Ship of Fools: Small groups and clubbability

Thread: Small groups and clubbability - pros and cons Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025927

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Here's the new thread I promised on the 'Leaving a Church' discussion.

I'm wondering aloud about the pros and cons of small groups - house-groups, discipleship groups and so on.

I'm not particularly thinking of hellish or abusive aspects - although these can and do occur - but rather what churches which go in for the small group model big-time can or cannot offer to those who, for whatever reason, don't see the need for them to such an extent?

I've not attended a 'growth group' at our parish church for upwards of 4 years now and have no intention of doing so. I'm happy to attend the Lenten 'lectio divina' group at the RCs and other ad-hoc groups and discussions from time to time. But the idea of committing myself to regular homegroup fills me with horror - particularly when these tend towards a highly subjective form of pietism - 'God told me this ... God told me that ...' and the kind of spirituality that, quite frankly, I've grown out of (if I can put it in such terms).

And yes, I'm aware of the pitfalls of considering it that way ... [Biased]

People do need these support mechanisms for sure and I suspect that there's a kind of Fowler Stages of Faith thing going on to a certain extent - although I wouldn't be prescriptive about that.

Some people in our parish seem to thrive on these things. Fine. Good for them. But they leave me cold.

What experiences have other Shippies had of small groups and house groups and so on?

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

What I'd say to a more mature Christian wondering about joining a small group is that it's really important that you share the wisdom, insight and experience that God has given you with other Christians. We aren't all preachers, but we can all encourage others and help to build others up, and a small group provides a really good space for doing that in a way which is trickier on a Sunday morning because of the number of people involved.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

To me it sounds horrendous, and I have resisted all attempts by our church to get me into a cell (very appropriate word as far as I am concerned - the prison connotations...). I love discussing all sorts of topics with friends, both Christian and non-Christian.

I'm just not a group person. I have also done all my qualifications (up to post-grad) by distance learning.

But some people thrive on them. Horses for courses. I don't see it as a failing to join or stay out.

There are many ways of sharing your faith that don't involve being in a house group [Razz]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The churches here have a joint discussion group that meets weekly for Bible study. I think it is pretty healthy because there is a good balance of people from different denominations and there is no expectation of conformity. It also probably helps that the ecumenical nature of the group tends to discourage any serious fundamentalists from showing up.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

On the other thread I related this experience of Cell Church (in vogue in my Church 10 or so years ago)

quote:
The vision was of a bird with a small wing- the cells- and a big wing- the gathering of a cluster of cells. Predictably enough, the un-aerodynamic picture resulted in the church going around in circles until the proponent went off to a new job. Another difficulty was finding and training enough leaders of the right calibre and getting them to multiply before burn out struck.

One of the theories was that every Member should be in ministry and practicing those gifts in the wider church/ mission. In practice it didn't work so well.

The Folwer faith stages have something to do with it. To summaries stages of faith (as I recall) are a bit like growing up. So you start at
1: baby faith/ infancy, and hopefully grow through
2: conformist childhood,, becoming
3: independent and questioning adolescence, become a
4: maturing adult who has worked through the major questions themselves and might just end up as a
5: saintly wise old bird stage of a saint.
Few reach the giddy heights of stage 5 and heaven help you if you have a stage 2 that thinks they are a 4 or 5 even! Of course some of us may stick at a much earlier stage (still be stuck on milk when we should be eating meat as Paul put it) but have not got to a stage where they properly own and reflected on their own faith.

And that is where home groups may run into trouble: Leaders may be appointed at stage 2 (dependable people who tow the party line and know a bit more than the 1s and because there are not enough 4s to go round), end up being challenged by an adolescent troll, lack the experience of a robust growth into mature faith of Spiritual Formation as the Likes of Foster and Willard describe it.

Added to which there is the Forming, Storming, Norming and reforming group life cycle where relationships are formed. If the group stagnates or gets stuck in a comfort zone then reproduction and possibly Fowler type progression of individuals may stop.

I have always been rather disappointed with my experience of small groups. In theory, or if they work there could be great gains. In practice there are great pitfalls. I know that as a fully paid up member of the awkward squad I am one of those and would probably need to be anchored by several 'stage 4 or 5' people. I certainly don't think that a small group structure is the easy way for church leaders to abdicate pastoral care- in fact the investment in leaders and group growth is significant.

These days our small group programme is pretty dumbed down and one size fits all. I am caught between the rock of non-conformism and the hard place of not being considered suitable for leading such things so thing there is nothing for me there.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure I'd be as prescriptive as Fowler is and ken and others here go apopleptic whenever he's mentioned. I think there's something in it but I don't like the idea of those at the later stages somehow being 'better' than the others ... I think that rather than becoming a saintly sage at Stage 4/5 most people run the risk of becoming grumpy old gits.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think The Midge has hit on something.

For all our vicar's pushy encouragement for me to get involved with a 'growth group' he's also worried that my comments will 'rub off' on those younger in the faith ... and this is the guy who allows all manner of bollocky so-called 'words' and totally heretical non-Trinitarian viewpoints to be aired publically without challenge ... [Roll Eyes]

At least any contribution I'd be likely to make would be orthodox (both small o and occasionally Big O) even if I was a complete pain in the arse in the way I said it.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure I'd be as prescriptive as Fowler is and ken and others here go apopleptic whenever he's mentioned. I think there's something in it but I don't like the idea of those at the later stages somehow being 'better' than the others ... I think that rather than becoming a saintly sage at Stage 4/5 most people run the risk of becoming grumpy old gits.

There is legitimate criticism of Fowler's linear progression. You're right about the possibility of regression into a senile second childhood!

One person's orthodoxy is another's fundamentalism and yet another's heresy.

The danger of the smallness of a [cell] group is that it could turn inward and not challenge these- then it become a little holy huddle.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

I've been an evangelical charismatic-lite type for practically my entire Christian life and I've been pretty much allergic to 'God told me'-style pietism since I was 17. My current small group is refreshingly free of it. But we do talk about faith, and how God can meet you in every day life.

The biggest danger of small groups, as I experience them at present, is complacency and inwardness.

I still think small groups are a valid way to do spiritual formation and discipleship, though. And there is no one way to do it, no one size fits all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Agreed, Laurelin.

I think there are ways of working these things out in accordance with one's own tradition and inclinations in terms of personality.

I s'pose my beef with the standard evangelical/charismatic or charismatic-lite approach is that it can indeed become inward looking and also highly prescriptive.

From what little I've seen of how small group studies and the like operate within some of the older traditions, there is certainly a set-format but there's less of an expectation for these things to become a platform for a personal pietistic crusade.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've had some very positive experiences of ecumenical Lent groups. I definitely think ecumenical groups are one way forward, especially in areas where the churches are quite small and there is increasing cooperation on a number of fronts.

I'm a stranger to the 'small group' as understood in the contemporary evangelical sense, but I've been part of lots of other church groups of varying quality, including a class meeting. The famous Methodist class meetings subtly changed their purpose and then gradually died out as active units. The 'small group' seems to be a very different animal, as far as I understand it.

