Church Life

Repost: Dispelling Myths About Teaching Children’s Sunday School

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

One of the hardest tasks a Children’s Ministry director has to accomplish is the finding of volunteers. It seems that sometimes it’s hair-pulling, teeth-grinding work to try to get people to volunteer their time and talents. This is true both inside and outside of the church. And let’s face it, I’m no Stalin. I couldn’t inspire water to flow downstream.

Having given this topic much thought, though, I discovered there are basically seven myths about volunteering for a Children’s Sunday School that must be dispelled in order to make the decision easier for many church members. This is not an indictment against any church member who has had these concerns, though. I had many very similar concerns before I started volunteering for the Children’s Ministry at my church. Nevertheless, they are erroneous and must be dispelled.

1. I have to be a genius to do that.

It is quite common to feel a sense of inadequacy when witnessing what you perceive as “true greatness” at work. Everyone has been there. When the guy who normally speaks in NLT suddenly prays for 10 minutes straight in KJV, after which no one has the gall to follow. Far too often we compare ourselves to the speakers rather than the audience. In prayer, our audience is God, so we should have a sense of inadequacy regardless of who precedes us in our prayers. However, an adult should have nothing to fear in teaching those of the next generation, regardless of the education and spiritual prowess of those who teach alongside him. We all have knowledge and wisdom to pass along to the next generation; let us not be hindered by constantly comparing ourselves to those in our own. 

2. I have to have kids of my own in order to teach other people’s kids.

Granted, it certainly seems to comport with common sense that parents, the people who benefit the most from the Children’s Ministry, should always be the first to consider and pray about volunteering for it. However, some of the best people who work with kids do not have kids or, at least, not yet. In my undergraduate studies, I had many fellow students who were either youth ministers or went on to be, or went on to become teachers and substitute teachers in primary schools, most of which did not have kids and / or were not married. There is no parental prerequisite for working with children. 

3. I have to be uniquely gifted to work with kids.

There is no “gift of working with kids” listed in the Bible. My wife and I struggled with this one. For years I heard the plea from the pulpit for more volunteers in the Children’s Ministry, but I would tell myself, “I’m just not sure that’s my gift.” Eventually, it occurred to me just how unbiblical that was. Children’s Ministry is not a spiritual gift.

On the flip side, however, I do think it is important for men who think they are called to ministry to be exercising their gifts in some way already before they are ordained to the ministry. Let’s face it, preaching opportunities don’t just appear out of thin air for pastoral students of the Reformed, Confessional Baptist persuasion. If a young man thinks himself called to the ministry and does not otherwise have opportunities to preach and teach, one way he can exercise his gift is to volunteer for Children’s Ministry. A man who is afforded few other opportunities and persistently refuses to take advantage of this opportunity to exercise his gift likely does not truly have the gift. 

4. It would take too much time out of my already busy week.

Depending on your level of theological exposure / education, this may be true at first. Some may have to spend hours preparing every week in order to come up with a decent 30 minute lesson on even the most basic truths. Over time, however, it gets much easier to prepare for the lesson. If your church uses a catechism, as our church does, many of the Scripture references you will need for your preparation should already be provided in the Scripture citations after each answer. Other more seasoned volunteers are also a great help in this area of lesson preparation. 

5. The Children’s Ministry is the least important part of our church.

Granted, many parents treat children’s ministries like Sunday daycares. However, those of us who actually catechize our children in the home find children’s Sunday school to be of great value. The kids are able to get together and get deeper teaching on the things they are hopefully learning at home, and they experience the value of the catechism answers they are memorizing with their parents in a classroom environment. Most importantly, the truths they are being taught at home are being reinforced by other adults within the church. Such reinforcement is of immense value to the catechizing parent. 

6. That’s the parents’ job.

Then we have the arguments often made by many within the Family Integrated Church (FIC) movement that the teaching that takes place in children’s ministries really should be done by the parents. In large part, I agree with the FIC on this point. Parents should never leave the spiritual training and nurture of their children up to children’s ministry volunteers. Such training and nurture is primarily the responsibility of the parents.

