|
I wanted to get back to concepts of simple church on this blog, and ironically enough, two very different discussions on other blogs have afforded that opportunity. I already mentioned Raborn’s blog and the discussion that is taking place over there. That discussion continues to be very interesting. Today, I read a post on Cerulean Sanctum called The Small Group Boondoggle. In it, Dan Edelen, with whom I often find myself agreeing, writes about the apparent ineffectiveness of small group ministry in achieving any significant improvement in the Body of Christ. Dan writes: I certainly would not say that the Christian Church in America is more devout, more mission-minded, more prayerful, or more effective for Christ now than before the small group push started. If that’s true—and I’m sure most of you reading this will agree we’re not better off—how then can we insist that small groups will somehow turn the tide in the future if they’ve failed to do so thus far?
I do agree with this assessment, insofar as it can be applied to small group ministries within the institutional church. But here is where Dan commits an error in comparing apples to oranges. Dan uses the term “house church” interchangeably in his post and resulting comments with the term “small groups”. For example, in his opening paragraph, he writes: It’s hard to get away from the emphasis in some Christian circles on small groups. Just today, I was reading Brad Hightower’s excellent blog 21st Century Reformation and his post “Are the Popular Methods of Doing Church Working?” It’s a good question and good people are trying to answer it. Many of them are saying small groups are the answer, as does Brad. The bleeding edge of ecclesiology today runs red with the hope that house churches will be the salvation of the American Church.
I would challenge this lumping of small groups and house churches into the same category. There are some significant differences, and the comment thread over at Dan’s shows the confusion that results. Some of us are making comments based on house churches, and some are making comments based on small groups within a larger institution. As an example of how the institutional church often views small groups, let me point you to a church website. The church is called The Heartland Church, and is in Irving, TX. That church has what is called “L.I.F.E. Links”, which stands for “Learning In a Family Environment”. On the page describing these small groups, we find the following bullet points: - There is a discussion of the scriptures as they relate to life, yet this is not a Bible study.
- People pray for special needs, yet this is not a prayer meeting.
- Encouragement is given, yet this is not a support group.
- Everyone has a wonderful time, yet this is not just a social event.
- True friendships are developed, yet this is not a friendship club.
- God is present, yet this is not a church.
Notice all the “yet this is not” statements. Perhaps the most telling is the final bullet point. “God is present, yet this is not a church.” In other words, this small group is simply part of the bigger institution, not a “church”. This distinction is incredibly significant in discussions such as the one Dan is having on his blog. House churches are usually small groups, yes. But they consider themselves to be churches. They may be part of a network of house churches, but they are not part of an “institution” per se. They are autonomous in their structure and government. When we talk about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of small group ministries over the last 40+ years, I think it is very important to limit that to small group ministries within larger institutional churches. Frankly, I’m not positive that there has been a huge emphasis on house churches in America over the last 40 years to warrant any sweeping dismissal of the concept on the basis of “ineffectiveness”. But small group ministries, when they are but a “program” within a larger organization, have been quite popular for some time, and warrant a closer examination. I, personally, do not believe that small groups have created any lasting positive effect. I think that, unfortunately, they often are viewed as a means to an end, and that end is not always a positive one. I know that when I was in the ministry professionally, small groups were seen as the way to build a much larger church: a megachurch. Oh, sure, we used all the buzzwords about discipleship, accountability, etc., but I’m not convinced those were the real motives. Small groups were viewed as a funnel to get people to stay committed to the big organization. To the extent in which I view small group ministries in larger churches as being ineffective in the big scheme of things, I agree with Dan. However, I am withholding on applying that same criticism to house churches because I think the two models are significantly different. Until next time, steve 
Original content at: http://theologicalmusingsblog.com/2006/10/10/small-groups-and-house-church-not-the-same-thing/.
|
Articles, Media, and More 
Scott Bartchy is a radical. He believes in a subversive system that embraces those on the fringes of our society and seeks to establish a new way of life that goes against the status quo.