FIVE ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION by Rev. H. Van Dyken, G. Bonekamp, and H. Bergsma. The Reformed Fellowship of Canada, Rexdale, Ont., 1974, 64 pages (paper), price $ .75. Reviewed by B. E. Brune, Teacher, Lynden Christian School, Lynden, Wash.

This booklet consists of five essays addressed to “. . . all those who are concerned with the trend of (Christian) education in our time . . . ”, who face the question, “Do we want our schools to be based on these ‘new insights: or do we want our schools to be what our Covenant God wants them to be?”

The first essay, “Covenantally Ours” by the Rev. H. Van Dyken of the Christian Reformed Church, presents an important introduction to the essays that follow, in that he reminds those of us who have forgotten it of the covenantal basis for Christian Education. He docs so by pointing out that the sovereign God binds Himself in covenant with His people, and that within that covenant the training (education) of children is the responsibility of parents; that authority over children has been given by God to parents; that this authority may be delegated to those specially trained to educate children; and that that authority extends also to the content of education. It is good to be reminded again in these days of doctrinal laxity that “man does not enter into covenant with God, God made man in covenant.” By virtue of his creation in the image of God, in an environment provided by God, man is a covenant creature. As such, he is to recognize God’s prerogatives for man‘s life also in the area of education, and his response must be in keeping with God’s demands.

“The Informal Christian School” by C. Bonekamp examines the informal school as propounded more particularly by Dr. A. DeGraaff of the Association for Advancement of Christian Scholarship (hereinafter referred to as AACS). His contention is that the Christian Schools are now facing what the public schools have faced “for decades,” the new type of school (in the U.S. already finding disfavor among many public school adherents) promoting the psychological, child-centered approach, its teachings based on the nature and needs of the child. He indicates that the results of such principles can lead only to informal moral standards, informal lives of faith, and informal attitudes toward jobs and government. The introduction of these informal attitudes invariably comes from tile faculty and administration, not from the parents. This, he asserts most emphatically is unconstitutional in that Christian Schools are supposed to be parent-controlled. I could wish he had developed this thought in more detail. If, indeed, the school is to be an extension of the home, the attitudes, beliefs, and principles of the home should be emphasized in the school, except where they can plainly be shown to be in conflict with the Word of God.

The essay, “Authority: Behind the Classroom Door,” is an essay derived from a lecture given by Mr. Bonekamp in a Christian School Administrator‘s conference in August, 1973. In it, the author makes some very telling criticisms of the AACS and the effects its principles of education are having on Christian Schools, particularly in Canada, and also, to some extent, on some in the United States. His thesis is that, “When principals and teachers, education committee members and board members, in the role of adherents to the tenets of a philosophically based movement, take control in Christian Education, the change is from Scriptural, parental authority to authority behind the classroom door.” This he amply elucidates in his definition of the AACS as a movement which sets guidelines, and writes curriculum guides that are and (more important) basic commitment. They are radically different because they evolve from a preoccupation with the philosophy commonly known as the Law-Idea, or the Cosmonomic Idea. By his analysis of the faulty structure of AACS thinking and their insistence upon many “words of God,” rather than the one Word of God, namely, the Old and New Testaments as being the only authoritative basis upon which authority in the home (and school as an extension of the home) is derived, Bonekamp makes a telling refutation of tIle claims of the AACS. His forthright commitments and unambiguous statements of belief are refreshing to observe in this age of tolerance, compromise, and surrender of principle for the sake of expediency or unity.

“Response Revealed,” a short work also from the pen of G. Bonekamp, is a citation of effects the former essay evoked in the AACS community, and responses to those effects. Would not the readers have been well served, in spite of the extra work involved, if he had given a brief summary of Van Til’s (Dordt) criticism, and also Frame’s (Westminster), Rudolph‘s (Reformed Episcopal Seminary), and Rev. Van Schouwen’s refutation of Van Til’s position?

The final essay, “Christian Education: What About the Future?” by H. Bergsma presents some very pertinent questions and thought5. Apparently a peculiarity of the Canadian situation, there appears to be some movement among some in the Reformed community in the direction of “Public Christian Schools.” Would, perhaps, a U.S. counterpart be the non-denominational school, whose constituency is composed of members of many different churches? In such situations Bergsma justly raises some pertinent questions, as: the place of church creeds in school constitutions; application of Reformed principles; parent, trutstee, or principal/teacher as final authority, among others. But the most intriguing point Bergsma raises is the position of the teacher (and/or administrator) as opposed to the parent in areas of final authority and responsibility. He charges that there are teachers who have the attitude that it is their duty to “. . . undo the vaccination of the home and the church . . . which effectively prevents the child from properly understanding the true power of the Word of God”; that there are teachers and/ or education committees which change the basic direction of the school without approval of the board; that boards arc at times negligent in allowing the educational committee too much freedom in hiring faculty staff. His conclusion contains thought provoking questions that need careful study and sound Reformed thinking in propounding answers.

This, I believe, is a booklet that not only teachers, administrators, and board members would be well advised to read, but more especially, one that every parent ought to read, study, and discuss. Enlightened Christian parents might then engage in a more active and responsible participation in the control of their schools, lest there should come upon them some of the agonizing experienccs others have undergone.