However, the Bible does not present such a rift between the authority of the church and the authority of the parents as is presented in many FIC churches today. Paul writes directly to the children on a couple different occasions in the Bible (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20). This is not seen as a usurpation of parental authority, but a reinforcement of it. As such, he demonstrates a very important truth: parents who have covenanted with a church and have come under its authority should take no issue with subjecting themselves as well as their children to its teaching.

To argue against allowing their kids to be taught by the church, the same church that is teaching them, is to demonstrate a general lack of teachability. Hence, often times families who have been heavily influenced by the FIC will join non-FIC churches and war with them relentlessly over their children’s ministries. In doing so, they show themselves not only to be unteachable, but also divisive. Yes, the parents ought to teach their own children in their homes, but the church has a responsibility as well, and that responsibility is to be respected. For more on this subject, read my church’s Philosophy of Children’s Ministry. 

7. There are many people in the church more qualified than I am.

If redemptive history proves anything, it proves that God does not always use the most qualified people to get the job done. In fact, He does not even always use the most willing (see Jonah). Often times, the most qualified people are the most unwilling to be used by God. God uses both the talented, unwilling servant, and the untalented, willing servant to accomplish His ends.

This is why we should be open-minded about where God may be leading us to serve when we pray about where we should serve in His local church. God uses fallen, ill-qualified, unwise laymen to accomplish the most amazing things in His kingdom. Might you be the next weak, ill-prepared, under-qualified, imperfect vessel He uses to help raise up the next generation of saints in His local church?

Repost: A Philosophy of Children’s Ministry

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

A few years ago, I would never have thought I would be posting something like this. My sympathies toward the Family Integrated Movement resulted in somewhat of a suspicion toward children’s ministries and youth groups. After taking the reigns of my church’s children’s ministry a couple years ago, I started to research the issue. The following post is a result. This is our church’s new Philosophy of Children’s Ministry with Scripture citations. I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

Our Philosophy of Children’s Ministry –

Sovereign Joy Community Church has a high view of the family, and our families have a high view of the local church. The primary place God has ordained for the spiritual teaching and training of children is the family,1 and the primary goal of that spiritual teaching and training is to make of them disciples of Christ equipped for service in His local church.2 Further, the church has an obligation to teach and instruct not only parents but children as well.3 Therefore, the substance4 and methods5 of our Children’s Ministry are designed to support the families of Sovereign Joy as they seek to raise their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4b; NASB).

1Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Proverbs 1:8-9; 3:1-12; Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20

2Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11-16; 2Timothy 1:5; 3:14

3Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20

4By substance, we mean the doctrines and practices we teach.

5By methods, we mean the way in which we teach our doctrines and practices.

How do we do this?

  • Over the centuries, catechisms have proven to be a useful means of passing biblical truths along from generation to generation. Therefore, we use A Catechism for Boys and Girls (Carey Publications) as our primary means of instruction in our children’s Sunday school.
  • By using the catechism in Sunday school and providing free copies of it to all our covenanted parents, we encourage catechesis in the home.
  • Our teachers are expected to develop and present a rough exposition of the questions and answers provided in the catechism.
  • Once a month, the children will also be taught a church history lesson that is meant to help them to understand the historical context of the biblical truths they are learning in the catechism.
  • The children are also encouraged to memorize large portions of Scripture (the Lord’s Prayer, Psalm 23, the Beatitudes, etc.) and parents to work with their children in this endeavor.

CCF Episodes 3-8: The Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman

/ William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

Grab The Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman and read along with the CredoCovenant Fellowship as we engage its major themes from a Reformed Baptist perspective:

Creedal Imperative

The Creedal Imperative
by Carl R. Trueman

Anti-Christ

/ formofsoundwords / Leave a comment

4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner;g neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.h
(g) Col 1:18; Matt 28:18-20; Eph 4:11-12
(h) 2 Thess 2:2-9

20140311-150820.jpg

I would add that any man (or woman) that exalts himself in this manner is anti-Christ, including non-Papists, and Southern Baptists.

An article by Todd Pruitt over at Ref21 dealing with this issue.

