One of the best known ideas of small group ministry is the open chair.  And one of the best known axioms of group life is that good groups practice the open chair, implying that they are open and everyone is welcome.  Is that true?  Is there any truth to the idea?  Or do closed groups make more sense?  After all, how can you really build intimacy in a group that is continually adding new faces?

First, a little bit about the open chair.  Used as a prop to symbolize the idea that a group is actively looking for new members, for who else might need to be part of a group, the chair is a physical element that reminds of a stated value.  The earliest place I ever saw this practice taught was in Serendipity’s materials in the late 80s or early 90s.  No doubt Lyman Coleman dreamed this exercise up as a way to make tangible an intangible idea.  The idea?  Be on the lookout for people who need what you have.  A very biblical concept.

The questions today are, should groups really practice the open chair?  Should they always practice it?  Maybe not physically pull an empty chair into the circle…but at least symbolically talk about filling it?  And are there any times when it might be best to be closed?  Let’s take a shot at each of these questions.

• Whether a group is actively looking for new members might depend on the age of the group.  When a group is new, whether you’re using a curriculum that actually mentions the practice or not, it is a great idea to insert a question at the end of the first several meetings: “Who else do you know who would have really enjoyed being here tonight?”  New groups have not yet formed the impermeable membrane that makes it tough for people to break through later.  In the early stages it is a great idea to make it a weekly practice.
• When a group is preparing to start a new study is another very good time to begin talking about the open chair or who to invite.  This ought to happen the first three or four times a newer group finishes a study and prepares to start a new one.
• There are seasons when it makes sense for a group to be closed to new members.  When the group chooses a study that covers a very personal topic can be a good time to take the group off the web site and close to new members.  When a particular group member is struggling and the group wants to rally around them for support is another good time to close the group temporarily to new members.
• There is at least one popular system that espouses the idea that members of a new group sign a 12 or 18 month covenant and that the group is closed once they do that.  Upside?  The group has a lengthy period of time to grow closer, work on building long-term relationships and grow trust without the strain of new personalities.  Downside?  The best opportunities for members to leverage outside connections and invite friends and neighbors are early.  As the year or 18 months passes, those outside connections weaken.

The practice of the open chair is really about the values that drive the small group culture and system of every church.  While there are times when a group should be closed to new members, the notion that “we are closed” often sends the wrong message to unconnected people.  Choose carefully…and with the certainty that this is no problem-free solution.

Good groups grow and birth.

If you’re a student of group life, you’ve heard that line.  It’s shorthand for two of the key concepts of the Meta-church Model; the ideas that every leader should have an apprentice and that healthy groups grow over time and at about 12 members are “pregnant” and ready to birth.

The question today is, are these true “truths” of group life?  Or are they axiomatic beliefs that may be somehow holding us hostage to assumptions that aren’t really always true?

I want to suggest that there really isn’t anything about 14 members that says “this group ought to birth.”  In fact, I’ve seen plenty of larger groups that worked great and I’ve seen groups of 6 or 8 that really needed the fresh start of a birth.  I’ve also seen groups of 12 to 14 that were forced to birth only to end up with two anemic or dead groups instead of one healthy group.  So there’s nothing hard and fast that makes a group “pregnant” at 14.

That said, let’s unpack the idea of growing and birthing as indicators of health.  First, it is true that healthy groups are attractive and you’d expect group members to want their unconnected friends to get in on it.  Right?  Doesn’t that make sense?  Admittedly, there are people who would not want to share what they have with unconnected friends, but that wouldn’t normally be seen as an indicator of health.

At the same time, a group can grow too fast.  Get the right leader, add a few really attractive folks who are connectors and you could end up very quickly with a group of 20.  Not necessarily bad…but you might not end up with the kind of interaction and sense of belonging that you hope for.  We’ll talk about a few strategies in a moment.  For now, let’s just say that healthy growth probably should be expected.

The second question is “what about birthing?”  Should that be built in as an expectation for “good” groups?  Put another way, should that be seen as a win?  I think not.  I believe there are a few diagnostic questions that should be used to determine whether a group “ought” to birth.  Here they are:

• Is there another potential leader within the group that can’t possibly play the part God has for them if they remain a participant (as opposed to stepping out)?
• Is there another potential leader within the group that could actually hold a group together?  I’ve often found that the principle “good groups grow and birth” causes some premature births and end up with fatalities when the “apprentice” is not really a person that can hold a new group together.
• Are there natural connections within the group that lend themselves to birthing?  In other words, can the members sort themselves into two groups?
• Is there an easier way to end up with a new group?

