INTRODUCTION

In my previous article (see December 2025, p. 101), I pointed out that the foundation for unity in the Reformed Christian school is biblical, creedal truth. On that foundation all involved in the life of the school can effectively handle the twofold concern that can at times create division in the school community; namely, the concern to maintain the whole/institution and the concern to care for the individual student. I stated that we maintain unity in the school on that foundation by working to keep and preserve the whole without idolizing it or worshiping it, while simultaneously working for the good of individual students without worshiping or idolizing any one of them. Let’s begin by explaining the latter.

SEEKING THE GOOD OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Each individual student in each school is important. The school exists for the benefit of each student, and parents rightly seek the good of their individual covenant child in the school. They may not always do so in a godly manner, but the seeking itself is a righteous impulse. God gave these students with their gifts to these parents that the parents might steward them for God’s glory in service to Christ and His body. The teacher who stands in loco parentis must do so in this respect also, that he seeks the holistic good of the individual child along with the parents of that child.

In order to seek the good of the individual student, the teachers, administration, board, and society do their best to offer a diversity of courses and resources to develop the students’ individual abilities. Of course, each institution has limited resources, and each school has its own circumstances and stage of development. Nonetheless, institutions strive to provide for each student as they are able.

At the same time, each teacher within each institution cares for each individual student in the class, treating the child not merely as a number but as an individual person uniquely created by God and redeemed by grace. Teachers give each child law and gospel and law again, even while teaching Math and English and Science.1 Teachers may naturally develop closer relationships to some students than to others, but teachers must care for and seek to assist all of them. Sometimes a teacher even leaves the ninety-nine behind for a time if need be to seek out the one sheep for encouragement, or for corrective, careful discipline.

THE ERROR OF INDIVIDUALISM

At the same time, a focus on the individual can devolve into individualism, which is idolatry of an individual child or a particular group of children. Individualism is a particular danger in this day and age. Every American generation after the baby boomers has become increasingly individualistic and obsessed with self.2 One well-regarded psychologist who studies these matters concluded that since the boomer generation, progressively ours “is a culture that teaches the primacy of the individual at virtually every step.”3 Regarding the youth, “Young people have been consistently taught to put their own needs first and to focus on feeling good about themselves.”4 To be sure, we need a qualification here. As we said, there should be a proper focus on the individual. And a child should be taught that another’s behavior destructive to oneself may not stand and must be reported without fear of retribution. At the same time, I think we would have to put our heads in the sand to think that individualism is not affecting us.

Teachers can be guilty of individualism by falling into favoritism, giving time and attention to one student or one group of students while repeatedly neglecting other students. Rather than leaving the ninety-nine behind temporarily to retrieve the one lost sheep, favoritism selfishly pursues the one or the few sheep while leaving the rest without much attention and care.

Parents and students can also fall into individualism. Parents can act as though their child is the only one that matters. They can fail to recognize that there are necessary things that have to be done for the sake of the whole. Some of these things may necessarily curb the desires of their individual child, requiring the student and his/her parents to sacrifice for the sake of the whole school community. It is spiritually good for a child to experience this to some extent. God calls Christians to sacrifice for the body of Christ throughout life. However, parents and students can be tempted to grow angry or resentful when their individual desires are not granted, or they may grow impatient as they wait for the school to develop to the point where it can provide the opportunities for which they are looking. When individualism reigns, the result is arrogant outrage and even tirades.

If unchecked, individualism in parents, students, or communities develops into a view of the covenant school that imagines the school is no different than the grocery store, dentist office, or mechanic shop. In other words, the family’s relationship to the school devolves into something merely transactional. “I am here to purchase an education for my child, and that is all.” To be sure, payment for a service rendered is part of the relationship of a family to the school. In paying tuition a family expects a faithful covenant education for their child in return. But though the relationship is not less than that, it may not be merely that. A covenant parent is not merely a consumer and the school the supplier of a product, so that if the parent does not like something about the product, his commitment immediately wanes or ends. Life in the school goes beyond what one is buying for the child. This is a covenantal school, and there is a commitment to the covenantal goals and covenant people as a whole. There has to be if there is going to be unity!

I have probably used this language myself before, but I now attempt to avoid phrases such as, “We use ____ school,” or “My family uses ____ school,” or the question, “Does your family use ____ school?” I understand the point of such language, but words matter. Is this what we want to communicate about sending our children to the Christian school out of a covenantal conviction: “I use ____ school” like I use ____ grocery store, or I use ____ dentist, or I use ____ dry cleaner? This language is devoid of covenantal consciousness that cares for this institution and these people as a whole—as part of a body. When I use a certain grocery store, I do not have a concern (other than the general concern of loving the neighbor) for the body of people who make use of that particular grocery store. It is a business, and my relationship to it is business-like, not covenantal. In contrast, my relationship to the school ought to include holistic concern for the institution and the community of people that it serves.

We must reject selfish individualism on the part of parents and students. Doing so does not excuse failures on the part of any teacher or board or school. Neither may the school administration or staff use the accusation of individualism as a wastebasket to dismiss constructive help so that if ever we are called out on an error we retort, “I can ignore the criticism because the critic is probably an individualist!” But in preaching, teaching, and writing we must push back against true individualism. Every family has to recognize that they and their child will give something up for the sake of the whole. Some aspect of what they desired will likely die for the sake of the body. The very fact that there is a flock of sheep to care for, and an institution to maintain, requires it.

