Great conversation continues to come out of the comments generated by my response to Randall Neighbor’s article over at SmallGroups.com.  If you missed out, be sure and read them to catch up.

Today I want to expand the discussion on a potential strategic difference that a crowd-to-core strategy brings…that is not present in the cell group strategy.  Here it is:

Who you encourage (or allow) to host a group absolutely determines the outreach potential.

Take a moment and let that statement sink in.

Now let me unpack the idea.  What I’m suggesting is that there is a strategic advantage in allowing those who are newer to the congregation (who might even still be part of the crowd) to host a group.  I am acknowledging that there will be problems, but I pick up a key strategic advantage by not insisting that group leaders come from the core.

What’s the advantage?  Newer participants still know more people outside the congregation.  The longer a person has been involved in the core (or part of a closed group) the more likely it is that their closest friends, their best connections are also members of the core.  Newer participants don’t have that issue.  Ask new participants who their 10 best friends are in the community they live in and they’ll almost always identify 8 to 10 people who have never even been to the church.  I wrote about this phenomenon right here.

That’s a big advantage from an outreach standpoint.  Huge even.  Do you run risks when you lower the bar of leader requirements?  Absolutely.  But those risks can be controlled (see yesterday’s article for more) and lowering the bar opens up exponential opportunities.

Contrast this with the more customary pattern within the cell group concept where next leaders develop as apprentices and then one day enable the group to birth.  One reason that Mario Vega writes about the need for personal evangelism within the cell strategy is that it must be intentionally promoted as priority for the cell idea to work.

What do you think?

We’ve had a very good discussion here over the last 48 hours about the difference between “cell groups” and “small groups” (prompted by Randall Neighbour’s article on SmallGroups.com and my response).  The comments here have been very engaging and have all had a great spirit and attitude.  It’s been very fun to watch!

Several of the the comments really require more comprehensive answers.  This article is the result of Brian Owen’s observation that he is “excited by the possibilities of reaching out to more people but find myself really concerned with the potential lack of ‘quality control’ for lack of a better word.”

Brian’s comment begs further unpacking of the crowd-to-core philosophy, quality control, and the pursuit of problem-free.  Here’s what I’ve got.  Follow along.  And feel free to jump in any time.

First, while it’s an oversimplification to say that the crowd-to-core philosophy is just the opposite of core-to-crowd, it’s a good place to start.  Core-to-crowd is the idea that if I pour into my core, teach them, equip them, love them and challenge them…they will go out and do what Jesus was talking about in the great commission.  In some ways this is the essence of the cell group idea.  Can you see it?  If I build into my members and focus on them they will one day leave to start their own group (the apprentice notion).

Crowd-to-core on the other hand is a philosophy based on reaching into the crowd by providing simple steps that make it easy for them to respond and do the next thing that will ultimately help them join the congregation, make commitments that lead to service, and develop the mindset that puts the needs of others first…but all the while inviting their friends to come along.

Second, a little discussion of quality control in group life in general and group leadership specifically.  The cell strategy usually relies on building into an apprentice with the idea that they will eventually birth their own group.  The cell will divide (to use the biological metaphor) and you’ll have two groups and two qualified leaders to include on your roster of available groups to send potential members to.

Although it may not be a key component, this is an important distinction.  If the system includes the church sending potential members to a leader, then quality control is a greater liability.  On the other hand, if the leader (or host) is the one recruiting members, then you can make an argument that the upside outweighs the downside (i.e., if I invite you to my group, I am most likely a step or two ahead of you from a spiritual standpoint and more importantly, I am likely to invite friends that otherwise wouldn’t be part of a group).

Third, the contrast between core-to-crowd and crowd-to-core, along with concerns about quality control, lead directly to an understanding about the pursuit of problem free.  Here’s what I mean.  Take the two ideas: core-to-crowd (high quality control, cell-driven, apprenticing as source for leaders, etc.) vs. crowd-to-core (lowering the leader requirements, leader’s own friends become members, etc.) and list the problems associated with each system in a column beneath.

An honest evaluation will help you see that both ideas have sets of problems.  Wise leaders simply choose the set of problems they’d rather have.

