Shaun Groves
When I talk to a group of people about anything – from child sponsorship to the kingdom – I try to guess what that group already thinks about that topic. Are they skeptics? Are they fans? Are they new to the subject? Are we likely to be in agreement already? Or not?
I’m speaking to our church’s small group leaders tonight about their purpose. There’s a lot that could be said. I have pages of notes to prove it. To narrow things down I started wondering what people in small groups already think their purpose is?
Why wonder when you can Twitter? Our church promotes small groups primarily as the best way to make friends in the church, get their support and give some in return – at least, that’s what’s stuck with me.
So I asked my Twitter followers and Facebook “friends”:
If you’re already a good neighbor and friend do you personally need a church “small group”? What for? Whatcha think?
Here’s some of what I heard back on Twitter:
@johannaprice Yes! Small groups aren’t just for making friends: they’re for accountability, growth, in-depth study, community.
@swddym each person needs a group of people thinking about them, not every minute but every day, a small group may help but may not
@daveyank To me personally, “small group” is where real church happens
Some folks on Facebook said:
Misty: I feel like each week we meet in someone’s home for small group we are actually having ‘church
Mark: when we are together especially in small groups wow what intimate fellowship
DeWayne: The small group is God’s support group for Christians, basically. Based in Acts 2, it provides for the basic functions and purposesof the church.
Wow. Glad I asked. Not what I expected to hear.
I was shocked that the majority of folks replying to my question (and the many that followed) believe small groups are fantastic at fostering relationships, teaching the bible, creating intimacy and transparency, are well-suited for prayer and “discipleship” (however that’s defined) and even great for meeting physical needs of their members. DeWayne summed up the majority view nicely: “[a small group] provides for the the basic functions and purposes of the church [as outlined in Acts 2].”
The discussion left me with a couple of nagging questions: If DeWayne is right, then why not kill Sunday morning “big church” and just do small groups? (Which I believe is what some folks call “house church”)
And how many Christian friends do I need before I can opt out of small group (or call my circle of friends my small group)?
Conversation grenade tossed.
This is the part where you talk back.
Boom.
Zack says:
The way you frame an example of ‘house church’ is the house church scenario that, to me, misses the mark.
A church body needs a shepherd.
The word needs to be *preached*.
It is entirely possible to have a group of gathered people who love each other and love Jesus and read the scripture and seek to understand it and still to get way off track without someone God has anointed to be a shepherd to His flock.
Take an authoritative shepherd out of the mix, and you have a real danger of becoming a support group for people who want to be affirmed in their sin.
I’ve seen it happen more than once.
My 2 – probably controversial – cents…
Shaun Groves says:
First, playing devil’s advocate, Zack, with tongue deeply in cheek: Yep, because churches with shepherds NEVER get off track right? Branch Dividians had David Koresh. The People’s Temple had Jim Jones. Groups that kill themselves when they get off track always have an “authoritative” leader.
Second, historically, the pastor hasn’t always been the only one teaching in church meetings. In Corinth, we know form Paul, believers took turns speaking in gatherings, presumably teaching each other in the process. The pastor is not Pope. Truth can be known without him. (For the record, I’m part of a very traditionally structured church with a pastor and I like it and him a lot.)
And so we have to be careful, at the very least, in calling a group without a pastor (as we know it) more dangerous than a group with a pastor at the helm. Because that’s the kind of group our many of our forefathers met in. Should we now question every teaching that came from them as potentially corrupt ?
Adam S says:
Many house church have some accountability in place through a house church network. And while they are not as formal as many other churches, most still have a teaching time. This doesn’t seem to be a valid concern to me.
Cheryl says:
The church I go to is very large, so small groups are a way, if you will, to disseminate “church” the way the New Testament describes it. Yes, we love and support each other, we grow together, we encourage one another, but we are also “the church” to the community in which we meet (which may or may not be the same community as where our church building is).
The point is, I think, that the church is not a building, it’s not a sermon or a ritual, at least not if we’re going by the NT definition. Why not ditch BIG church? Well, there’s something to gathering together, all of us who are being the church in our individual communities, and worshipping God together, hearing some teaching, seeing folks we don’t see all the time, learning about the other ministries that are out there.
Our pastor has started to call our weekend services seminars and he actually gives out homework! I love that!
Lindsay @ Not2Us says:
Although the small group meets many of the needs of a believer, the corporate fellowship serves a good purpose, as well. That purpose gets muddled, lost, twisted, and distorted…many times due to tradition. However, that doesn’t mean it should be tossed altogether.