In my mind there are three main factors at work in the idea that good groups birth.

1. A smaller span of care is desirable.  That is, if you’ve got 8 people in the group, the leader cares for 8.  If you’ve got 20 people in the group, the leader cares for 20.  That’s an important factor.
2. Too easy for some who ought to be leading a group to hide out in a larger group.
3. More groups offers more points of connection.

All true.  But all three are better managed another way.  You know how they say, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat?”  After years of working at it, I’ve found that this is a cat that is much easier skinned another way.  And in part two of this article I’ll talk about a better strategy.

I have a friend who recently announced that it was time for changes in their small group ministry.  They went on to say, everything except the semester system and free market model are “up in the air.” Continuing, “I think it’s healthy to re-examine everything you do regularly, but it didn’t take us long to acknowledge that these things are not broken and work well in our given environment. They are the two best things about our small group ministry.”

What do you think about that statement?  Logical?  Seems like the thing to do?  Would you do that?  Are you in the camp that says, “re-examine everything you do regularly and keep the best things?”

Here’s what the statement generated in me.  First, a three part disclaimer.

• First, it is essential that you clarify what a win is for your small group ministry.
• Second, since there is no problem-free solution to anything and every solution has a set of problems that go with it, all you can do is choose the set of problems you’d rather have.
• Last, I’m not a huge fan of either the semester system or the free market model.  Not that either concept is wrong.  Just that I personally prefer the problems that go with another solution.  Based on what I’ve determined a win is and the set of problems that accompany those ideas…I prefer a different model.

Disclaimer out of the way, my immediate thought on reading my friend’s statement was that the “assumptions that a team has held the longest or the most deeply are the most likely to be its undoing.”  This chilling line is from a really helpful article over at HBR called When Growth Stalls by Matthew S. Olson, Derek van Bever,  Seth Verry.

This line and the study were at least partially behind North Point’s decision to abandon both Kidstuff (their very cool program for kids and their parents) and 7:22 (their very well attended weeknight Singles’ worship experience).  Both programs were very good, maybe not the best things they were doing, but very good.  Well attended.  Huge fan base.  Discarded.  Why?  Because when North Point went back to examine the underlying assumptions that drove their commitment to those ideas…they realized that a change was needed.

I’ve been fascinated by their process, going back to Andy Stanley’s 2008 Drive talk called Random Thoughts on Leadership.  Think about the willingness to ditch two programs that were so effective.  Amazing.  Ditching things that were working…but not in line with their current assumptions.  I’ve written about it here, here and here.  To top it off, the idea fit neatly alongside the Peter Drucker notion of purposeful abandonment.  It’s not enough to get rid of what’s broken.  True innovation comes when everything is on the table.

What does this all have to do with us?  With you?  With me?  When we evaluate our small group ministries, what are the design elements that need to be closely examined?  Is the strategy that we’re using really the right one?  Or is it based on assumptions that are out of line with current realities?  Out of line with ‘changes in the external environment.”

What does this have to do with all of us?  For starters, we should probably all be putting everything on the table.  As Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel said to Gordon Moore, “If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what would he do?  Why shouldn’t we walk out, come back in and do it ourselves?”

What do you need to evaluate?  What do you need to change?  What do you need to fix?  The things that aren’t working.  As Andy Stanley has said, “Your ministry is perfectly designed to produce the results you are currently experiencing.”  Like what you’re getting?  Keep it.  Want the best results?  Question the design.

Thoughts?  I’d love to hear them!

In our ongoing look at the top 10 axiomatic beliefs of group life, one area that ought to draw our attention is coaching.  It is logical that a coach would be helpful…even required.  But who makes the best coaches?  It is so common for churches to make that assignment to their elders or deacons.  But do they have what is needed to do this job?  Other churches are stuck in the idea that there is a career path that leads from member to leader and from leader to coach.  Is that likely to produce a good team of coaches?  Or is there more to this?

When you’re new to a sport or activity and you want to develop proper techniques, who makes the best coach?  Isn’t it obvious that it’s someone who has done what you’re trying to learn to do?  After all, when you want your kids to learn to swim…you know you need someone to coach them or teach them who knows how to do it.

Makes sense right?

Then why is there confusion about who makes the best small group coach?  Probably because the role of the coach is inadequately defined.  If you know what you’re looking for, it’s easier to find the right person.  Here’s the job description I’m using right now.  Take a look.  Keep it open.  And follow along right here.

