My Take on a Recent Comment: “Groups are about ‘Go and make disciples'”
I love a good argument…errr dialogue. Few things are more engaging than a difference of opinion with stakes worth arguing about (for example, See Paul and Barnabus in Acts 15:36-41).
A recent post, Three Observations That Made Me a Fan* of North Point’s Closed Group Strategy, inspired two relatively strong dissenters. Both had well thought out objections. I see their point, but don’t agree. Here’s the second objection:
I don’t think the argument is “open” vs. “closed” groups. I think the bigger question raised in “Deep and Wide,” and what I am wrestling with, is balancing the purpose of groups in the church (“Growth Engine” vs. a place for Community/Discipling). I too am a big supporter of open groups, without embracing the growth engine mentality. I believe groups as they were designed by Christ were about “Go…and make disciples.” Before we use what’s become a common cliche “both and” I believe the position from which you view groups matters here. I will always lean a little towards the community/discipling side of things. Call me 51% Community & 49% Growth.
Let me make one note here: I don’t think there’s any way we can draw the conclusion that “groups were designed by Christ to go and make disciples.” As I read Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus gave this commandment to the eleven (and by extension to all of us). There are many scripture passages that define what ought to happen in a group. This is not one of them.
Here’s more of the comment:
Too often I hear what almost seems as boasting when church leaders talk about the number of people connected in groups at their church. Numbers are thrown out like that is the goal for their groups ministry to keep getting a bigger number. The bottom line we I wrestle with is, “are groups making disciples? We all as Point leaders constantly have to manage the tension between “quantity and quality.”
First, my stated goal is to have more adults in small groups than we have at the weekend services. Why? As you know, if you have an average adult of attendance of 200, it’s not the same 200 adults every week. It’s fair to say that most churches are attended by people who are there every week, some who are there every other week, some who are there once a month, and some who come on Easter and Christmas Eve. With me? See also, What Percentage of Your Adults are Actually Connected?
Second, I believe that unconnected adults are one tough thing away from not being around anymore. A failing marriage. A serious illness. The loss of a job. A child who goes off the rails. One tough thing. Connecting the unconnected is the first step. See also, What’s Your Urgency Level for Connecting People?
Third, I also believe that the optimum environment for life-change is a small group. Want to see life-change? Help people get connected…into groups where discipleship happens. See also, Life-Change at the Member Level
What do you think? Have a question? Want to argue? You can click here to jump into the conversation.
IMHO, placing “community” as a higher value than living out the mission of Jesus is to idolize and misunderstand community. Community is not an end… it is a byproduct of living on mission for Jesus. Jesus didn’t invite His disciples to grab a latte and “go deep” into the Torah. Instead, He invited them into a short-term experience that would prepare them to fish for men. That experience took them way deeper than any insight offered by an aorist-imperative, and a band of brothers level of community that changed the world was formed in the process. Chase community and get shallow information-driven self-absorption. Chase Jesus’ mission and get unprecedented life-change and life-long relationships with those on mission with you.
Thanks for jumping in here, Brian. You make some good points. I don’t think anyone is in favor of placing community as a higher value, though. In my mind, the key is to recognize that Jesus’ first call was to “come and see.” They were together with him for some time before the call became “come and die.” We can learn from that.
mark
I understand what you are saying, and I was pretty intentional about being a bit on the more “daggered” side with my words. That said, I still think we are having to work hard on rectifying an inbalance in groups as a whole. For 25 years I have heard the word “community” used as the primary end of groups. I can’t think of a word more used when talking about groups… from book titles to articles and to conference sessions. For many churches that transitioned to a more seeker sensitive or targeted weekend, the value of the “family” or community was relegated to groups. I have seen first hand what happens when community is the driver… and it is the same end that churches had… ingrown groups of people that imploded over time instead of people on mission that focused on replicating and empowering leadership that would expand God’s influence in the world. The guy you are referring to in this article reminded me of the many I have have arguments… err dialogues over the years. 🙂 Appreciate you!
Thanks for engaging, Brian! You’re making what I believe is an important distinction.
I would say that since the desire to belong is a significant motivation for most people, it makes it easier to say, “it’s essential to be connected to a group.” At the same time, just like Jesus started with “come and see” and progressed to “follow me” and then “come and die,” it is our responsibility to help group members grow in Christ, become true Christ followers, become like Jesus. Community itself, being connected, is not the end in mind. Without intentionality, grouplife can be just community. With intentionality, grouplife can be the optimum environment for life-change.
Hmmmm…that’s a good start on an upcoming blog post!