BTW, is there anywhere in the UK where the 'cell group' concept works as originally envisaged? I once went to a weekend cell group conference. The Methodists running it were quite exotic to me by virtue of being dynamic and evangelical, but even they had to admit, eventually, that the whole idea of cell reproduction didn't seem to work in the UK as it did in the USA. Is the problem that our churches are mostly much smaller, so it's harder for us generate new cell leaders to keep the process going?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

What happens when coming from the other direction? If most members of a large congregation are not seen to be growing in faith, not showing increasingly the fruit of the spirit, not noticing their neighbour who sits near to them every week, let alone visiting them if sick or in prison, and not attending Bible study, prayer groups, Lent groups, etc., what is the way forward?

We surely need our fellow Christians so that we grow in faith, we can't do it alone. I loosely relate to the Fowler stages, as I came to faith as an adult and so the faith stages were not worked through alongside the familiar stages of childhood to adulthood. In small groups whether house groups, prayer groups, discussion groups, Bible study groups, etc I have and do both give and receive. In that way we build each other up in faith, and relate with each other. Loving our neighbour surely means relationship.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, is there anywhere in the UK where the 'cell group' concept works as originally envisaged? I once went to a weekend cell group conference. The Methodists running it were quite exotic to me by virtue of being dynamic and evangelical, but even they had to admit, eventually, that the whole idea of cell reproduction didn't seem to work in the UK as it did in the USA. Is the problem that our churches are mostly much smaller, so it's harder for us generate new cell leaders to keep the process going?

Surprising but Cell UK are still around from over a decade ago. They had a few case studies when we were doing it. I didn't see the book that featured our local parish as an example of a church in transition from traditional model to cell. We never made the change probably because we were trying to compromise as Anglicans tend to do.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, how do you know that these people aren't doing other, equally constructive things out in their communities, Raptor Eye?

Attending some kind of small group is surely not a realistic measure of spirituality in and of itself?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Attending some kind of small group is surely not a realistic measure of spirituality in and of itself?

Just quickly for now, but IMO it's not a measure of our spirituality but rather an aid to strengthening our spirituality. ISTM almost all Christians need the encouragement and care of other Christians with whom we have close relationships in order to develop in our faith. Small groups are just one way of facilitating those close relationships. A very good way, I think; albeit that small groups can be cliquey, self-obsessed, dominated by one person, abusive etc. etc.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
If most members of a large congregation are not seen to be growing in faith, not showing increasingly the fruit of the spirit, not noticing their neighbour who sits near to them every week...

My neighbour doesn't come to church. It's a bit hard to see her from my pew when she's still in bed.

And I think it's quite telling that you say '...are seen to be growing in faith.' How can you tell just by looking at somebody whether that's happening? Does a growth in faith only count if other people notice it?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

quote:
If most members of a large congregation are not seen to be growing in faith, not showing increasingly the fruit of the spirit, not noticing their neighbour who sits near to them every week...
My neighbour doesn't come to church. It's a bit hard to see her from my pew when she's still in bed.

And I think it's quite telling that you say '...are seen to be growing in faith.' How can you tell just by looking at somebody whether that's happening? Does a growth in faith only count if other people notice it?

Seen in their actions, their speech, their fruitfulness? People attend church to be part of a community of faith, so perhaps they should be looking out for each other's spiritual growth?

As for your neighbour, some might say she's not part of the church community so her spiritual growth isn't their concern. On the other hand, I read something a while ago that said the church ought to do more to support non-churchgoing Christians in their faith.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think all those are good observations.

There was an old saying which had people from various traditions outlining why they should be considered to be growing in faith - generally posited in some form of outward observance. The punchline came with, "'Ask my neighbour,' said the Anabaptist."

As if those with a credo-baptist position were more likely to love their neighbours than anyone else ...

I could see the point it was trying to make but wouldn't be as prescriptive as to which traditions do or don't fulfil that aspect adequately. The question of course, is whether I do ... or any of us do ...

@SCK, I'm not saying that there's anything 'wrong' with small groups - far from it - it's just that some people seem to put such things forward as proof-positive that churches and individuals are growing in faith etc etc ... as if the very existence of house-groups in and of itself is proof of the spiritual temperature of that particular group or body ... and as if their absence means that the reverse is the case.

I may be doing Raptor Eye a disservice but that's how I read his post.

You can have all the house-groups and close fellowship in the world and that doesn't mean that you're necessarily 'growing in faith' - however we define that.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

@SCK, I'm not saying that there's anything 'wrong' with small groups - far from it - it's just that some people seem to put such things forward as proof-positive that churches and individuals are growing in faith etc etc ...

I think a good place to start with is the Robert Wuthnow books - they are written for an American context but are precisely useful for that reason. As the small group phenomonae hasn't - in America at least - been confined to the purely Christian, it's a useful corrective to listen to other people talk about the benefits of their particular group and then realise how close the language is to a lot of what evangelicals would deem to be the 'Holy Spirit' working through their group.

He is particularly good on how each group creates a dominant narrative into which individual narratives get recast.

Yes, there are still quite a few churches in which percentage involvement in care group structrues are seen as some kind of measure of progress. For sure they can provide some kind of community for people - or at least an entry into community life, and while it may be highly artificial to be grouped up in this way one has to start somewhere - and it's as arbitrary as any other form of community.

I think a lot of the time the reason they end up being oppressive is that they end up having to take on a pastoral role when the pastors/elders have moved onto a 'Pastor as CEO' model and no longer conducts pastoral visits of any kind.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Can you please define your terms? Small group - is it an onging bible study, a sort of pastoral therapy group, a prayer team which prays for others, an indoctrination process? What exactly? I hear about these small groups, and wonder.

And second, what are you supposed to get out of it? Or is it about the church getting something from the group members?

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Twenty plus years of my lifelong church experience were spent as a member and/ or leader of a small group.
Apart from a two year period where one of those groups was facilitated by a remarkable woman, I hated those groups!! Why?
- They were not small enough for the desired aim of "opening up": I did not feel safe with 12 plus people!
-There was pressure to perform
- They were often inward looking
- There was such a desire to be true to the "brand" that it militated against real questions and different styles of spirituality
-Also the expectation of attendance week in, week out was burdensome as I am someone who hates to let others down so dragged myself there regardless

However the small groups which I have really enjoyed have been short (ie time bound up to 12 weeks), focused groups for Discussion/ Lent/ Advent/ Bible study/ preparation for Confirmation etc. If they are well led a good group dynamic develops and they can be a real spur to growth.

Finally, from the point of view of growth/ discipleship I like the Celtic idea of soul friends: a spiritual director and/ or a group of 3 friends who meet regularly for mutual encouragement/ prayer/ coffee.....whatever floats their boat!

