Small Groups

[prophet]

Why do you pretend this is different than with any other group? There is always someone looking to take over or fulfill some psychological need.

A pastor is an overseer, who ought to be able to protect the sheep.  The calling of "small group leader" (found in 2nd Nowhere Chapter Nothing) doesn't have the same promises attached to it.

This is really laughable.

The "overseer" of the Scripture "protected" a much larger group of sheep than the little church you attend. They "oversaw" the entire community. They didn't have to compete with other little "small groups".

In comparison. You have a "little small group". Its hilarious how you've found some a distinction between yourself and "other little small groups". Hilarious.

How many "churches" you have in your area?

A pastor oversees his flock, not the flock entrusted to other overseers.

Wrong.  Bishops oversee "His" flock.

 

[cave_dweller]

Why or why not?

I like big groups

 

[prophet]

Why or why not?

I like big groups

And I cannot lie... 8)

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yeah..... and that "flock" is defined by "who"?

The people who call him to care for their souls.

Wrong.  Bishops oversee "His" flock.

semantical gymnastics, and a distinction without a difference.

"Peter, feed my sheep".  Christ wasn't talking about Peter feeding multiple flocks, but the one entrusted to him. 

 

[prophet]

Yeah..... and that "flock" is defined by "who"?

The people who call him to care for their souls.

Wrong.  Bishops oversee "His" flock.

semantical gymnastics, and a distinction without a difference.

"Peter, feed my sheep".  Christ wasn't talking about Peter feeding multiple flocks, but the one entrusted to him.

Entrusted to them, not him.

 

[prophet]

Yeah..... and that "flock" is defined by "who"?

The people who call him to care for their souls.

Wrong.  Bishops oversee "His" flock.

semantical gymnastics, and a distinction without a difference.

"Peter, feed my sheep".  Christ wasn't talking about Peter feeding multiple flocks, but the one entrusted to him.

Seminole Antics...wha???

The flock is God's, and it has "overseers" (pl).

Act 20:17
17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1Ti 4:14
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Same overseers, same flock.

And Timothy was given a list of quals for adding more bishops to the Church at Ephesus.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]I shall henceforth endeavor to answer your question, with quotes from those who are somewhat more in-the-know....

When word gets out that something significant is going on in so-and-so's living room, you'll attract two kinds of people who can spell trouble: (1) those with emotional or psychological problems who see your group as a crisis intervention center, and (2) offbeat theological nomads looking for a group to take over.[/quote]

Regarding the first type, why shouldn't the visible, incarnate Body of Jesus be the place where broken, hurting people turn to for help? Seriously, the fact that you would imply we should turn them away is all kinds of messed up.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]A pastor is an overseer, who ought to be able to protect the sheep.  The calling of "small group leader" (found in 2nd Nowhere Chapter Nothing) doesn't have the same promises attached to it.[/quote]

What a strangely modern corporate church notion of "pastor". To use one counter-example, you are aware that men are called to be pastors to their families, no?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Yeah..... and that "flock" is defined by "who"?

The people who call him to care for their souls.

Wrong.  Bishops oversee "His" flock.

semantical gymnastics, and a distinction without a difference.

"Peter, feed my sheep".  Christ wasn't talking about Peter feeding multiple flocks, but the one entrusted to him.

Entrusted to them, not him.

Focus man, focus.  The point was that small groups offer the opportunity to rogue tomatos to start their own little self-appointed sects, without any oversight by a God-appointed overseer.  So whether you're in favor of an elder-rule congregational polity, or a single pastor (with assistants) is not the point.  The issue is that of those who would start small groups with the eventual intent of subverting and causing schism.

Regarding the first type, why shouldn't the visible, incarnate Body of Jesus be the place where broken, hurting people turn to for help? Seriously, the fact that you would imply we should turn them away is all kinds of messed up.

I never implied any such thing.  I simply answered subllibrm's request for potential pitfalls that may be inherent to small groups, and specifically I provided a response quoting somebody who has had experience in that arena. 

