One of the coolest parts of what I get to do is interview game-changing small group innovators and thought leaders from some of the best of group land. We had a great call today with Jeff Galley, Central Team Leader for LifeGroups/LifeMissions at LifeChurch.tv. As you can imagine, there are very few dull moments around there…and what’s happening in group life is taking another very powerful turn.

The Small Group Fraternity has been a subscription-based program for the first 2 years, but it’s about to go to free. Click HERE to listen to our recent call as our gift to you! Don’t want to miss our upcoming call with Joe Myers? Be sure and sign up today to get the update.

You’ve probably heard of the meta church small group model.  It’s long held a kind of buzz word status in small group land.  The truth is there’s a good chance that you’re already using elements of it without even knowing it.  In fact, when you pick up a book like Creating Community or Building a Church of Small Groups it’s easy to recognize traces of concepts introduced by Paul Yongi Cho’s Successful Home Cell Groups and Prepare Your Church for the Future by Carl George.

So what are some of the distinctives of the meta church model?  You can see some of the key assumptions right here.  Instead, I’d like to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the model.  As we’ve said before, there is no problem-free solution or model.  Instead of searching for problem-free, we need to learn to choose the set of problems we’d rather have.

Advantages of the Meta Church Model:

• Span of care, the idea that everyone needs to be cared for by someone but no one ought to be caring for more than 10, helps give structure and builds a realistic framework.
• The notion that every leader should be developing an apprentice sets in motion a potential leadership development pipeline.
• An emphasis on leader encouragement and development through a regular program of centralized meetings.
• Groups that begin their life by birthing from a mother group begin with the multiplication gene in their DNA.
• An emphasis on discipleship can produce genuine growth and spiritual maturity.

Disadvantages:

• Although the idea of apprenticing is appealing, it rarely leads to the kind of multiplication expected as many apprentices never really leave a group, serving instead as a kind of pinch hitter that fills in when the leader is sick or out of town.
• North American culture rarely remains committed to the practice of a regular centralized meeting.  Pace of life and the prioritization of outside interests make it difficult to build momentum.
• High expectations of the leader make it challenging to identify, recruit and develop the number of leaders necessary to care for the number of unconnected people in the average congregation producing a constant shortage of leaders.
• Toe-in-the-water opportunities to test drive a group are impractical.

Much like the G 12 movement, there are elements of the meta church model that are at the core of what small group practitioners dream of.  There is no question that certain of the principles can be found in many different systems.  It is also clear that while it fits authoritarian Asian cultures and many in Latin America, there is something about the pace of life and values in American culture that makes full implementation difficult to sustain.

For a comparison of other strategies, see my article on the Free Market System and Sermon-Based Small Groups.

Although sermon based small groups is an idea that’s been around for many years, it was recently brought back into the limelight by Larry Osborne’s book, Sticky Church.  In his book Osborne shares the North Coast Church small group strategy.  While there are other elements (at North Coast it is used in combination with a semester strategy), the essence of the strategy is that a discussion guide is provided that allows further discussion and application of the message the pastor just preached.

I need to point out that much like the “church of” vs “church with” small groups discussion, what we’re talking about here is not that there are some groups that use the discussion guide.  In the classic application of the strategy it is the primary type of group offered.

A very simple idea.  The question is, “Does the strategy make sense for you and your church?”  Like everything else, I’ve found it to be helpful to grant that while there is no problem-free strategy or solution, there are advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages of Sermon-Based:

• The key advantage is probably that they do allow further discussion of the pastor’s message.  In a dialogue environment, everyone is able to ask the questions they wanted to ask on Sunday.
• Another very powerful advantage is that it narrows the focus down to one conversation (in the small group and in the church).  Rather than group members hearing one concept on Sunday and another in their group meeting, they are allowed to focus on one thing at a time.
• Because groups are using a curriculum that takes the pastor’s message another step, it provides a great incentive to mention what members will be talking about in the week ahead (i.e., “in your groups this week you’ll be focusing on how to take this next step.”).  Where some pastors find it difficult to actively integrate references to small groups into every message, sermon-based can make it easier to connect the dots.
• Every Sunday focus on the importance of being in a group where “you’ll have the opportunity to dig deeper  into this topic” often encourages many to at least try out the idea of being part of a group.

Disadvantages:

Every strategy has both advantages and disadvantages.  Here are a few disadvantages you should be aware of:

• A church-wide application of the strategy can limit additional hooks in the water.  That is, when all the groups are using the same material it doesn’t give as many opportunities (topics) for an unconnected person to consider.
• There is an art to writing good sermon-based discussion guides.  Without the right person on the team, the discussion will simply be a closer examination of the information…without true application.
• It can be more difficult for an outsider (a friend, neighbor or co-worker)  to jump into a group that is discussing something that everyone else has already started thinking about.

