Michael Johnson

Re Talks too much:

I have found that what helps is to have a covenant that we read at the beginning of each meeting, just like recovery groups like AA and Alanon do. I find that small group members begin to self-police behavior since this is fresh in their mind each meeting. Someone might say, "oops I am talking too much, sorry about that." The covenant point I most like to use to keep people from overtalking is: "I will listen for God in each person’s reflections and stories, encouraging whenever I see the opportunity—prioritizing listening over talking"

Of course it is pretty difficult to implement this covenant if problems in a group have already developed--it will look like a back handed way to say something to a heavy talker.

The best time to start this with a small group is at the first meeting and then read the covenant at the beginning of every session together.

It works!

Re: Quiet Quint

I find splitting a group into smaller groups of three (triads) for the application portion of a study really works to get a more quiet person to talk some. Do this regularly and keep the triads with the same people and Quiet Quint will begin to trust the other two. It is easier to trust two, than ten and two of one's own gender--or at least I find it so.

I know of Shy Sally who never said a word in the small group of men and women but when the group moved into triads, she talked freely each time with the other women in her triad. It appears that she found it less intimidating.

I had an exceptionally shy man in one group I led. He was in my triad. It still was hard for him to talk in the triad--a man of very few words--but he did talk some and got very vulnerable with our other triad partner and me. One thing he told us was: "I learn best by listening. I hate it when small group leaders feel they have to get me to talk. I love listening to everyone else. I wish small groups would let me just listen." As a group leader I no longer spend time in the group wondering to myself how I can get him to talk. I now realize I can best serve him by allowing him to listen, guilt-free.

This is what works for me.

Your comment brings back good memories, Jeff. I was the director of the 4th Leadership Development Network 2000-2004, the Texas Leadership Development Network. We began with two sites and had three the last year. I know of six of those involved during those four years in full time ministry today. It would be interesting to know how many in all the LDNs that have been in existence are in full time ministry today.

It was great to see late bloomers who would not attend a formal theological education for whatever reason, still be able to get quality training for ministry.

I am sure you used the phrase for literary affect, brother but there is no shame on you in Christ.  Jesus Christ has taken away all shame and we can be glad for it :-)

Thank you Nathan for your concise summary. It is my experience that triads & quads and I expect focused huddles of 5-7 as well, are very helpful to move the many folk who are stuck at the good friends with Jesus stage of spiritual growth to the close friends of Jesus stage--moving the gospel more deeply to the heart, as well as the head.  Is that yours as well?

There is much wisdom here, Norm. 

"In my opinion, any planning effort, such as improving pastor/congregation relations or accepting recommendations from consultants, or even goals to increase the size of the fellowship, is a waste of time unless it is institutionalized into the structure of the church where a small standing committee has long term ownership and reports regularly to the then current Council." Edward, I think you are right on this. I have connected with a number of churches wanting change that will last a decade plus. Part of the solution I believe is something like you are suggesting.

Another helpful piece is someone outside the congregation who the congregation gives permission to prod them every couple years. When the immediacy of the problem wheres off we all tend to let our focus drift.

My wife and I were watching the show two nights after it aired. We were quite surprised by the first mention and then even more surprised by the second. And in the second they seemed to get the theology quite straight. Could one of the writers be of CRC background?

The second occasion, the character says something about we taking Scripture as authoritative when asked about a Leviticus text about homoxexual acts. That is a good representation of our view of Scripture. The character is then thrown a question about the next passage and stoning and again she responds with an answer that feels CRCish.

The first occasion is interesting.  The character of the lawyer asks her if she is a Christian and I believe her answer was "Yes, I am Christian Reformed."  Isn't that like us to see our identity as Christian Reformed before Christian.  At least that was what I picked up in my formative years in the CRC in the late 60s, 70s and 80s. Now that may not be true for all of us, as I hope it is not true for me today, but I suspect that part of the CRC culture has been that individuals define themselves first as Christian Reformed before they do as Christian.

Case in point:  I remember well while working on my M.Div. at CTS I was doing some hospital visit de-briefs with the chaplain at Holland Hospital who happened to be RCA. He challenged me re. pastoral identity that I need to see myself first and foremost "A minister of the word in church of Jesus Christ" and not "a minister of the word in the CRCNA." Notice that he did not say not to think of myself as the later, but the later must follow the former.  Somewhere in the last 22 years of ordination I have grown to the point of agreeing with him.

How about you? What do you think?

Thank you Dannell for sharing this. At CrossPoint you have done what most churches have not. You have created a unified and clear description and path of discipleship. It is very easy to understand and to understand where to go at Crosspoint to grow in one's next step with Jesus.

I would love to write a case study of CrossPoint some day. Have you all taken Reveal? It would be a helpful, statistically valid analysis of CrossPoint and to give a base to compare against fin the future to show amount of improvement--something for others interested in effective discipleship in the local congregation to see.

I realize that from one blog post I may not understand the whole picture. If I understand it correctly, I would challenge you to think more about the loving God with one's "mind" piece. I appreciate that you do not simply define mind as what one memorizes cognitively. Yet, loving with one's mind is more than becoming like Christ. It also contains the cognitive element. Various studies have shown that at least core theological beliefs such as God as a personal God and the authority of Scripture are an important part of a disciple's growth.

While you do not spell it out completely I expect that you would define "discipleship" as the act of growing greater/deeper one's love for God. If that is your definition of discipleship, I am not sure one can say worship and service each IS discipleship. They are each actions which are a result of one's growing deeper in love with Jesus--the result of discipleship. For some people service and/or worship are strong tools for growing as lovers of God. but not for everyone. We are each shaped differently and service for example is not as strong a discipler for some as it is for others.

All-in-all though this model is clear and easy for people to apply. Keep working it! Thank you for sharing.

A couple years ago I heard Greg Hawkins of Reveal fame when in my home city with "Reveal on the Road" reflect on his pre-reveal days as one of the designers of Willow Creeks whole move to be a church of small groups through a meta-church structure. In the 90s when Willow was knee deep in this model, I went to a small groups workshop  at Willow in which they described and taught their small groups method. They talked of being a church OF small groups, rather than a church WITH small groups.

Back to Greg in Houston a couple years ago. He made mention that small groups are important, but stated that at Willow they had expected small groups to carry more weight than they could possibly handle. If you are familiar with that approach to small groups you will remember that small groups were supposed to provide affinity, spiritual care, discipleship and service all within one group. A nice clean theory, but as Greg said, too much to expect of small groups. In my own church plant, as we tried to implement the model it seemed to continually fall down at the place where one or another person in our church structure was weak as a disciple.

It seems to me that back then we saw small groups as an end, because we assumed that with many in small groups and the right meta-model all that stuff would happen well, efficiently and effectively. But it may be much better to see small groups as a means/a method/an approach that can possibly do discipleship quite well. I wonder if in the end discipleship is not a better goal and we ask ourselves questions like what is best building disciples?  Small groups? something else?