The Conversation: Part Two

On small groups:

Rachel: “From the time I was 11 or 12 I have been involved with two different branches of what one might consider a “mainstream” church. It follows the common liturgy and has regular small groups, but it also encourages genuine fellowship, both with God and each other. My impression of small groups (and still is) that they are not at all a “church growing” tool, but a more in depth and personal form of fellowship aside from the main congregation. I feel that small groups remind us that we are a family and can be very powerful tools to effectively prepare the church to reach out.”

Joshua (Me): I believe in small groups. I too have been in the mainstream church for most of my life (since the sinful age of four). I’m a third generation pastor, and my family (Dad, uncle, brother, grandfather) has always been at the forefront of the mainstream movement in some regard. I’ve led small groups, helped build small group ministries, and attended countless groups, so please understand I truly have a heart for small group ministry.

Clearly there are thousands of amazing small groups just like yours across the country which are functioning wonderfully. I believe this is due in large part to the hearts of those involved in the groups, and has almost nothing to do with the strategy of the institution. However, it is very difficult to separate the two these days.

In my years of ministry there are few things which have remained the same, but one of the things that has remained consistent is this; small groups grow churches, and the primary purpose of small group ministry is church growth. One would be hard pressed to find a small group strategy launched by a church institution which was not first intended to grow the institution. Although small group ministries are presented to the congregation as fellowship gatherings, almost without fail, they are implemented by the leadership for growth. I can honestly say I have never been involved with a small group ministry that was launched for any other purpose. Fellowship, although a valued result of small groups, is a secondary concern to the institution.

I believe small groups are beneficial because they foster true interaction and relationship development. I believe small groups are great for the encouragement of the saints and I believe small groups are an essential part of spiritual growth. But, my heart is broken by the intentions with which they are frequently established, and at its roots this is where I see the problem.

What is the purpose of a small group? Why are small groups seen as supplemental to the “main gathering?’ I can’t help but wonder why the institution has to present small groups as secondary to the main service. Are small groups not “church?” In my opinion, small groups are presented as supplemental because they can be dangerous to the bottom line of the institution if not handled correctly. If small groups are presented as legitimate church services, countless people would never attend the big service. Why? Small groups are places where the church has the opportunity to be the church. They are intimate. They encourage interaction with the text, they allow for questions. Friendships are made, and lives are changed. Bottom line, it’s biblical and God blesses biblical. I’m not saying it’s the only way to do things, or that we should do away with big services, but doesn’t it seem that the paradigm is flipped around some how? Shouldn’t the big production services be designed to funnel people into small groups? There is a place for large Sunday morning gatherings, but in my opinion they should be secondary.

Unfortunately, if the institution allows the small groups to be seen as “church” the need for big organizations goes away. The results would be profound. Subsequently, small groups are billed as supplemental gatherings that help to keep people going through the week until the return to “CHURCH.”