Sola Scriptura

/ formofsoundwords / Leave a comment

Baptists and Sola Scriptura

Please forgive me for taking so long to post the second part of my interaction with the question “Are Baptists Reformed?” As I stated in the last post, Dr. Justice’s article on whether or not Baptists are reformed makes 2 errors. First, he picks and chooses which Baptists he sides with when he makes his argument. Second, he does the same thing with history. There are statements about what Baptists believe that are poor historically. Both mistakes affect his conclusion. This conclusion isn’t his alone, nor has he created this belief that Baptists aren’t reformed. Let’s move on to look at how his two mistakes affect his understanding about what Baptists believe regarding the Word of God.

Dr. Justice brings up one of the Five Solas of the Reformation. They are as follows:

  1. Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone
  2. Sola Gratia – Grace alone
  3. Sola Fide – Faith alone
  4. Solus Christus – Christ alone
  5. Soli deo Gloria – the Glory of God alone

The motto Sola Scriptura is the sola he seeks to distinguish between the Reformed and Baptist. He, along with many others, make a couple of mistakes. Here is the beginning of his paragraph, “The motto of the Protestant Reformation included the Latin words Sola Scriptura which mean the Scriptures only. In seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church the Reformers at first insisted that the only authority for faith and practice was the Scriptures, but the Reformers never consistently followed this motto. Whenever they could not support some doctrine or practice from God’s Word they soon began relying on the church fathers and tradition and expediency and creeds as well. Baptists are the ones who take Sola Scriptura seriously. Only Baptists consistently apply this great principle in matters of faith and practice.” I want us to notice three things. First, the Reformers didn’t seek to reform Rome, they sought to reform the true church. Before the Council of Trent, the Reformers thought Rome may still have been orthodox, but in grave error. When Rome enunciated what they believed, the Reformers rejected Rome as apostates. Second, the Reformers never said the only authority for faith and practice was the Scriptures. They taught that it was the ONLY FINAL authority on matters of faith and practice. The Reformers did follow this consistently.  They referred to the early creeds, confessions, and church fathers to show their orthodoxy and Rome’s apostasy. Third, Baptists do take Sola Scriptura consistently. But which Baptists are in view here? Again, there is no such thing as “just Baptist” as there is no such thing as “just Christian,” for there are many who call themselves Christian and aren’t. There is a plethora of groups who are outside of orthodoxy who consider themselves followers of Christ. This is what the Reformation was all about: removing the unorthodox from the orthodox. At one point in the article, the “greatest Baptist confession of faith [is the] London Confession of 1689,” is mentioned. The Particular Baptists are in view here. These were the same ones who distanced from the Anabaptists in their first confession of 1644, and then distanced from the Arminians in 1677 in the second London confession. This is where the questions of history need more development.

When the Particular Baptists released their First London Confession, there was much charged against them by some from the Westminster Assembly. They were called Anabaptists. In the introduction to the 1644 Confession, they state they are commonly and unjustly called Anabaptists. This was revised later in 1646 to clear up any further confusion as to the type of Baptists they were. Please refer to Richard Belcher and Anthony Mattia’s book “A Discussion of the Seventeenth Century Particular Baptist Confessions of Faith” for a closer historical and theological work. In other words, the Particular Baptists were Calvinistic, identified more with the Presbyterians and Congregationalists than they did those who were credobaptist. Also, when looking at their statements of faith, they used the confessions that existed before them as a basis for their own confession. For the 1644 confession, most of the articles were taken from Congregationalist confessions. For the 1689 confession, the Westminster, Savoy and First London Confessions were source documents. This shows us that the Particular Baptists valued the tradition that was in place before them. So the Particular Baptists didn’t follow Solo Scriptura (meaning the Scripture by itself), they followed with the Reformers Sola Scriptura. They valued the tradition that has been passed down from the apostles to the early church and on throughout history.

On another note concerning the place of Scripture and tradition, one can never divorce himself of tradition. When a person uses a particular version of the Bible, he is taking on traditions of which manuscripts to use and how to translate them and in what way should they be translated. The same with using terms such as “Trinity” and “hypostatic union” as well as “full humanity and deity of Christ.” All of these terms came from the Church dealing with heresy. You have to use what has come before you. All one is doing is connecting oneself to a particular tradition. If anything, Particular Baptists are the pinnacle of reform. This is no slight to my paedobaptist Reformed Church and Presbyterian brothers. The Particular Baptists sought to continue the work of reforming doctrine back in line with the Scripture in order for the churches to be rightly ordered that God would be worshiped as He has called His people to in His Word.

