Archive for

November, 2013

...

Starting Small – The Ultimate Small Group Blueprint (an interview)

1 comment

My good friend Ben, a pastor who blogs over here, and who does weird things like sending me coffee, has just released a book! It’s a short and easy read full of wisdom. In it, Ben’s passion for small groups really shows and it made me realise just how powerful small groups can and should be. It’s also full of practical advice for  potential leaders and coordinators.

If you’re interested in buying this book (it is a bargain at $5.18 – just over £3!), follow this link – or go to the book’s website for more info and access to free bonus content.

StartingSmall_Cropped

Ben has been kind enough to answer some questions about his book and about small groups in general – here they are!

In the book, you give strategies to coordinate the launch of small groups and some tips for small groups themselves. Who’s the intended audience of the book? Small group leaders, or coordinators of lots of small groups at church level, or an altogether different group of people?

It’s all of the above. Really, it’s anyone who wants to improve the health and effectiveness of their small group, or their overall church’s strategy for launching, and sustaining, small group health. Small group leaders, small group pastors, lead pastors, education directors, and apprentice/not-yet leaders would benefit from it.

In one sentence, how do you want this book to impact its readers?

I want them to feel the weight of exhilarating possibility and responsibility placed on them by God to steward the gift of community.

How big/small can small groups be? What’s the magic number?

I don’t know if there’s a magic number that fits every person exactly. It kind of depends on what the group leader’s comfortable with. I find myself comfortable in a room of 18-22. Others find it hard to connect in a group larger than 12. My best guess is that there’s a happy medium between 12-18.
But we call a small group any group of 3 or more people that meets to study the Scriptures and seek God together

Deep relationships of mutual trust seem to be the staple of small groups. Should the seeds of that trust be present before the small group launches, or are they created in the small group?

I know it seems counterintuitive, but more often than not, the groups that start where everyone “knows” each other don’t tend to do as well as the groups that form with random people. There seems to be some sort of desperation present in groups of “random” folks that just isn’t there when people have known each other for longer periods before joining a group together.
Seeds of trust can be present. But they absolutely don’t have to be. Small groups create and nurture trust as people step out in faith and choose authenticity and vulnerability rather than masking their story, heartache, failures, and victories.

Why is it important for small groups to have a limited lifetime (you suggest a mix of 12-24 month alongside some shorter-term ones)?

Most group’s life cycle runs 12-18 months. After that time, a group is typically so comfortable together that it’s time to think critically about spinning out a few different groups.
A byproduct of healthy community is an inward focus. Which isn’t necessarily bad. But over time, this inward focus seems to dominate.
Take the example of the ingrown toe nail. At first, it doesn’t seem so bad. You may not even notice it. But give that toe nail a few months, and it starts to hurt. 6 months later, you’ve got to have surgery. But if you’d taken care of it the first time you noticed it, pain and frustration could’ve been avoided.
Groups naturally turn inwards. And that’s not a bad thing. But allowing that inwardness to dominate is where sickness comes in.

Are small groups only for people already attending church?

Absolutely not! Small groups are a fantastic way to reach out to your community. It’s a tougher sell to get someone to step a foot inside the walls of the church you attend…it’s much easier to get them to step into your home to eat a meal and discuss faith issues. Because you’ve built a relationship with them…and the Church has only corrupted their view of God. At least their public perception of the Church has done that.

How big are the churches you have worked in, and do you think your blueprint translates to smaller settings?

I’ve been on staff in churches that run 70 on Sunday mornings, that run 1500 on Sunday mornings, and that run 8000 on Sunday mornings. Small groups work at each church unbelievably effectively. Because as long as you have more than 2 people, you can have a small group!
Also, the early, New Testament church was historically a bunch of smaller house churches. Because of government restrictions (public martyrdom), it was difficult to have a huge mega church. But some how, they still found a way to, day by day, attend the temple courts and break bread in homes. (Acts 2:46) Through this, we’re told that God added to their number daily.
One group of 3 becomes a group of 6, if everyone invites one other person. Which becomes a group of 12 if that happens again. It’s exponential growth. You should know that, right? You’re a math nerd. :) [note to Ben: in proper English, it’s “maths”]

You keep on telling us that small group members shouldn’t be passive information-soakers – that we should “develop contributors, not customers”. How do we, practically, achieve that?

