mark

Thanks for the reply. It makes a whole lot of sense… and it’s causing me to analyze our emphasis even more. That and some creative thinking never killed anyone, right?!

Mike,

I appreciate the encouragement. Indeed, I am gaining so much from all of you who have beat the path ahead of me. I’ll look into 1:1 coaching. Thanks!
–
Matt

I love your summary that “A fair, prayerful balance of accountability/training and Spirit-led risk are what’s required.” That is right at the heart of the discussion here over the last 48 hours.

Hope you join us again!

mark

We at Beacon Church are always keen to see the potential in all our folk – particularly with future small group leadership in mind – but we do feel strongly that integrity and mentoring are vital. I see what you’re saying regarding “freeing” up the process for folks to start/lead a group, but accountability still needs to be in place to protect the flock. Yes, there’s always a need for new leaders, but it’s far harder to remove someone from leadership when things go awry than to put safeguards in in the first place. This is His flock we’re shepherding and we need to do it right. A fair, prayerful balance of accountability/training and Spirit-led risk are what’s required…

Oh, and we have no problem with the name “Cell” – in fact, here in the UK we’ve found it opens up for great conversations with non-Church friends about the church as His BODY when they ask why we call them “Cell” groups. I can, however, see why some may find it difficult.

Great blog!

On the question, the decision to use a crowd-to-core vs core-to-crowd strategy has a lot to do with the programs you will emphasize. Churches that execute really well on their strategy will clarify what a win is for them, build steps that lead to that win, and narrow the focus so their congregation doesn’t suffer from “decision paralysis.” They may offer some programs that do the other…but they won’t emphasize them. Doing that will diffuse their impact.

mark

I just wanted to say that I think I could use some intense mentoring from both of you. Reading posts like these makes me realize that I’ve got a lot to learn about small group life and building Biblical community.

I really just wanted to say that, for me, the difference between “cell” and “small” has everything to do with the connotation the word “cell” calls to mind for the bulk of our church constituency. You see, Manna Church is located in Fayetteville, NC. We’re next door neighbors to the largest concentration of US special operations soldiers in the nation, and therefore have (I’d wager) the largest concentration of Christ-following special forces soldiers of any church. To them, a “Cell” is what they’re hunting in the middle east. For that simple reason, we use the term “small groups.”

I realize that the discussion taking place has much more to do with the philosophy driving the type of group ministry and far less to do with the semantics of the different terms, but I couldn’t help throwing that out there.

As it relates to the philosophy, can it not work from crowd-to-core-to-crowd AND from core-to-crowd-to-core?

Am I missing it?
–
Matt

Much as I appreciate your willingness to share your point of view, I would say that the typical American church attender has never really practiced the priesthood of the believer and that the church growth movement of the past three decades has been an attempt to reach unchurched people in the most effective way. Not in an attempt to skirt the practice…simply in a way that had the best chance of having the biggest impact.

I’m unfamiliar with either church you mention…but will check them out. I’m curious to learn how what they’re really doing will compare with the churches I am more familiar with.

Thanks for jumping in!

mark

For me, small group life and ministry is not about cell groups or small groups or big groups or small groups or crowd to core or core to crowd strategies. In fact, the only strategy I care about is how to support the saints better as they do the work of their ministry.

And therein lies the problem. So few American churches have an abundance of saints who are doing the work of ministry and need strategic support from pastors.

What I see is pastors and few highly skilled or gifted lay people doing the work of ministry themselves via large events, and doing it out of sheer frustration with the lack of initiative found within their membership. Over the course of the last two decades, the American church has abandoned the priesthood of all believers for consumer Christianity.

When I view world-class cell-based churches, I see a highly relational organism of interdependent Biblical communities filled with missional believers … who gather for celebration and leverage those large gatherings for all it can provide.

See the difference? It’s huge.

What very few people understand about healthy cell-based churches is that the members provide the missional thrust of the church … not the lead pastor, not the staff, and it’s not focused on the big facility in which they gather for celebration.

If you were to study LifeChurch in Katy Texas or Antioch Church in Waco, Texas (just two examples of healthy American cell-based churches) from a pastoral perspective, it looks like well-managed chaos. Staff members are reactive and responsive for the most part. The members of the groups are doing all sorts of things to reach friends for Christ through relational evangelism and need a course correction and encouragement from time to time, but not motivation to bring friends to church on Sunday so they can hear the gospel.

Like Mike Mack stated above, I could go on and on about all this but I will end it here. I really have no desire to get everyone to agree with me. I just want to help those who want to see organic, relational growth overrun anything a few high profile personalities can do with a microphone in a consumer church structure. Far more is written in my book, but I don’t talk about cells as much as I talk about the American church as it pertains to doing church through small groups.

First, I prefer the “wild west approach” because of the upside and the fact that I can mitigate the risks by doing certain things. For example, if I lower the bar in terms of who can lead (as Saddleback did this last fall when they allowed anyone to pick up the curriculum for Life’s Healing Choices and invite their friends to join a group), I can control the risk by only listing groups led by members on the web. Additionally, I can require all hosts to attend an orientation in order to pick up the material. Or I can require new hosts to have a connection with a coach that I assign. I like the fact that by lowering the bar I can make it possible for a much larger number of people to connect.

What are the problems associated with the cell group/church strategy? Generally there is a need for a deeper front-end commitment and more extensive leader training. This produces a much higher degree of difficulty for recruiting a sufficient quantity of qualified leaders. The reluctance to commit to leading combined with the inefficiency of successful apprentice recruitment and launching leads to an inability to produce enough leaders to enfold the unconnected in a growing church.

See where I’m going? I like the problems that come with the wild west approach.

mark