As you can see, there are advantages and disadvantages to the sermon-based strategy.  There are other strategies.  Is this the right one for your church?  It depends on several factors.  The most important factor might be the purpose of small groups in your church.  Questions?  Need help determining what makes the most sense for your church?  Why not schedule a coaching call to make your next step the right one?

Looking for a way to promote group life at your church?  This humorous clip developed by the crazy cats at Central Christian Church in Vegas and available from  Worship House Media does a good job highlighting that some things in life are better together.  Check it out:

You’ll find additional media ideas right here.

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.

What do I do about the group of 25 who love each other, have a great time, and won’t birth?  The group is full of potential leaders.  They’ve been together for four years.  And they won’t even talk about splitting into two groups!  What can I do about that?

I get that question a lot.  I bet you’ve asked that question…or one a lot like it.  So what do you do when you’ve got a group that’s larger?  Should you be trying to mandate birthing?  Should you just look the other way?  What should you do?

I want to encourage you to think about this challenge a little differently.  There are several parts to the problem.  Here’s what I see:

1. A group of 25 is hard for one person to genuinely care for.  That’s why we say that the target span of care is about 10.
2. In any group the five most dominant personalities do about 80 to 90% of the talking.  If you have 10 people in a living room, the five most dominant personalities do most of the talking.  If you have 25…same thing.
3. It’s easy for potential leaders to hide out in larger groups.  They’re comfortable in the group.  Their friends are all there.  It’s too easy to stay a consumer.

There may be other issues, but those are what I see as the big three.  So what can be done?  This is where a tweak in what you call a win for your group leaders is important.  Here’s what I mean:

• A win for a group leader is when larger groups sub-group for discussion.  This can be done several ways.  Simply number off 1, 2, 3.  Guys in the dining room.  Gals in the living room.  Draw straws.  Any way you can get into groups of 6 to 8 (or smaller) is a step in the right direction.
• A win is when span of care remains 8 to 10 even in a larger group by developing sub-group leaders.  This is a little further in the direction of genuine care.  Not just leading a discussion, but actually taking on caring for a few.  Making the calls.  Being available.
• A win is when a larger group takes a small group vacation, separating into five smaller groups and inviting neighbors and unconnected friends during a church-wide campaign.  Often this experience is what helps potential leaders move from consumer to contributor, a change that you can’t force.

The big idea here is that larger groups can work very well with an intentional strategy.  I’ve found that it’s much more productive to help leaders of large groups learn to sub-group for discussion and develop sub-group caring strategies than it is to mandate birthing at 14 members.  It’s also very strategic to use the small group vacation idea.  I’ve found nothing better when it comes to multiplying groups during a church-wide campaign.

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.

Caught this great interview of Bill Donahue over at MacLakeOnline.  Good stuff!  Check it out.

When it comes to group life, there are few things more out of character than a point person operating solo.  If there is any ministry position that should be predisposed to connecting with other like-minded leaders from around town…you’d think it would be the small group pastor, director or volunteer champion.  After all, the whole thing is about community!  Right?

Why doesn’t it happen?  There are probably some valid reasons, but the main reason many of us don’t reach out to connect with other leaders is that we’re just too busy with our own stuff.  Between frantic preparation for the small group launch, recruiting coaches, ordering curriculum and keeping the database accurate, who has time to have coffee with some guy from another church?

Here’s the thing.  You need that hour or two a week with some folks who are passionate about group life.  You need the phone call with someone who’s just a step ahead so you can hear what they’re doing to help the next 10% connect.  And the new guy in town needs to hear from you how to train leaders.

Honestly?  We really do need each other.

Assignment

If you’re not actively building a group life network in your area, here’s your assignment:  Take action today.  Here are a few options:

1. Join an existing network.  The Purpose Driven Small Group Network is an easy first option.  It’s free.  You don’t have to be purpose driven.  You only have to be passionate about group life and there are regional groups in all 50 states and Canada.  Click here to find out how to take the first step.
2. Make a phone call.  Whether you call a mentor or a newbie…they’ll be glad you reached out.  Tell ‘em I sent you.
3. Meet for coffee.  Here’s your pick-up line: “Let’s have coffee.  I’ll buy.  What time works for you?”  Gas to get there: $1.82.  Two cups of Starbucks: $3.00.  74 minutes with someone with the same mission: Priceless.
4. Bookmark two websites.  Willow Creek Association’s Group Life Facebook page and Purpose Driven Small Group Network’s Facebook page.

Ready to go there?  This is your assignment on Take Action Tuesday!  Let me know how it goes!

Miss Henry Cloud’s Willow Creek Group Life conference call?  You missed a great conversation about “Safe People / Dangerous Groups.”  Really fantastic with some great takeaways.  You can listen in right here or you can pop over to the Group Life Facebook site to check some of the comments.  Also helpful to search twitter with #grouplife to see the thread there.

Not subscribed here?  Be sure and sign up to get the updates!