Relationally Driven Discipling Small Groups: The ideal blend of functional structure and ministry

by Kenny Burchard ~ email me

The Tension Between Structure & Relationships

Christian Schwarz, in his 1998 pamphlet, The ABC’s of Natural Church Development asserts that “of all the…marks of growing churches, the…characteristic [of] ‘functional structures’ has emerged as the most controversial point” (p. 13).  He defines a functional structure as those which are “never an end in themselves but always only a means to an end” (p. 13).  In other words, if there is structure in a church, it must only exist to help the church to fulfill its stated purposes for existence.  If a structure does not accomplish this, it is not functional, and – according to Schwarz must either “change or [be] laid to rest” (p. 13).  Schwarz goes on to ask:

So where does the resistance against this principle come from?  Well, it is simply the result of the lifetime tendency of people to become more and more traditional.  Traditionalism means church forms have to stay the same way I have become used to them.  It is not by accident that traditionalism is a factor that shows one of the highest significant correlations with church growth (pp. 13-14).

Schwarz’s conclusion reinforces the idea that there is tension between the desire of some Christians to be traditional for tradition’s sake and a polar-opposite desire by other Christians to throw away any hint of tradition if it is perceived as having no practical purpose.  He essentially asserts that when churches resist or reject the need for more functional structures in favor of traditionalism, they begin to experience decline.  A good chunk of people in our church had seen this dynamic play out in former church experiences, which can account for some of the feelings and fears of some of the members of The Oasis Church when they first began.  As noted in the first post, some of them felt that the implementation of organizational structures, methods, and various types of formalization would necessarily lead to the decline – even the death of their newly-planted church.

The healthiest churches – no matter how large or small - have “Relational Small Groups”

Schwarz’s research on the subject of global church health – the largest and most comprehensive of its kind in church history; was gathered between 1994 to 1996 in over one thousand congregations on all five continents of the globe.  He concluded that the most enduring, most functional structure that contained the most elements of what he calls “the biblical concept of holism” is a “system of small groups where individual Christians can find intimate community, practical help, and intensive spiritual interaction” (p. 15).  He concludes that groups are healthy, or “holistic” when the people in them “do not only discuss Bible texts or listen to interesting explanations by experts, but they apply biblical insights to the everyday issues of the [group’s] participants” (p. 15).

The conclusion that holistic small groups, or “cell-groups” as they are often called, are the ideal blend of organization and relationship-orientation is not a new idea, and it is not unique to Schwarz’s research.  Author Charles P. Schmitt, in his book entitled Root Out of a Dry Ground: A History of the Church, traces what he calls “the decline of second-century Christianity” directly to the church’s departure from the dynamic expression of church life that was seen when the church saw itself as “an organism, carried along by the buoyant life of the Holy Spirit” (p. 19).  His assertion is that the church was struggling with the issues of structure, leadership, and relational-orientation as far back as the second century after the birth of the Church.  He writes:

It is…apparent to all church historians that a shift takes place in the government of the churches.  In the churches of the apostles spontaneity is the rule of the day.  The Church is an organism, carried along by the buoyant life of the Holy Spirit.  In the second century we notice a change.  The church becomes less an organism and more an organization.  Structure begins to replace spontaneity (p. 19).

Church history keeps repeating the message.  We should listen…

Schmidt’s observation reinforces what Schwarz asserts; namely that congregations naturally tend to become traditionalists over time.  Even as early as the second century, the church struggled to maintain the balance between structure for its own sake, and practical, functional structure and organization for the purpose of fulfilling the mission of the Church.  With this in mind, it is important to note that The Oasis Church, like all other congregations, faces a common trend that has affected churches for over 1800 years.

Nearly twenty years before Schwarz’s research and conclusions about church health as it relates to holistic small groups, Author Howard Snyder in his book The Problem of Wineskins (1979), called small groups “the basic structure of the church” (p. 139).  He writes in agreement with Schmidt’s historical observations when he states:

The small group was the basic unit of the church’s life during its first two centuries.  There were no church buildings then; Christians met almost exclusively in private homes (p. 139).

Stressing the vitality and strength that holistic small groups bring to a congregation, Snyder goes on to say:

Today the church needs to rediscover what the early Christians found; that small group meetings are something essential to Christian experience and growth; that the success of a church function is not measured by body count; that without the small group the church in urban society does not experience one of the most basic essentials of the gospel – true, rich, deep Christian soul-fellowship (p. 140).

