Small Groups

by Mark Rooze

The first priority of the church body, when it is gathered together, is Lord's Day worship.

1. Morning worship
2. Catechism class (commonly called Sunday school, church training)
3. Afternoon meal with fathers training families and other godly activities
4. Evening worship, including the Lord's Supper

For the dedicated Christian, Lord's Day worship is the focus of the day. Therefore, we should NOT allow small groups to substitute for Evening worship. It's an illegitimate use.

On the other hand, small groups are probably more beneficial than midweek services, for which we have no Biblical mandate and which are generally poorly attended anyway.

Throughout church history, evangelical (using the term not as opposed to Reformed, but in the sense of concern for spreading the gospel) groups have often found small groups helpful, particularly when the church was in a state of decay. Small groups of dedicated believers have always sought the fellowship of those with similar dedication. Many early monastic orders were highly evangelical at their inception. During the Medieval period, the same could be said for the mendicant orders living communally in the cities, or the Brethren of the Common Life.

I personally believe the chief reason that the Reformers themselves did not have such groups is that it was still extremely expensive for each church member to have a Bible. However, a century later, as Lutheranism moved toward cold orthodoxy, the Pietist movement appeared. The true forerunners of the modern small group, Spener's collegia pietas, or "Conventicles," were probably a good thing.

They became a bad thing when Zinzendorf became leader of the Moravian Brethren at Herrnhut. Why did they become a bad thing? Essentially, because Zinzendorf was untrained in theology, despised it, and taught his followers to do the same. (By the way, some of the other abuses Zinzendorf introduced were hymn services, watchnight services at New Year's, and sunrise services at Easter.)

We should also be wary of untrained leadership. Not just anyone should lead a small group. The principle of 2 Tim. 2:2 should apply: small groups are training the next generation of the faithful, and the leaders should themselves be under close supervision of the pastor. Theological training is essential.

This suggests a structure:

1. The small groups themselves should be taught by the eldership of the church. Meeting place is comparatively inconsequential. Those who are gifted in service, mercy, and hospitality may host in their homes -- I would even argue that they should host -- but that does not make them teachers. The elders are those who are apt to teach.
2. The small group leaders themselves should be under the guidance of the pastor. The pastor cannot possibly take time to host all small groups themselves -- he should meet weekly with his own small group, the elders, and only monitor the other groups.

Got the program?

1. Pastor spends one night a week in small group with the elders. He also spends one night a week monitoring one of the other small groups taught by another elder. 2 nights a week (1 teaching) plus 2 sermons a week.
2. Elders spend one night a week in Bible study with the pastor, plus one night a week teaching a small group. 2 nights (1 teaching) plus one SS class a week.
3. Congregation members spend one night a week in small group study. Those gifted with hospitality should exercise their gifts as hosts.

Believe me, this is all the regularly scheduled church activity the church can bear over the long haul.

Elders won't meet with the pastor one night a week? Won't teach? Suggest elder emeritus status (retire 'em). If they don't believe they signed on for this, they never should have been elders anyway. Elders are to be apt to teach.

We should also consider how NOT to organize small groups.

1. Small groups should not be age-based. The Biblical model is family-based. The worst offender here is the youth group. A group of 20 teenagers, flowing pheromones, and one or two adults supervising, is asking for trouble. If you don't think so, visit the youth group of the nearest megachurch. What little Christianity you see will likely be hopelessly misplaced. If you see a "youth worship service," you'll most likely spend your time holding your ears to keep out the heresy. A smaller group will face the same problems, only on a smaller scale.

   I have no problem approving youth activities, but youth ministry is something different. Sure, the teenagers like youth ministries. They love to run wild. But that's an expression of their sin nature, not godliness.

   Older siblings (9-11) can care for younger children (the nursery). Children of about 12 can participate fully in the study if they're free of nursery duties. They're more intellectually capable than you imagine. Hey, they're doing algebra -- can you? So who says they can't handle adult Bible study?

2. Small groups should not be life-status based. No singles groups, no divorce-recovery groups, no single mother groups, no men's groups, no women's groups.
• Singles groups and divorce recovery groups are havens for adultery. Divorced people typically need to focus on caring for their children now that they're on their own. Typically, however, the church places them with the singles group, where they focus on finding their next ex-spouse instead. Here's a nasty statistic: no matter how long the separation before a divorce, if a new relationship begins before 2 years after the divorce, the chances of the second marriage also ending in divorce is 89%, regardless of religious affiliation. That is a sociological statistic, in which typically 10% of long range data is lost.

  Want to get singles together for an activity? Do it. Most will eventually marry, and those who do need Christian spouses. We should do everything we can as a church to make it happen. However, put them all together in a room, and they stop studying Scripture and start flirting. Separate the two activities, and the singles will be growing while waiting for Mr./Mrs. Right.

  What about the special needs of these groups? With all due respect, most of these "needs" are really strong emotions. The problem of a life-situation group is that is spends all its time focusing on those emotions instead of focusing on Christ. Putting them all together in a room will only increase the problem, not diminish it. Get their eyes on Christ, and they won't have time to wallow in their own pity-party. What problems remain after that, a caring member of the group will handle. And what problems remain after that, the elder of the group will handle. And what problems still remain after that, you will handle is counseling. But you'll only have the most serious, and the need for individual counseling will end much more quickly. Besides, you're on top of it all -- it'll come up in the pastor's weekly study with the elders.