I do think however (as I said on the thread I once started) that personality plays a part in all this too and that it is good to encourage one another to do whatever works for us as individuals to help us deepen our relationship with God.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

no prophet, I suspect these kind of groups serve all those purposes all at the same time ... [Biased]

I suspect, to a large extent,they also serve the agenda of church leaders. Where we are, membership of a 'growth group' is certainly seen as a measure of how 'committed' people are ... and this in a parish church context too ... [Ultra confused]

I'm with Mrs Beaky on this one. I wouldn't say I 'hated' my involvement with small groups, but I agree that small groups that meet for a particular purpose and then disband or do something else is probably the best way to approach these things.

I'm thinking of Lent study groups and the like where they meet for the duration of Lent and then that's it ...

On the 'soul-friend', spiritual-director thing, that's something I've recently taken up and I'm finding it very valuable. I'm meeting with my spiritual-director once every 6 weeks and that suits me fine.

I'm not against small groups in principle, it's just that I think they create a sense of expectation that they are unable to fulfil and also the kind of sense of obligation that MrsBeaky mentions.

They also tend to be very 'party-line' by their very nature.

I'd much rather some kind of ecumenical group where I'm likely to meet people with different views rather than some kind of anally-retentive house-group where they discuss the Sunday sermon and so on. I got fed up listening to the prayers in the last of these groups I attended. I don't know how God puts up with it listening to that kind of drivel all day long.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Can you please define your terms? Small group - is it an onging bible study, a sort of pastoral therapy group, a prayer team which prays for others, an indoctrination process? What exactly? I hear about these small groups, and wonder.

All of the above + + +

quote:
And second, what are you supposed to get out of it? Or is it about the church getting something from the group members?

Ask not what the small group can do for you, but what you can do for the small group.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

On the lines of no prophet's question, I have deduced from the discussions about small groups that what is usually meant is a group that meets weekly at someone's house and engages in some mixture of prayer, worship, Bible study, and perhaps other discussion.

My church takes a different approach. We are what would be called a "program church" in the Alban Institute terminology. Our previous rector didn't so much like the word "program" and the somewhat impersonal feel it has for him, although he agreed with what the Alban Institute says about the institutional challenges that our size of church typically faces (ASA 225, across 2 services). His approach was to encourage people to engage with small groups in the church so that they would have a place to get to know maybe 10-12 people closely.

BUT! The definition of small group was very broad. Just about any regular activity would count in the rector's vision: one of our three weekly Bible studies, being in the choir, acolytes, altar guild, flower guild, ushers, social outreach committee, environmental action and awareness committee, men's group, women's group, Sunday school teachers, women's meditation group, anything.

Incidentally, all of these groups meet at the church. Some of them, such as men's group and women's group, have a prayer and personal discussion structure; others don't.

We also have groups that form for only a few to several weeks, usually organized by our Adult Christian Formation group, that cover a wide variety of topics. Sometimes these are large forums and not particularly conducive to getting to know each other, but more often they are relatively small groups in which people can find out about other people in the course of learning about and discussing whatever is the topic of that temporary group.

The goal was not that we should be in a small group that has a certain structure and goals. The goal was that we should have some way to get to know some other people in the church more than we might typically get to know people if we only came to Sunday services and coffee hour.

We are currently between rectors, but the parish leadership has continued the encouragement of small group membership, in this expanded understanding of small group.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Speaking to Gamaliel's question about what churches who go in for small groups offer those who are not interested...

I would say my church offers me the opportunity to come to Sunday service, and to engage in chat at the coffee-hour (or just to grab some goodies and avoid chat, if that's my preference), and to come to such educational programs as interest me. At least, these are the opportunities that I take advantage of.

I don't see that it needs to offer me more.

My church isn't heavily into small groups (in the expanded definition that I gave above), in that I think there are lots of people who aren't part of them. Equally there are lots of people who are. But either way I don't feel any problem for not being in any of them, and I don't feel any particularly cliquish feeling excluding those of us who are not. [Hmmm, after writing my paragraph about the Bible Study (see below) I'm not so sure. What I mean is, I don't see the small group members congregating just with each other at coffee hour. Breaking INTO a small group can be wierdly difficult for me at least, but maybe that's just me.]

I think the problems we face are those of any fairly large group of people: it is easy for us not to realize who is a newcomer and thus we ignore them (or we ignore them out of social awkwardness). I know some people may not want to be talked to, but it seems that for most of the people who I ever hear talking about their first experiences at my or the neighbouring church, they find it very important to be talked to early on. I suppose the people who don't want to be talked to never show up in groups I'm in to talk about how happy they were to be ignored, so I admit this may be a biased sample.

Another problem we face is that despite the long list of groups to belong to that our church can make since we count all of our groups as possibilities, I think some people still don't necessarily find what they're looking for in terms of getting to know other people, whether that be at a light social level or at a deep spiritual level.

I'm actually one of those people -- I'd sort of like to be in a group at my church that explores matters of faith, or is a book group, or almost any topic, but I never seem to quite fit into any of the groups at my church. Either I can't get a word in edgewise, or I feel like everyone else's faith is completely unlike mine and I don't necessarily feel safe talking about my faith, or the group (despite our church suggesting "join this group") actually doesn't foster getting to know other people at all (e.g. acolytes, altar guild, layreaders, chalice bearers, all of which I used to do, and loved doing on their own merits, but despite our rector including these on his list of "small groups to encourage people to join so they get to know people", I felt they didn't belong on that list, because, honestly, how well do you get to know someone vesting next to them for a few minutes before going in to church to light the candles and carry a cross?)

I'm fortunate in that I'm involved in EfM (Education for Ministry) that meets at another church (and draws its members from several churches, almost always Episcopal), which is well setup to meet what I'm looking for.

At my own church I'm thinking of starting to attend the Sunday morning Bible study (between services), although the few times I've been this spring I'm really ambivalent. The regulars in it have been doing it for awhile, and they all know each other well, and I actually know all of them and they know me, but still I feel like I don't actually know what the ground rules of the group are, and how to fit in. And given the treacly things they say about the Bible and their faith, I don't even know if I can fit in or want to fit in. (OK, it's not fair to call them treacly: if I weren't feeling so annoyed right now, I would call them all firmly grounded in a very orthodox faith, more power to them.) But I'm going to give it a try.

So that's a lot about my various small group struggles, but in many ways I'm a loner and I think what my church offers loners is quite good.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The goal was not that we should be in a small group that has a certain structure and goals. The goal was that we should have some way to get to know some other people in the church more than we might typically get to know people if we only came to Sunday services and coffee hour.

Hmm, I like it. Certainly it acknowledges that plenty of people don't need an official 'get to know people better' group in order to get to know people better...

EDIT - Although I agree with your point in the cross-post that some of the activities you mentioned don't obviously lend themselves to getting to know people (perhaps especially - stereotype alert! - for men). I was going to say something like that myself but didn't want to come across as 'yes, but...'

[ 11. July 2013, 17:25: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Please, "yes but" away!