As to the matter of turning away people who need help, I think your analysis is a bit naive.  I don't think that a conscientious small group should turn away those that are broken, but the author of the quote's point was that one potential pitfall of the dynamic within small groups is to attract those who want to dominate the meeting by incessantly placing themselves and their felt-needs at the center of attention.  Eventually, (as was the author's point) a small group should be seeking not only to meet the needs of those in fellowship, but they should be equipping folk for service and outreach.

 

[prophet]

The Nicolaitan has schism to fear.

For the true worshippers,  there is faith.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The Nicolaitan has schism to fear.

The best you got is a slogan?

For the true worshippers,  there is faith.

David Koresh claimed to have faith.

 

[prophet]

The Nicolaitan has schism to fear.

The best you got is a slogan?

For the true worshippers,  there is faith.

David Koresh claimed to have faith.

Yes, Koresh did claim that.  And we'll never know, thanks to Janet Reno, what he really believed.

But, assuming he was a cult leader, he would be the Nicolaitan afraid of "differing opinions".

 

[ALAYMAN]

Today's answer for sub:

Unfortunately, when churches attempt to initiate a small group ministry, they sometimes fail to teach and persuate their people that the purpose of the meeting is to practice these biblical principles. The result is sometimes a wrong impression on the part of most participants. Members often feel that the meeting is primarily intended as a social gathering, a support group, or a place where “my needs can be met,” rather than “a place where I can develop a ministry.”

The first order of business in beginning this kind of ministry is to launch a teaching offensive in the church. The goal would be to establish an understanding and a vision of the New Testament model and the spiritual goals associated with lay mobilization in the minds of the participants.

 

[subllibrm]

I have found that the more I talk to people who disagree with me the more I learn about what I believe (and why) and it usually strengthens my faith.

A faith that is fearful of facing an alternate view is probably not faith at all.

 

[subllibrm]

Today's answer for sub:

Unfortunately, when churches attempt to initiate a small group ministry, they sometimes fail to teach and persuate their people that the purpose of the meeting is to practice these biblical principles. The result is sometimes a wrong impression on the part of most participants. Members often feel that the meeting is primarily intended as a social gathering, a support group, or a place where “my needs can be met,” rather than “a place where I can develop a ministry.”

The first order of business in beginning this kind of ministry is to launch a teaching offensive in the church. The goal would be to establish an understanding and a vision of the New Testament model and the spiritual goals associated with lay mobilization in the minds of the participants.

I addressed this point already. Training is critical. Review and oversight is critical. Evaluation (self/group/leadership)is critical. Selecting the correct people to lead is critical. Can they turn into the things warned of? Of course! Do they all? Of course not!.

And as to concern about the person in need of a place to exercise their drama queen urges; a good group leader (not unlike a good pastor) will keep that in check. If they don't know how they will seek out advice from those who do.

Again, the fear seems to be more based on a lack of trust in those who lead the groups. If the pastor(s) are training their people to do the work of the ministry properly this should not be an issue. In fact a small group would be the perfect training ground to develop those skills. Learning by doing is a great way to go. Experience is often the best teacher. I could throw in more bromides but this should be enough to get the point across.

BTW fear of failure is a pretty poor excuse to not do something.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I addressed this point already....

A) Don't shoot the messenger.  I was merely obliging your request for on-topic discussion from somebody's perspective (not mine) that has been there and got the T-shirt.

B) The highlighted in red portion is key to understanding the critique.  The author wasn't saying that small groups are ALWAYS bad.

C) The warnings were made so that those who engage in the small group paradigm would be educated as to what to watch out for.

D) As with many opinions, the author is giving anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[prophet]

I have found that the more I talk to people who disagree with me the more I learn about what I believe (and why) and it usually strengthens my faith.

A faith that is fearful of facing an alternate view is probably not faith at all.

