Debunking GroupLife Mythology
Ever heard these truths?
- You have to be a member of a group before you can lead a group.
- Only closed small groups can develop genuine intimacy.
- Coaching helps small group leaders develop better technique.
- Healthy groups grow and birth.
- Apprenticing is the best way to produce new leaders.
What do you think? Believe they’re true? Or could they be small group ministry old wives’ tales?
Like a lot of mythology, they have the appearance of truth. They seem reasonable. In some cases, they seem obvious. But are they true?
I think they’re only partly true at best. In fact, a couple of them are only barely connected with the truth. Here’s what I mean:
- Do you have to be a member of a group before you can lead a group? No. This is an incorrect assumption and a very damaging one. Think about it. If 25% of your adult worship attendees (using the Easter number makes an even stronger case) are members of a group, what’s the likelihood that the best potential leaders are all already in a group? Slim. So for starters, if you have to be a member first, you’re starting with weaker genetic stock. In addition, there’s nothing to leading that can’t be developed on the fly. Especially if you’re using a curriculum that guides the discussion. Add in the feature of preferring that the leader fill their own group…and it’s nearly a slam dunk. This myth is busted.
- Is there any truth to the idea that closed groups develop a deeper intimacy? None. In fact, studies have shown that open groups can be even more deeply connected.
- Is coaching primarily about technique? No. In fact, coaching has very little to do with technique once a group has been together longer than about three to six months. This is the main reason that retroactively assigning coaches to existing groups has such a low success rate. So, if coaching isn’t about technique, what’s it about? It’s about care!
- Do healthy groups really grow and birth? It sure sounds good on paper…but is it true? Think about your own efforts in this practice. What percentage of your groups have actually grown and successfully birthed a new group? In my experience, the most successful small group ministries are only able to identify a 30 to 40% success rate over the previous 2 years. Does that mean the other 60 to 70% of their groups are unhealthy? Maybe. But it’s more likely that growing and birthing is an indicator of something other than health.
- Is apprenticing really the best way to launch new groups? Much like my previous answer, apprenticing is primarily a leadership development strategy (as opposed to a group multiplication strategy). When you evaluate your system, it’s very helpful to consider this great Andy Stanley line: “Your ministry is perfectly designed to produce the results you’re currently experiencing.” That said, it seems fair to ask, “If apprenticing is really the best way to launch groups, how’s it working? Are you multiplying fast enough to actually absorb the demand?
I’ve written on many of these topics in the past (my article Top 10 Axiomatic Beliefs of Group Life wrestles with many of these same ideas).
Want do you think? Have a question? Want to argue? You can click here to jump into the conversation.
Hmm… Do healthy groups really grow and birth? From experience (not just on paper), yes they do! We assessed all our small groups on 7 vital signs of health a couple years ago and found that not only do the most healthy of our groups were growing and multiplying (the most healthy were multiplying regularly), but that the opposite was also true: the most unhealthy were not growing or multiplying. We saw a direct correlation here. I wrote about this in my new book, Small Group Vital Signs (http://www.touchusa.org/resources/small-group-vital-signs.asp).
This one is simply logical: healthy things grow and multiply themselves. I’m scratching my head trying to figure out what you’re saying on this one. Are you saying it’s better that groups were not healthy? That you don’t want to spend time helping groups be healthy? That healthy things don’t grow and multiply? Even scarier, are you saying you want to multiply (via methods that are “something other than health” unhealthy groups?
Are 60-70% of some church’s groups unhealthy? I’d say that may unfortunately be a pretty accurate statistic, if not higher, at least in the West. Yes, some groups are Christ-centered, mission-minded, overflowing communities with growing leaders, but many more are consumer-centered, comfy cliques. Perhaps we’ve lowered the bar of our expectations for groups so far that “healthy” simply means continuing to have a biweekly meeting. True health is much more than that. When groups step up to a higher health standard, God works in really incredible ways. Again, this is from experience, not theory.
While I agree for the most part with your other points, I’ll have to strongly disagree with this one!
Thanks for jumping in here, Mike. I appreciate your willingness to engage. I know you’ve studied this and I so appreciated your book. At the same time, I really believe that Andy Stanley is on to something when he said, “Your ministry is perfectly designed to produce the results you’re currently experiencing.” I love that line because it’s right to the point that the grow and birth strategy itself may be inherently flawed. While it certainly makes sense from a biological standpoint, it doesn’t seem to work in practice very often or on a significant percentage of the time. My experience over the years (and Saddleback’s as well) is that a programatic insistance on grow and birth as a growth strategy is not the best way to launch new groups.
You know I’m suggesting none of the things you mention. I’m simply pointing out that as good as it sounds, it is not successful in practice in very many groups or in very many places. You may not agree and it may be that we just have to agree to disagree. I’m okay with that and I hope you are too.
mark
I agree with both of you on some points. Mike is right, too many churches have “lowered the bar” of expectations or have not held leaders accountable. I firmly believe in holding leaders accountable to their responsibilities (1) to their group members and (2) to the church as leaders.
Do healthy things grow and reproduce? Absolutely. But “reproduce” doesn’t always mean “multiply”. Relational discipleship produces fruit in more ways than multiplying group leaders – and validating that fruit is just as important as the way we validate (and get really excited over) new leaders.
Mark, you mention “programatic insistance on grow and birth as a growth strategy is not the best way to launch new groups.” I could not AGREE with you more. We will not insist that any given group must multiply, however, we do expect our small groups to be fruitful. Fruitful small groups generates organic growth, which I would pick over “insistence growth” and day of the week.
Thanks for jumping in here, Raul. I appreciate your balanced thinking. There’s no question that there are multiple points of view. My frequent observation is that results are directly related to design and that in the case of group multiplication, the grow-and-birth model leaves much to be desired. As one friend pointed out, “there are some great multiplication strategies that work well in other countries.”
I really do appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Hope you’ll drop in again and comment.
mark
There may be something missing in this conversation… Who determines what a healthy group looks like? If you’re a church utilizing the Free Market System, a healthy group will look quite different than a church doing deep discipleship groups demanding weekly scripture memory, daily and substantial times of bible study and prayer, etc…
Another question… Is the church using groups to make disciples or just to get people to stick. It seems that many churches whose goal it is to engage people in group life so that they’ll become part of the community (and work in a ministry area, attend worship consistently, and show up for group) see a healthy group as one where people simply attend consistently. This would be quite different than a church whose markers are that small group members are making disciples who make disciples. Healthy takes on a whole new meaning in settings where health means multiplication at the individual level as well as the group level.
Just another opinion…
Thanks for jumping in here, Rick! I appreciate your perspective. That’s a good word and one that should open some new possibilities. Too many times we accept as always true an axiom that actually only applies to certain instances.
mark