The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Protestant Reformed Churches & Homeschooling

tcalbrecht · #43 (**permalink**) 05-13-2008, 11:27 AM

Can someone reconcile these two statements? I must be missing something.

Quote:

January/February, 2008 at the Georgetown PRC

Classis East met at its regularly scheduled time on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, but because of the business before it, held continued sessions on February 13, 14, and 27, 2008. All the churches were represented by two delegates for these sessions. Rev. C. Haak served as chairman. Classis treated protests from four individuals and a consistory against decisions taken by classis in September, 2007 regarding a pastor’s calling with regard to the education of his children in light of Article 21 of the Church Order. Classis did not uphold any of these protests, thus allowing the original decisions of classis to stand. (For a complete presentation of the decisions taken by the September, 2007 classis confer the Report of Classis East given in the November 1, 2007 issue of the Standard Bearer.) Classis also dealt with the report of a special committee appointed to assist the Grace PRC in implementing the decisions taken by classis. The discussion of this report and of the advice of a committee of pre-advice was held in closed session. Classis, however, decided to make its decisions public. Classis decided 1) that, in light of the requirements of Article 21 of the Church Order, Grace PRC’s consistory erred when they judged valid the reasons for their pastor’s withdrawing his children from two good Christian schools and home schooling them; 2) to advise Grace PRC to work with their pastor to show him the inadequacy of his reasons, and to inform their congregation of this and of the fact that they are working with him to show him that his reasons are not acceptable as the pastor of Grace PRC. Because of classis’ concern for the welfare of the congregation of Grace PRC and for the restoration of peace and unity in that congregation, it further advised the Council of Grace PRC to consider whether their pastor can be an effective preacher/pastor to his congregation and whether he can lead them out of their present unrest. Classis appointed another special committee to assist Grace’s Council and Consistory in implementing these decisions should they desire such help. An overture to Synod 2008 regarding Article 21 of the Church Order was considered and judged to be an improper overture. The consistory submitting this overture subsequently withdrew it.

Quote:

Volume 84 - Issue 3
Report of Classis East
The Standard Bearer

The appellant argued incorrectly that Article 21 requires that all families, regardless of circumstances, must send their children to our schools, and consistories must work with these parents until their children attend these schools. The intent of Article 21 is, rather, that the church (consistory) promote good Christian schools, not force them, and urge parents to use these schools, not coerce them, and that the preaching regarding the demands of the covenant should be done persistently, in a wise and timely manner.

The second appellant asked the consistory to require that their pastor reenroll his children in our Christian schools so that peace in the congregation could be restored. This appeal was not upheld, on the ground that such an action by a consistory would improperly require their pastor to act against his conscience. Home schooling falls within the area of Christian liberty; no member, not even an officebearer, may be required to act against his conscience on a matter of Christian liberty, though in certain instances an officebearer's holding to his conscience may jeopardize his office; therefore the consistory may not seek to restore peace in the congregation by forcing their pastor to enroll his children in PR schools against his conscience.

If attendance at church schools is not mandatory according to Article 21, and if homeschooling is a matter of conscience, how can the pastor's determination (reasons for homeschooling) be judged either valid or invalid by his consistory? Is the classis saying that the pastor’s conscientious decision, which he has the right to make for his family, was contrary to the best interests of the congregation?