Personal Conclusion:  I enthusiastically embrace the crowd-to-core philosophy and would much rather have that set of problems, believing it is easier to mitigate those problems than the set that comes with a core-to-crowd strategy.  An example of a problem that is immediately pointed out with a lower leadership bar is that it makes quality control more difficult.  I believe that is more than offset by it being much easier to recruit hosts who will invite their own friends than to pre-qualify enough leaders to care for the number who are unconnected.  I can mitigate the risk by requiring new leaders to attend an orientation, to use the pre-approved curriculum, and to have a coach.  I make no guarantees of sending any members to any leader and can choose who to list on the website or catalog of available groups.  Are there problems?  Absolutely.  Am I going to make it possible for a much larger number of people to be connected in community where they can grow in Christ, love one another and further the work of the Kingdom?  I believe so.  To me, crowd-to-core wins every time.

Thoughts?  Use the comments and jump in!

One of the first books I read about small group ministry was Successful Home Cell Groups by Dr. David Yonggi Cho, the fantastic story of the “smallest and largest” church in the world, the Full Gospel Central Church in Seoul, Korea.  This served as my introduction to the Cell Church model in 1988.  In the years since then Ralph Neighbour and now Joel Comiskey have provided a steady stream of resources for cell group ministry.

According to Comiskey, a cell is a “group of three to fifteen people who meet weekly outside the church building for the purpose of evangelism, community, and spiritual growth with the goal of multiplication.”  Each of the components are important and must be present in an authentic cell group ministry.

• Cell groups meet regularly.
• Spiritual growth is a fundamental purpose.
• Community, a genuine sense of connection formed through the intimacy of a smaller group (3 to 15) is essential.
• Penetration evangelism is an intentional aspect of the cell group ministry.  The group exists for the purpose of spiritual growth and reaching out.
• Multiplication is expected.  When a group grows (through evangelism) it is anticipated that like every healthy cell it will multiply.

In addition to Comiskey’s very extensive collection of books you’ll also find a comprehensive set of helpful articles on his website.  If you want to learn how to implement the cell group model you’ll find everything you need.

As I caution on every review of a model or strategy, there are no problem-free solutions.  Clearly the cell group strategy is a slow and steady growth model.  There’s nothing quick about it.  And I’d also say that proponents of the model are often extremely passionate in their commitment to it and sometimes quick to point out the inadequacies of strategies that are more willing to choose speed of connection or lowering the bar in terms of who can lead a group.

One of the most frequent questions I’m asked is how to choose a small group model (or system).  It’s also one of the most important questions.  You’ll find some helpful hints in my article on how to choose a small group strategy or system.  In this article I want to simply highlight what I think are the most significant elements of each model.

Remember, no model is truly problem-free.  Wise leaders simply choose the set of problems they’d rather have.  That said, here are the most common small group models:

• MetaChurch: First popularized by Carl George’s Prepare Your Church for the Future, the MetaChurch model is a system that finds its roots in the cell church model.  The importance of every leader having an apprentice, the notion that healthy groups grow and birth, and that “everyone needs to be cared for by someone and no one can care for more than 1o” are all keys to the model.  I’ve devoted a full article to the MetaChurch model right here.
• Sermon-Based groups might be the oldest model.   More than likely, the earliest disciples used a portion of their “house to house” time to talk about what they’d heard in the Temple courts.  When you hear about sermon based groups today though, you’re probably hearing about a system like the one popularized by Larry Osborne and North Coast Church in his book Sticky Church.  If you’re looking for a way to unite your whole congregation in an ongoing discussion about a central topic, this is a pretty good way to do it.  I find it to have a couple significant downsides (emphasis on one topic system-wide has some limitations and it is less appealing to neighbors and friends).  You’ll find a more complete overview right here.
• Semester Based has been popularized by books like Activate and to some extent Dog Training, Fly Fishing, and Sharing Christ in the 21st Century.  The main idea of Semester Based is that people more readily make a 13 week commitment than an indefinite one.  On the basis of that idea there are usually three “semesters” a year offering a catalog of topics.  Prospective members select from the available topics, spend 13 weeks together, and are free to choose a different group in the next semester.  It should be pointed out that members usually have the chance to continue in the same group for the next semester and often do.  You’ll find a more detailed review right here.
• Free Market is a model based on the central idea that groups based on interests (dog training, fly fishing, Bible study, etc.) will attract a broader range of people.  After all, everyone has an interest…or at least, that’s the premise.  Free Market is often used in combination with a semester based strategy and interest based groups make up the catalog for the semester.  Fly Fishing, Dog Training and Sharing Christ in the 21st Century has some great ideas about how to implement this model.  I’ve found the two main downsides to be that it’s difficult to generate enough new leaders and it is not conducive to a church-wide campaign approach.  You’ll find a more detailed review of the model right here.
• Connecting Church is based on Randy Frazee’s book by the same name.  The Connecting Church details a strategy that takes advantage of natural neighborhood affinities to trim down the number of activities and groups a person is part of (small group, Sunday School, bowling, neighborhood social group, etc.), allowing them to make room for life and focus all of their attention on one group.  There are definitely some advantages to the model.  There are also some clear challenges (geography doesn’t guarantee affinity).  You’ll find a more detailed review of the model right here.

Looking for information about another model?  I cover the Cell Church, G-12, North Point and the Church-Wide Campaign Driven approach in part two right here.  Don’t want to miss an update?  You can subscribe to my updates right here.

We’ve been talking about building an exponential group system.  In my last post we wrestled with the idea that a key early step in the journey to exponential is to have brutal honesty about the present…the way things really are right now.

Once you’ve developed a clear and honest understanding of where things really are right now, it’s time to start thinking about what is possible.  And this really should be a process.  It’s probably not a one session step.  Instead, it’s probably something that you do over several sessions.  And it really should be about dreaming big about all that’s possible in group life at your church.

Here’s how to get started.  First, you ought to pull together a team of people who care about group life…and are open minded.  I think both elements are really important.  They need to care about group life because it might be out of their passion for it they’ll be able to dream about how best to make it available to everyone.  At the same time, they need to be open minded about alternative ways it might develop…because if it was already firing on all cylinders you probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Second, you need to set some ground rules about the creative process you’re about to engage in.  I’ve written about IDEO’s brainstorming rules right here.  The key is to have an openness to a lot of possibilities because at this stage you’re really dreaming about the possible future.  I don’t want to predetermine any of your process, but here’s an example of some of what could be on your whiteboard.

• we could begin to expect every group to identify a way to serve together (this leads to…)
• we could develop a team that finds local opportunities for service
• we could develop a team (or a connection with one) that sets up video interviews of groups serving together
• we could work with the pastor and develop a calendar for the year and plug in strategic elements for each season.
• we could begin to develop our on-campus leaders and add group life elements to more traditional classes
• etc.

When you are in the dreaming stage…you need to write everything down, you need to go for lots and lots of ideas, and you need to try and add to what it being dreamed.

Third, it’s okay to read what other people are doing as a step in the process.  In fact, I highly recommend that you read Creating Community, Sticky Church, and Activate while you’re in this process.  Not that you would simply adopt a model, but that you would see more possibilities.

Remember, this should be a multiple step process.  Maybe you have a session or two at the whiteboard, then read a book together (or each read one of the books), then come back together and hit the whiteboard again.

Don’t refine yet.  That’s what we’ll talk about next time.  If you’re not signed up to get the update, you can do that right here.

Yesterday we talked about the core philosophy that drives an exponential group system.  If you missed step one, you can read about having a crowd-to-core philosophy right here.