You start developing this culture through the leader. Instead of setting up leaders to be “teachers” in the sense that they’re the keepers of the information, and the one who answers all of the questions because they’re the “expert,” the leader should value group discussion and collaboration.
If the leader feels the need to be the first to answer every question, the first to say the “right” answer, and the first to come up with every “good” idea, your community will be a soaking, rather than a contributing, community.
I help leaders value varying gifts in their small group, and share the responsibility of leadership, rather than hoarding that gift. As they share responsibility, they help others take ownership.

I think you’ve missed out a great tool for fellowship-making: tea. How do you explain such an oversight?

Jesus drank coffee, not tea. Just read your Bible. It’s in there. :)

You mention small group series called “temple archaeology” and “42 weeks through the book of Esther” – these sound thrilling. Where can I find them?

I hope you can never, ever find them. Please, Lord Jesus, don’t let them ever hit the shelves. :) [note: readers, if you’re interested in those series, just tell me in a comment. No? Just me then?]

What makes small groups “unsafe”?

What’s “unsafe” about small groups? Your sin. Your comfort. Your “easy” life. Your “clean” life. Your “clean” hands. Not caring about people.
Small groups throw you right into the middle of real life ministry. And there’s nothing safe or easy about that.
But it’s so, so good.

Lessons from teaching: fairness

no comments

So I’ve now been teaching for a few months. I know, scary thought, right? And it is a steep learning curve, for sure – both in terms of actual teaching strategies and in terms of learning about human nature: children are much more direct and speak from the heart more easily than grown-ups. Here are a few things I gleaned while teaching.

lft-fairness

Photo: Wikimedia user Dmvward, under CC license

1. The potter/clay argument will only be grudgingly accepted. As a teacher, I am given full authority to give detention or extra work, etc.; and that authority is (mostly) accepted, but there are still claims that I’m being unfair.

2. Complete fairness requires complete knowledge. If I don’t know who was talking, or who threw a paper ball at me (oh, but I will find out), I am in no position to hand out detention for it. But what this also means is that I cannot be the judge of someone else’s fairness without having the same information that they have.

3. Rules are a good support for behavioural improvement. If students aren’t aware that they’re not meant to throw pens to each other, they will most likely do it at some point.

4. Equally, the absence of explicit rules is no excuse for all forms of misbehaviour: there is an intimate knowledge that some forms of behaviour (e.g., fighting, talking out loud, etc.) are not acceptable. Not being told about the specifics of these rules does not mean there should be no consequence to physical violence in the classroom.

5. As a figure of authority, I am expected to intervene and be the judge in all situations – even those I have nothing to do with (a previously allegedly stolen pen, for instance). There is a natural yearning for judgement

6. Forgiveness is an alien concept to the human mind. Especially when it concerns others. Students often think others should be punished (though they don’t always go to the lengths of telling on them) – after all, why should they put in the effort if others can cruise by? Yet even when it’s about themselves, rather than thinking they are forgiven, students think that they are being let off or that they just got lucky. While it is sometimes the case that I didn’t catch them misbehaving, there are clear cases of deliberate forgiveness.

7. People had rather everyone were punished than everyone be left off the hook. Some of my students have told me I was being too nice, including to them! Does that mean we are all deeply aware of our fallen nature?

Supernatural

no comments

The Bible is full of instances of the supernatural. Demons. Healings galore, talking donkeys, water turned into wine. Visions. Forgiveness of sins; lives turned around.

legion

Image: Wikimedia (Public domain)

You’ll note that I’ve included purely human events into the supernatural category. There is nothing natural about complete repentance (although we sometimes forget this and think we can repent in our own strength), yet in the case of Zacchaeus and of Paul, this happened both suddenly and in astonishing proportions. Yet we’re less uncomfortable with these events – we’re less uncomfortable with some types of healings, visions, and events affecting, primarily, humans. It isn’t because we are more familiar with ourselves – rather, it is because we do not know much, rationally, about our natural selves. It is easy, therefore, to treat any supernatural event as an unexplained natural event.

Common wisdom has it that where the territory of science progresses, the territory of faith regresses. This may be true of creation myths, but as far as supernatural events are concerned, the opposite is true. The more we know in science, the harder it is to consider that some of the miracles depicted in the Bible are not, actually, a consequence of natural coincidences. For instance, assuming the Legion episode was a case of epilepsy works only as long as we can imagine epilepsy has a carrier pathogen which can be transferred to the pig herd. Being kept in the dark allows us to accept the supernatural as part of the normal world order far more easily than knowing about it.

