Tags
In a previous post, I shared a few thoughts on Eddie Gibbs’ Churchmorph: How Megatrends Are Reshaping Christian Communities. Since finishing the book, I have continued to chew on two things, a profound insight and (at least to me) a glaring oversight. These two things are unrelated enough that I think they merit their own posts. So, in this post I will lift up the insight, and in the next I will mention what I think was overlooked.
The profound insight relates to small group dynamics and is found in the following passage:
Why does the typical suburban small group not establish a spiritual relational closeness to Christ when the home-atmosphere setting is conducive to fostering a corresponding social relational closeness? Those small groups that best facilitate both kinds of relational closeness to Christ are most likely to consist of individuals whose lives intersect during the week outside of church-related activities, and in which a high level of trust has developed, allowing members to let down their guards and remove their masks. Unfortunately, with many suburban small groups the same degree of disconnect from their wider social context is evident in their group as it is in the worship service and centralized program gatherings, and they do little to foster relational closeness. Although the group members are meeting in decentralized locations, they continue to perpetuate an inwardly focused mentality. (93-94)
The insight that I find profound is the focus on interaction outside of church-related activities as important to the success of small groups in enabling people to become more like Christ. To put this in United Methodist language, Gibbs seems to be arguing that small groups will be most effective in “making disciples of Jesus Christ” when they are intentionally structured so that members lives will intersect as frequently as possible.
This has some support in early Methodism. The first class meetings were divided up based on location. So, if you were in a class meeting in London in the early 1740s, the other people in the class would have been those Methodists who lived the closest to you. In other words, early Methodists were in classes with their neighbors.
I am not certain that Gibbs’ argument is correct. However, I think it is a very interesting hypothesis, and it seems that trying to bring people together who will be most likely to interact outside of the hour that they are together worshipping and the hour they are meeting in their small group would seem to have enormous potential for making it as likely as possible that the group would become a place where people “watch over one another in love” (to use Methodist language again).
What do you think? Does this seem like a helpful insight? What are the qualities that you have found to make a small group most likely to succeed in helping people to become more like Christ?
(In the next post I will talk about my biggest disappointment with Churchmorph and why it is a cause for concern for those in the Wesleyan tradition.)
Kevin M. Watson 
It might help to see where you disagree. I don’t have much experience in this (or, at least a wide variety of experience), but I have found what he says to be true.
I think the typical small group often lacks because it promises intimacy/accountability without providing the experiences that foster such ends. Like you said, the success of the early Methodist class meetings partially came from the layers of contact between members. And those multiple touches can not be easily replicated with a sign-up sheet in the church foyer. The Vineyard movement and the emerging church movement have tried to respond to this. However, there is a “clique factor” that comes with such efforts, and I think that’s the biggest area for concern, especially for evangelism and discipleship.
I think in Wesley’s day, and in the spread of Methodism across America, society as a whole was much more close knit. The folks in your class meeting were also the ones you farmed next to, saw in the market, went to other public events with (which were not many), as well as those you worshipped with. That helped layer the social interactions mentioned above. Maybe the question in our context is to ask not ‘How can we get people interacting outside church/small group?’ but “Where are people already interacting outside church/small group, and how can we meet them there?” Lunch breaks at work. Happy hour. Starbucks. Ball fields. etc.
I believe Christian discipleship requires conversion, conformity, brokenness, vulnerability, trust, time, transformation, and devotion. In a society that is hurried, busy, isolated, and self determining; intimacy is a challenge with our spouse let alone a neighbor, friend, or colleague. We have to slow down, deny self, prioritize, and forge intimacy through prayer.
True the 1800s were a time of more constrained time and space but we are all replicating community in different ways: blogs, forums, Facebook, bars, Sunday School classes, gyms, coffee houses, etc are all classified as third places where people build community and find people like them and make friends. Maybe small groups should form based on some of these places where people converge and find other like interest people.
Imagine the entire congregation filling your sanctuary both regular attendees as well as the people the congregants reach but may not have a church home.
Take away their identities because as a visitor you never met a single person prior but are charged with estimating mentally the strength and significance of variables matching your set of interests, life situation, and set of demographic characteristics. Each person whether they recognize or not constructs a different multiple regression function in their mind with a different set of variables they are looking for but the most common way of interpreting why people come together relates most to demographics.
Late to the discussion, I know, but I think it’s still worth saying: There is something very “organic” missing in our idea of small groups. It’s interesting that in other realms of life, we’re able to find close friends and develop close relationships naturally. Why do we struggle so in church life? I believe it has something to do with a misguided idea that a small group has to welcome anyone and everyone, and that they cannot be selective in the way they form. It’s simply unrealistic. The best small groups are always those that form “on the side”; as not an “official” ministry of the church. Our design often violates the real nature of relationships.