Even the men's group at my church apparently only really works for older men or maybe only retired men. For men in their 20s-40s, it seems not to be attractive even if they try it once or twice.

[ 11. July 2013, 17:36: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

I see some traits of an Introvert in AR's posts. We are a much tougher bunch to get going in a small group (for me managing even 3 or 4 relationship dynamics at once is draining). Introverts tend to open up better in a one to one conversation over a pint or cup of coffee in a snug.

Failing that I much prefer a working with a group doing anything but simply getting to know or pouring out their hearts to one another. Forget it if an extrovert takes over! The task and activity give purpose to the interaction. I think task focused groups are a valid way of deepening relationships.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, how do you know that these people aren't doing other, equally constructive things out in their communities, Raptor Eye?

Attending some kind of small group is surely not a realistic measure of spirituality in and of itself?

No, it's not, but one of the symptoms of lack of growth in faith is a disinterest in engaging with whatever group activities are available istm. I wasn't suggesting that they were not doing anything constructive in their communities, but that there was an apparent lack of growth and reduction rather than increase in demonstration of the fruit of the spirit.

Take it as a hypothetical question: what action if any would you take as a leader of such a congregation? Your first indication is that you would deny that they were not growing in faith.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, it's not, but one of the symptoms of lack of growth in faith is a disinterest in engaging with whatever group activities are available istm.

Yes, but:

"let alone visiting them if sick or in prison, and not attending Bible study, prayer groups, Lent groups, etc., what is the way forward? "

The first group of things is not like the second group. Let's face it - small groups are trying to create 'artificially' what used to mostly happen 'naturally' - I'm reminded of the book 'The Gospel Blimp'

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Svitlana:

quote:
As for your neighbour, some might say she's not part of the church community so her spiritual growth isn't their concern.

Some might. I get the feeling that Our Lord might get quite shirty with them... based on what he said when someone asked who their neighbour was.

It's a trick answer anyway - my neighbour is Catholic [Two face]

I like your idea of ecumenical groups. I think part of the problem with small house groups is that they can get very inward looking. Meeting with Christians from other denominations might guard against that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Actually, at the cell conference I attended they said that one of the roles of cell was to get involved with the community, to be good neighbours. The inward-looking tendency of some small groups isn't feature of successful small group life. Perhaps it's a result of a group not having sufficiently clear core values and goals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Those are good questions, Raptor Eye, but I would submit that however we answered them would depend on our particular churchmanship and tradition.

If you're in an evangelical tradition then attendance at regular Bible studies or some kind of 'cell-group' might well constitute a sign that you are 'growing in faith' and demonstrating the fruits of the Spirit (although I'd suggest that the fruits of the Spirit aren't necessarily to do with church activities per se but with the whole of life).

For someone from a more sacramental tradition then regular attendance at the eucharist or observing the feasts and fasts in the ecclesiastical calendar might be some kind of yardstick.

So my answer would be ... it depends.

I don't see how a disinterest in engaging with whatever group activities are available is necessarily a sign of a lack of growth in faith. What if the only group activities available were some kind of dumbed-down or Mickey Mouse Bible study and the person who didn't want to attend them didn't want to do so because they found them too simplistic or pitched at too 'simple' a level?

Of course, that would open them up to the charge of elitism, but I could think of circumstances where this might be the case without there being elitism involved.

I'm not a church leader - aren't you glad of that - but if I were I think I'd look beyond the narrow confines of church meetings and programmes before I determined whether people were really growing in faith or not.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I really enjoyed being a member of a home group and would do it again if I had the chance with congenial people. The benefit of it to me was that it's the only chance I've had to ask other people about Christian things. The clergy are always too busy to do more than say hello to ordinary members of the congregation; the longest conversation I've had with any priest or minister in 20 years of church going is less than 5 minutes. So having a couple of hours regularly as a home group I found very helpful.

It may be a side issue but I didn't understand the stuff about pietism. I think I am quite pietistic in the sense that for me Christianity is about how to live my own life, not how the government should organise society. But that doesn't mean I keep thinking God has told me specifically to do this or that, I've ever only felt that a handful of times.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

I think one of the major stumbling blocks between me and small groups is lack of control over what's being taught or determined within the group, and the underlying assumption that more Bible knowledge = greater spirituality. I've been in some great small groups with some dear people, but in the end I'm not sure small group has ever been very profitable for any of us: certainly no more profitable than getting together for beer, burgers, and simple fellowship would be.

In the end, I wonder if that's not the better alternative? Adding Bible study to the mix is probably just accelerating heresy within a church body that already can't agree on whether or not Adam had a navel. Surely more uninformed opinions is not helpful in establishing orthodoxy*?

Certainly mutual encouragement among the brethren is profitable and Biblical, but I've never known a small group with that as it's sole purpose?

-----
*Small 'o' in this case, though I'm personally hoping to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy as soon as I can convince Mrs. IL99.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, but:

"let alone visiting them if sick or in prison, and not attending Bible study, prayer groups, Lent groups, etc., what is the way forward? "

The first group of things is not like the second group. Let's face it - small groups are trying to create 'artificially' what used to mostly happen 'naturally' - I'm reminded of the book 'The Gospel Blimp'

I disagree. Service to God isn't only good works. Service to God includes feeding the sheep as well as tending them. Prayer, worship, Bible study, discussion, wrestling with the difficult issues, and facilitating all of these are included in loving God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds, as well as strength.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
The clergy are always too busy to do more than say hello to ordinary members of the congregation; the longest conversation I've had with any priest or minister in 20 years of church going is less than 5 minutes.

Really? Have you always been in really big congregations? Or maybe people like me are the reason for that; I've had discussions of an 1/2 an hour or more with the priest or minister pretty regularly in every church I've been in since I became an adult. Some more than others, sure, but they've all been keen to talk and often relieved to have someone actually want to discuss theology and how to live a Christian life.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Thanks for all of the clarifications and discussion since I posted my questions.

I think something that's been brewing in my brain for a while would likely then qualify as a small group. A couple of us have been discussing the service of Compline, and if we should have it once a week. We've been planning on raising this as a Good Thing To Do.

"keep us as the apple of an eye" "hide us under the shadow of thy wings" are among the poetical language.

(edit - something weirdly this way comes with the post auto-posting itself whilst typing.)

[ 12. July 2013, 03:15: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I love compline but it would appear - and Shippies will correct me if I'm wrong - only to 'work' on a regular basis in residential or collegial communities of one form or other. I did some work recently for an international postgraduate residence in London and they had compline on a Monday evening in the chapel there.

I've not heard of it happening that successfully in a parish context.

And for all the wonder and beauty of it, I'm not sure that in and of itself it contributes to the development of small groups in the way we've been discussing here. You don't necessarily have to stick around to talk, have a cuppa etc after compline.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
In the end, I wonder if [beer, burgers, and simple fellowship is] not the better alternative? Adding Bible study to the mix is probably just accelerating heresy within a church body that already can't agree on whether or not Adam had a navel. Surely more uninformed opinions is not helpful in establishing orthodoxy*?

