Community Without Small Groups???
"Apart from small groups, is it possible for a church of 300+ to be united in purpose and so connected that all suffer/rejoice together and that all have "the same care for one another"?"
That's what one person asked in the comments thread to a post Matt Schmucker ordered me to write on technology and community. Speaking of Matt... it must be nice to sit around and listen to Sovereign Grace-produced T4G CDs and demand that other people do all the real posting! But I'm not bitter or anything.
The post on technology and community is here for any interested.
The question above is a good question, and it seems to be based on the premise "large is bad for community." At least there is the presumption that beyond certain membership limits, community simply cannot be meaningful. And so much of the writing on "community" carries this tone if not this explicit teaching. To have "community," we're told, we must have small clusters of people that really get to know one another.
But let's take the question in two parts and invite everyone to dive in on this.
1. Is it possible for a community of 300+ "to be united in purpose"? I'd say very definitely "yes." In fact, there are organizations and groups far larger than this that unite in purpose. We read of the early church: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts." (Acts 2:42-46a) We're talking a church of a few thousand at this point, certainly larger than 300. And they were united in purpose because they were united in the apostles' teaching. And they met together--not once a week--but every day in the temple courts!
We see other churches exhorted to the same like-mindedness (Phil. 2:2) and unity (Eph. 4:1-6). And praise the Lord, I think there are plenty of living and breathing examples of this kind of common cause among churches today. Many church leaders rather skillfully use their church's statement of faith, covenant, budgets, membership practices, and the Lord's Supper as means for cultivating common cause and unity.
2. Is it possible for a community of 300+ to be "so connected that all suffer/rejoice together and that all have "the same care for one another"?" Again, I would say "yes." That's the very thing that is so striking about 1 Cor. 12:24-25--"God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." This is God's work. "In fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be" (1 Cor. 12:18). The Father intentionally organizes the body in such a way as to: (a) rule out division in the body, and (b) promote equal concern between the parts. That's what it means to be the body. "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12). And this is God's work. The more I stare at 1 Cor. 12 the more enamored and awed I am of the church.
If we aren't doing this, we aren't being the body. But if we are doing this, God is wonderfully at work, and it probably means we're working very hard at it and that the "equal concern" isn't necessarily expressed in equivalent ways. In other words, "showing equal concern for each other" does not mean that 299 members provide precisely the same response with the 1 member suffering/rejoicing. There may be different responses and yet equal concern. And, I've seen this maintained in a congregation of 500. That congregation had an active small group ministry, and lots of good things happened in them. But the members owned the whole body, and the equal concern was expressed in things like the evening service, table fellowship (which we see in Acts 2:46b), individual acts of care and service, as well as coordinated acts of empathy and love. It takes all of that, but it's very doable with God's help and the blessing of His Spirit.
I'm convinced that one of the reasons our churches aren't as strong as we would hope is that so few Christians have actually had this experience in a local church and consequently so few expect to see it happen or to contribute to it happening.
Well, that's my quick two cents. Others??
I think you addressed two parts of the question, but may not have addressed the first clause, "apart from small groups." Was the original questioner asking if it was possible at all for a large number of people to enjoy deep care and unity, or if it was possible apart from small groups? I'm not so sure the questioner's premise was "large is bad for community." I think it was "large without small groups" might make community difficult or impossible or shallower than it could be. Perhaps the original questioner could clarify this.
Posted by: Dan | Nov 25, 2008 1:36:10 AM
I would love a follow-up post on the effect of a larger-sized congregation (300 and up) on the work of shepherding as an elder. It seems that there is almost no way around the fact that the larger you get, the more distance you have from the people. I think this is one of the biggest reasons that our pastors tend toward business models-- either wanting a big church, or having one and being forced to use these models. The larger you are, the more administration is required.
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Nov 25, 2008 9:17:09 AM
Original Questioner here.
First of all, thank you for addressing this, Thabiti. My original question was based on the "large is bad" notion. So, can larger bodies have genuine community without small groups? While small groups weren't particularly addressed, my question/concern was and the idea of large being bad was.
The key for me was when you said, "Many church leaders rather skillfully use their church's statement of faith, covenant, budgets, membership practices, and the Lord's Supper as means for cultivating common cause and unity."
In my context, these things aren't very prominent. American culture in general has gotten away from these essentials. I can see how church beliefs and membership practices could unite a larger body in all of its practices. In a "healthy church", maybe small groups wouldn't be necessary, though I think they'd come about naturally.
"The more I stare at 1 Cor. 12 the more enamored and awed I am of the church."
I'm with you, brother! It's amazing, and I think most of The Church is missing it.
Thanks for the helpful post.
Posted by: don gale | Nov 25, 2008 9:21:00 AM
I see your point, but aren't you blurring the distinction between the broader church universal and the local church manifestation? In other words, if I take your argument at face value there is no limit. 300+ - 3,000+ - 30,000+. I don't think the point is valid, but I'm willing to be directed. Your title obviously got me to read your post and wonder if there are better ways than small groups, and your point is that there is.
