians a good reputation among those who recognize the accomplishments of non-Christian scientists and philosophers. It is a simplistic construction to give Christians credit for advances in science (though it is a nice way to try to do for science what Jerry Falwell and Co. did for the United States — we must return to our Christian origins as a nation or a science).
Terry, yes, you are correct. I misread that. I grant the import of the distinction. I still prefer the URC formulation for not asking people to establish schools, and leaving a bit more liberty.
Zrim, I’m not noting the parochial advantages out of worldview concern, so we’re in agreement there. More out of prudential concern. And a CO is not a confessional document, in my book. It is, in part, a prudential document, more contextual, and open to revision on far lighter grounds than confessions.
I can imagine all sorts of contexts where a church order may wish to have officers be mindful of how families are attending to the education of their children. No, I don’t think “God-centered” is the best adjective, either for the sake of its clarity or descriptive power.
Part of my prudential concern is quality of education (again, not worldview), but I’ll come clean and grant that I worry more and more about ideology these days (not worldview, mind you). Of course, ideology gets back to quality, as an ideological school is engaged more in indoctrination than education. Don’t want to slur public educators at all, but I do worry in particular about “Green Orthodoxy” and Sexuality. And my concern is that both of these ideological concerns are occupying a greater portion of the public education diet, and not encouraging critical thought in doing so.
Let’s leave w__w out of it. As a public school advocate, how would you rate those concerns of mine? Do you think our public school systems (again, broadly generalizing) are growing more ideological in select areas, and therefore doing a worse job educating? Because my guess is that in the URC this is what most people are concerned about when they use a term like “God-centered schooling.”
Brian,
I think your prudential concerns are warranted and I share them. They play some part in our own past and future decisions against the local public education. But I’m also not sure there is the kind of distinction between ideology and worldview you’re suggesting. If there is ideology and worldview in public education it is because it shares with educational parochialists who also believe education is not primarily an intellectual project but an affective one. In my own experience, Christians basically choose parochial schooling out of worldview, not out of a concern for intellectual development.
But with regard to the CO being a prudential document, that’s fine as far as it goes. But the problem for me is how Article 14 includes elements that are of a binding nature. Once more:
The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practiced. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the minister(s) and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centered schooling, visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, engage in family visiting, exercise discipline in the congregation, actively promote the work of evangelism and missions, and insure that everything is done decently and in good order.
Purity of doctrine and life, sacraments, catechism, discipline, evangelism, and good order are all prescribed by the Bible. I don’t know what schooling has to do with any of that since the Bible doesn’t prescribe schooling (as in the three Rs). Purity of doctrine and life, evangelism, visitation, discipline, and catechism should be promoted by officers because the Bible prescribes them. Either all of these things are not binding but simply really good ideas, or schooling is just as prescribed as evangelism. I doubt you grant the former, and if the latter then the PRC is right to compel officers (even laity for that matter) to employ only denominational schools they way they may only employ Reformed worship. My guess is that, like me, you don’t like the PRC’s recent actions, in which case it makes more sense to drop the whole idea of “godly schooling,” which means deleting the phrase “promote God-centered schooling.”
If the URC is concerned for the state of education (and is why the phrase is retained) then why not the state of the Union, the physical health of Americans and on and don it could go? If I tried hard enough, I could have prudential concerns about those things, but I don’t see why any of it should be the concern of elders to promote “godly statecraft and eating habits.” You may want to keep worldview out of this, but it’s the 500 lb gorilla smack in the middle of it all.
Fair points, but there are two points in the list that talk about “promoting,” and I think there is a bit of intended ambiguity with that word, so the list isn’t an undifferentiated enumeration of necessities. Promoting something is different than doing it. Why only promote evangelism and missions, which are clearly necessary to the well-being of the church? Well, maybe because not everyone is gifted in the same way in those regards. Likewise, promoting god-centered schooling is going to vary a lot, depending on your context.
I’m not saying worldview thinking isn’t part of the reason it is in there, and I’m not saying that a CO without it wouldn’t be better. But I think there is a big difference between debating an ideal CO in the abstract, and living within the bounds (and the collected history) of the one you have. For those who inherited a strong Christian schooling tradition from their parents, removing it from the CO would be a highly symbolic move. Ultimately, I think it is there (and not godly statecraft) because schooling is within the sphere of the family, and the church has a direct interest in the activity of that sphere.
What does Paul say? Let them remain in the condition in which they were called. I’m happy for the elders to continue to promote God-centered schooling with an eye to prudence and Christian liberty, so long as others are happy not to bind consciences where Scripture is silent. And I think our CO strikes a good balance there. Speaking pastorally, that is certainly how I would explain it and apply it to a public school teacher or advocate, most of whom, like you, recognize there are a host of tradeoffs.
Brian, it may be the case that not everyone is gifted for evangelism and missions, but if it’s a sphere sovereignty point we want to make, it’s also the case that parents have primacy in deciding how their children will be schooled. Which means they should be afforded that liberty without ecclesiastical promotion or discouragement. Which is why something like RCC Catechism 2229 is still better to my mind if we’re being serious about liberty.
Yes, I’m quite sure striking the language from the CO would be highly symbolic among the Reformed where schooling is a third rail the way personal holiness is among the Fundamentalists. But it’s a point worth raising when it comes to worldview. Frankly, I think it becomes something of a conundrum for confessionalists to fault the culturalists for their “Reformed world-and-life view” and not think that the laboratory for worldview (Christian schools) can go unquestioned. But let me also be clear that this has nothing to do with wanting to take away anything from anybody–how could it be if the larger point is liberty? Rather, it’s to make a point about sola scriptura and press an assumption that at least looks like the Bible prescribes schools.