Unsolved Mystery
I have yet to decode the reasons why some small groups grow and exceed my expectations and why some die, and never work out. But I love small groups more than any other part of the church, because I believe it’s actually the church in action.
So I’ll keep working on decoding this mystery.
Related posts:
perhaps because small groups have just become another “thing”, and is a substitute for real intimacy – for some. Of course for the right types of people, this is exactly the perfect setting for really learning from/teaching each other
just my 2€
Some good points as usual Mike. I suppose I cant make everyone get along, but why do all of my small groups succeed,for instance, even though they’ve been totally different groups and ages and kinds of people?
I don’t say that proudly. There are several things I do that fail.
I think in order for a small group to thrive there has to be strong leadership. Marty you are strong in building relationships with people. I find this is key to the survival of a small group. If a leader is only interested in studying, and not in building up the personal relationships, a small group will have difficulty being successful in the sense of growing the church.
In the best interests of everyone, I just deleted what I thought was a funny yet snarky reply. didn’t want you to take it wrong! I think Joanna has a pretty good grasp of it. There is a balance that is hard to achieve. The motivation behind leadership must be solid and pure – not indistinct. So, when can I be the first to destroy your long record of Most Awesome Small Group? *dang, that snarkiness is sooo hard to confine! Just jokin’ Marty, just jokin!
The people coming in with their pre-conceived ideas is a good reason small groups die. You lay it out for them, what small groups are about, how FC does small groups, and then those people still ask months later, “I thought this was a Bible study. When are we going to pray all night long? When will we have fun and games? Oh, you are suppose to share in a small group setting?” Obviously none of those things are bad, but it is when they can’t let their “specific” idea they think a small group SHOULD be go, that they leave, or just come on a “when i fell like basis”.
And I also agree with Joanna. It would be good if the leader could build strong relationships. You can knit people together and then your group would have relationships to fall back on and most likely, that is when it would not fail. Who wants to leave people that know what is going on in your life, who pray for you, who serve with you, who are your friends, unconditionally?
It’s worthwhile to wonder about this. (In fact, it’s incredibly important to wonder about this.)
But I think there’s a limit to how far we should expect to get.
Consider a marriage. There are only 2 people. But when one fails, generally, we don’t truly understand why it did.
Now a small group: If it consists of 1o people, each of those people has a relationship with 9 other people. That means there are 90 different relationships going on within it. And that’s only if we count individual relationships among adult members. If we include kids, or the fact that sometimes we have seperate relationships with portions of a group (for example, I have one individual relationship with Marty, an individual relationship with Carrie, but also a relationship with them both as a married couple… in some ways 3 very distinct relationships) if we further consider that these relationships are compounded by hierarchy– sometimes we relate as leader-member other times just as 2 people– by the time we’re done, there are actually hundreds of relationships occuring within the confines of one small group.
With all these dynamic, sometimes ineffiable, always flawed and human relationships zipping around, it’s something of a miracle that they ever get off the ground at all.
Again, I don’t say this to discount the importance of questioning why it happens. I just think we ought to be aware of what a very complicated thing it is.
This is a great discussion. You’ve all given me a lot to chew on. Keep it coming!
It would actually be 9! relationships, which is 45. That is half as complicated!!
And I think the reason Marty is so great at it is because he understand factorials.
Actually, Darren, I don’t think so. For 2 different reasons:
I think 9! (or 9 factorial) is 9 X 8 X 7 X 6 X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2, which is much larger than 45; I don’t know what the name is for adding (not multiplying) a descending series of numbers.
It seems like the idea that you’re trying to get at, though, is that once you’ve accounted for a relationship in one direction you can check it off the list.
For example, lets suppose just you, me, Mike Burns, and Marty are in a small group together.
I wonder if you’re suggesting that in counting up all the interrelationships I have, which is 3 (I have one relationship with you, one with Mike, and one with Marty) if we added this to the number of relationships you have, I can see how somebody might say we only have to count your relationships with Mike and Marty, because we already counted the relationship between you and me. And then, when we get to Burns, we only have to count 1 relationship, because the only one that we haven’t yet counted is Mike’s and Marty. By one way of looking at it, this group has 4 + 3 + 2 relationships. Similarly by one way of looking at it, a group of 10 people has 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 relationships. This as you say, does equal 45.
I hadn’t thought about that… However, there’s a sense in which the 90 number still holds. I don’t know exactly how to say this except to say that one dynamic in a small group is how you feel about and treat me. It’s a seperate question, however, how I feel about you. It makes some sense to count these at two seperate things. Is it a wierd mathematical accident that 9 X 10 (my original calculation) and doubling your number (of 45) both equal 90?
This is the most math geeky couple paragraphs I have ever written, but I’m curious if I’m right on factorials (that you multiply, not add them) and if it’s a coincidence that both numbers equalled 90.
And I suppose by my rationalization, a marriage then really consists of 2 relationships, not one, in that the feelings and actions of the wife toward the husband are different than the feelings and actions of the husband toward the wife.
However, we could further muddy these waters by reflecting on the idea that within a small group, the relationship between each person and God is also a factor to be reckoned with. If we wanted to get silly, we could even contemplate the idea that we each have a somewhat distinct relationship with each member of the trinity…
You are right. I forgot what factorials were, which probabaly means I would suck at leading a small group.
Also, I had in the back of my mind that you might bring up the whole ‘mike’s relationship with geoff is not the same as geoff’s relationship with mike’. You know what you could do!! Draw a ven diagram of the relationship where both sides overlap and where each person has a different understanding or interaction with the ‘relationship as a whole’. That way you could count fractions of relationships also.
And each person also has a relationship with their mother that needs to be taken into account.
I actually laughed outloud at your response Darren. I don’t know if that means you’re funny or if it simply means I’m a nerd. Perhaps a bit of both.
I’ve been thinking about this concept for a few days now, and after talking it over with a few people here’s what we’ve come up with.
Some the main components that need to be addressed in a small group (or, for lack of a better term, mini-church) are worship, teaching, pastoral care, communication, and hospitality. Ray and I are currently leading a small group here in NY. We have a women who is a strong musician and heads up worship for us. Ray and I are in charge of communication, teaching/pastoral care, and hospitality. Ray and I have found that we are gifted in the hospitality and pastoral care areas, but are not as strong in the communication and teaching areas.We find that our group does not thrive when all of these areas are not addressed. Therefore, we have decided to combine with another small group within the church that are thriving in areas where we are lacking, and vice versa. Perhaps, this go around, we will be a more successful group when each area, communication, pastoral care, hospitality, teaching and worship, are all addressed by those who are gifted in each area respectively. Just working through the thought process, and would love some feedback.