Finally, Dr. Justice points out rightly that the Westminster and 1689 London Confessions differ from the very start. The Particular Baptists added “The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.” This was not in the Westminster. In saying this, the Particular Baptists are adding a distinction, not a division. Please refer as well to the Letter to the Reader that accompanies the Second London Confession for what the Particular Baptists believed concerning their nearer relation to the Reformed paedobaptists than the Arminian General Baptists, semi-Pelagian, and in some cases Pelagian Anabaptists. I would like to say that the Particular Baptists did value Scripture more than tradition, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t value tradition and used only the Scriptures. They wanted it clear that only the Scriptures are our final authority. I might add also, that the Particular Baptists didn’t follow only what the New Testament taught. This will lead us to the next topic, the topic of the Church. We will save that one for our next post. Pray that God will grant me diligence and wisdom on this next post.

Reformed?

/ formofsoundwords / Leave a comment

Introduction

Several  years ago I began to use the word “reformed” to describe my theology. A few people at my church weren’t very thrilled by the use of that term. “Baptists aren’t Reformed. They have never needed to be. Jesus and Paul weren’t reformed, so why should we be?” they would reply. Our church is historically an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church that has held to a Calvinistic soteriology. It has also been influenced by Landmarkism. The church has never officially held to this “Baptist perpetuitism,” or its associated belief of “Baptist bride-ism,” but has seen that Baptists were never a part of Rome and therefore didn’t need to be reformed of anything.

Since we have adopted the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, we’ve come to be more open to associating formally as well as rejecting Landmarkism. As I continued to use the word “Reformed” in reference to my doctrinal beliefs I was given a short treatise on the subject of “Reformed Baptist” by Laurence Justice, a pastor of a Baptist church in Missouri. Let me begin by giving the title of his pamphlet: “Are Baptists Reformed? Emphasizing the Truth that Baptists Are Not Reformers and Reformers Are Not Baptists.”

I do not intend to say anything about Dr. Justice himself. What I know about him is that he is a godly man, a faithful pastor, one committed to his church and God’s Word, as well as a man who takes doctrine seriously. I appreciate the work he has done in his church for missions, defending God’s sovereign grace, and his Credobaptist belief.

What I do intend to do is interact with what Dr. Justice has written in this pamphlet. I will state up front that I have no problem with being a Reformed Baptist. I own the title. I also don’t think one MUST call himself a Reformed Baptist. We will see that there are some Baptists who are “Calvinistic” while not being reformed. But we also must see there is no such thing as “just Baptist,” for there are all types of people who call themselves Baptist that have a broad range of doctrines. Let us begin our interaction with “Are Baptists Reformed?”

By way of introduction to his text, I want to summarize his pamphlet and review his sections outlining why he does not believe Baptists should be called “Reformed.” I will then answer each section in subsequent blog posts critiquing his argument.  He gives an introduction and then gives 5 arguments against being reformed as a Baptist. He defines Reformed as those “which had for its object the reform of the Roman Catholic church leading to the establishment of Protestant churches.” In other words, Reformed are Protestant and Protestant are Reformed. He continues in his introduction that, although the greatest Baptist confession of faith was the 1689 London Confession, Baptists aren’t Protestant. Even though Baptists believe the same things regarding salvation as the Reformed Churches and the Westminster Presbyterians, they aren’t Reformed or Protestant. He then continues with 5 statements.

  1. Because of What Baptists Believe About God’s Word
  2. Because of What Baptists Believe About the Church
  3. Because of What Baptists Believe About the Relationship of Church and State
  4. Because of What Baptists Believe About Baptism
  5. Because of the Un-Christian Way the Reformed Have Treated Baptists Through the Centuries

In my reading I saw that Dr. Justice makes 2 mistakes

  1. He generalizes his use of “Baptist.”

– He picks and chooses which Baptists he identifies with in making his various arguments

  1. He does poor history

– He doesn’t recognize the point of statements of faith throughout the last 2,000 years

– The Particular Baptists put out their statement of faith for a reason, and I don’t know that this is ignored or if it is unknown to Dr. Justice

