Comments on: Top 10 Reasons I’m a Fan of Open Groups

By: Mark Howell

Mark Howell — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:25:54 +0000

Great point Ben! Every group ought to have the discussion about how or whether to be open/closed back when they work through their group agreement/covenant. I love your take. That’s so true that it doesn’t go as well when the invitation isn’t personal.

mark

By: Ben Reed

Ben Reed — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:22:00 +0000

Great post, Mark! I agree with a lot of what’s been said already in the comments section. One thing I’ll add, though. Being open, and adding people to groups, is difficult, both on the group and on the person being added. The person being added can easily feel like an outsider, and the group can easily feel invaded upon. That’s why I feel that your #2 reason above is so important. When a group agrees upon adding somebody, and a group member extends a personal invitation, there is a great chance of success. When the groups pastor is the one “inviting” new people to enter existing group, I’ve found it doesn’t often go well.

By: Mark Howell

Mark Howell — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:01:32 +0000

Thanks for commenting Robert! And I’d agree with you that your groups aren’t really closed…they’re just not wiiiiide open. I like your method. Honors the group’s ability to invite and gives them a little control to make sure the fit is good. Nothing wrong there.

mark

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:49:13 +0000

We have closed groups in our church. However, they are closed only to someone other than the members of that group adding anyone new to it. If we have someone new that needs to be in a group, I simply contact a group leader and give them the information and then they ask their group if it is OK to bring someone new into it. This has worked great for us because it still encourages the group members to be inclusive of others while at the same time giving the group some “control” over who is added say 12 months in the cycle. Our groups do a tremendous job of including their friends that start coming in the middle of the “cycle” or a complete stranger that starts attending church in the middle of the “cycle”. So, I am an advocate of closed groups but with the caveat of allowing a group to include others during the cycle. I know it will be said that the groups are not really closed. That is true – except they are closed to anyone else adding new people to the group. So, maybe consistent is a pretty good way to describe our groups.

By: Mark Howell

Mark Howell — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:58:46 +0000

Thanks for jumping in Eric! The key to me is that you’ve developed a concept that fits your philosophy that group “growth and expansion” are natural…and that makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to allow groups to close themselves from time to time (and to take themselves off the finder when they do). I like the way you’re thinking.

mark

By: Eric Dunaway

Eric Dunaway — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:28:44 +0000

I would say we’re somewhere in between, and we call our groups “consistent.” We basically have designed our structure so that group growth and expansion is expressed as a natural component of group life. However, it is at the discretion of the group itself. Groups decide if and when they’re open. Again, the concept is to protect consistency, while at the same time promoting growth in the group. Part of our reporting process allows groups to identify themselves as open or closed. Our online “GroupFinder” connection tool then points people to “open” groups, but they must join via the group facilitator, and at the invitation of the group. We also have a team of “Connection Coordinators” who assist in the process of helping people connect with open groups. So… all that to say… we’re open and closed – consistent.

By: Mark Howell

Mark Howell — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:49:48 +0000

Great insight DeAntwan! Agree with you 100%! That’s exactly what I mean when I say you can mitigate most open group concerns with a little tweak. Thanks for jumping into the conversation!

mark

By: DeAntwan Fitts

DeAntwan Fitts — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:45:34 +0000

I lean more on the side of open groups, however, for the purpose of transparency, I think you need to leave it to the group leaders discretion. Example, if he or she has a group that has just begin to open up and he feels that leaving the group open can jeopordize that, he or she should have the liberty to close the group.

With that being said, I believe that it should closed with the intentions of opening it again once the group understands and are committed to the mission of the group (assuming the group is missional).

Just my two cents

DeAntwan

By: Mark Howell

Mark Howell — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:11:17 +0000

Thanks for jumping in Kevin! Love the interaction!

Andy’s comments were the inspiration for my top 10 list. I believe that when you list the problems that comes with open group systems and then closed group systems, you’ll see that it is much easier to mitigate the problems of the open system. Group agreements (covenants) are an example of a way that a group can be open to new people, even actively looking for the right new people, and still realize the kind of close personal relationships that foster accountability and encouragement.

mark

By: Kevin Phillips

Kevin Phillips — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:59:04 +0000

We are having this debate right now in our church. We have been advocates of open groups. We attended a Group Life conf. recently in which Andy Stanley made the case for closed groups. He had some good points. I am reconsidering my position. Do your open groups also have covenants together? How does that work? What about the cohesiveness of the group? I’d like to hear more. Thanks for the post. Blessings!