Today I want to talk about step two in the process: Diagnosis: Brutal Honesty About Your Present.   Sounds harsh.  Brutal even.  But without an honest evaluation of right now, you can’t possibly build an exponential system.  So how do you evaluate your present?  What are you looking for?  Here are the questions I use:

Is group life promoted year-round as an essential ingredient of spiritual growth? So that we’re clear, here’s what I mean about each of these terms:

• Group life must be a life-on-life activity.  It can’t be a purely educational experience.  It’s about interaction.  Can it happen on Sunday a.m. in a classroom setting?  It can, but it will take work to create the right environment there.  At the same time, it takes work to create the right environment in a living room.
• Group life must be promoted.  By promoted I mean talked about, highlighted, mentioned, and referred to.  It needs to happen in your pastor’s messages, in announcements, in testimonies, on your website, your e-newsletter, and your bulletin or program.
• Group life must be promoted all the time, not once a season or when it’s recruiting time, and certainly not in a kind of rotating emphasis where equal time is given to every ministry or program.  This is a very important question about where you are right now.  Without year-round promotion, you can’t get to exponential.
• Group life must be seen as an essential ingredient of spiritual growth.  From a practical standpoint, it really needs to be seen as one of a very few essential ingredients.  What are the others?  Gathering for corporate worship and serving in a gift-based, passion-driven ministry.  You’ll have difficulty getting to exponential if there is much there beyond those three.

How are you doing so far?  When you evaluate the way things are right now in your ministry, is group life promoted year-round as an essential ingredient of spiritual growth?  The next diagnosis question is:

How obvious is the path to connect with a group in your system? In other words, once I begin hearing about how essential group life is, will my next step be obvious?  Can I see it prominently promoted on the website?  Can I walk out into the lobby right after service and see what to do?  Is the next step obvious?

Next, how easy is the first step?  Can I take a baby step?  Or do I have to be a world record long jumper like Carl Lewis?  An example of easy is a six week test-drive on a timely and broadly engaging topic.  An example of a difficult first step is Experiencing God or The Truth Project.  Great studies, but at 12 to 14 weeks are too long for a first step.

Last, does the first step lead to a next step? This is a very important part of getting to exponential.  It’s not that every group must survive or every person who joins continues.  It’s that you’re doing what you must to build in the greatest possibility of survival.

Your next step is to pull together a conversation about how things really are right now in your ministry.  You’ll need the right people around the table.  It will take time.  You’ll have to be honest.  But here’s the thing.  You’re kidding yourself if you think you can get to exponential from just anywhere.  You need to rearrange the way things are today if you want to get somewhere different tomorrow.

What makes a group system exponential?  What makes a church exponential?  I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, but my convictions on the matter string together some important concepts acquired over the years.

But before we get to the keys to building an exponential group system, let’s define it.  In some ways it’s kind of an “I’ll know it when I see it” thing, but basically an exponential system is one that is about multiplication as opposed to addition.  Take a look at two examples:

Example A

• if you have 10 groups and 7 of them agree to take a small group vacation
• and out of those 7 groups you ended up with 18 additional hosts who opened their home for the church-wide campaign
• and you used a campaign topic that was engaging to the crowd (i.e., Live Like You Were Dying)
• and 13 of those 18 new groups determined to keep meeting after the campaign
• you’d double the number of groups from 10 to 20.

Example B

• You have 10 groups
• You talk with each group leader challenging them to birth a new group in time for the church-wide campaign
• and you choose a topic for the campaign that is about building up believers (i.e., Just Walk Across the Room)
• 8 of the 10 group leaders say they’re not ready to birth, 1 of the 2 apprentices announces they’re moving
• You challenge each group to invite a few new folks to their group for the upcoming church-wide campaign
• At the end of the church-wide campaign you’ve added one group and the total number of people in groups has grown by 20.

Example A is about multiplication.  Example B is about addition.  If you want to have an exponential group system, you’ve got to think multiplication.

The first key to building an exponential group system (or church) is to understand what you have right now.  A kind of diagnosis.  If you pull up to the Ferrari repair shop and complain about poor performance, the first thing they’re going to do is lift up the hood and take a look.  When you lift up the hood on your group system, you need to figure out if you have a “crowd to core” philosophy. Or more of a “core to crowd” philosophy.

What is “crowd to core?”  Easy to understand, especially if you’re familiar with Saddleback’s concentric circle concept.  Essentially a crowd to core philosophy is designed to help people in the crowd take an easy step into the congregation, the folks in the congregation take a step into a deeper commitment and the committed step into the core.