Certainly mutual encouragement among the brethren is profitable and Biblical, but I've never known a small group with that as it's sole purpose?

My thoughts exactly! In my championing of small groups, I certainly don't have in mind a weekly Bible study. IMO that can lead to a primarily intellectual focus that doesn't penetrate to our spiritual core, and leaves us untransformed.

Fellowship should be where it's at, IMO; by which I mean deep friendship in which people gradually share their more intimate hopes, fears and worries, and where permission is given to challenge one another to live a life more devoted to and honouring of God. Bible studies can very easily lead to intellectual discussions behind which people can hide their true selves, destroying the opportunity for openness and life-changing friendship.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I disagree. Service to God isn't only good works. Service to God includes feeding the sheep as well as tending them. Prayer, worship, Bible study, discussion, wrestling with the difficult issues, and facilitating all of these are included in loving God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds, as well as strength.

I disagree on a number of levels; first it's not given to all to be teachers (feeding the sheep), and I think the sorts of churches in which small groups are pushed heavily are usually exactly the sort where random members of congregation don't really have the resources to teach at this level. Similarly quite often the reason bible studying is being 'pushed down' to the small group level is because of the paucity of it being done at the regular services.

The sorts of churches which do are the well-catchecised ones (either formally or informally) and these are the ones least likely to set up things based on the small group model.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In my experience, poor catechesis is common right across the board - in evangelical churches which use some form of small-group model and in more sacramental churches that don't.

Arguably, some of the more Reformed churches, with their emphasis on preaching and teaching, are less prone to the development of nut-flavoured ideas and overly subjective approaches ... but the downside there is that they can - as SCK identifies - become rather dry and arid intellectual 'preaching centres'.

I can think of some conservative evangelical and reformed-flavoured churches which are effectively little more than Bible-study clubs where it's difficult to fit in unless you're proof-texting and citing chapter and verse all the time.

There's a balance somewhere.

I agree with SCK that small groups can be useful and helpful - I'm not denying that - and I think he's right to sound a note of caution about over-intellectualised Bible study groups.

I know I've banged the gong a few times for the RC lectio-divina approach but what's impressed me about the local RC women who meet regularly to follow that format is that none of them are intellectual and the notes and format allow for people to engage at various levels. It ain't meaty theology in the RC diocesan notes that accompany the lectionary readings they use but neither is it dumbed-down pietistic subjectivism which is what passes for Bible study in some charismatic evangelical circles.

I think it strikes the right balance and I'd certainly commend it as a model that could be used elsewhere, not just in RC circles.

What worries me with the small group model in evangelical charismatic circles is precisely the point that Chris Stiles makes - that the teaching and pastoral roles are being delegated to people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it ... [Razz]

Anyone who shows a mite of enthusiasm or aptitude can be given a platform in many evangelical/charismatic churches and whilst this can be empowering in a lot of ways it also opens the way up for overly subjective approaches.

At least with the local RC ladies they're using material that has the imprimatur of suitably qualified clergy at a diocesan level. Even if one takes a Proddy or Orthodox exception to particular points of RC doctrine, at least these ladies are well catechised in the basics of historic creedal Christianity.

You can't take that for granted, I've found, in charismatic evangelical circles for all their protestations to the contrary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I love compline but it would appear - and Shippies will correct me if I'm wrong - only to 'work' on a regular basis in residential or collegial communities of one form or other. I did some work recently for an international postgraduate residence in London and they had compline on a Monday evening in the chapel there.

I've not heard of it happening that successfully in a parish context.

And for all the wonder and beauty of it, I'm not sure that in and of itself it contributes to the development of small groups in the way we've been discussing here. You don't necessarily have to stick around to talk, have a cuppa etc after compline.

My church has regular food and film nights that end with sung Compline.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

We didn't have teachers as such in the groups I was in, we just shared our own thoughts. Indeed there was no guarantee that none of us had any funny ideas, but the same thing is true of reading people's opinions on the internet. I don't see Gamaliel advising people not to read any of the discussions here that might contsin unorthodox contributions.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
We didn't have teachers as such in the groups I was in, we just shared our own thoughts. Indeed there was no guarantee that none of us had any funny ideas, but the same thing is true of reading people's opinions on the internet. I don't see Gamaliel advising people not to read any of the discussions here that might contsin unorthodox contributions.

Small groups can provide an avenue for people to teach unorthodox views, but I think the risk is quite low unless the group leaders are seen as the experts who provide most of the input.

If, instead, a small group has the ethos of encouraging all the group members to search the Bible and engage with God themselves, then ISTM the risk of wild flights of theological fancy are much reduced. And anyway, there are far worse things that can befall Christians than holding a few unorthodox beliefs; things like greed, pride, anger, jealousy...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, because this is an online discussion forum not a church house-group or cell-group or whatever you want to call it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there should be a 'belief-police' presence at all gatherings, but what I would suggest is that a small group that gets together simply to share the individuals' top-of-the-head thoughts might be fun and might achieve something but is more likely, in my view, to come up with cranky ideas than something which is rather more regulated.

There is a reason, for instance, why the Orthodox all sing off the same hymn sheet, as it were, by using the same Liturgy the whole world over. It was to ensure, you've guessed it, Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Liturgy is essentially Orthodox belief laid out in liturgical form - lex orandi, lex credendi.

It used to be the same for the RCs and for the Anglicans to a certain extent. You can't guarantee that now, of course.

That's not to say that I'm arguing for an overly prescriptive format for all small groups and informal discussions and so on ... far from it.

But when a lady from our local charismatic evangelical parish attended the lectio-divina sessions during Lent one year, it was no prizes for guessing who was coming out with the flakey stuff and the subjective gubbings ...

I'll give you a clue.

It wasn't the RC ladies ...

[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Nonsense, SCK ... you give people a Bible and simply let them get on with it and you'll see what they come up with. It won't necessarily be anything thee or me recognise as 'orthodox'.

The risk isn't quite low at all, it's completely the opposite.

We interpret the scriptures within the context and confines of whatever tradition we happen to represent or be familiar with.

Put a bunch of people in a room with a Bible and they'll either default to the received tradition they've ... well, received ... or else they'll develop their own ideas which may or may not be congruent with received wisdom and orthodoxy.

You have an overly optimistic view of people's discernment and bullshit-detector mechanisms, my friend ...

The reason this RC group I'm mentioning stays on track is precisely because the study notes are prepared and endorsed by appropriately trained and authorised personnel at the Diocesan level.

Otherwise it would be rubbish in/rubbish out.

You look at what happens in China and Africa and other places where wild flights of theological fancy are allowed to take wing ...

A lot of the Chinese house-churches would be considered completely heretical by any Western standards - RC, Orthodox or Protestant.

And yes, I'm not saying that orthodox beliefs in and of themselves are any safeguard against the besetting sins of jealousy, pride, the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life and so on ...

Of course not.