The vagueness that is prevalent in popular conceptions of mental health issues does not help. It is just as easy to dismiss an event as a consequence of psychological trouble as it is to dismiss it as a supernatural event. But whilst we can hope to be in control (through medical advances, for instance) of the former, the latter is, by definition, not controllable by natural means. So it’s unsettling. If we accept that there are supernatural events, it means that even our healthy selves can be affected by them. It means that we are no longer in control.

That loss of control – even though it was only an illusion in the first place! – is why I’m still fairly uncomfortable when the spiritual refuses to stay hemmed in to the spiritual and turns into supernatural events. I’m out of my depth when that happens. But rather than investigating it more deeply, I tend to either brush it under the carpet or leave it alone.

Discerning the supernatural from the troubling yet natural takes quite a bit of skill, I’m sure. But just as much as it can be disastrous to mistake the latter for the former, so can it be the other way around.

Yet I still feel uncomfortable even discussing these issues. I’m not sure that discomfort is a bad thing, but it should not keep me from envisaging the possibility of  supernatural (including demonic) activity. What do you think?

Evangelism is weird

8 comments

Most churches, now, have outreach activities. Some Christian bodies are geared uniquely towards evangelism, too. Alpha courses have grown in popularity, as have other introductory courses to the Christian faith.

weird-worldview

Photo: Chris Downer, re-used under CC License

Churches (and therefore Christians)  should grow in all three directions of the famous “in-up-out” triangle. Growing in community and being inwardly edified, worshipping up towards God and reaching out towards the NYCs (not-yet-Christians).

This approach, sadly, dissociates three essential parts of growth. Sure, we should have personal spiritual growth in order that we may reach out, etc. – but we sometimes forget that when we are reaching out, we are simultaneously growing inwardly. (And, yes, it is also simultaneously an act of worship – but the permeating nature of worship is not  the point of this post)

Alpha courses (and I’m taking this example because it’s the only one I roughly know of) have “facilitators”. Outreach events have speakers. And in the relationship between them and the seekers/recipients of the free beverage/food/whatever else, is akin to a teacher-student relationship. And as such, it leads to expectations that the teacher “knows it all”. In such events, the role of the “Christian” is to state and to answer, whilst the role of the NYC is limited to listening and asking questions which will find a rebuttal. Ironically, in such situations, the Christian is the one who is quick to speak and slow to listen.

All this leads to three undesirable effects:

1. It forces the creation of three rather artificial categories of people: the NYCs, the Christians, and the Christian leaders – i.e., those who have reached enough enlightenment to talk about their faith with others.

2. It discourages the less confident from participating in outreach activities. And when they do participate (out of a sense of oughtness, more likely than not) they put on a persona – because they are forcing themselves not only to do outreach, but also to be the type of people who do outreach: confident and knowledgeable.

3. It gives off the image of people who are sure of their entire worldview. Of course, being firm in the hope that is set before us – the hope of redemption and salvation – is great, and I’m sure it is the case for most, if not all, who get involved in any form of outreach. But do we have the same confidence in, say, the End Times? Hell? Predestination? Creation? Why the Psalmist is sometimes angry with God? The necessity of attending church? I know I don’t. Don’t get me wrong – I do have a bit of an idea about how to answer these questions; but I’m nowhere near as sure of them as I am of salvation.

Of course, it’s not deceitful to be ready to answer questions with our opinions on such matters. After all, we hold the views that we outline in our answers. But from the NYC’s perspective, it can be very off-putting: they are at a place where they are ready to re-evaluate their worldview. That is to say, their current metaphysical stance is shaky at best. And all we offer them, in appearance, is a pre-fabricated, solid, indigestible worldview. That can be appealing to some (although I believe it is a twisted perception, and it can be damaging to approach Christianity with such expectations); but, crucially, it can be threatening to others, and off-putting to many. Threatening, because it cannot possibly coexist, or draw on, the current worldview the NYC hasn’t quite brought himself to shed; off-putting, because how are people who have a fragile worldview meant to identify with people with an apparently solid one?

Evangelism is weird because, when I try to help people understand and embrace Christianity – and therefore me as a Christian – I pretend to be more confident of  my answers than I am. Evangelism is weird because when I should be celebrating the Truth, I bring other statements to the same level. Evangelism is weird especially when it fails to truly listen.