Small groups by location. It creates a community within an already preset community.

In reality, each small group that meets needs a leader who is trained, not only for church small groups, but has training in group therapy, treatment groups and task groups. This would be helpful when situations arise and help them lead their groups and guide them objectively.

We shouldn’t waste our precious time to just sit around and talk. We need to seek God, look in His word, listen to Him together and thank Him together.

As you can probably tell, I tend to be a pretty big critic of the institutional church (though I still have strong ties there). I tend to think that our buildings, budgets, programs, creeds, hierarchies, structures, and what-have-you have become idols for many American Christians, blinding them from the truth of the spiritual war around them and taking them out of the fight completely. I think this thought has some backing as well in the fact that a sickeningly large percentage (half or more?) of Christians in the United States do not lead their lives with their faith as the major element in decisions, goals, dreams, priorities, etc. Barna has a sleugh of research to support all this on his Web site.

I have to think that the church’s emphasis on church as an “event” has contributed to the compartimentalization of many Americans’ faith. “Church is somewhere I go,” people say. I know, I know — lots of leaders in institutional churches throw around sayings like, “We don’t go to church; we are the church,” but the forms of most churches are not consistent with this saying. We still expect people to “come to us” (attractional) for church instead of allowing Christ’s church to seep into every crevice and dark place in our society (missional). Somehow, our form has to follow our function, and occasionally, churches need a form change to really transform their function (or identity). It’s not all about form, but it certainly is a big factor. That’s why I like it simple.

As for people eventually moving back into traditional churches for the programs… Nearly every person I know who has tasted or been immersed in the “living out of life” with a small, closely knit community of believers is in it for the long-haul. They won’t go back to the institution, because they know that their inclination is to be a spectator and a consumer, and the institution tends to feed these leanings. Also, the intergenerational formation that occurs between children and adults in, say, house churches leaves programmatic, age-segmented Bible classes in megachurches in the dust. My guess is that most people will ditch the thought of taking their seven-year-old back to the “big church” for regular Sunday school after he or she leads a convicting communion thought in one of their meetings. I’ve seen this happen in a house church of which I was a part, and I can’t imagine this taking place in “big church.” In my experience, the kids are taken care of in the micro-churches, and every “house church kid” I’ve met (which is only a few, admittedly) is on fire and has already planted one or two more house churches themselves.

One more thing about programs for kids, families, youth — what are the success rates for these programs in the traditional churches? Are large percentages of children staying in the church when they become teenagers? Are lots of teenagers remaining faithful to the Lord into their college years?

An overview of four generations show the “Bridgers,” those born between 1977-1994, make up the numerically largest group of unchurched individuals — with only 4 percent claiming a relationship with Christ.

How are the programs for young people faring in the institutional church?

I understand this argument, however, I do not believe that our thoughts should be concentrated upon giving thumbs up or down. I believe that greater emphasis should be placed upon the growth and development that takes place within these groups.

I believe that we must deeply involve ourselves in analyzing the frequent theological conclusions that can stem from the small group. I acknowledge that not everyone will have the for mentioned experience–but stay with me.

Many small groups consist of sitting in some cushioned non-linear arrangement, going around the room and posing a question after reading from the text. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?

To me, it means…
Well, to me it means that…
I kinda think it might mean this…
I have to wonder if what Paul is really saying is that…

Now don’t get me wrong. Coming together with an attitude that seeks truth is vital to the discovery process. And yet this is part of the problem. We must guard ourselves against CONSENSUS THEOLOGY. Far too often, our small groups miss the point of the text; we eisegete, or make personal conclusions about the text that are not hermeneutically sound. Again, don’t get me wrong… I believe that listening to others and considering their practical applications is good–and yes, maybe sometimes we will be taught a thing or two ourselves. But, we must guard against unbiblical conclusions that can be drawn from over-personalized understandings of the text within the small group.

As Robert Wuthnow concludes, “Small groups encourage many members to regard biblical wisdom as truth only if it somehow helps them to get along better in their daily lives. Groups generate a do-it-yourself religion, a God who makes life easier, a programmed form of spirituality that robs the sacred of its awe-inspiring mystery and depth…. In simplest terms, the sacred comes to be associated with small insights that seem intuitively correct in the small group rather than wisdom accrued over the centuries.”

Saying all of this, I want to make it clear that I do support small groups. I think they are good, and a place where we can grow and learn together. I also think that we ought to redefine what a “small group” is, and can be. For example, encourage congregants to meet together for lunch, for a basketball game, or even for a movie. We ought to practice incorporating prayer and fellowship in the name of Christ in all that we do.

And concerning the actual small group–the one “endorsed” by the church? We must guard our groups from the formation of consensus theology. We ought not see the small group as an easy way to incorporate fellowship. We need to be devoted to watching the small group achieve success. I believe this begins by deeply training small group leaders. The church ought to provide ample resources, answers to tough questions, and even some common practical applications. I would suggest that churches doing small groups ought to invest time in training leaders. There is a simple principle that the one teaching ought to know more than those being taught. Far too often the small group leader expects to rely on others just as much as they are relying on their own studies–this should not be! Our leaders need to be leaders, and the small group is no exception.