But unless I'm a DIY expert I'm not going to do up my house, nor am I going to interfere with my domestic electricity supply unless I know something about electrics.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Nah. I don't buy that. Some of the most uniform and prescriptive groups doctrinally have little liturgy. The Orthodox and RC uniformity of liturgy may reflect uniformity of belief, but I don't think it's what maintains it.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You have an overly optimistic view of people's discernment and bullshit-detector mechanisms, my friend ...

No, I have an optimistic view (whether overly or not, I'll let others decide) of God's willingness to communicate directly with people and of our ability to discern when He's in fact doing so.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You look at what happens in China and Africa and other places where wild flights of theological fancy are allowed to take wing ...

A lot of the Chinese house-churches would be considered completely heretical by any Western standards - RC, Orthodox or Protestant.

And yet Christianity in China flourished under the persecution of Mao's regime, when (so I've read) the missionaries returning after Mao's death expected to find very few Christians and churches. If wild flights of theological fancy are a necessary risk for such flourishing under persecution (because you can't have organised institutional structures), well that's a risk I'm content with.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In my championing of small groups, I certainly don't have in mind a weekly Bible study. IMO that can lead to a primarily intellectual focus that doesn't penetrate to our spiritual core, and leaves us untransformed.
<snip>
Bible studies can very easily lead to intellectual discussions behind which people can hide their true selves, destroying the opportunity for openness and life-changing friendship.

They can, but they don't have to. Over the years I have participated in Bible studies where people tell of their successes and failures at following various Bible principles. I have gotten to know these people quite well.

Moo

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not doubting the fact that Christianity flourished in China inspite of, and perhaps because of, Maoist persecution, SCK. All I'm saying is that what emerged was highly exotic to say the least and it's taken decades for both indigenous and Western Christians to sort out some of the doctrinal and practical anomalies. There's still a long way to go. I've got friends who go there quite regularly and they'll tell you the same.

Sure, I can see what you're getting at but it's both/and not either/or. If there hadn't been more 'stable' Christian communities elsewhere and input from elsewhere then there's little doubt in my mind that left to their own devices the Chinese churches would have developed in very different and often very erroneous ways.

Back in the '70s there were instances of Christians who drowned in China because they believed that they too would be able to walk on water as Christ did.

I could give you other examples.

On the thing about Liturgy conveying uniformity and so on ... yes, I certainly agree that there are other things that need to be in place alongside the liturgies and that there are liturgy-lite groups which maintain doctrinal uniformity and so on - but they'll have developed other ways of doing that.

Before my evangelical conversion I was pretty au-fait with basic Christian doctrines - the Trinity, deity of Christ, Incarnation and so on. Why? Because I'd picked up from the Anglican liturgy as a kid when I used to go to Sunday school and so on. If it hadn't been for that I'd have been clueless about these things.

If you think you can manage simply with a Bible and a group of people of good will then good luck to you, SCK. Try and see. I bet it wouldn't be too long before you were looking for help from somewhere or other because you'd got yourself into deep waters or things had turned out pear-shaped.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I might regret this ... but ...

If your views on 'commanding' prayers and so on are any indication of where you'd be headed if you did have a small group of like-minded chums and a few Bibles and little by way of formal checks and balances from the wider tradition, then I'm afraid I don't share you own optimism and confidence in your ability to 'hear God' and discern his will, South Coast Kevin.

You're a nice guy, a lovely guy in fact ... but unless you've got a route-map don't expect me to follow you into the jungle.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Those are good questions, Raptor Eye, but I would submit that however we answered them would depend on our particular churchmanship and tradition.

If you're in an evangelical tradition then attendance at regular Bible studies or some kind of 'cell-group' might well constitute a sign that you are 'growing in faith' and demonstrating the fruits of the Spirit (although I'd suggest that the fruits of the Spirit aren't necessarily to do with church activities per se but with the whole of life).

For someone from a more sacramental tradition then regular attendance at the eucharist or observing the feasts and fasts in the ecclesiastical calendar might be some kind of yardstick.

So my answer would be ... it depends.

I don't see how a disinterest in engaging with whatever group activities are available is necessarily a sign of a lack of growth in faith. What if the only group activities available were some kind of dumbed-down or Mickey Mouse Bible study and the person who didn't want to attend them didn't want to do so because they found them too simplistic or pitched at too 'simple' a level?

Of course, that would open them up to the charge of elitism, but I could think of circumstances where this might be the case without there being elitism involved.

I'm not a church leader - aren't you glad of that - but if I were I think I'd look beyond the narrow confines of church meetings and programmes before I determined whether people were really growing in faith or not.

OK so using whatever method of discernment you like, (and perhaps throwing in some of your experience of different kinds of churchmanship) if you were a leader of a large congregation who were not growing in faith or in the fruit of the spirit, and who seemed complacent in that they didn't attend whatever you made available to them in terms of small groups, how would you go about feeding them?

I'm genuinely interested, trying to see this from all angles.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

The thing about small groups is that they can be small rock pools if cut off from the sea of wider tradition.

A small fish can become the big fish and take over. It just has to have a bit more extroversion or knowledge or claim to authority.

It is healthy to have the tide come in and reconnect the pool with the ocean.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Finding Nemo is a nice little case study of how flaky the fish can get when cut off from the sea. Limited experience and novel ideas about their little tanks environment produced strange ideas. They needed someone from out side to shake up their little world and bring them back into the sea.

Gamaliel is talking about the Tradition of the church; all Christ's people gathered through all time. We can learn off each other. So the desert fathers can inform a post-evangelical like myself as well as Luther, Calvin, Campolo and Arch Bishop Welby. Our understanding is enriched by pooling our interpretations and we are at danger of polluting and stagnating the water if we try to separate ourselves off.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Midge has 'got' what I'm trying to say and is saying it better than I am.

[Overused]

To respond to Raptor Eye's question ...

Firstly, I know it's a hypothetical question but realistically I ain't likely to find myself the leader of a large congregation any time soon ... and if I were it'd soon become a smaller one ...

But in an attempt to give a serious answer to a serious question, I would use a range of methods to teach and feed the flock entrusted to my care.

I certainly wouldn't rule out small groups as part of that process. Far from it. But what I wouldn't do is attempt to build the structure of the church around those groups nor make them in any way compulsory or a condition of membership - I don't see anyone here arguing for that approach.

I can only speak from my personal conviction but I'd tackle it as follows:

- I would ensure that the church remained in touch with the wider and broader sweep of Christian tradition by preaching and teaching my way through the Lectionary and observing the fasts and festivals of the Church calendar.

- I would encourage Lenten groups, the practice of spiritual direction and forms of lectio-divina.

- I would emphasise the eucharist and keep that prominent in weekly worship.

- I would seek to get to know as many of the congregation as possible and seek to discern where they were 'at' spiritually - but I wouldn't set myself up as judge and jury as to whether they were growing in faith or demonstrating the fruits of the Spirit and so on.