Contrasting the small group’s structural and organizational strengths with today’s typical technocratic and programmatic structures, Snyder writes:

Most of today’s methods are too big, too slow and too organized, too inflexible, too expensive, and too professional ever to be truly dynamic in a fast-paced technological society.  If the contemporary church would shake loose from plant and program, from institutionalism and inflexibility, and would return to the dynamic of the early church, it must seriously and self-consciously build its ministry around the small group as a basic structure (p. 143).

Snyder concludes that although the early church is seen most vividly in the pages of scripture meeting from “house to house” (Acts 2:46), “The Bible does not prescribe any particular pattern of church organization.  But the practical necessities of our day suggest the need for small groups as basic to church structure” (p. 148).  In other words, the Bible nowhere commands congregations to meet in small groups.  But the obvious benefits seen in the book of Acts, as well as in present-day congregations who adopt a cell-based approach to organization reinforces the strength of this approach to congregational life over other types of organizational structures.

In his book Cell Groups and House Churches: What History Teaches Us, (2001) Peter Bunton, director of DOVE Christian Fellowship International in Europe (a network of cell churches and house churches in several European nations) explains that many Christian movements throughout church history have – though entrenched in traditionalist organizational structures, sought to establish small groups as a way to promote reformation.  He cites examples of small groups being a central force for change  in “the Reformation; Conventicles [as the] Puritan vision for small groups; the Reformed Churches; German Lutheranism; Radical Pietism; Anglican Religious Societies; The Company of the Blessed Sacrament [Roman Catholic]; the Moravians; and the Methodists” (pp. vii-viii).  Bunton points out several factors that have historically and typically motivated the establishment of small groups among Christians when he writes:

A number of motivations for the establishment of small groups are discernable in history [including] primitivism; the pursuit of personal and ethical holiness; ministry to those outside the group in spiritual and material need; and Church reform (pp. 78-79).

Did God “program” this tension and value in the the DNA of the Church?  If so, what might happen?

As noted in section two, Schmidt observed that congregations tend to become traditionalist over time.  This perspective uncovers an intrinsic weakness in the Church that can be observed throughout most of church history (macro level).  But it can also be observed on a congregational level in that most congregations tend to become traditional the longer they are in existence (micro level).  However, Bunton points out that it is also historically verifiable – especially since the days of the Reformation that Christians eventually tend to become weary of institutionalism and traditionalism for its own sake.  He asserts that Christians most often respond to their discontentment – not by forsaking the Church altogether, but by returning to the functional structure of small groups as a key to healthy reformation.  In Bunton’s historical research on the common motivations for throwing off rigid and traditionalized structures, and returning to a small-group-oriented structure, he writes: 

There was a desire to cut through traditions, formulae and all intervening ritual forms which hindered the believer from experiencing God for himself.  A return to the New Testament church, where it was believed that there were not such rituals, was an attempt to remove all such obstructions to God and thus open the way for personal and experiential relationship with God (p. 78).

These observations point to the possibility that an intrinsic and divine (i.e. “from God”) balancing mechanism may exist in the DNA of congregations of Christians.  On one hand, they will naturally seek ways to organize and create structures to get things done.  As we have seen, this must happen if a congregation intends to actually get anything done.  But if they are not careful, they will begin to serve the structures that they create.  As a corrective response to this imbalance, a discontentment with rigid traditionalism will tend to compel the congregation, or at least a cross-section of the congregation to throw off their loyalty to the institution that has emerged, and return to the simplicity of a relationally-driven small group approach to spiritual life. 

The analogy of a rubber band stretching and snapping back may help to illustrate these intrinsic responses.  As the church progresses through the years, they become tighter, more rigid, more inflexible, and more tensely formed by tradition, structure, formality, and ritual.  As a corrective response to the mounting tension, a “snapping back” to the relaxed, loose, flexible and pliable structure of small groups occurs to bring a sense of renewed spiritual vitality back into the congregation.

Authentic Discipling Relationships – The big reason we need small groups!

Proponents of relational structures in congregations stress the importance of what Author and Pastor Andy Stanley calls “the human craving for meaningful relationships” (Stanley, 2004, p. 24).  In his book Creating Community, Stanley uses a personal illustration to reinforce the idea that organizational structures must transcend church activities and programs, and enable congregations to carry out their objectives to address the real needs that people face in every-day life:

More than one third of our congregation is made up of single adults.  We host a weekly Bible study called 7:22, where more than twenty-five hundred college students and singles show up every Tuesday night.  While involved in this ministry, I served alongside some of the most amazing followers of Christ on the planet who were exploiting their current season of life for God’s purposes.  But it wasn’t rare for me to talk with some in this group who… though they were living in a large city, working at a successful company, and attending a large Bible study, they felt alone.  The volume of their acquaintances wasn’t the problem.  They were acquainted with many people, but they were known by none.  And this issue was not just the result of their marital status.  Many couples will tell you they experience the same thing.  Being married does not exempt someone from the emptiness associated with isolation.  We are a culture craving relationship.  In the midst of our crowded existence, many of us are living lonely lives.  We live and work in a sea of humanity, but we end up missing the benefits or regular, meaningful relationships (p. 24).