There are times when the need of a believer or non-believer reaches far beyond what any group of 8-12 people can accomplish.
When I was put on bedrest for 3.5 months to save the life of my son, it took our entire church of 250, plus our families, plus our outside-of-church friends to deliver us through that period. Not a single group of 12 people could have helped us survive that time. No way.
When a believer is in a time of challenge, a valley, a struggle, it often takes more than 12 other believers to encourage, support, and challenge them through the season. Sometimes, the sheer power of 200 people singing a song of praise to a God who’s bigger than everything, in spite of their 200 different situations, is enough to pull someone from the depths. Other times, it’s simply enough to get them through that day.
And when we look past ministry and look to missions: WOW! What a group of 200, 2,000, or 2,000,000 could do as opposed to a group of 12! It’s not that the 12’s work isn’t necessary. (Hello, look at the disciples.) It’s simply that the 200’s work is necessary, as well. (Hello, look at Compassion.)
There are purposes and value in both manifestations of the family of God. Just as there is purpose and value in personal worship and corporate worship (and I’m not talking about music.)
We just have to be careful that neither manifestation becomes a mere ritual or tradition. We must, at all times, be looking to how we can connect deeper with a God who seeks a relationship with us and how we can be used as he draws others into relationship with him, as well.
I’m not saying we’re getting it done. Sometimes, I think Western “church” should be demolished. Then, I try to shake off my fatalist tendencies and remember that God is the redeemer of all things…even those who have gone astray on the path of traditional liturgy, contemporary lasers, or big water spouting whale attractions…
Adam S says:
Just to play devils’ advocate here. A network of house churches could have also helped while you were sick. I think that many people that are familar with house churches think that they don’t work together. In my experience, house church networks seems to work together better than standard churches work together.
Lindsay @ Not2Us says:
And, I TOTALLY agree with Zack!! There’s a reason He gave some to be apostles and some to be preachers…
Sarah Lew says:
For me, I need both. I love being part of a small group because that’s where I learn about people’s deep needs, can hear their hearts and walk with them as we seek to follow Christ together. Even when I’m spending time with my Christian friends, this doesn’t always happen. I wish it did but that’s not the case. The small group/community group/home group/whatever offers a time and place to ask hard questions and to wrestle with life issues in intimate ways. I don’t often push for that in my day-to-day friendships.
However, I also desperately need “big church.” There’s something about corporate worship, singing together, reading the Word together, hearing exhortation together, taking Communion together that feeds my spirit in a way that nothing else does. The small group is magnificent for fostering deep relationships, but when I’m in a corporate church setting with the larger part of my local body, especially on a Sunday morning when I feel intricately connected to the global, universal body, I feel like I’m getting a small taste of what heaven will be like. There is a sense of being connected to believers all over the world, doing the same thing, praising the same Lord at the same time. And it’s beautiful.
=)
Adam S says:
(Sorry Shaun I don’t mean to take over this thread).
I think this is one of the few really good reasons on why a house church can’t completely replace a large gathering. (Although, a network of house churches that gathers regularly in large group can do the same.)
Lindsay @ Not2Us says:
How are house churches that gather regularly as a large group different from large corporate churches who gather regulalry as smaller, more intimate groups?
Cheryl says:
I’m a Vikings fan. I really enjoy watching the game on tv and cheering my team on. But, going to the game at the stadium? Oh my gosh, THAT is exciting!
Both experiences foster my fandom, but honestly, I could still be an avid Vikings fan without ever going to the stadium…watching it with a bunch of friends, etc.
If I have to miss either big church or small church, I’d have to choose to skip big church…
and, that’s my second two cents. 🙂
Ashley says:
My first reaction is to say “yeah, no more big church, just small groups.” This isn’t based on a huge spiritual epiphany, but simply that I don’t really like big church. I only attend big church so I can find a small group. In a way, I guess I tolerate big church.
But, also, I’m very fond of so-called big church that isn’t really like big church, that meets in a closed coffee shop, has a leader that teaches/preaches, worship, communion and is already like a small group. There are smaller groups that branch off of this service.
I guess I prefer the intimacy of smaller groups in general.
lorenkmiller says:
I heard a “stat” that a lot of people who go to mega churches also attend smaller ones
lorenkmiller says:
change “a lot” to some or a few
Todd says:
I’m admittedly a little opposed to big churches, but I do enjoy their worship gatherings. Sadly, I’m not really sure I understand the point of corporate worship, but it’s mostly what I “get” out of big church.
Could you maybe explore in future posts why we worship in the ways that we worship (singing, music, etc.) and what the point of it all is, Shaun?
