Hey all... I'm sorting through something right now at Living Water as we proceed forward with small groups (called LIFE groups). I just did a brief post about some of the thoughts I have and would like to know what you think.
http://marcharvey.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-groups-closed-or-open.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
At NewPointe, we have found closed groups to be the most beneficial for many of the reasons that you stated in your blog.
The one area that closed groups puts a lot of pressure on is recruiting and training qualified small group leaders.
You will have a need to constantly have a stable of leaders ready to start a new group instead of incorportating new people into groups with already functioning leaders.
This leads to a completely separate blog.
Wow! This is one of those fundamental dilemmas. We are in the process of restructuring our groups and had to cross this bridge. We chose open groups.
The points that you made in your blog are valid and true. The defining factor for us was, when is the church the church? When are we actively engaging our world? It's not going to happen on Sunday mornings.
To successfully pull that off you need to mke it clear from the out set one of the values of the groups is multiplication. You preach that, you recognize and honor it when it happens and you hold your leaders accountable for it.
It's also hard to have closed groups in a mobile society like ours. A couple of departures could destroy a group.
Having argued the other side I really think both ways are very viable and it comes down to what are your values and goals for your groups and which method will get you there.
Great question.
We are just starting small groups and seem to go round and around on this specific issue! Each time we discuss it we end up with the thought of a compromise. Each group can determine whether they are open or closed.
For example, a group that is going through a tough issue for one of their members or in the midst of a study that wouldn't easily allow someone to jump in can hang their "close" sign. A group that has openings because members have moved or have a study that each lesson is free standing can identify themselves as "open".
We are looking at using Saddleback's model for group multiplication. They have campaigns periodically where everyone studies the same thing. They vigorously recruit new leaders from existing groups just to get things started. What they have found is that many of the leaders that have stepped out to start a new group during the campaign decide to stay with the new group. This seems to be less painful than scheduling times for groups to end/multiply.
We are still in the planning stages...so take my ideas for what they are worth. Once we start to implement them we may double back and try something different.
Post a Comment