I read this post recently from Carlos Whittaker (Ragamuffin Soul.com), and it hit a big nerve.
Here’s what he said:
“I have been in dozens of small groups in my adult church life. I have loved many of the people in these groups. But I’ll admit, the group in which I actually did life with the people I met with in our ‘scheduled’ group time was the only group that felt like real community happened. Every other group I have been in I have made some great friends in which I hoped that in the future, I could have community with…But I feel like overall, the small group model might begin the process of true community, but it is not the answer for true community. What is the answer? I don’t know. But more and more people I talk with are coming to the same conclusion that the system they are in feels forced.”
So here’s what I’ve been feeling lately that prompted me to quote him.
I think he’s right.
But let me backup a little to first address a few of the basic church models out there before I give more.
On one side of the fence are churches that have been very “program” driven. In this model, a church offers different programs to attract and disciple people. Programs/seminars/classes that address how to get your finances straight, how to deal with addiction, divorce care groups, and others. If there’s a need in the community, the church will try to offer seminars or classes that deal with those felt need topics in order to attract people to the church.
Typically, small groups have been one of the many programs that these type of churches have.
In more recent years, encouraged on by such books as Simple Church, Activate, and many others, churches have sought to trim down and simplify. Instead of offering programs, they’ll offer small groups that meet in homes in the community that deal with the same issues that were being addressed before. So, using the examples above, instead of having a “finance” seminar, there would be a finance group, addiction group, etc. The idea behind all this is that it’s easier to manege a church like that and, in theory, people are more comfortable in someone’s home and more likely to go there.
In one of my churches we’ve essentially been using this more simplified model. We’re trying to do everything through our small group system. But here’s what I’ve been noticing. Yes, I feel like the church members that are in the groups are growing, but there aren’t many from the community that are attending the groups.
And, to be honest, sometimes I feel like this is something that the people aren’t too in to. As if it feels forced.
So here’s my question: I’ve been wondering if there’s a hybrid model out there to address the two major components of both models. That is, to address the good aspects of community and growth that a small group provides, and on the flip side to address the good aspects of evangelism and building a bridge to the community that some of these seminars provide?
If you bring these two models together, you come back to the more classical model that’s been used in many churches for the past 20 years.
A few days ago I spent about 30 min on the phone with the pastor of a growing church in Arlington, Texas. What are they doing? They’re doing both things. They have lots of seminars in their church to connect with the community, but they also offer small groups for the members to be involved in.
So what’s the right thing? I’m not sure. But I have definitely been feeling the lack of a community connection in the more simplified model I’ve been experimenting with.
Any thoughts? What do you think? What have you experienced? I need some feedback.
Related posts:
- Leadership, Small Groups, and Coaching: You Asked For It!
- Understanding the Values of a Group
- How People Grow
- The Power of Leaderless Churches
- Trends In The Biggest Churches In North America
Hey Rodlie, i think perhaps the problem is not so much with the small groups models (though it can be a factor) but possibly with the intentionality of those in the small groups to actually try and initiate true community, obviously this is something that can't be forced (small groups is optional if they come it's because hopefully they want to be their) and in some small groups may never happen, but…it seems along these lines that sometimes many SDA's (not all of course) don't have too many non-SDA friends and perhaps are not intentional enough in reaching out in order to have true community…just a few thoughts
Nice post. I've been wrestling with this ever since I arrived at the Seminary about a year and a half ago. I had been excited (nay, super excited) about small groups since the fall of 2003, when I first attended a seminar on holistic small groups at a regional SEEDS conference held in Georgia. Over the next few years, I read a ridiculous amount of literature on the model that was presented at that seminar, and led a small group semi-based on that model while I was in Taipei. The group was very successful (not because of me; I had great co-leaders). It grew rapidly to about 30 members, so the co-leaders and I began a big push for multiplication. After a few months, we multiplied into a Mandarin-speaking group and an English-speaking group (and then another English-speaking group was planted with members from the original group). So, we ended up with three groups from one within a year. With the success I witnessed in Taipei (mostly with the other two groups; mine ended up disbanding before I left), I was sold on the model. Then I came to the Seminary, and very quickly began to despise the model. Why? Because it felt forced. Correction, it didn't feel forced; it was forced. All the members of the Seminary small group church were required to go through a lame equipping track that didn't actually equip anyone. There was a system in place so that I could become a leader within about a year/year and a half, and then lead a group for my last couple semesters (whether I was actually qualified to lead or not). When I first arrived at the Seminary, there were five groups one could join; now there are basically two, though one is trying to survive with two (sometimes three) members. Anyway, here's the moral of the story: I've been asking myself the question, "Why does the model work wonderfully sometimes, and other times it fails miserable?" The answer that I am starting to accept is that it's not the model, it's the people. Why did the group work in Taipei? Because a group of people from the church were already hanging out during the week. We were already friends and acquaintances, and then we decided to start meeting intentionally all together once a week. Community already existed among us, and the small group became a sort of tool that our existing community could use to do ministry together. We could invite our friends to something; we could organize parties, evangelism efforts, etc.; we could worship together, study the Bible together. But the community already existed. Whenever small groups are used as a means to create community, I'm pretty convinced they will fail. So, how do you organize existing communities in your church into ministry/evangelism teams? Not sure. This isn't meant to be an answer to your question. This is just my personal journey with small groups.
I think the common ground to do all these small group is in the church. (God's house). many in the community are not going to want to meet up in someone house…. we are in a time where this world needs healing. for ex. let say ..I'f someone who driving around searching for a bible study and see a church open with a bible study that is so catching they are going to be more willing to check it out. why? because they see that's it's open to the community. so If a bible study is held in someone house. the driver is going to end up home or another church. and you lose a 2nd chance for them to back on the sabbath…
Yup, yup, yup…
Right, I agree. What do we do, then? It almost seems like a more organic model might be more appropriate. Seeing where the people are and trying to develop something from that. I know my people and both churches are really into classes and seminars, and vespers programs and such…..I've been trying to learn to adapt on the fly to the needs and dynamics of each unique congregation. There is truly not a one-size fits all model.
You're totally right about. A friend is willing, of course, to go to your house. But yeah, if they don't know you, a church building will actually be much more of a neutral location for them. That's what I've been thinking a lot about lately…perhaps it's better to just have some of these programs at church….