Also a bit of irony that someone at Calvin College pondering the future of Calvinism, considering that the theological and philosophical faculty there have largely rejected classical trinitarianism for social trinitarianism, classical theism for open theism, and Chalcedonian Christology for kenotic Christology. Not to mention a rehabilitation of the Social Gospel (of course, alongside the “spiritual Gospel,” as if no one had tried that before). You don’t have to be a prophet to figure this out: future of Calvinism, thy name is not Calvin College.

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.

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.

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.

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.”