Kelly @ Love Well says:
I’ve had similar heretical thoughts, Shaun.
And while I don’t have a good answer, I feel like a few of the comments here have given me more food for thought.
I like the concept that corporate worship and preaching:
a. ties us to the universal body of Christ
b. unites us in thought and theology
c. gives us more muscles to serve our community.
But certainly, those things aren’t necessary. They are an added bonus (which, admittedly, can be a distraction) for those of us who can avail ourselves of it. But for many believers around the world, that type of corporate worship isn’t an option.
Amanda S says:
I’m actually on my way to a small group meeting in a few minutes. 🙂
To me, both small groups and a larger church group are important for a Christian because small groups fill some of the emotional needs of a church, while the church itself can fill larger needs, including financial and physical needs, in a way that a small group can’t. There is also a need for small groups to be connected to each other or a larger body in some way, because while any group/church can go off the deep end, the fewer people in a group the fewer checks to keep it from happening. I think that being tied to a larger spiritual family is a good check against heresy. Also, especially if the small group is composed of people who are mostly the same (age, race, part of life, etc), it is important to guard against self-centeredness in the group, and being tied to a larger body of believers is a good way to do that.
About how many Christian friends you have to have before you ditch a small group, I think it depends on how good of friends they are and how frequently they meet. One of the things that makes a small group is regular meetings to discuss, pray, worship, etc. If a circle of friends is doing that, then it might be rightly called a small group. If a person has 50 Christian friends but doesn’t feel comfortable enough with any of them to share burdens, ask for accountibility, or be honest about their life, then that’s not good enough to count as a small group, in my opinion. I think that one of the benefits of a small group is that it promotes close personal friendship in which you can confess sin or ask for prayer. I think that a small group should fulfill the comands of James 5:16 (confess your sins to each other and pray for each other) and Gal 6:2 (bear each other’s burdens), otherwise it isn’t worth the time spent meeting.
Just my $.02.
Tiffany says:
I used to live in China, where foreigners were allowed to gather in large groups like American churches, but the secrecy that needed to be maintained by all those people didn’t allow it to be a very open setting. I ended up joining a house church of all expats, just because it was a lot more authentic and real than those large group settings. Plus, we didn’t have to be so secretive around each other. So, having been part of a church that was only a small group, I have seen how much I missed the “big church” aspect also. There’s nothing quite like corporate worship, and I think that it’s also important to gather together to pool all of our resources. A small group is limited in its capacity to reach people because of the limit on funds, talents, etc. I also think it would be a lot harder to invite non-Christians into such the intimate, deep atmosphere of a small group and them not walk away completely overwhelmed. The large group church tends to have more open activities that are a little less intimidating. However, I have seen some churches with so many “open activities” that I wonder when the true community happens.
III says:
I agree with much of what has been said here, but I want to introduce to this discussion a major point of church theology that is pretty much always overlooked.
It’s pretty much summed up by a Derek Webb quote (can I do that? post a quote from another artist on an artist’s website? oh well, here goes. I hope I don’t offend you, Shaun Groves):
“I didn’t come for only you, but for My people to pursue”
The point of the church is not primarily to help disciple individual Christians, but rather the point of individual discipleship is the sanctification of the Bride of Christ. So long as we view church as a place to get our needs met, whether that be megachurch or house church, we will have an incomplete, and possibly skewed, view of what church is all about.
The thing that’s complicated about this is that we cannot be in relation to all of the universal Church. First of all, most of them are dead, and most of the rest live overseas, and we have only so much time in a day and so much money in our wallets. So that’s why God instituted the local body of believers. The local church serves as a microcosm of the universal Church, and the way in which we serve out our role as the Body of Christ.
I think the question to ask is not how our needs can best be met, but how we can best do our part in the sanctification of the Bride.
Sarah says:
A friend’s church in suburban Kansas City (http://www.gatheringnetwork.org/) has decided to pursue implementing a concept called Clusters, developed by a guy named Mike Breen (he has a book of the same name). The model utilizes mid-size missional communities (25-55 people) while continuing to gather for large group worship services and small group discipleship. I’m not totally sure how it all works, I haven’t actually seen it in action, but the concept is interesting to me.
I attend a wonderful medium-size church in the southern Dallas area and love our times of worship together, but I don’t know what I would do without my small group. Developing intimate relationships with others is so key to experiencing redemptive grace!