First, notice what the purpose is: “To produce healthy disciples.”  That should tell you a lot.  Note what it doesn’t say.  “Chief score-keeper” or “Accountant.”  Instead, you’re looking for someone who’s capable of building disciples.  That tells you a great deal about the kind of person you’re looking for.  On top of that, two of their top responsibilities are more about a personal connection with Christ than anything they might do for the small group leaders they are coaching.

Second, you’ll see that there is the expectation that they’ll host a huddle every 4 to 8 weeks.  That will require some preparation, a commitment to getting dates on the calendar, and the kind of winsome personality that draws people in and helps them feel comfortable.

Third, there is the expectation of personalized care for each of the leaders in their huddle.  I love the word “care.”  It makes it clear that this is more than score-keeping or accounting.  My contention is that whatever I ultimately want to members of a group to experience…the leader has to be experiencing it first.  That is, if I want the member to feel cared for, somehow I need to make sure the leader feels cared for.  This is a great challenge.  Very tough to do.  But it is the goal of the coaching structure.

Fourth, there is a need to be on the lookout for the next generation of coaches.  As your structure grows, as you increase the number of groups and the number of people in them, you’ll want your coaches (who are the right people) to be looking for potential coaches (who are becoming the right people).

Last, there is the expectation that your coaches will be involved in a huddle with other coaches where their own care needs will be met.  After all, whatever you want your leaders to experience will need to be experienced first by their coaches.

When you think about these 5 parts of the job…can you see your elders or deacons in the role?  Are some more suitable than others?  Is it likely that every small group leader could become a coach at some point?  Or would there be a kind of person who could care for 8 to 10 members that couldn’t care for 5 to 6 leaders?

When you’re looking for coaching candidates keep these requirements in mind.  For more on this topic, see my four part series.

What produces a genuinely deep connection?  Is it just time spent with someone?  Or are there other essential  ingredients?

When I listed what I called the top 10 axiomatic beliefs of group life, I included the belief that “the longer a group is together the more deeply connected the members become.”  I’ve heard this argued hundreds of times, mostly in response to the idea that good groups grow and birth.  “But we’ve just started to really connect!  How can you ask us to send out Bob and Carol now!”  You’ve probably had the discussion too.  You may have been on either side of the argument…

But the question is, what really produces a deep connection?  And if you’ve been observant in group ministry you’ll know right away that there are plenty of groups that have been together for a long time and still really don’t know each other all that well; certainly wouldn’t consider themselves “knit together in love.”  So what causes that?

I believe there are at least two other ingredients that play a bigger part than time when it comes to deep connection.  First, a common understanding of the purpose of the group is essential.  If half the group’s members long to “do life together” and the other half is really only in it to meet some kind of obligation to the church or pastor…it’s unlikely to get very far.  Does it need a common purpose from the beginning?  No, but you’ve got to help them get there pretty quickly, probably within the first 3 to 4 months.  This is where the idea of a group agreement or covenant is beneficial.  Clearly stating the purpose of the group can start the group on a course for a deeper connection.

The second essential ingredient is intentionality.  Groups don’t drift into a deeper connection.  Group members choose to go deeper.  Sometimes life chooses for us.  We’ve all seen groups that responded to a crisis in the life of a member and found that they had somehow grown closer.  Short of life crowding in, an intentional approach to how group life happens produces a deeper connection.  Developing a spiritual health plan that incorporates  accountability can be an expression of intentionality.  Can you introduce this in the first week?  Probably not.  But you’d best not wait too long.  Group norms harden pretty quickly and it becomes much more difficult to introduce new ideas after about 6 to 9 months.

You may have identified other essential ingredients.  The key is to recognize that more than time is required.  Without a purpose and intentionality, groups are unlikely to develop a deep connection.  And without a deep connection, life-change, the kind of life-change we hope will happen…will be much less likely.

You’re reading this…so you already know that the optimum environment for life-change is a small group.  Right?  After all, that is one of the key axiomatic beliefs of small group ministry enthusiasts everywhere.

The question is, “Is it true that a group is the optimum environment for life-change?”  Or are there some factors that must be in place for that to be true?