THE ERROR OF TYRANNY

Yet, in the right seeking of the good of the whole, there is a danger that we go to the opposite extreme. This is the danger of tyranny; the danger of neglecting an individual, or some individuals, for the sake of the whole, the institution, or other individuals we deem more valuable to the whole or the institution. Tyranny is unjustly putting the institution above the legitimate and reasonable needs of an individual sheep. One horrific example of this is hiding terrible sin on the part of one in a position of authority, which sin has harmed an individual sheep or could lead to such harm, for the sake of guarding the standing and reputation of the institution or staff member. This has happened. More than once. And is evidence that this tyranny is not a danger foreign to us. God forbid it!

There are other temptations in this regard. A teacher, principal, or school board may be tempted to scoff at or dismiss parents who carefully express concerns about weaknesses in a school or a teacher, or who have concerns about the needs of a child. Individuals or groups of individuals with powerful personalities and strong opinions may be tempted to dominate decision-making, even at times when the decisions are not theirs to make. And others who should not allow it may fail to stop it. Certain people who give much money, or who are esteemed, or who have powerful connections may be allowed to use their resources to “purchase” opportunities for their child(ren) in the school that others do not have. Conversely, those who “seem to have it all” may be unjustly “punished” by a teacher in an attempt to “humble them a little bit.” In another example, a teacher or administration may be tempted to take advantage of those in the covenant community who are very much committed to the right view of the school. The teacher or administration may realize they can get away with bowling over this child a bit because the child’s parents have a strong covenant consciousness, and they will not squawk about it.

All these examples and more exhibit tyranny of the institution, the opposite ditch of individualism. Maintaining the whole or the institution must not involve neglecting, dismissing, or unjustly treating individual students.

There was a phrase used repeatedly when I was growing up, the sentiment behind which phrase I appreciate even as I write: “The teacher is always right.” The sentiment is one of respect and honor of teachers, which is necessary. But the phrase itself is not true and can lead to blind acceptance of sin. The teacher usually is right, and regardless, ought to be honored and respected as demanded in the fifth commandment. But the teacher is not necessarily always right. Neither is the minister or the professor. No one ought to be above accountability, or tyranny will reign.

_____________

I believe these are the right principles: The institution must work to minimize the sacrifice of the well-being of the individual child for the sake of the whole, and never sacrifice the being of any individual child for the sake of the whole. Conversely, the parents and child must understand, they might have to sacrifice something of the (perceived) well-being of the child for the sake of the whole, always limited, and never may they sacrifice the child’s being.

For the institution to fail to do the first is tyranny. For the parents to fail to be willing to do the latter is individualism. When both carry out these principles, there can be unity.

SPIRITUAL NECESSITIES

In order for these principles to be carried out on the foundation of biblical and creedal truth, the members of the school community must possess certain spiritual qualities. The apostle Paul speaks of them in Ephesians 4:2-3: “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” The apostle is answering the question, “How do you keep (guard) the unity?” He answers, with four spiritual qualities: “lowliness of mind, meekness, longsuffering, and forbearing one another in love.”

“Lowliness of mind” is humility. It is putting oneself lower than the other in one’s own mind, esteeming the other better than oneself. It is realizing there is a child of God before me, bought with the blood of the Lamb, and it is behaving accordingly. “Meekness” is gentleness or mildness. It is not weakness. It is not being a pushover. It is thinking before you speak, speaking calmly and carefully, looking for the good of the other, and refusing to blow up even about legitimate concerns. “Longsuffering” is being willing to suffer long for the sake of others. It involves patience and waiting on God’s will, especially in difficult situations. “Forbearing one another” is enduring one another’s weaknesses and sins, even if we must deal rightly with sins that may not be covered (1 Pet. 4:8). The Bible uses the word “forbearing” when it describes enduring persecution and bearing up under its difficulty since it is God’s will (1 Cor. 4:12). Is not the life of the school, as the life of the church, the place where we learn to bear with one another?

This forbearing is only possible with true agape love. “Forbearing one another in love.” As Christ has borne my sins and endured so much for me in agape love, so I must bear much in my dealings with others. “Forbearing one another in love.” Each is called to forbear regardless of whether or not the other is forbearing. Yet Paul envisions God’s people mutually bearing one another’s weaknesses this way. Imagine each individual member of the school community wrapped in a two-foot-thick foam piece called agape. Insulated in this way, each individual is able to absorb the weaknesses and coverable sins of others. Love bears it, endures it, without breaking fellowship.

Following Paul’s instruction in Ephesians 4 allows us to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called (v. 1). We do not have this agape in us by nature. But we have been called out of a kingdom where the individual seeks only his own and where the whole and institutions seek their own advantage at the expense of the individual. We have been called into a kingdom built on agape, where the concern of the individual and of the whole can fit together beautifully, seeking the good of one another in the bond of peace.

1 It is my conviction that the law-gospel distinction ought to be known as the law-gospel-law distinction instead, following the “Guilt-Grace-Gratitude” pattern.
2 The baby-boomer generation are those between 61 and 79 years old.
3 Jean M. Twenge, Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—and More Miserable Than Ever Before (Free Press, 2006), 8.
4 Twenge, Generation Me, 7.