Allen Kleine Deters

I get that and I think your point was clearly made early on.  And I have no problem with dissenting dialogue, but that issue won't get resolved here but has been highlighted. Points were made and stated and it looked as if it may continue becoming circular or ad hominem in nature.

"2. Don't fix what ain't broke --> usually, established churches already have men's groups, women's groups, bible studies, prayer groups, etc. Instead of replacing those for people, recognize that they work and grandfather them into the small group structure. Start calling all your bible studies small groups; call your worship teams small groups; then encourage them to act like small groups and work unconnected people into new groups.

What's your take on this?"

I don't think this is valid at all. Just the amount of groups you've listed show that the church is just too busy for small groups to be effective.

We've begun a visioning process here and already we are looking at how to simplify to make disciples. I am convinced that many church systems inherently keep people from actually becoming disciples even though they have lots of what they call disipleship ministries.

I think we talked about this during our coaching times, that churches need to have a structure for growing disciples that actually works. Business kills it. If the small group doesn't take you to deeper personal application and hold you accountable to these new commitments then chuck 'em. Keep it simple so people can actually be involved without feeling guilty.

You know what I mean?

Chad,

I really believe it starts with the vision and purpose of the groups set forth by the leadership. If they are just another program of many, then I think it will be difficult to form any real depth because people are thinking programatic and since no other program gets deep, why should small groups.

I found that in an established church the statement has to be made that this is going to be something really different than they are used to; it's about accountability and growing spiritually not just in more knowledge. I tell them that it is not going to be a Bible study, but where real transformation happens; be ready to be uncomfortable, but if you desire to grow as a disciple then stick with it.

The vision of what they are supposed to be must be absolutely clear. I've even told people in a previous church that they may not turn it into a Bible study where no one gets real. I'm a hard ass sometimes.

Then you have to spend a lot of time with your leaders training them what it means to lead such a group. There is some great stuff out there especially on smallgrouptrader.com (FREE) and smallgroups.com (worth the $99). Then coaching them while their dealing with this new phenomenon they've never encountered before is essential. Otherwise they will not have the vision, will become discouraged and momentum will slow.

Developmentally it is hard for groups to become immediately transparent. It's always a process that must be nurtured and sometimes people need to be challenged along the way. Leaders need to learn to ask the right questions that don't leave people safe. And they lead the way in being vulnerable.

I have found that accountability groups can work if the people are committed to it. I started one with some guys that is still going strong. But it is only 4 for good reason. If it's a moral compass kind of group then small is better.

Our sermon-based small groups are the best I've seen as far as taking the application to heart. As I'm writing the sermon, I know what questions I want the groups to talk about. I know where the folks are at and what stuff they struggle with so I'm able to formulate the questions to be very personal. Often each group member sets a goal for the week in relation to the questions and they follow up the next week. Some leaders even started calling their people during the week to see how things were going.

The groups also commit to doing mission together in the community with their families. That has really deepened the group as they serve and debrief.

Oh no, don't get me wrong I would never be a wrecking ball guy. My "chuck 'em" comment may have been a bit too harsh. But I would make sure that any new group started would be discipleship, missional focused. The problem I have found in almost every established church I've consulted with or have talked with leaders there is extremely poor coaching, training or none at all. People become disenfranchised with church programs and especially small groups because of it.

The CRC suggested the Principle Based small group model for years, which has turned out to be a big problem especially when leaders are not coached or trained effectively to make sure people are moving forward to something deeper. The idea was that these groups would intentionally direct people toward a deeper group, IE. someone from a scrapbooking group would eventually join a women's bible study or join a care/share small group with their spouse. It rarely if ever happened and most of these groups really just functioned as clubs.

While you cannot force people into something deeper, with guided intentionality you are more apt to turn the ship a little quicker. I think another fair point in this discussion is to say that when the leadership is making the vision clear and living it, people begin to see that the little group/club they are doing just doesn't fit and perhaps there is something of value to a different approach. But if you have neither clear communicated vision of mission and ministry and the church leadership is not on board and you don't have effectively trained and coached small group leaders, you're sunk.

I think it's fair the choose as a small group focus to be more intentional with new groups you are starting, encourage the other existing ones to jump on board and see where things fall. My experience has shown that eventually the new focused caring and missional groups will win out because their value rises far above the rest; people begin to hear about it and want it. Of course there will be some groups that have existed since the inception of the church that will never die and that's okay, it may be part of their identity as a congregation. That's fine, but I don't think the church should put a lot of time and energy in that direction.

I think we pander people in the church way too much thus enabling them not to grow toward discipleship and are startled when we challenge them toward it.

I would agree with that Neil,

Our elders could use some real help with initiating tough conversations as well as how to be a good listener. We have all male elders at this time and I could see the benefit of topics dealing with being sensitive and not so much giving advice.

I see the value in it. I'd participate. I'm fortunate to have a professional graphics designer who does amazing work on our powerpoint slides for our sermon series'.

I think we should be shouting that God loves people.  I'm afraid that the focus of egalitarianism is side-tracking any discussion regarding the quality and content of the curriculum that others -- as have been vocal here -- have appreciated, both male and female.  To dismiss a curriculum strictly on the title being perhaps "outdated" would be a grave misfortune and perhaps suggesting one's own passionate agenda is more important than the value in the progam and the main point; discipling others into a closer walk with Christ and thus reaching others for the kingdom.

While I agree words are important and how we use language, the nature of this thread is in regard to the content of the curriculum and not "words" per se.  I believe the discussion on the use of language in our denomination belongs somewhere else on the Network but not this particular thread.  It is becoming clear that that discussion is not going to be resolved here.  And as the current guide I do not want the thread to stray from its intent.

Paul,

I'm curious what you thought of the Science and Theology class we took at seminary.  I believe we were in that one together.

BTW, I think you could also easily hypothesise that God could have taken as long as he wanted to create the earth fully sustainable before he decided to make Adam in an instant fully mature and able to reason and survive the elements that God may have created over a very long time.  Again it does not limit his power by any means.