This I must agree with^^^^^

 

[prophet]

I hate it when we fail to persuate!!!

 

[subllibrm]

I addressed this point already....

A) Don't shoot the messenger.  I was merely obliging your request for on-topic discussion from somebody's perspective (not mine) that has been there and got the T-shirt.

B) The highlighted in red portion is key to understanding the critique.  The author wasn't saying that small groups are ALWAYS bad.

C) The warnings were made so that those who engage in the small group paradigm would be educated as to what to watch out for.

D) As with many opinions, the author is giving anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it's worth.

I wasn't directing my response at you personally. More or less I was agreeing with the point and noting that our plan was built to address it as well as possible. It is the old failing to plan equals planning to fail dilemma.

The bigger problem IMO is that there are those who will see that warning and make it a "universal truth" to justify their position against small groups (again not you specifically). We have already seen it in earlier responses.

 

[ALAYMAN]

....The bigger problem IMO is that there are those who will see that warning and make it a "universal truth" to justify their position against small groups (again not you specifically). We have already seen it in earlier responses.

Yes, as is often the case, too many people make absolute judgments based on their biases and limited knowledge of situations, which is why Big Screen Projectors and technology of that sort is of da debil.







Today's answer/objection for sub:

The Bible teaches that spiritual criteria must be used to select leaders. The qualifications of a deacon (I Tim. 3:8-13) would serve well for the initial selection of leaders of home fellowship groups. Too often, however, the church will designate men and women for leadership on the basis of secular abilities, job status, levels of financial giving, or seniority in the church. The result is usually a meeting that is not very spiritually edifying or appealing.

And as you've already pointed out, *if* the leadership of church has done their job and trained/selected the small group leaders properly then this objection would essentially be null and void.  But to bring in a recent analogy that happened at my work, we had an <lazy> employee who was hired via phone interview make a major ethical lapse (that will likely cost him his job) on the job that will likely bring a stain on the group as a whole.  The company should have been more thorough in the interview process, and if they had done so, this incident might have been avoided by the weeding out that <should> naturally occurs in the interview process.  You can't ALWAYS prevent somebody from going rogue, but with due diligence much heartache can be saved.  The potential problem with small groups in regards to this objection, is that in haste to implement the small group model there may be a limited number of viable candidates, and in assessing the pool of potential leaders the church leadership needs to look a spiritual gifts, not just secular accomplishments.

 

[subllibrm]

....The bigger problem IMO is that there are those who will see that warning and make it a "universal truth" to justify their position against small groups (again not you specifically). We have already seen it in earlier responses.

Yes, as is often the case, too many people make absolute judgments based on their biases and limited knowledge of situations, which is why Big Screen Projectors and technology of that sort is of da debil.







Today's answer/objection for sub:

The Bible teaches that spiritual criteria must be used to select leaders. The qualifications of a deacon (I Tim. 3:8-13) would serve well for the initial selection of leaders of home fellowship groups. Too often, however, the church will designate men and women for leadership on the basis of secular abilities, job status, levels of financial giving, or seniority in the church. The result is usually a meeting that is not very spiritually edifying or appealing.

And as you've already pointed out, *if* the leadership of church has done their job and trained/selected the small group leaders properly then this objection would essentially be null and void.  But to bring in a recent analogy that happened at my work, we had an <lazy> employee who was hired via phone interview make a major ethical lapse (that will likely cost him his job) on the job that will likely bring a stain on the group as a whole.  The company should have been more thorough in the interview process, and if they had done so, this incident might have been avoided by the weeding out that <should> naturally occurs in the interview process.  You can't ALWAYS prevent somebody from going rogue, but with due diligence much heartache can be saved.  The potential problem with small groups in regards to this objection, is that in haste to implement the small group model there may be a limited number of viable candidates, and in assessing the pool of potential leaders the church leadership needs to look a spiritual gifts, not just secular accomplishments.

Nothing to disagree with here. 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.

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?