Small Groups

[ALAYMAN]

Nothing to disagree with here.

That's unfortunate, you tool!

I should note that the bolded did jump out at me. This admonition would hold true to just about anything a church tried to start up from nothing. Try haste in a building program. Calling a new pastor. And so on.

Absolutely.  And you covered this early in the thread.  When things are done wrong and result in bad consequences we shouldn't say that thing is useless, but rather we ought to look at the thing's implementation. 

Having said that, I get the feeling that the author of the article is hinting at the notion that by its very nature the small group paradigm is succeptible to these pitfalls.  So that you can interpret that for yourself, I'll link the article(s) eventually.  There were lots of good feedback in the comments section (both critiquing his analysis, and supporting his view).

Now I have a question for you. You title this "answer/objection". Are you truly objecting or noting risks? I have addressed the risks and have not disagreed with the examples you have shared. So what are the "objections" if there are any? Or is just that you feel that there is too much risk to overcome and therefor the baby must go out with the bathwater? 

The last sentence probably characterizes the author of the quote's view.  My part in posting is just to accomodate your request to supply warnings/objections and thereby stimulate legitimate conversation that is on-topic.  My opinion, which is pretty academic and devoid of experience, is that small groups are worthwhile if handled properly.

 

[subllibrm]

Nothing to disagree with here.

That's unfortunate, you tool!

I should note that the bolded did jump out at me. This admonition would hold true to just about anything a church tried to start up from nothing. Try haste in a building program. Calling a new pastor. And so on.

Absolutely.  And you covered this early in the thread.  When things are done wrong and result in bad consequences we shouldn't say that thing is useless, but rather we ought to look at the thing's implementation. 

Having said that, I get the feeling that the author of the article is hinting at the notion that by its very nature the small group paradigm is succeptible to these pitfalls.  So that you can interpret that for yourself, I'll link the article(s) eventually.  There were lots of good feedback in the comments section (both critiquing his analysis, and supporting his view).

Now I have a question for you. You title this "answer/objection". Are you truly objecting or noting risks? I have addressed the risks and have not disagreed with the examples you have shared. So what are the "objections" if there are any? Or is just that you feel that there is too much risk to overcome and therefor the baby must go out with the bathwater? 

The last sentence probably characterizes the author of the quote's view.  My part in posting is just to accomodate your request to supply warnings/objections and thereby stimulate legitimate conversation that is on-topic.  My opinion, which is pretty academic and devoid of experience, is that small groups are worthwhile if handled properly.

Well now ya dun went and ruined all the fun! 






























;D