These 2 mistakes permeate all of his arguments. I hope to point them out for correction, hoping this will lead to greater fellowship among Baptists who hold to a particular redemption. Also, confessional Baptism is at stake here. We must understand the context in which statements of faith are written and avoid an anachronistic reading of them. Next week we will pick up our interaction with his text, discussing Baptist Confessional history as well as looking at the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Dispelling Myths About Teaching Children’s Sunday School

/ William F. Leonhart III / 2 Comments

One of the hardest tasks a Children’s Ministry director has to accomplish is the finding of volunteers. It seems that sometimes it’s hair-pulling, teeth-grinding work to try to get people to volunteer their time and talents. This is true both inside and outside of the church. And let’s face it, I’m no Stalin. I couldn’t inspire water to flow downstream.

Having given this topic much thought, though, I discovered there are basically seven myths about volunteering for a Children’s Sunday School that must be dispelled in order to make the decision easier for many church members. This is not an indictment against any church member who has had these concerns, though. I had many very similar concerns before I started volunteering for the Children’s Ministry at my church. Nevertheless, they are erroneous and must be dispelled.

1. I have to be a genius to do that.

It is quite common to feel a sense of inadequacy when witnessing what you perceive as “true greatness” at work. Everyone has been there. When the guy who normally speaks in NLT suddenly prays for 10 minutes straight in KJV, after which no one has the gall to follow. Far too often we compare ourselves to the speakers rather than the audience. In prayer, our audience is God, so we should have a sense of inadequacy regardless of who precedes us in our prayers. However, an adult should have nothing to fear in teaching those of the next generation, regardless of the education and spiritual prowess of those who teach alongside him. We all have knowledge and wisdom to pass along to the next generation; let us not be hindered by constantly comparing ourselves to those in our own. 

2. I have to have kids of my own in order to teach other people’s kids.

Granted, it certainly seems to comport with common sense that parents, the people who benefit the most from the Children’s Ministry, should always be the first to consider and pray about volunteering for it. However, some of the best people who work with kids do not have kids or, at least, not yet. In my undergraduate studies, I had many fellow students who were either youth ministers or went on to be, or went on to become teachers and substitute teachers in primary schools, most of which did not have kids and / or were not married. There is no parental prerequisite for working with children. 

3. I have to be uniquely gifted to work with kids.

There is no “gift of working with kids” listed in the Bible. My wife and I struggled with this one. For years I heard the plea from the pulpit for more volunteers in the Children’s Ministry, but I would tell myself, “I’m just not sure that’s my gift.” Eventually, it occurred to me just how unbiblical that was. Children’s Ministry is not a spiritual gift.

On the flip side, however, I do think it is important for men who think they are called to ministry to be exercising their gifts in some way already before they are ordained to the ministry. Let’s face it, preaching opportunities don’t just appear out of thin air for pastoral students of the Reformed, Confessional Baptist persuasion. If a young man thinks himself called to the ministry and does not otherwise have opportunities to preach and teach, one way he can exercise his gift is to volunteer for Children’s Ministry. A man who is afforded few other opportunities and persistently refuses to take advantage of this opportunity to exercise his gift likely does not truly have the gift. 

4. It would take too much time out of my already busy week.

Depending on your level of theological exposure / education, this may be true at first. Some may have to spend hours preparing every week in order to come up with a decent 30 minute lesson on even the most basic truths. Over time, however, it gets much easier to prepare for the lesson. If your church uses a catechism, as our church does, many of the Scripture references you will need for your preparation should already be provided in the Scripture citations after each answer. Other more seasoned volunteers are also a great help in this area of lesson preparation. 

5. The Children’s Ministry is the least important part of our church.

Granted, many parents treat children’s ministries like Sunday daycares. However, those of us who actually catechize our children in the home find children’s Sunday school to be of great value. The kids are able to get together and get deeper teaching on the things they are hopefully learning at home, and they experience the value of the catechism answers they are memorizing with their parents in a classroom environment. Most importantly, the truths they are being taught at home are being reinforced by other adults within the church. Such reinforcement is of immense value to the catechizing parent. 

6. That’s the parents’ job.

Then we have the arguments often made by many within the Family Integrated Church (FIC) movement that the teaching that takes place in children’s ministries really should be done by the parents. In large part, I agree with the FIC on this point. Parents should never leave the spiritual training and nurture of their children up to children’s ministry volunteers. Such training and nurture is primarily the responsibility of the parents.