I’ve been saying for several years that life on life is how life-change happens and small groups are the best delivery system for that.  Say what you want to about mentoring.  It doesn’t scale.  That is, once you’re beyond 75 to 100 people, you’re going to have a very hard time delivering life on life through a mentoring strategy.  It becomes much more realistic to give the opportunity to a much larger number of people through a small group strategy.  That said, there are a few essential ingredients that must be present in a group for life-change to be likely.  Here’s my list:

• Communication in the group must be two way.  Dialogue.  That means we’re not really talking about it being led by a teacher.  I don’t really change if I’m just listening.  It can be a contributing element.  But, it’s not enough.  I also need to talk.  It is much more likely that someone with gifts of shepherding, encouragement, leadership or mercy will be a more effective leader.  Or a teacher who understands how to start a conversation.
• The small group needs to be a safe place.  I’ve got to able to share what’s really going on.  Not on the first week.  But in time I have to get to the place where I can share life with someone else.
• The meetings must be frequent enough to maintain connection.  Once a month is not enough.  Twice a month is a challenge because if I miss once…it’s been a month.  There’s not a magic number, but more frequent insures better possibilities.
• There needs to be an intentionality about what happens.  A kind of plan.  This is what’s so appealing about the Spiritual Health Assessment and the Spiritual Health Plan that are part of the Purpose Driven approach.  I’ve written about these two tools right here.
• It goes without saying that time in the Bible and prayer together are essentials.  This makes what you study very important.  You’ve got to be providing study materials that are about application.  It’s not enough to learn about the Bible.

These are the essential ingredients.  If you want life-change to happen…it won’t be accidental.  And it won’t be automatic.  It will be because these ingredients are at work.

Want do you think? Have a question? Want to add something?  You can click here to jump into the conversation.

If you want to become a church of groups…what part does your senior pastor play? More to the point, does your pastor need to lead a group in order for group life to become a deeply held value in your church?

Although I’ve written a 4 part series on The Role of the Senior Pastor, I want to clarify something and then propose an alternative principle.  First, a clarification.  In my recent list of the top 10 axiomatic beliefs of group life I identified the idea that your pastor needs to lead a group, as an axiomatic belief that needs to be debugged.  Note the distinction I’m making.  In my mind, you’re never going to have real impact without the express engagement of your senior pastor…but leading a group is not a requirement.  Being part of a group…certainly.

Now to the alternative principle.  You’re never going to truly get traction on the idea that people need to take a step out of their comfort zone (rolling into their parking spot, strolling into the auditorium, sitting and listening for 75 minutes, and then rolling out of the parking lot in time for the next opportunity to consume) unless it is modeled by the most visible person in the organization.  All the announcements in the world won’t persuade the unconnected to try something that seems as risky and inconvenient as group life.  What will persuade them?  The express engagement of your senior pastor.

Admittedly, for many of us it is out of our control.  Few of us are the senior pastors of our churches.  Most of us are on a staff or we’re key volunteers charged with giving leadership to the small group ministry.  That said, let me point out a few important ideas that may serve as conversation points with your pastor:

• When you survey the church landscape you’ll discover that where there is a high percentage of group involvement there will also be a high level of senior pastor engagement.  The best example is Saddleback, where Rick Warren is a relentless advocate of the importance of group life.  Other high profile pastors to look at would be Bill Hybels, Craig Groeschel and Andy Stanley.  Listening to their messages will provide a glimpse into how engaged they are personally with the process of encouraging people to take the risky and somewhat inconvenient baby step of trying a small group for themselves.
• At the same time you can look at many other high profile pastors and find only infrequent reference to the importance of community in the process of life-change.  The gulf between the two sets of pastors and the accompanying percentage of small group participation is unmistakable.
• Back to Saddleback, another element of the prominent role that must be played by the senior pastor is as chief spokesperson.  Note that the chief spokesperson is not Steve Gladen.  Although Gladen plays the part of small group pastor at Saddleback, Rick Warren is the one doing the talking.  When they’re preparing to launch groups through a campaign (like Life’s Healing Choices) the charge is visibly led by Rick Warren.  Behind the scenes, Gladen and his team are doing the planning and preparation, but the very visible front man is Warren.  Grandstanding?  No.  Smart.  The masses do not know who Gladen is.  They know Rick Warren and the largest number will follow him.  The same is true in your church.
• Another important note concerns how frequently group life is mentioned by the senior pastor.  Again, at Saddleback is truly is a constant, every week, all-the-time part of the conversation.  While there are seasons during the year when group life references reach a fevered peak, it has been my observation that you can’t be there on the weekend without hearing about its importance.  Actually…it was my wife’s observation.  We’d been attending Saddleback for about 4 or 5 months and were moving slowly along with the crowd exiting the auditorium.  She said, “I see now why it is so different here.  I see now how Saddleback has more adults in groups than they do at their weekend services.  It is because they never stop talking about it.  Rick Warren never stops talking about it.  He never moves on.  And he’s the one doing the talking.  He’s relentless about the importance of groups.”

