Lowering the Leader Bar
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?