However, the Bible does not present such a rift between the authority of the church and the authority of the parents as is presented in many FIC churches today. Paul writes directly to the children on a couple different occasions in the Bible (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20). This is not seen as a usurpation of parental authority, but a reinforcement of it. As such, he demonstrates a very important truth: parents who have covenanted with a church and have come under its authority should take no issue with subjecting themselves as well as their children to its teaching.

To argue against allowing their kids to be taught by the church, the same church that is teaching them, is to demonstrate a general lack of teachability. Hence, often times families who have been heavily influenced by the FIC will join non-FIC churches and war with them relentlessly over their children’s ministries. In doing so, they show themselves not only to be unteachable, but also divisive. Yes, the parents ought to teach their own children in their homes, but the church has a responsibility as well, and that responsibility is to be respected. For more on this subject, read my church’s Philosophy of Children’s Ministry. 

7. There are many people in the church more qualified than I am.

If redemptive history proves anything, it proves that God does not always use the most qualified people to get the job done. In fact, He does not even always use the most willing (see Jonah). Often times, the most qualified people are the most unwilling to be used by God. God uses both the talented, unwilling servant, and the untalented, willing servant to accomplish His ends.

This is why we should be open-minded about where God may be leading us to serve when we pray about where we should serve in His local church. God uses fallen, ill-qualified, unwise laymen to accomplish the most amazing things in His kingdom. Might you be the next weak, ill-prepared, under-qualified, imperfect vessel He uses to help raise up the next generation of saints in His local church?

A Philosophy of Children’s Ministry

/ William F. Leonhart III / 1 Comment

A few years ago, I would never have thought I would be posting something like this. My sympathies toward the Family Integrated Movement resulted in somewhat of a suspicion toward children’s ministries and youth groups. After taking over the children’s ministry last year, I started to research the issue. The following post is a result. This is our church’s new Philosophy of Children’s Ministry with Scripture citations. I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

Our Philosophy of Children’s Ministry –

Sovereign Joy Community Church has a high view of the family, and our families have a high view of the local church. The primary place God has ordained for the spiritual teaching and training of children is the family,1 and the primary goal of that spiritual teaching and training is to make of them disciples of Christ equipped for service in His local church.2 Further, the church has an obligation to teach and instruct not only parents but children as well.3 Therefore, the substance4 and methods5 of our Children’s Ministry are designed to support the families of Sovereign Joy as they seek to raise their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4b; NASB).

1Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Proverbs 1:8-9; 3:1-12; Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20

2Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11-16; 2Timothy 1:5; 3:14

3Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20

4By substance, we mean the doctrines and practices we teach.

5By methods, we mean the way in which we teach our doctrines and practices.

How do we do this?

  • Over the centuries, catechisms have proven to be a useful means of passing biblical truths along from generation to generation. Therefore, we use A Catechism for Boys and Girls (Carey Publications) as our primary means of instruction in our children’s Sunday school.
  • By using the catechism in Sunday school and providing free copies of it to all our covenanted parents, we encourage catechesis in the home.
  • Our teachers are expected to develop and present a rough exposition of the questions and answers provided in the catechism.
  • Once a month, the children will also be taught a church history lesson that is meant to help them to understand the historical context of the biblical truths they are learning in the catechism.
  • The children are also encouraged to memorize large portions of Scripture (the Lord’s Prayer, Psalm 23, the Beatitudes, etc.) and parents to work with their children in this endeavor.

Read the Entire Bible This Year

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

Next Tuesday is January 1, 2013, the dawning of a new year. To mark the occasion, and to encourage our members to be in the Word, Sovereign Joy will begin facilitating a group on Sundays at 1:00pm.

We will start meeting this Sunday, 30 December, in the conference room at the end of the North hallway of Grace Church. The group will meet for 30 minutes a week and will end promptly at 1:30pm so that members will not be discouraged from attending the 1:30 prayer meeting.

We will be following Robert Murray M’Cheyne’s Bible Reading Plan. If you are unable to attend, you can follow us at this Facebook group. We hope to see you all there.”

Read the rest here.