There are many churches that are doing small groups well, and they are practicing these ideas. I have heard of one church that holds quarterly training sessions for small group leaders. Or, bring in a lecturer to address small group leaders. Sure, some of the deep theological questions might not always surface within the group, but why not take the opportunity to better equip our church leaders?

Small groups can be a place where tremendous growth can be fostered. But remember, that growth requires more than a group of people with their favorite sheers in hand.

qb

Meanwhile, the megachurches continue to thrive…as do their small group ministries…yet it is no secret that traditional forms are not working for emerging generations especially.

One more idea…Americans, according to some research, still want much of what the big church brings, especially children’s and family programming. Those in less traditional church forms tend to gravitate back to those forms after they have children. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Melanie — wonderful idea. What a blessing to those children.

Michael T — I love that idea. Could help groups from becoming so self-focused. And what a great chance to include children in those service projects.

Kristi — Yes, I love Randy’s book. In fact, that’s when I first gave serious thought to geographical groupings.

Nevertheless, that is not what this post is about. Small groups represent the organic life of church. Small groups have power because this is where people are forming their bonds and finding their comfort, whether the church is 100 or 5,000. As a small groups ministry coordinator, I’m hesitant about programatizing them more than they already are by assigning group memberships. This is artificial. They weren’t assigned their church, why assign them their “church within church”? Within an organic model, some groups will strive, some will die. Some groups die becuase the group dynamic never became natural. By trying to build them artificially, we only only run a greater risk of creating unnatural groups that may look good on paper but do not carry a sustaining dynamic.

Are we trying to build community based on location or relationships?

Glenn, I have to respectfully disagree with you. If you are talking about small groups within established traditional churches, then you are probably right — it hasn’t “caught on.” But as far as small groups and networks of small groups who consider themselves to be bodies of believers, this is no fad. It’s here, and it’s spreading. Faster than we can count. It’s not about post-modernity, either — I think it’s about people who are fed up with the institution and a pre-Christian community that finds less and less relevancy in the local church.

No, “micro-churches” have not made a huge splash or produced best-selling books or evangelism series, but that was never the point. The micro-church movement evolves under the radar, outside of the limelight, on the margins. (where the church is supposed to be, IMHO) The point has never been big numbers, but deep discipleship and spirituality. In this way, it has been effective.

But, if you want numbers, let’s talk about 1,000 house churches planted in two years in Dallas, Houston, and Austin by one network? Let’s discuss the house church network that has multiplied into nearly 500 churches all over southern California and onto every continent? Look at the millions (and that number is increasing daily, even hoursly) of American Christians finding their deepest spiritual transformation outside the local church, in reproduceable communities?

You are right when you say that the small group movement in traditional churches has not necessarily proven to be an effective outreach method. But as the priesthood of God is released into the world in small, missional communities to work alongside the Lord in His mission, the fire is spreading faster than we can measure it.

I pose this question: Can we really say that our traditional forms of ecclesiology are working? Are they bringing growth? All the research says that the local church has been on a steady decline in the last 30 or so years, with the most drastic decline occuring since 2000 (see Barna on this one). The flickers of growth often turn out to be due to transfer from smaller churches to megachurches, but overall, the Christian faith in N. America goes in the hole 6 million people every year, factoring in those leaving and death/birth.

I love all the wineskins, but can anyone really tell me that the old wineskin is bringing effective growth anymore?

It works for us.

I would go further than to say that it is not an either/or. I think it HAS to ultimately be a both/and.

I’m convinced that most of the effective work that is done in the Kingdom is done in small platoons. The smaller they are, the less planning, talk, budgeting, meetings, committees, etc. has to happen, which means the more real ministry is happening. Effective small groups will ultimately find a way to do that - if not in an organized way, at least in the way they actually function as individuals and families in the real world.

Support from community refuels for service. Service inspires community to more service. The relationship is symbiotic.

To put it another way, formation (through community) and mission (also through community) have to ultimately work hand in hand.

Of course, the intimacy necessary to get on the same page and start functioning this way is a real problem. It takes years to develop, and in a highly migratory society, you often don’t have years. You have months, at best. THAT, to me, is the real problem.

Part of the solution, of course, is that communities don’t have to form in physical places. They can form in user forums and on blogs. But ultimately, still, I think you need long-term face to face relationships as well.

I was part of planning small groups at a prior church and our goal was evangelism. It didn’t work from an evanglism perspective at all, but actually helped the church tremendously. The groups met many needs that no one even knew existed before the groups started. Literally some families in crisis that may well have fallen apart without what the groups did to hold them up. Needs that simply don’t come up during an hour or two Sunday morning or Wednesday night started being met.

So it failed in the original goal, but was greatly used by God in a different way than we expected. This was an established church that added small groups as a thing they do.

I’m now part of a church plant team that is currently a house church and will soon be a network of house churches. We will then start having corporate gatherings on Sundays of these house churches. We will most likely call our small groups house churches even when we have the routine big meetings on Sunday. We don’t want people falling into the trap of thinking “we are now a church” because there is a “main event” on Sunday AM. We are a church even now.

Also, I think Steven mentioned kids. We greatly involve our kids in our house church and its been an amazing blessing to allow their participation though readings and other things. Something we didn’t expect.