- I would look to my own spiritual growth and development. My responsibility as a leader would be to ensure that the flock find green grass, not to force-feed it into their mouths. If I grew, by God's grace, luscious green grass then they would be likely to feed on it.

If they didn't avail themselves of those opportunities, then no amount of cajoling from me is going to make a difference.

You can lead horses to water but you can't make them drink.

The responsibility of church leaders/pastors and so on is to lead the people to the greenest pastures, not to tear up turfs and stuff it down their throats.

[Biased]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I disagree. Service to God isn't only good works. Service to God includes feeding the sheep as well as tending them. Prayer, worship, Bible study, discussion, wrestling with the difficult issues, and facilitating all of these are included in loving God with all of our hearts, souls, and minds, as well as strength.
I disagree on a number of levels; first it's not given to all to be teachers (feeding the sheep), and I think the sorts of churches in which small groups are pushed heavily are usually exactly the sort where random members of congregation don't really have the resources to teach at this level. Similarly quite often the reason bible studying is being 'pushed down' to the small group level is because of the paucity of it being done at the regular services.

The sorts of churches which do are the well-catchecised ones (either formally or informally) and these are the ones least likely to set up things based on the small group model.

Catechism classes are usually small, n'est pas? And they look at the scriptures and theology?

I wonder whether what we're looking at here is the dangers of both top-down and bottom-up structures of Church. It doesn't have to be either the blind leading the blind or a dictator demanding that we see things his way. Isn't the best way somewhere in between, where people are encouraged to explore for themselves and encourage each other, at the same time having the benefit of the oversight of people called to be teachers? As someone suggested, perhaps an ecumenical mixed group may temper each other. But more than twelve is too many, as previously mentioned too.

Doesn't this follow Christ's example?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you for your thoughtful response, Gamaliel, it's appreciated. [Smile]

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

I like the vision of small groups that meet for a season then move on. It is far more helpful than going to a small group because that it was you do.

It is also a better way of building up deeper relationships within a larger church. You meet for a while with a group, accomplish something, then move on and keep in touch. That way your circle grows rather than solidify into a clique.

Now if small groups could genuinely engage church members and those in the outside community that would really hit the sweet spot.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I can see what you're getting at but it's both/and not either/or. If there hadn't been more 'stable' Christian communities elsewhere and input from elsewhere then there's little doubt in my mind that left to their own devices the Chinese churches would have developed in very different and often very erroneous ways.

I share your approval of receiving input from Christian traditions other than one's own. I think it can be very enriching and helpful in reducing the 'echo chamber' effect you can get when all one's spiritual input comes from a narrow range of sources. But you do seem to have little faith in our Lord's promise to guide his people, or do those promises only apply to people in institutional churches with rectors, bishops and so on? [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in the '70s there were instances of Christians who drowned in China because they believed that they too would be able to walk on water as Christ did.

No church is entirely free of error, is it? This particular error seems extreme to you and me, I guess, because our own errors are generally not in the area of over-enthusiasm.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I love compline but it would appear - and Shippies will correct me if I'm wrong - only to 'work' on a regular basis in residential or collegial communities of one form or other. I did some work recently for an international postgraduate residence in London and they had compline on a Monday evening in the chapel there.

I've not heard of it happening that successfully in a parish context.

And for all the wonder and beauty of it, I'm not sure that in and of itself it contributes to the development of small groups in the way we've been discussing here. You don't necessarily have to stick around to talk, have a cuppa etc after compline.

This is helpful. Re Compline: I think the NOT sticking around to talk afterwords is the point. You go home to bed, and talk little if at all after. I sleep so nicely and well after Compline.

Thus, is part of a small group by definition that there must be talking/discussion? I think I have answered my question. (note to self: avoid small groups)

The cuppa part of this makes me also think about the development of friendship or other bonds amongst the people there. -- Further shuddering and running away. I'd rather do Compline and get the hell/heaven out the door!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair points, South Coast Kevin and no, I'm not suggesting that the only people that the Lord can guide are those who are formally connected in some way with one of the historic episcopal churches.

Having said that, I s'pose I have become somewhat 'Orthodox-lite' insofar as I'd be lying if I didn't say that I believe that there is less propensity for things to go pear-shaped the older and more venerable a tradition one finds oneself in.

Take a group like the Vineyard, for instance, your particular neck of the woods. Those aspects that I'd be most likely to affirm or commend would be where it's all congruent with the broader tradition. Where there were innovations or particularities or aspects that might be found among the Vineyard churches and not elsewhere - although I can't imagine what those aspects might be, but you get my drift - then I'd remain on my guard.

I don't know whether that makes sense.

I'd also suggest that God the Holy Spirit in guiding people in churches like the Vineyard would do so in accordance to revealed tradition elsewhere ... so I'd expect Him to guide Vineyarders and other new types back towards the ancient paths to some degree or other rather than off in completely new directions.

[Biased]

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there is a liveliness and apparent spontaneity about groups like the Vineyard that will take them a fair way around the track. But if it's depth and wisdom we're looking for then we're going to find that in the ancient wells.

That's not to say that we've all got to become RC or Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox - or Lutheran come to that - but it is to say that the shiny new groups need the older traditions. I'd also completely agree with Tom Smail (veteran charismatic renewalist from within the Reformed tradition) that we all need a whopping big elastic band around our waists to keep us secured to the main thrust of the Christian tradition.

That leaves us free to explore all manner of side alleys and so on but there's enough 'pull' in the elastic band to draw us back to the centre if we wander too far ...

[Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry no prophet, I missed your post ...

Yes, I agree that this is the point of Compline. Like you, after a Compline service I just want to go home and go to bed. It's like a spiritual night-cap. It somehow seems 'wrong' to chit-chat afterwards or turn on the telly ...

I wouldn't rule out small groups altogether. As I've said, I have a soft-spot for the way the RCs have a small lectio-divina group here and wish that the Anglicans hereabouts would do the same instead of holding their full-on evangelical style homegroups at the one parish or their apostate ( [Razz]

) and overly liberal Bible study group at the other ... [Biased]

I don't think I could be RC though and it meets during the day - when I'm supposed to working freelance.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Doesn't this follow Christ's example?

No. I really don't think that the way Christ communicated the gospel to his disciples was to ask them what they felt.

"From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.”. But He turned and said to Peter, “That's an interesting point of view Peter, tell me, what do you really feel should happen?"

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And yet Christianity in China flourished under the persecution of Mao's regime, when (so I've read) the missionaries returning after Mao's death expected to find very few Christians and churches.

I think you are in danger of making a virtue out of necessity here - one of the reasons for the spread of small groups was the various rules on how big regular meeting could grow to before it had to be registered.

I've talked to native Chinese and missionaries who had a view of how things were - and for every shining example of a house church, there were about 10 spreading confusion.

I think there are factors that make any organisation spread in certain circumstances, and we are too prone to looking at the christian organisations in that environment and claim miraculous growth when it is in fact down to more prosaic reasons.

