Christian Education and Publications recently hosted a conference on Christian schools. We dealt with several different topics at the conference (see more details in the “CE&P at a Glance” section.) One question often asked by those interested in Christian schooling is what options are available for starting and running a school?

This question appears frequently because some within the Reformed family, and even beyond, believe that education of covenant children is the sole responsibility of parents. From that perspective, a school or the schooling process should be parent run. Neither the church nor state should be involved in the school business.

Much of this grows from the notion of sphere sovereignty. This means that within the Kingdom of God there are certain spheres, such as the home, the church, the state and the school. Each should operate within its own sphere. That was a particular focus of many from the Dutch side of the reformed family. Credit is generally given to Abraham Kuyper for championing this concept. Without a doubt, Kuyper was an unusually gifted Christian leader in the Netherlands during the turn of the 20^th century. He wore many hats as a statesman, a theologian, a journalist, and a minister.

Sphere sovereignty has emphasized that God developed different spheres or areas of life that are to operate upon their own God-given laws. Philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd has even fine-tuned this into fifteen modalities or spheres. One area is not to interfere with another. For example, the state is supposed to do what the state is supposed to do and the church is supposed to do what the church is supposed to do. Neither is to crossover into the other’s territory.

This concept seems to have much to offer Christians who are concerned with the government’s encroachment into almost every area of life. We also realize everything cannot realistically be neatly divided into its own package, as though it were an island to itself, with no contact or overlap with other areas.

When it comes to educating covenant children, whose responsibility is it? Professor Paul Woolley wrote, “The nurture, the training of the children is the direct responsibility of the family and not, in the primary sense, of anyone else,” ( Family, Church, and State—God’s Institutions, p. 16). He immediately draws from Deuteronomy 6:7 and 11:19 which are addressed to the entire covenant family. Our understanding of the covenant family of God is that it is made up of all believers in Christ along with their children (PCA BOCO 4-1).

The Presbyterian side of the reformation family, in contrast with the Dutch, focused on the covenant family in a more wholistic way. One vow taken by our congregations when the sacrament of covenant baptism is administered to infants (children) is: “Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child?” (PCA BOCO 56-5). While the covenant family is comprised of immediate parents and their children, the broader covenant family is all those who profess faith in Christ along with their children. We believe rearing and educating God’s covenant children, while the primary responsibility of the immediate family, should involve the broader covenant family. Hence, in the PCA most Christian schools are related in some fashion to a local church or several churches working together.

There are several good models of the broader covenant family working in Christian schooling, even for those parents who have opted for home schooling. Some maintain God has ordained only the primary family to be responsible for rearing his covenant children. Based on our understanding of the covenant, God has ordained the entire covenant family with that responsibility, starting with the immediate parents.

The application of the covenant family combined with church and school connection seems to be in order. I will mention four models of the educational process, from the farthest to closest connection between family, church and school.

Model One

A group of parents decide to come together and establish a Christian school. They are allowed to utilize a local church facility, yet they maintain parental oversight of the school. In this model, the church encourages and assists those involved but also has some input by allowing the church facilities to be used.

Model Two

The church decides to establish a Christian school and sets up a board made up of parents. The church’s role is to approve the members of the board and to allow the school to utilize the church facilities. In this model, like the above, the session of the church does not run the school but have some input and control in the two ways specified.

Model Three

A third model is where a school board is either approved or set up by the session of the church. The board reports to and is accountable to the session for the school’s operation. In this model the board is comprised of both parents and other interested people. This model allows for all board members to be members of that particular church. Others may be allowed who agree with the school’s philosophy, curriculum and activities, as well as the use of facilities. The session’s role is to evaluate the consistency of the school’s ministry with that of the church.

Model Four

In the fourth model, the church runs the school. The church session has immediate oversight and for all practical purposes becomes the board of the school. The session determines policy, personnel, and philosophy of education. With this model, the church actually runs the school.

All four models fall within the parameters of the covenant family’s role in the education process. Although all four would allow the church to be a key part of educating God’s covenant children, we have consistently recommended the third model as the best functional model. It is consistent with our understanding of the covenant family and its educational role. Because we refer to these four as covenant models, none relieve the immediate parents of their primary responsibility but neither is the broader covenant family excused from some level of involvement. Model three, particularly, is a very specific way in which people can apply the baptismal vow stated above. It can also demonstrate how the various spheres, if you use that terminology, do and should overlap in carrying out God’s commands to make disciples.

Given our complex world today, the church can and should play a key role in coordinating, facilitating and enabling covenant children to receive the best education to equip them to live in today’s postmodern world. We further believe those models that focus primarily on “content learning” or “social skills” need to also see the need for redemptive relational learning. Dr. Donavan Graham coined the term for this model, which emphasizes Christ as the heart of all learning. Christ builds character redemptively into the lives of students as they learn.

We continue to underscore that it takes a covenant family to raise a covenant child and that includes the educational process. It begins with immediate parents but requires the participation and input of the broader covenant family, particularly those who took the baptismal vow seriously. If you are interested in reading further on this topic there are three books that we have mentioned in the past: Susan Hunt’s Heirs of the Covenant, Eric Wallace’s Uniting Church and Home, Marva Dawn’s Is It a Lost Cause? available from the CE&P Bookstore at www.cepbookstore.com.

 - Charles Dunahoo

Back to Equip Page