Posted by: Jon Wymer | Nov 25, 2008 9:32:32 AM
Thabiti,
Thanks for this insightful post. I would ask if there is room for the idea that small groups can be a valid means of fostering community. (Community, I'm assuming, means that we know those within our congregation well enough to perform the "one anothers" of Scripture-- loving one another, exhorting one another, bearing one another's burdens, et al.)
I understand that structures can be established in larger churches to allow members to get to know one another well enough to do this. But I also know of brothers who disdain the whole concept of small groups. However, couldn't small groups simply be an opportunity for "community" to take place? The early church often had house churches, and we have examples of specific smaller groups in Scripture gathering for specific prayer or teaching times (Acts 12:12, Acts 20:7). I guess the broader question is: are small groups Scripturally valid? Or, are they a modern aberration?
I ask this because I have been asked to lead small groups at times, and feel like it's a great opportunity to foster relationships with those within my congregation, and perhaps a great context for a non-pastor to disciple younger believers. However, I have been chided by some fellow Reformed folk for my willingness to do this; they see the Word and Sacrament as the primary means for Christian growth, and feel small groups have their roots in Rogerian psychotherapy rather than the Scriptures. Help!
-Phil
Posted by: phil simpson | Nov 25, 2008 10:27:51 AM
I don't think it's possible to have community without small(er) groups.
But, do those groups need to be "programmed" for lack of a better term. I find it difficult to imagine a healthy church with healthy community where small(er) groupings of Christians are not initiated, whether it is prayer groups, discipling groups, meals, game nights, etc.
The level of guidance by elders could be different: they could merely encourage and exemplify leadership in these small(er) groups, or they could give structure, but I'm almost certain they would occur.
Posted by: Andy Wayne | Nov 25, 2008 11:17:10 AM
I have been in many churchs when the number has exceeded 300 and without a smaller regular meeting of saints inside the fellowship,you end up as an attender. Simply shaking hands for two minutes after the opening song is no way to build true fellowship. Listening to the preaching and singing does not build fellowship to love or care for your brother beside you in a tangible way. I know that many may disagree with small groups but perhaps we do not need to jettison small groups but do better groups.
Posted by: mack | Nov 25, 2008 1:42:31 PM
I think small groups, especially the way they have come to be emphasized, have had just the opposite effect on "community". The fellowship of the whole has become lost or deemed less important than the community of the small group.
Personally, I think that many times the church is guilty of trying to create or force this sense of "community" upon its members artificially through small groups instead of building fellowship around all that we have in common in Christ and kingdom concerns.
In fact, I really struggle with this whole community concept/emphasis. The Scriptures never really talk about community, but fellowship and family. The Scriptures in Acts that Thabiti quoted, talked about sharing all things in common...fellowship/koinonia.We are the children of God, we have the same spiritual Father, and are joint-heirs with Christ the first born among many brethren. We all have a common identity in Christ because the Christ in one is the Christ in all, and we are all being conformed into the image of Christ. Paul and Peter address their letters to brethren, not community members. We have all been made partakers of the divine nature, and are members of one another; and are part of the body of Christ.
All of this denotes a shared relationship that is much deeper, richer, caring, forgiving, giving, helping, compassionate, loving, building, bearing, enduring, patient, and meaningful than merely being a member of a community.
I think this is one of those concepts that the church has been suckered into borrowing from the world that has taken our focus off of what we should really be working at building, something that we already all possess and are part of.
Posted by: Morris Brooks | Nov 26, 2008 2:00:06 AM
A Christ/gospel centered focus is the key to having a true biblical fellowship of 300+ people who are engaged in meaningful life changing relationships. It starts with the leadership who see how the Gospel/Christ is the motivation for everything. It starts in the pulpit where scripture is not exegeted for the sake of exegesis but scripture is used to exegete people. Without meaningful explanation of how the gospel addresses the struggles people face and the idols of the heart, it is no wonder there are superficial churches with superficial relationships and multitudes of hearers who do not change at the heart level for decades.
Small groups should not be replacements for the gospel but can be used to reinforce its importance in our lives. People need the practice of thinking biblically, serving one another, help encourage one another, and small groups can help with this, but as someone commented above, we already are connected through our union with Christ...so human relationships cannot be God substitutes to comfort our souls, and teaching these great doctrinal truths and how they relate to real life will develop a culture/mindset of fellowship/redemptive relationships in the church.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 26, 2008 5:38:23 PM
All churches have small groups. All large churches have small groups. They are called family.
Posted by: Larry Geiger | Nov 28, 2008 1:57:55 PM
I have served in churches of no more than 100, of churches in the 250-400 range, and am now at Grace Life Church with over 1000 active members and I can tell you that there is much more "unity of purpose" and accountability here than in any smaller church in which I have served--not even close.
It's not about size. It's about faithfulness to biblical principles.
Posted by: Thomas Clay | Dec 1, 2008 4:52:13 PM