Which isn't to say that the house church movement wasn't used by God, but it's telling that the native Chinese are kind of glad that they can - at least in some places - meet as a 'regular' church with ministers with some modicum of training.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry no prophet, I missed your post ...

Yes, I agree that this is the point of Compline. Like you, after a Compline service I just want to go home and go to bed. It's like a spiritual night-cap. It somehow seems 'wrong' to chit-chat afterwards or turn on the telly ...

Spiritual night-cap. That's a great memorable phrase!

quote:

I wouldn't rule out small groups altogether. As I've said, I have a soft-spot for the way the RCs have a small lectio-divina group here and wish that the Anglicans hereabouts would do the same instead of holding their full-on evangelical style homegroups at the one parish or their apostate ( ) and overly liberal Bible study group at the other ...

I don't think I could be RC though and it meets during the day - when I'm supposed to working freelance.

We had a lectio divina for lent one year. It seemed, as we had it (and I've no reference points for comparison), that it was an independent thing, with only guided discussion by the book we followed, thus avoiding a lot of the "my wonderful experience" talk or "listen to my great insight".

There's sort of a reverse intrusiveness with knowing too much of someone's goings on in church contexts (no, I don't know why God gave you haemorrhoids, have you asked Flax or Bran?).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, that's what I liked about the lectio-divina at our local RC's, no prophet. Little room for people to show off or to parade their piety or their Bible knowledge in public.

Man, did I enjoy doing that when I was back in my full-on charismatic phase ... [Roll Eyes]

I used to enjoy praying loud and enthusiastic prayers with a degree of 'hwyl'. Ok, that comes with the Welsh background to a certain extent but I had to remind myself of Christ's rebukes to the Pharisees at times ...

[Hot and Hormonal]

On the business about knowing about people's personal concerns and ailments. Yes, I think there can be a place for that, but it needs to be handled properly.

I won't go into detail but Mrs Gamaliel is due to have a reasonably serious operation next week - mercifully they appear to have 'got it' in time (let the reader understand).

A few people in church know but we haven't gone around broadcasting it. Mrs Gamaliel will talk about it if necessary but she's quite a private person and doesn't want it shouting from the house tops. She's not like me, I'm from South Wales so even if I stub my big toe the whole town gets to hear about it ... [Big Grin]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Having travelled up the candle, I've gone from a home group being the norm to only existing during Lent, and I do miss it. I love having a short homily on a Sunday, but would like more time to do Bible studies in a group during the week.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Doesn't this follow Christ's example?
No. I really don't think that the way Christ communicated the gospel to his disciples was to ask them what they felt.

"From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.”. But He turned and said to Peter, “That's an interesting point of view Peter, tell me, what do you really feel should happen?"

You've lost me. [Confused]

How does having 12 disciples who he encouraged to think equate to Jesus asking them what they felt?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd also suggest that God the Holy Spirit in guiding people in churches like the Vineyard would do so in accordance to revealed tradition elsewhere ... so I'd expect Him to guide Vineyarders and other new types back towards the ancient paths to some degree or other rather than off in completely new directions.

I do follow what you're saying here but there's a danger that this approach will miss it when God does a new thing among his people. I suppose there's a tension but also a complementarity between those (like you, I think) who tend to call God's people back to the traditions and the time-honoured ways; and those (like me) whose tendency is to explore new ways. Granted, those new ways might well be old ways rediscovered, which is where the two tendencies overlap!

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And yet Christianity in China flourished under the persecution of Mao's regime, when (so I've read) the missionaries returning after Mao's death expected to find very few Christians and churches.
I think you are in danger of making a virtue out of necessity here - one of the reasons for the spread of small groups was the various rules on how big regular meeting could grow to before it had to be registered.

I've talked to native Chinese and missionaries who had a view of how things were - and for every shining example of a house church, there were about 10 spreading confusion.

Sure, and it sounds like your knowledge of the Chinese house church movement is far more detailed and close to the source than mine. I was just saying that doctrinal variability and unorthodoxy is perhaps not as disastrous as some comments on this thread are suggesting.

I'll accept the argument that emphasising small groups and (especially) small house churches is likely to result in greater theological diversity. But ISTM that's a risk well worth taking if it's likely to result in greater spiritual vitality.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You've lost me.

How does having 12 disciples who he encouraged to think equate to Jesus asking them what they felt?

Because I don't think you can equate the average small group that you are describing to the way in which Jesus taught his disciples.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On the business about knowing about people's personal concerns and ailments. Yes, I think there can be a place for that, but it needs to be handled properly.

I won't go into detail but Mrs Gamaliel is due to have a reasonably serious operation next week - mercifully they appear to have 'got it' in time (let the reader understand).

A few people in church know but we haven't gone around broadcasting it. Mrs Gamaliel will talk about it if necessary but she's quite a private person and doesn't want it shouting from the house tops.

Oh shit!

A lady in the group which my wife and I run, another very private person, recently had an emergency double mastectomy, and refused to tell anyone in the church except the other members of the group.

FWIW, I will pray for Mrs G and for you.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks Kaplan, I appreciate your prayers.

The prognosis is quite good as it happens so, unless they discover something that didn't register on the scans when they come to do the op' on Wednesday it's highly unlikely that there'll be chemo', still less any radical surgery. We won't know for sure until Wednesday but everything seems to point to it being a fairly straightforward op' followed by radiotherapy.

@Jade Constable - yes, I can see how you would miss the regular small group studies. The RC lectio-divina group here meets all year round but I only tend to go during Lent but they've said I'm welcome to go back at any other time ... but it's a weekday morning thing and I tend to have freelance work on - although the level and intensity of that fluctuates.

@SCK - I'm not saying that unorthodoxy and doctrinal eccentricity means the end of the world as we know it - I do believe in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that he is perfectly capable of keeping things on track. But it requires a lot of work and intervention from those who have somehow kept themselves closer to the mainstream, as Chris Stiles identifies.

As the 'new thing' - what is this 'new thing'? We kept banging on and on and on about a 'new thing' back in the 1980s when I was involved with the restorationist house-church scene.

What is this 'new thing' or which you speak?

I know where it is ... it's always just that little bit beyond the horizon, it's always just around the corner ... it's always somewhere just beyond our reach but sufficiently close for the leaders to maintain the fiction that we are just about to get there or just about to achieve or attain.

'New thing' my elbow ...

Ask for the old paths ...

[Big Grin]

Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on :

If people think the "cell" model is littered with difficulty then google "G12 groups"

My take on small groups is pretty similar to my take on churches / denominations.

Get one led by a lovely person, containing a good mix of people, very hospitable, looking out for each other, going on the journey of life together then fair play to them.

Get one led by a power hungry nut job who just wants everyone to go their direction, a direction that happens to nurse their ego, and it's a disaster.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Matthias:
If people think the "cell" model is littered with difficulty then google "G12 groups"

Yeah, but that's just the cell model turned up to 11, with an admixture of the wrong sort of mysticism and the syncretism thrown in.

G12 took the nutjob model and franchised it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0