Core to crowd is the opposite arrangement.  It is the idea that if I focus on the most committed people, building into them, investing in them, discipling them, they will reach the community.  It is the concept behind services and programs designed to build up the believer with the idea that once they’re equipped they’ll reach out, they’ll disciple others, etc.

Can’t a group system (or church) with a core to crowd philosophy of ministry experience exponential growth?  Isn’t it really just a matter of preference?  An extension of “it takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people?”  Yes and no.  While it may be theoretically possible for a core to crowd philosophy to experience exponential growth, it rarely happens in practice.  More often than not it becomes about growing deeper, losing the potential vibrancy of new life that comes when you reach into the crowd.

You may be thinking, “Skip exponential!  We’d settle for growth.”  Can’t we get that with a core to crowd philosophy.  Yes you can, but unless you’re living in a very stable community where few people ever move away, you probably won’t realize the long-term potential of building into your core.

So what kind of system do you have right now?  Are you operating with a crowd to core philosophy?  Or more of core to crowd?  The problem for many, many churches?  Wanting (and even expecting) exponential results while building a core to crowd system.

The first key?  Make sure you’ve got a crowd to core philosophy and that your strategies match up.  What’s next?  You need a brutal assessment of the present.

I’m asked about G12 a few times a year…not near as much as free market, semester based, or sermon based…but often enough to have had many conversations over the past few years.  Here’s what I know about the G12 small group philosophy:

First, at it’s essence G12 works like this: the key leader forms a group with 12 members.  The leader invests in the members, holds them accountable, encourages them, shepherds them, etc.  Each of these members is then expected to form their own group of 12 where they’ll serve as the leader…doing to their members what has been modeled to them.  And then, those members are expected to form their own group of 12.  Pretty simple concept.

Second, there are other key ingredients in the model.  Encounters, or weekend retreats, are used to help jump-start leader development.  Groups are almost always separated into men’s groups, women’s groups and children’s groups.  You can find other aspects in this article over on Wikipedia.

Third, unlike most of the other small group systems I’ve referred to, G12 is really more of a church growth concept.  Where most small group systems are strategies to help members grow in Christ and be encouraged through community, G12 is the engine that drives the churches who use it.

Two Cautionary Keys:

There are two keys for me as I have observed churches in the United States and Canada attempt to implement the G12 idea.  First, I’ve found that the pace of life in developed countries (I’m probably misusing the term, but you get my meaning) is too fast to actually pull off the idea that I’m in one group as a member and another as a leader…and they meet simultaneously.  Generally speaking, the majority of adults have too much going on to actually make that happen.  If anyone can really do that they are in the distinct minority.  Anytime you base a system on what a minority will do…it is not likely to succeed.

Second, when you google G12 you’ll notice that the first page or so are negative articles about the system.  Just to highlight one, Joel Comiskey’s Concerns About the G12 Movement is much more developed than what I’ve written here.

Thoughts?  Questions?  Use the comments to let me know what you’re thinking.

Looking for information about other small group systems?  You’ll find more right here.

In terms of small groups philosophy of ministry, the open or closed group question is very big.  Both sides have some good arguments.  Like every other argument there is no problem-free solution.  Although I believe there are times when it is both appropriate and beneficial to “close” a group, for the most part I am solidly in the open group camp.  Here are my top 10 reasons:

10.  Eliminates the need to “card people at the door!”

9.  One less idiosyncrasy to explain to interested newbies.

8.  Adding a new person to a group is often causes new details to be added to old stories.

7.  Gives an opportunity for includers to include, reach out, and help new members to feel part of the group.

6.  Creates opportunities for new friendships.

5.  It counters the “me-first” attitude of the culture when I’m willing to share what I have.

4.  A growing group opens new doors for putting the needs of others above your own.

3.  Without new blood, relationships can become stagnant.

2.  If grouplife really is essential to me, I will be most persuasive when I invite you to my group.

1.  The closest friends of the newest people in your congregation will never be easier to invite than in the first 3 to 6 months.