That’s the part that your senior pastor must play…if you want to be a church where nobody stands alone.

When you think of group life, of small group ministry, what are your axiomatic beliefs?  Remember that an axiom is an established rule or principle or self-evident truth.  We all have them stored away in our brains.  The key is that not all of them are true…and not all of them are the kind that will always be true.

Consider this line from Gary Hamel’s The Future of Management:

All of us are held hostage by our axiomatic beliefs.  We are jailbirds incarcerated within the fortress of dogma and precedent.  And yet, for the most part, we are oblivious to our own captivity (p. 126, The Future of Management).”

This got me thinking; wondering what are the axiomatic beliefs of group life?  Here’s my attempt at a top ten.  Not all of them are true.  None of these are mine.  You look them over and then use the comment section to add to the list.

1. The senior pastor needs to lead a group.
2. Good groups grow and birth.
3. The optimum environment for life-change is a small group.
4. Elders or deacons are a good source for group leaders or coaches.
5. The longer a group is together the more deeply connected the members become.
6. Good groups practice the open chair.
7. The “career path” of a leader is member, apprentice leader, leader, coach.
8. Once a group gets to about 12 members, it’s pregnant and needs to start preparing to birth.
9. The semester idea offers more “jump in” opportunities and offers the assurance that it’s only a 13 week commitment.
10. Sermon-based curriculum makes your group stickier.

Here’s the thing about axiomatic beliefs.  If you want to break through to a better way of helping people connect, grow spiritually, and impact their world…you’re going to have to debug your thinking and begin proactively developing paths that lead from where you are to where you want to be.

Over the next couple weeks I plan to unpack a few of these axiomatic beliefs, breaking them down, in the search for an underlying principle that will help all of us move to where we want to be.  If you’d like to be updated when I add to this series, you can sign up right here.

Thursday, September 3rd, 12:00 to 12:45 pm CDT

Click here to register

Trying to figure out why your small group ministry isn’t really delivering the results you’re looking for?  Resigned to the fact that in your church it just doesn’t work?  I want to suggest that there are probably some underlying assumptions that are keeping you from seeing things a different way.

One of the most important books I’ve read in the last decade has been Gary Hamel’s The Future of Management.  Particularly chapter 7 on escaping the shackles.  There are some ideas in that chapter that have come to shape my thinking about what is possible and what we could be doing in small group ministry.

I want to invite you to join me and the Willow Creek Association Group Life team for a conversation on how to apply Gary Hamel’s principles to your ministry.  I know you’ll find it helpful.  I believe you’ll leave with some next steps that will make a difference.  You can join the conversation from your home or office.  And…it’s free.

Thursday, September 3rd, 12:00 to 12:45 pm CDT.

Click here to register!

How dry is the cement around what’s possible in your discipleship effort?  Pretty firm?  Room to wiggle?  As we continue to think about how to help more people experience genuine life-change, I find myself drawn again to ideas in Gary Hamel’s The Future of Management.  Here are four questions he uses to maximize the chances for “precedent-breaking” innovation:

• “What’s the ‘tomorrow problem’ that you need to start working on right now?”
• “What’s the frustrating ‘ether/or’ you’d like to turn into an ‘and’?
• “What’s the espoused idea you’d like to turn into an embedded capability?”
• What the ‘can’t do’ that needs to become a ‘can do’?

Just stop for a moment and think about those four questions.  Imagine pulling together a team of folks that are really invested and engaged in the life-change process at your church and spending time on any of these questions.  Think you’d have a great discussion?  Absolutely.  Think getting some answers up on a flip chart might be a great first step?  Definitely.  Not the last step…but certainly the first step.

Hamel makes the point that “what’s lacking is not insightful analysis, but truly bold and imaginative alternatives to the management status quo (p. 40, The Future of Management).”  What’s he saying?  Simply that getting answers to these four questions is only the beginning.  Think though, about what you could do once you had the answer to any one of these questions?  Think about how you could pull your team into a great discussion about how to develop authentic capabilities!  It would give you a whole new way of looking at your ministry.