House Churches & Institutional Churches, Part 4

Small groups sometimes work well. Sometimes not so well. Let’s start with the criticisms some have. In the Christian Standard, Brian Jones argues that we should “euthanize” small groups.

The Achilles’ heel of the modern-day small group movement is simple: Small groups don’t create disciples; disciples create disciples. And modern-day small groups are led, for the most part, by people who have attended the church, had a conversion experience, led a reasonably moral life, and can read the study-guide questions, but are not disciples themselves.

American churches have lowered the bar of small group leadership to an absurd level. In fact, it’s so ridiculous most churches would be better off not even having small groups than to offer them with leaders who aren’t disciples.

Ouch! Yes, if small groups are poorly led, they’ll produce poor results.

Do you honestly think Jesus would join, lead, or start a small group within the existing structure of your small group’s ministry at your church?

… Jesus would be out rubbing shoulders with people in your community, helping them find their way back to God, and teaching them to obey his teachings.

Jesus would actually be doing what small groups say they want/should/need to be doing, but they can’t, because they’re too busy being a “small group” inside the confines of your small group’s ministry infrastructure.

It’s like a jogging class where the instructor, instead of taking his class jogging and commenting on technique while class members actually are jogging, stuffs everyone into a classroom and lectures to them three days a week and then gives them a final exam.

If your view of “mission” is solely “out there,” then small groups will necessarily fail to be missional. And yet Jesus himself spent a lot of time in a small group of about 12. He gave his disciples supplemental lessons not provided to the crowds. And they followed him, watched him be on mission, listened to his teachings, asked questions, were sent out on short-term mission efforts, and finally were sent out on their own to do mission themselves and to train the next generation.

The small group experience of fellowship and instruction wasn’t the totality of the experience, but it was an important part of the experience.

In a later article, the Standard reports the results of a statistical study done comparing growth and baptism rates depending on whether a church offers Sunday school classes only, small group studies only, or both.

The baptism ratios were the highest for the megachurches, emerging megachurches, and large churches that offered small group Bible studies exclusively. Among the medium churches, the baptism ratio was a close second for the small group-only option.

Likewise, the average church growth rates were the strongest for the megachurches, large churches, and medium churches that offered only small group Bible studies, and again, it was a very close second for the emerging megachurches.

From a statistical standpoint, providing a combination of classes and groups was the next most effective strategy for producing more baptisms and increased church growth last year, when compared to using only Sunday school classes for adult discipleship.

The best rate of conversions was found among churches that had no Sunday school classes but operated a small groups ministry. The worst rate was found among churches with no small group ministry.

Okay, I don’t think I’m ready to euthanize our small groups. But maybe we should do them better.

Many churches claim to be “small groups churches” — not a church with small groups but a church made up of small groups! Very few actually get more than 60% of their members in groups. The only exception I know about is Saddleback, which has 120% of their members in groups. (Not a typo. It’s 100% plus 20%. Really.) Here’s what they say they do —

Purpose-Driven Groups, not Special Interest Groups

Our small-group strategy intentionally deepens the five biblical purposes of fellowship, discipleship, ministry, evangelism, and worship into every group. …

Good Enough, not Perfection

Our small-group ministry strives to be effective, not excellent. …

Relational, not Multiplying

Small groups need a simple mission. Too often small-group “theory” dictates that groups should be constantly multiplying. These strategies often place too much pressure on an average leader to be a “church strategist” instead of a relationship builder. …

Growth by Campaigns, not Disrupting Community

… We have grown to more than 2,500 adult small groups at Saddleback Church because we use a campaign to launch new groups every year. Since 2002, campaigns have increased small group participation at our church from 30 percent to 110 percent. We now have more people in small groups than attend our weekend services (on average). And rather than taking energy from our small groups by forced division or multiplication, the campaign approach actually adds energy to groups. …

Leadership potential, not proven leaders

… But no ministry can grow much unless there is an infrastructure to support it. We look at the people who are serving as hosts and identify the ones who are natural shepherds. Then we begin to raise these people up through a “Small-Group Leadership Pathway” that helps them understand the ministry, recognize God’s call in their lives, and then trains them in head and heart fundamentals so they can be effective in the ministry right from the beginning. We take hosts and turn them into leaders! When people have reasonable knowledge of what to do, they enjoy the ministry more because they see God working through them quickly. …

Ratios, not Size

… At Saddleback, we don’t penalize the people with the gift of being able to gather people; instead, we encourage groups to become any size they wish to. Then we equip them for health in spite of their size. …

Simple Systems, not Complex Structures

You don’t need to spend a lot of money on staff as you grow. Saddleback uses a leadership development process that can quickly build a network of 10-hour-per-week community leaders to develop, guide, and encourage group hosts to become leaders. …

Strategic Care, not Equal Care

… At Saddleback, we find that “equal care” can actually hurt leadership development and health rather than help. So, we prioritize our groups based on four categories. This simplifies care management and allows our leadership infrastructure to be more effective at providing care.

There is more to it, but let’s pause to reflect on this much. The strategy is to equip talented people to use their talents to their best effect. The strategy runs counter to much received wisdom. The usual teaching is that groups grow through multiplication, which tears friends from friends and mentors. The usual teaching is that the leader need only be able to read 6 questions about the sermon. However, the Saddleback approach requires intensive training and support.

I figure they’re doing something right. Here another perspective, also from Saddleback, which I consider very insightful.

.

(The video can be a little choppy, but be patient. It’s well worth listening to.)

To summarize some (not all) key points from the video —

* Figure out what you want to accomplish. If you want to create “disciples,” then define what a disciple is.

* Design your groups to accomplish your stated goal.

* The preacher should be the biggest advocate for groups. He should make it a routine part of his preaching, not just on sign up week.

* Present regular testimonies from members about how small groups have helped them grow in Christ.

* Make sure the staff participates. (People can smell a hypocrite.)

Here’s a link to a detailed introduction to small groups from a broader perspective, which I find very helpful.

Conclusion

No, we shouldn’t euthanize groups. But many churches need to rethink and retool their groups. And the first and most important question is: What are the groups for? If you don’t know, you’ll have a weak program. Some groups will thrive because a gifted person will lead it, but on the whole, it will be a disaster.

But if you’ll think through your goals, and if those goals are best met through groups, God will surely bless the ministry.

And … an institutional church will enjoy many of the benefits of a house church, while having the advantages of scale that allow the church to do things house church can’t.