Let’s talk about child-rearing. Writing a curriculum would be antithetical to the very nature of Christian Mysticism. The whole point is to offer an example that would help you make up your own mind. We lead by example from the front.
That’s how we raise our children. If God grants you children, then you have been appointed as shepherd. That’s the minimum. If God also leads others children-in-effect to your flock, then you are obliged to lead in other ways. No one — no one — under the Covenant is permitted to evade their duty to shepherd in whatever way they can. If the flock follows you, then you are a shepherd. (Don’t become abrasive and difficult just as an excuse to avoid your duty.)
Your children may not voluntarily follow. This is why we emphasize covenant law with children.
Now, I know from experience that Americans in particular carry a false notion of what “law” means in this context. The word “law” in the Bible almost invariably refers to the leadership character of the Person of Christ, even before He was born as a man. In Eternity, He is the sole expression of the Divine Person, the One appointed to represent God to Creation. The word “law” does not refer to a body of legislation, nor simply some ukase spat out at us. It is the loving relationship with God; “law” is His love for us. It is grace and mercy; law is an expression of grace.
So it is with your own children. You must embody the Person of Christ; it’s built into our divine election. When they need a tighter rein, you provide it through your personal involvement in their lives. It’s the same way you deal with the rest of the world at large. If they do not manifest a response to grace and mercy, then they have chosen the law code. You would have less involvement with the world at large than you would your children, of course, but the engagement follows the same basic principle.
Thus, we refer to “children of the law” as those who do not, for whatever reason, rise to the privilege of grace and mercy. And it applies every time they slip below that level of privilege. So, you really must have a good grip on what the law code means and how it works. It is the minimum standard. In our case, that’s the Code of Noah. Our community does have a written guide to understanding the implications, but it’s not the code itself. You must have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to really understand it properly.
You want your children to have that guidance inside them. It may be a matter of time or it may be they will never develop such an internal focus of power and authority. Whenever and wherever people fail to have that internal Presence of God, you must provide the appropriate representation in the form of the law code. People operating by the flesh are under the law code because it’s all they can receive.
And, yes, this is the same with Red Pill stuff: Men and women hold out the law code for those who will not rise to grace and mercy. It is the fallback position we take when nothing else gets through. All the various socio-sexual interactions are shaped by the law code and its basic assumptions about human nature; that’s what the Red Pill lore is all about. Does it surprise anyone that the Red Pill lore echoes the Law of Moses in terms of basic assumptions about human nature?
One of the things you most certainly can impart under a law code standard is the concept of a prime directive, a distinct sense of mission and purpose. That comes from understanding the thesis of the Unseen Realm. You must absorb it, talk about it, live it — with your children in particular. They need to gain a sense of privilege even if it’s just a covenant of law for them. They must carry this sense of privilege into their interactions with the rest of the world. They really must gain a sense of detachment and separation based on a whole range of internal reactions asserting that they do not belong to the world at large.
The flesh can most certainly learn that. How do you think the children of Darkness keep themselves hidden in plain sight? There are whole families that pass on to their children a sense of prime directive based on certain underlying assumptions about how the world works. It’s true of a whole society that isn’t knowingly devoted to Darkness. In my military travels, I ran across kiddos who bore a certain strong sense of identity, a sense of something reserved from their ordinary playmates at school. These were the children of diplomats and high ranking military leadership. They had a sense of pride that they were not part of the hoi polloi, even while they were compelled by circumstance to interact with them.
Jews tend to do this by instinct and Muslims have their own version of it. They never assimilate fully anywhere you find them in the whole world. We must not assimilate, either.
The difference for us is that we are not out to manipulate mankind to serve a hidden agenda for global rule. Our purpose is redemption; we are calling out to the Elect. Our focus is otherworldly. It’s not that we are better then others, but that our calling and purpose is higher than their animal existence. We belong in the Garden as managers, not as domestic livestock.
This what you need to understand for yourself so that you can school children, both literal and figurative. On the one hand, you know the Elect are a minority of the human race. You can hope everyone you must shepherd to any degree will be revealed as Elect at some point, but until they are, you are a shepherd of the law code to them.

“Jews tend to do this by instinct and Muslims have their own version of it. They never assimilate fully anywhere you find them in the whole world. We must not assimilate, either.”
Fascinating that I just finished a chapter in the last book of the original Dune series. The chapter’s protagonist recalled learning about Jews that were thought to have died out some time after space faring became commonplace. She noted that wherever the Jews went, they never “assimilated” (that word was used) into whatever planet’s culture they were on, carrying on their customs mostly unaltered.
Weird.
The “science” of Frank Herbert’s Science Fiction was mostly social sciences, of which he was a master theorist (along with ecology). I read his books way back in the 1970s when they were still considered new works and making such comments about Jews was not considered bad taste. You can see his influence in some of my thinking, though he was just one of dozens of authors I read back then.