Last Friday a fascinating story was posted at UM Portal, “Going virtual: Building community through online small groups.” The article addresses many different aspects of the church’s witness through the internet. These issues, it seems to me, need more critical and careful discussion. I commend this article to you for its potential to stimulate a deeper conversation among United Methodists about what faithful ministry online looks like.

As I reread the article, I found myself a bit frustrated by how slippery of a term “small group” is. Unfortunately, the term is almost meaningless. When someone talks about a small group ministry the only thing that you can be relatively certain of is that it is a group that meets periodically that is relatively small. So, the agreed upon definition of a small group seems to be that it is a group that is small. Typically, the term “small groups” in a Christian context signifies two different types of groups: informational groups and transformational groups.

Informational groups focus on knowledge and the key question is: What do I need to know? They are curriculum driven (what book are we going to study?) and are led by an instructor. As a result, they are largely passive. The posture of those involved in informational groups is typically listening and responding to specific questions. Bible Studies are an example of this category.

Transformational groups focus on living faithfully and the key question is: How am I living? They are experience driven (how did you see God at work in your life over the past week?) and led by an exemplar (or spiritual director or mentor). As a result, they are more active than informational groups. The posture of those involved in transformational groups is typically thinking about life and the ways that we are being conformed to the image of God and the ways in which we are resisting God’s sanctifying grace. Accountability groups are an example of this category.

Often, a particular group does not fit entirely into either of these categories. A group may be primarily informational, but strives to connect the information to the person’s life. (In fact, I think most informational groups would say they want this to happen. I’m just not sure how effectively they accomplish this goal.) On the other hand, transformational groups may primarily focus on the lives of the participants, but still work in an informational component (such as a period of discussion of a passage from the Bible).

Small groups are in vogue in the 21st century United Methodist Church. But the desire of some churches to grow small group ministries has led to another category that is largely separated from the first two: affinity groups. For example, one church recently had a campaign for starting new small groups and one of the results was the organization of a “Red Hat Society” small group. To be sure, such a group meets the literal definition of a small group, it is a group and it is small. But does it represent part of the Christian ministry of the Church? I must admit, I don’t know much about Red Hat Societies. But, it is not immediately clear to me how such a group would help people learn or become more like Jesus Christ. Groups that are organized only in order to share similar interests seem to endorse a definition of small groups that is so broad it is meaningless, at least as a part of a conversation about the ministry of the Church of Jesus Christ.

The UMC’s Call to Action report has argued that the number of small groups is one of four key drivers to vitality. (You can download the research findings here.) On the one hand, it makes sense to me that the number of small groups would be a likely predictor of congregational vitality. On the other hand, it seems like more needs to be said about what kind of small groups lead to vitality. Do all groups that are small in the church actually lead to vitality? It seems to me that there is a distinction between a vitality that is related to the presence of people and a vitality that is related to people who are present and becoming more and more like Christ! In my view, an appropriate understanding of congregational vitality must be given appropriately Christian weight in defining what congregational vitality looks like. Put differently, is there a difference between a vital social organization and a vital Christian congregation? A congregation could very well be a vital social organization and not a vital congregation. It matters who is the focus of worship and how people are being formed.

So what is a small group? Perhaps a more helpful question is, what should be the definition of a small group? What do you think?

In a recent post, I wrestled with a quote from Dallas Willard that pointed to how easy it is to measure the effectiveness of ministry by the reactions that people have, rather than by trying to discern whether God delights in our work.

Since writing the post I have felt like I pointed to a legitimate concern, but failed to risk offering any thoughts about how to actually measure effective ministry. In response to the initial post, John Meunier wrote:

This is a huge theological issue, Kevin. All the forces in the world are lined up in favor of doing things to win the approval and praise of other people. I’m not sure how we help shelter pastors and churches from those forces and help them discern where they diverge from God’s purposes. But it is necessary.

Over the past few days, John’s comment has rattled around in my head. And I think the issue is broader than just whether a pastor primarily seeks to delight God or the folks in the pews with her sermon. For all who call themselves Christians, it is easier to seek the approval of others than God. Moreover, it is hard to measure whether God approves of our efforts. It is hard. But, as John said, “it is necessary.”

