Let me suggest something. It’s called small groups. I’ve talked about small groups before. I’d like you think of them in a new way.
Small groups can be used to do many things in many ways. But I think every church that’s large enough (more than 100 members, I’d think) needs small groups for very particular reasons.
First, small groups are pastoral groups. That means that small groups should be designed in a way to encourage the church to love each other. You see, it’s really hard to love 100 people very effectively. We just don’t have the time or the ability to keep up with that many people. We’d wear each other out trying to care for so many.
The obvious solution is for the church to divide itself into a care groups that create small enough sub-fellowships to allow the group members to truly love and serve each other. Small groups allow us to be more like Jesus. They allow the church to be the church. They allow us to become what we were always meant to be. I can’t serve 100 people, but I can serve 10 — especially if everyone is involved in serving everyone in the group.
Now, the traditional approach is to hire enough staff to pastor all 100 members. The more modern approach is to ordain enough elders to pastor all 100 members. It’s called the shepherding model. I don’t like it.
I used to like it — in theory. It never quite seemed right, but I couldn’t put my finger on the problem. The problem is that in that model, it’s just the elders who are loving and serving. Everyone else is being loved and being served. And this means the elders are enabling unhealthy behavior.
But if we create a small group system that empowers each member to love and serve the other members, we’ll escape the consumer mindset and the members will be much better pastored.
This last summer, we had a couple take off weeks to travel out of town to adopt twins. The couple was overwhelmed, with the adoption process, family, and job responsibilities. And so their small group cut their grass, cleaned their house, and had the house ready to receive the their two new babies when they got back.
They texted messages of support, they visited, they called, and they prayed. And the couple received far, far more love and service than the staff and the elders could possibly have done. That’s how small groups should work.
A few years ago, an older group had a member whose son was on life support at the hospital for weeks. The group raised the money to let that member rent a room at the hospital to stay with the son 24/7, constantly visited, provided meals, and otherwise supported and encouraged that member for weeks on end.
We have a member whose wife has dementia. With work and family responsibilities, he’s overwhelmed. And so, every week, the group brings him a meal, cut his grass, and helps any way they can.
There are no announcements at church begging for volunteers. They all work together to get it done. None of this is coordinated through staff or elders. Rather, it happens because the members love each other.
And when things such as these happen, the church is the church. The groups look a lot like Jesus. Indeed, their members are being transformed by the Spirit with ever-increasing glory. They imitate God.
If there were no small groups, some members would still have done some of those things, but the level of support and service and love would have been much, much lower. And had it been up to five elders in a church of nearly 700 members, well, how can five men do the work of 700?
None of that is to say that there no pastoral role for church leaders. Of course, there is. It’s just that their role isn’t to enable lazy behavior by others or to create a system that makes it hard to love and serve one another. No, the first job of the elders is —
(Eph 4:11-12 ESV) 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
So how do we equip the saints for ministry? In part, by giving them an organization that helps them be of service, that makes love natural, that avoids the need to fight the system to honor God’s will for the church.
Now, some complain that the groups are too inwardly focused, don’t do enough teaching, don’t evangelize as they should. But the first mission of the church is to be the church — and that means we start with “love one another.”
Therefore, I believe small groups should share a common meal, in a home, at least some of the time. I’m not nearly as concerned with the Bible lesson as with the love. Of course, small groups could become little more than a party and be just as superficial. They have to be managed in a way that leads to love and service, not just small talk and chitchat. But “love one another” is an entirely sufficient purpose for a small group.
The group leader therefore has a very serious responsibility. But it’s not to pastor the group. His job is to lead the group into pastoring itself. Of course, this may require an occasional rebuke. And so he should also lead the group into accepting accountability. It’s a very hard thing for the modern church. We really struggle to hold one another accountable and to let others hold us accountable. But it’s much, much easier to do in a group of 10 than a group of 100 or more.
Accountability is tough. I think you start by holding members accountable for small things: taking turns hosting, taking turns bringing the entree. If the leader will insist that the members hold up their end and not enable lazy, sorry behavior, the members will become more responsible in other ways. After all, once they learn to submit in bringing the hot dogs, they become submissive people. Once they give permission to be held to account as a host, they give permission to be held to account as to other things.
One of the biggest problems elders face is how very difficult it is to hold hundreds of members accountable. But small groups creates a means of doing this in a gentler, easier way among people who know each other very well. It works better.
Jay,
Good thoughts. For me, what is interesting is that you are advocating a modern adaptation of what Jethro told Moses way back in Exodus 18.17-23. People empowerment for group management and growth has always been God's concern; and when coupled with Ephesians 4.11-12 the church becomes very powerful.
." And this means the elders are enabling unhealthy behavior."
So if we ration our "love" to just ten, that would be healthy. I am glad Jesus didn't think like that. I thought "love" was something like muscles, it grows with use. I believe we have enough "small groups" within the Church as it is.
If you don't believe me, just take notice every Sunday. And their excuse is the same as yours, "well I just can't get around to everyone" We have about 400 members, the preacher suggested something entirely different than yours, he suggested we not sit in the same place week after week, you know it works.
I can't remember where Jesus said "choose a few to help" Do you remember the old song that says "brighten the corner, where you are" I don't recall one that says "choose up, and go to your corner" Just my opinion, but you knew that already. Maybe the quality of love our ranks the quanity.