Robert Stogner says:
Each serves a different but valid purpose. Worship is also a group experience. However the focus is on the sacred and joyful adoration of God. It is an Isaiah-type-thing were the Holy Spirit fills the sanctuary, God is very near. The holiness of God meets with the humanity of people. Small groups focus more on the interaction of the Body of Christ, the Acts 2 experience. As so often in the church we struggle with either/or and it can be both/and, as well as being distinctively different, but have some similarities. Also, both can provide very different entry points for unbelievers to interact with our lived-out faith.
anne jackson says:
this is more a response to your first question since I didn’t see it.
but no.
i think small groups that are “church sponsored” can be great for some people and for others, not necessary.
as an example, chris and i have a group of friends, about 10 of us, who share our neighborhood, meals, tears, celebrations, appliances, pet sitting, and yes…even spiritual growth. what i love is that hardly any of us “go” to the same church and in fact, i recently joined one of our “group’s” bible studies which is an eastern orthodox women’s group (as my friend is orthodox).
chris and i were in a “young married” small group once and to us it felt so contrived…and we gave it time. so…
we have our small group…but it isn’t listed on any of our church directories.
and i think gathering is important for several reasons, but i also don’t think it needs to be contained within four walls. (or 30k sq ft, for that matter). it can, but it isn’t a requirement.
Mamasboy says:
We live in a very individualistic culture, where our own opinion on what the Bible says is often considered the most important.
Small groups help to tame the ignorant/odd interpretations of Scripture that individuals have.
Larger churches help to tame the ignorant/odd interpretations of Scripture that small groups have.
Regional denominations help to tame the ignorant/odd interpretations of Scripture that individual churches have.
Worldwide denominations help to tame the cultural hangups that regional denominations have.
A deep appreciation for church history helps to tame the cultural/Scriptural interpretation hangups that people in a given epoch have. This last one is what Chesterton referred to as the “democracy of the dead” which helps us all to “refuse to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
MB
Stretch Mark Mama says:
My beef with big church AND small groups is when they start to serve only themselves–when the Sunday morning gig is little more than a show and the small group times are ingrown-eyeball navel-gazing get-togethers. I mean, someday I’ll tell you what I really think, but that will do for now. 🙂
I did some training last week for the small groups in our church (a plant), and my big message was that the leaders and members have to PLAN to think outwardly. Otherwise entropy will result and the group will quickly focus inward again.
Lindsay @ Not2Us says:
I need a Facebook “Like” option for this response. 🙂
Cindi says:
I go to bible study group meetings twice a week in other peoples homes because I love the interaction, the questions I can get answered and the fellowship. I go to church on Sunday because I NEED to hear my pastor preach. He has been blessed with a gift – he has the knowledge of the Bible – and I need to hear it!
Both are vital to me.
holly Panter says:
going back to Acts – we need both, right?
Jesus example was about 12 people and I’m thinkin’ He’s ok to copy?
If you need a church sponsored one because you don’t have one, so be it, use their guidance!
If you have a group of Christ-centered friends that hold you accountable, challenge you, refresh you and pray for you, then why on earth would you need to ‘label’ it a small group?
you need both, no matter how you go about it.
(provided you live in a country where this is even possible)
Rhonda says:
If we go to the Bible to get our example, I believe the apostles did both. For example, look at Acts 5:42. It says “Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.”
The Temple Courts – big church.
House to house – house church or small group.
I don’t think we can really disregard either.
Both have their place.
Kelly says:
I am a traditional Southern Baptist who still likes the term “Sunday School” over “community group”. I think corporate worship or “big church” (which is what I have called it my whole life) is important for that reason – preaching and worship. It is also important as a CHURCH to evangalize and to meet the needs of the community. There are so many things that a CHURCH as a whole can do that “small groups” can’t.
But a small group is the place you can get plugged in at church and get to know other members on an individual basis – not just a surface “shake your hands at the greeting” level. They are your friends, the ones who bring you meals when you are sick or have a baby, the ones who pray for you and help you move.
Personally – I think both are important and I would have the thought of ever losing either one.
Kacie says:
My church requires two forms of involvement for someone to be a member. One is to be in a small group, and the second is to be in some form of service. Some people don’t like this, but in a church of four to five thousand, it’s an attempt to prevent the church from just revolving around teh Sunday show and never being discipled and growing within the church.
Personally, I LOVE the small group thing but I do struggle with what Anne jackson mentioned above – the times when it feels contrived. I am an introvert I and need TIME to feel like there is real intimacy… but you do have to start somewhere! Is big church necessary? Well, not if your small groups involves teaching and the sacraments – then you’re a church! However, I think small groups are a great way for the church to attempt to connect their memebers in a way that it’s difficult for large churches to do.