While, I suspect that faithful vibrant faith communities do typical grow, I am not convinced that growth is a guarantee of faithfulness and a seal of God’s approval. If growth in attendance were all that mattered, one of the most important aspects of church planting would be asking people what it would take for them to come to church for one hour a week, and then doing whatever that was. To push this to the point of the obviously ridiculous, you could grow a church by paying people to come for one hour a week. But no matter how large the church, a “congregation” of people who attend only because they are paid are employees, not Christians! And the growth of this “church” would not be a sign of a faithful or vibrant Christian community.

So if attendance is not enough, how do you measure faithful ministry?

Here are my initial (and very much continuing to develop) thoughts:

My first thought is that it isn’t easy, but I think I would know it when I see it.

Our lives, the churches we worship in, serve, and try to lead are all different. There are many things that they have in common. But, individual churches are more like snowflakes than cut-out cookies. So, it is difficult for me to describe in advance what faithfulness looks like. And yet, I still feel like it is readily recognizable.

Here is the most concrete thought I have had as I have thought about this post: church leaders who want to be faithful to God had better be people who rely on the means of grace. I know this sounds obvious. And yet, how many pastors really rely on prayer, searching the scriptures, communion, fasting, or Christian conferencing (searching conversation with fellow Christians) when making “real” decisions in ministry? If you are a pastor, think about a major decision you have recently made. How did you go about making the decision? What role did the means of grace play in actually making the decision? Were they of central importance, or peripheral – even nonexistent?

If John is right that, “All the forces in the world are lined up in favor of doing things to win the approval and praise of other people”, my guess is that the antidote is practicing the means of grace. I would go so far as to put it this way: If someone does not consistently practice the disciplines of prayer, searching the scriptures, communion, fasting, and Christian conferencing, we should expect their ministry to be realigned towards meeting the felt needs of the people in the pews, or to succumbing to the pressures of the world. On the other hand, I also think we should expect that someone who cultivates these Christian practices will become more sensitive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and able to make wise decisions as unexpected situations inevitably arise.

I admit this is basic. But is this where we are living? Are you practicing the means of grace? Are you seeking God and God’s will for your life? Am I? Perhaps this suggests a bit different call to action. Lord, help us seek and find you!

I am re-reading Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God (an excellent book, which I highly recommend). I read the following passage yesterday and it has really stuck with me:

Suppose I am a pastor. If, truly, God did nothing in my church service, or in response to my efforts in ministry, how much would it really matter if the people in attendance still thought and spoke well of things and returned for the next service and brought their friends? I may be tempted to think I have to attract people to hear me but could get by without God… Whatever our position in life, if our lives and works are to be of the kingdom of God, we must not have human approval as a primary or even major aim. (202)

Aren’t almost all of the ways that we talk about and measure our worship services focused on the reactions of people? We want people to like what they experienced so that they will come back and bring other people with them. A worship service that is increasing in attendance is vibrant and one that is decreasing in attendance is not. But this paradigm assumes that what attracts people is also what delights God. Is that necessarily the case?

In fact, isn’t it easy to think of examples of things that attract people that are not pleasing to God?

I suspect that one of the reasons we look for people to validate our ministries is because we can get direct feedback from people more easily than we can from the Triune God. Pastors often receive emails from parishioners about what they liked or did not like about worship. It is much less common for a pastor to receive a similar email from God.

Willard points to a serious critique of popular preaching that focuses on self-help tips or strategies for making your life better. The common element in this type of preaching is that the primary focus of the sermon is us. God is smuggled in to the extent that God can help us effectively address the problem under discussion. Please don’t misunderstand me, I think the gospel absolutely makes our lives better! However, self-help sermons usually implicitly assume that the gospel won’t change your life all that much, it will just tweak it and make it better. Such preaching can only be the result of a superficial reading of Scripture, and certainly isn’t based on the message of Jesus. The transformation the gospel offers is far deeper and more radical than sermons focused on life strategies and how to leverage the gospel for a better life.

Willard’s comments have stuck with me because it is clear to me that just because it is harder to discern whether God approves of our ministries does not mean that God’s disposition is any less important. I think we often measure the effectiveness of our ministries by other people because it is easier to get their reactions and feedback. But, if your reaction to my ministry becomes my primary concern, I run the risk of doing exactly what Willard points to – acting like my ministry is not dependent on God.

I think my friend beautifully summed up what is at stake when he responded to the quote from Willard with a passage from the Gospel of Matthew, “What good will it be for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul?” (Mt 16:26, TNIV)