I agree with both of these articles Jay. My question is this: if the duty of Christians is more easily carried out within smaller, more intimate, and more accountable groups, why the need to remain connected to any mother-ship at all? As I think about this (and as one who "leads" a small group), it gets increasingly harder to "go to church" and see so many who prefer to remain unconnected, uninvolved, unaccountable and simply made to feel by the preacher that they are pleasing to God so long as they keep coming on Sunday's and continue scratching off checks.
If real work and love and accountability better takes place in smaller house groups/churches, why waste…err, spend any of our precious time in mega groups in buildings where we all face the backs of each others heads?
And just as importantly (to me) why give and collect untold thousands of dollars every week by every church merely to keep such an unhealthy environment alive? Big churches with properties and staffs just don't seem to get very good gas mileage in terms of bringing glory to God. Where as small groups can do much good indeed with their money if and when it isn't filtered through the clergy.
I appreciate your articles and am at a crossroads. I understand why big churches must have small groups to please God according to his word…I just don't see why small groups must still go to big churches to do so. Does that make sense?
Hank
Makes a lot of sense to me, Hank. I see no spiritual or textual basis to support the modern institutional church. And it's most significant failing is the major misdirection of financial resources
I have been a part of “small groups” for over 35 years. I am thankful for all the good that results from the approach but at best it is second best. My family is large I have 50 1st cousins on my dad’s side and many of them have grandchildren and great-grandchildren. One of the highlights of my year is to attend our annual family reunion. One thing that I am sure of is that if anyone is in need they will be helped. The only one’s who are not helped are those who refuse the help. But even the most obnoxious among us are loved and never forgotten (sometimes that’s me). Our times together are poorly organized but always a success. Our family works because we have a common heritage. When the church becomes an institution it’s important to develop programs and strategies to help it function more like a family. A better alternative is to think of the church as a family, the household of God.
Jay,
i agree with most of your critiques and goals here.
i'm just curious though–did you see this article in the Christian Standard?
http://christianstandard.com/2011/01/why-churches…
Just wondered if you had any thoughts in response to it.
–guy
I'm sure most are familiar with the member who responds to the invitation every couple of months or so, when many roll their eyes and think, "there he (she) goes again".
It could very well be that the small group is just what this individual needs.
Hank,
Those are excellent, thoughtful questions — which many are wrestling with. Personally, I think the Jerusalem model is optimal — large group gatherings combined with small group gatherings: meeting as a congregation of thousands in the temple courts and meeting in groups of 30 or less in homes.
I'll post something in a bit laying out my thinking in more detail. But I should note, there is a house church movement that advocates house-only meetings, and it has very thoughtful supporters.
Dwilhoit,
You can keep up with 50, but not 500. There's a limit to the number of people a single person can have meaningful relationships with. And when we ignore those limits, we unwittingly leave people out. Everyone is so overwhelmed with the number of sicknesses, prayer requests, funerals, marriages, showers, etc. that without some sort of organization, people get overlooked. And the breaking point usually happens about the time a church hits 200 members.
Thanks Jay. I really look forward to the rest of your thoughts along these lines.
Guy,
I read it when it came out, and agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. I'll be posting on the problems it points out.
John,
A very good point. Thanks.
I am privileged to be a leader for a small group. We have right under 20. We meet in homes each week and share a meal together. People tend to open up and talk when they slow down and relax around a meal together. Our meal lasts about 60 to 90 minutes. We don't rush it. It is family time. We laugh, we listen, we share, we cry. We love on each other. Then we leave the table and sit in a close circle in a living room. Some in chairs and others on the floor. We read scripture and challenge each other. We lightly probe each other's minds. We bring everyone into the discussion so they can all be an "owner". Sometimes someone will spill their heart out. The goal is for each member to own the group. I am yours and you are mine. Yes sometimes we serve as a team to show love to our community. But the emphasis is on loving each other. I look forward to the weekly gatherings more than anything. I have found something worth investing in.
There are other goups in our congreation. Many of them meet each week for only an hour. They don't share a meal. They do a quick study and visit for a short time and then run home. Maybe that works for some, but that doesn't work for me. It's not an investment. It's more like punching a time clock and running back to the house to watch TV or eat alone. It doesn't sound like family. It sounds aweful. It sounds like church. Now doesn't that sound aweful?
Has anyone looked into the cross-denominational study called Natural Church Development? I had been thinking of mentioning this on the church growth thread, but it seems just as appropriate here on the small group thread. Natural Church Development focuses on congregational health and not size. Their research in 70 different countries and with many different denominations isolated 8 areas where healthy churches are consistently strong, and unhealthy churches are consistently weak. Effective small groups is one of the eight areas because they are the best tool for maintaining intimacy in growing congregations. Again, the focus is not on growth, but they observe that healthy churches tend to grow naturally to a point of optimum health and then they reproduce. This is the normal growth pattern for organisms of any kind and the study treats the church more like a body than like an institution.
Laymond, I hate to point it out but Jesus did ration His love and attention. He chose 12 out of dozens to be "with Him" and then He chose 3 out of the 12 to be especially close. The biggest reason we need small groups is because it is the model Jesus used and the model the early Church used. Jay calls it the Jerusalem model – a congregational structure of large assemblies and small ones. There is actually a lot of good work out there on this if you are at all interested.
David,
I agree with having a meal. It's trouble and all, but nothing binds people to one another like eating together.
And also agree that I see no reason to "do church" twice. Small group needs to be something different from the congregational assembly — or why bother?