Admittedly, if you’re any kind of debater you can come up with counter arguments for many of my top 1o.  Let me be clear though.  I believe that reason number one trumps any potential good that can come from a closed group system.  Relationships that members of closed groups had with outsiders will almost certainly have faded once they’ve completed 12 to 18 months.  In the sense that there’s an upside and a downside to everything…that is a huge downside and solidly puts me in the open group camp.

Looking for a small group ministry system?  You might want to check out Creating Community: Five Keys to Building a Small Group Culture for some insight into the way that North Point Community Church has structured and built their system.  Written by Andy Stanley and Bill Willits, Creating Community provides a good look at some of the underlying principles that form the foundation.  And let me just say…it is a great book.  It’s great because it is a very practical and fairly detailed illustration of the principles found in the 7 Practices of Effective Ministry, easily one of my favorite books in the last 10 years.

There are three distinctives that must be pointed out in any discussion of North Point’s strategy: (1) the GroupLink strategy of forming groups,  (2) the closed-group philosophy, and (3) the use of staff to care for group leaders (as opposed to identifying, recruiting and relying on volunteer “coaches”).  Although any examination of their structure and strategy will unearth Meta Church and Willow Creek roots, these three distinctives are something that are important and shouldn’t be minimized.

GroupLink: This is the North Point name for a strategy that is used several times a year to launch new small groups.  In many ways GroupLink is similar to a Small Group Connection, popularized by Saddleback.  As I’ve highlighted in other strategies, they choose very strategic moments throughout the year to promote and execute this strategy.  Like everything at North Point it is done very creatively and with excellence (even to the extent of bringing in seating arrangements for the event).  Essentially, GroupLink is an event that unconnected adults attend and once at the event are moved through a process that results in a very high percentage of connection.

You’ll find a lot of information about GroupLink on the North Point site right here.  You’ll also find a starter kit available on their website right here.

An important key to their strategy is having a adequate number of pre-approved leaders at the event.  This is one of the challenges of the system and what makes it so different than the Saddleback version (built on the idea that the group can choose a leader from amongst themselves).  You can find out more about the Connection idea right here.  Although there is a built-in way to accommodate the starting of groups without a pre-approved leader, it is a notch off the intended pattern.

Closed Groups: Another very important distinctive of the North Point strategy is that groups are launched as 12 to 18 month groups that are closed to new participants.  Group members sign a covenant committing to the process.  At the end of the commitment it is the expectation that the group will end and group members will return to a GroupLink, many as leaders, ready to help launch new groups.

Staff Provides Coaching:  Rather than continuing to work with the challenge of using volunteer coaches, North Point’s strategy uses staff “community leaders” who are responsible for approximately 75 small group leaders.  It is their primary responsibility and there are serious expectations about the number of times they’ll connect and what they’ll do when they connect.

As I’ve written about throughout this series, the North Point system has advantages and disadvantages.  There is no problem-free solution to anything.  Wise leaders simply choose the set of problems they would rather have.

Advantages:

• Promoting several GroupLinks a year gives real focus to the importance of being a member of a small group.
• Pre-approved leaders gives some certainty that new group members will be well cared for.
• An event focused strategy requires the necessary commitment level from prospective members (as opposed to just signing up and not following through).
• Closed groups allow new group members to grow close over time, develop a lasting bond, and follow through on a commitment.
• Paid coaches makes it possible to get a lot accomplished.  Expectations can be inspected and a high level of care delivered to group leaders.

Disadvantages:

• It is hard for churches to identify and develop an adequate number of pre-approved leaders.  This disadvantage shouldn’t be minimized.  If your church has trouble identifying an adequate number of leaders now, GroupLink will not solve this issue.
• Closed groups cut off the friends and connections of the newest people to the crowd.  If I’m a new attendee and I join a closed group it will be 12 to 18 months before I can encourage my friend to join my group.
• Few churches are in a position to allocate adequate budget to hire staff with the primary responsibility of caring for group leaders.  Most churches will simply add this responsibility to an existing job description.

As with any strategy, there is more to it, but these are the three distinctives along with advantages and disadvantages.  You can learn about other small group systems and strategies right here.