  So what do you tell the single mother who wants you to start a divorce recovery group? Say "I know that you feel you need to be around people who share your problems right now. But, as lovingly as I can say this, that's not the real problem or the real solution. The problem is that you aren't following Col. 3:1-4, setting your mind on Christ. Failure to do that may (I can't guarantee it without talking to you about it further -- but may) be why you're in this mess. And whatever got you here, I can guarantee that it's the way out. The loneliness you feel, the emptiness you feel, are all made worse by focussing on them. Sitting around talking with other single mothers about your problems is the worst thing you can do. You shouldn't focus on your problems, and you can't purge them and leave an empty hole there. You need to replace them with Christ and thinking on him. This can be a tremendous time of growth for you. As for material needs, you'll find more help taking care of those youngsters from a married woman who has the time to help you than from another single mom who spends the day working. The only thing she can give you is the name of a day-care center. This is a better way all around. Why not give it a try?"

• Men's groups and Women's groups are a more sensitive issue. The Scripture says older men should teach younger men, and older women younger women. There should be some mechanism for this.

  Several years back now, David Hagopian and Douglas Wilson produced a critique of the Promise Keepers movement. Some of the problems they identified were the "Well, duh, now!" type -- what do you expect from mainstream evangelical / broadly ecumenical groups led by untrained men? Books filled with psychobabble, of course. No theology, of course. Given their background, Promise Keepers did more right than we ever should have expected. For that -- and that is a great deal -- I commend them. So did Hagopian and Wilson.

  Other critiques from Hagopian and Wilson were over the top. For instance, they criticized the song "A Few Good Men" as demeaning the office and activity of preaching. Pardon me, but the content of the lyrics made it clear that it took issue with manipulative orators. As a Calvinist, I agree with Bill Gaither here. Likewise, the authors were over the top on critiquing making a godly vow.

  But Hagopian and Wilson had two critiques which cut to the heart of the PK movement, which are inherent to its philosophy, and thus pose an insurmountable problem.

  • Promise Keepers suggests that men have problems relating to each other -- they are more tasked-based than relationship-based. The PK solution? Men should run their relationships more like women. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's a prescription for effeminacy.
  • Promise Keepers suggests that men, more than anything, need one person that they can tell everything to. The PK solution? Find another guy. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That's a prescription to end the family, not bring it together. Our key earthly relationship is to be our wives.

  I would suggest that if you have family-based groups, most desirable ministry will happen naturally, without a men's or women's program. Maybe add a once-a-month breakfast, and a once-a-year retreat, for each -- maybe not.

Materials

Ah. The problem. Most materials are so BAD! And you can't live on G.I. Williamson forever.

Actually, there are four levels of Bible study.

• Level Four: Study guides of books (or videos). Someone studied the Bible. That person wrote his study into a book. Someone else studied that book, and wrote a study guide. You study the study guide. Although this is the level of most church Bible studies, it's so far removed from the Scriptures, the class never hears God's voice.
• Level Three: Books (or videos). Someone studied the Bible. That person wrote his study into a book. You study his book. Better, but not much better than the above. This should be a leisure time activity, not pass for Bible study.
• Level Two. Guided study. Someone studied the Bible, but rather than writing a book, he wrote a study to guide you through his study of the Bible itself. The old format to do this was a catechism, with verse references printed out.

  The new format is something like the Navigators Design for Discipleship series. In my experience, this is the best way for new Christians to study the Bible, because

  1. it implicitly teaches them that the Bible contains the answers they seek, so they learn to trust it.
  2. it teaches them actual Bible content, so they learn the Word of God rather than the word of men.
  3. it teaches them a methodology they can use themselves later on by themselves.
  4. it avoids the theological pitfalls of neophytes before they have a systematic theology developed.

  Too bad the Navs don't have better theology. Good Augustinian ethics, but Baptist/neo-evangelical. Problem is, there's nothing in the Reformed World that's a direct comparison.

• Level One: the Believer, his Bible, and Bible study helps. You do your own study. Most church members never get here.

Until we get better more and better Reformed Bible studies on Level Two, we're in trouble. We do have some materials for specific topics, but nothing that takes a new Christian systematically through the basics.

What do you do for small groups in the meantime? I suggest making your own. Book studies are the easiest to do, although for the first year, a young Christian benefits more from topical studies. Front cover, an outline for the book. (First session, have them do their own, then give them the packet.) Questions divided by chapter: focus on observation, interpretation, correlation (cross referencing and systematics), and application.

Main rule for small group studies: If you don't do your study, you can't speak, you can only listen. That'll put an end to the "share your ignorance" that causes lack of growth in most small groups. Enforce this rule RIGIDLY, and groups will grow. Relax it, and you'll be no more effective than the charismatics down the block. Groups rise to the level of expectations that you set. I've led lay Bible studies where everyone brought a concordance, Vine's, and a commentary or two. No one ever told them to bring them to those things to the study -- they made their own decision that such was necessary to handle things accurately. Long before the study ever reached this level, I was mentioning the rule only once every six months. If you are firm in the beginning, the group will discipline violating members all by itself.

Unwritten rule: The leader recognizes speakers, and establishes the pace, and has the final word. You'll have to do this. When the discussion is good, let the group have it's head. When it's off track, end it quickly.

Will it work? I've seen it done. I've done it myself. It works beautifully.