Stanley’s value for a primarily relationally-driven organizational structure led him to found North Point Ministries – a church of over 12,000 members that is completely organized around cell groups.  North Point cell groups meet in hundreds of private homes throughout the week, and then gather in mega-groups for Sunday morning celebration each weekend.  When speaking of the cell-based structure of North Point, Stanley comments:

The small-group program is not an appendage; it is not a program we tacked onto an existing structure.  The small group is part of our lifestyle.  We think groups.  We organize everything with groups in mind, and everything points to group life.  In many ways, group life drives what we do – and do not do – as an organization (p. 13).

It’s not “a program” – it’s “THE PROGRAM” – It’s what we do!

Like North Point Ministries, an ever-increasing number of churches are being founded with a cell-based organizational structure.  Still other churches that have had historically traditional or technocratic structures are intentionally shifting to cell-based structures.  One such church is the Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, Louisiana.  Author Billy Hornsby who serves at Bethany as the director of the Bethany Cell Church Network (BCCN) wrote a book entitled The Cell-Driven Church which chronicles Bethany’s transition from a program-based organizational structure to a primarily cell-based congregation.  Hornsby (2000) describes the church’s motivation for transitioning to a cell-based organizational structure when he writes:

Our Church already had small groups called “life groups,” which met monthly for fellowship and Bible study.  That was our way of satisfying the need of a few people in our congregation who felt the church was too large to enjoy real fellowship and who needed closer contact with other believers.  After much discussion concerning our structure and ministry, we realized that… the only way to make cell ministry work was for it to become the single task of the church (pp. 18-19). 

Hornsby concludes, like many other proponents of cell-based ministry, that it is not enough to add cell groups to an existing programmatic or traditional structure.  Citing the condition of his own congregation before implementing a cell-based structure, Hornsby writes:

Like most other churches, our church was divided into different programs with each staff member caring for his own area of responsibility.  The church had many parts, but these parts did not fit together.  Each program competed with the others for budget, volunteers, rooms, and attention from the pulpit.  No matter how hard we tired to network, we couldn’t seem to make the parts fit (p. 19). 

Bethany’s leadership team decided on the basis of their mission that the entire organizational structure of the church would need to be changed from one where people were typically hired to serve (and recruit others to volunteer to serve) the structure and programs of the church – to one where a structure was set in place to serve the relational and spiritual needs of the people.  It is possible to say that, in the case of Hornsby’s congregation – the name of the church stayed the same, but nearly everything else changed.  Hornsby reinforces this perspective when he writes: “

With the decision to become a pure cell church, we realized that we were eventually going to have to transition out of all our old programs (pp. 19-20).” 

If a structure serves no purpose other than to be served, NUKE THE STINKIN’ STRUCTURE, LIKE, YESTERDAY!

Hornsby’s story is a vivid example of how a congregation worked through the key idea in this post:  In specific, congregational leaders are responsible to create functional structures, organizations, and systems only insofar as they serve the needs of the congregation based on the stated mission of the congregation.  Hornsby’s church modeled what Schwarz earlier proposed:  namely, that if a structure does not accomplish this, it is not functional, and – according to Schwarz must either “change or [be] laid to rest” (Schwarz, 1998, p. 13).  In the case of Bethany World Prayer Center, they “laid to rest” every structure and program that did not fit with a cell-driven organizational structure.

The consensus among many proponents and practitioners of cell-based ministries is that groups must not become yet another program for the Church to add to its menu of activities.  The groups must be central to congregational life, and must be the central structure of the Church in order to protect against a congregation’s natural tendency to become program-based.  In order for the groups themselves to avoid developing unhealthy characteristics, Brian Sauder and Larry Krieder (2004) offer a list of what they call “three dozen mistakes to avoid in cell based ministry” (p. 64).  Their list of mistakes to avoid includes things like…

lack of clear leadership, lack of clear training for cell leaders and assistants, compromising the God-given vision of cell groups, forgetting to incorporate outreach and evangelism into the life of the group,  exalting a cell’s vision above Jesus, lack of group flexibility, over-structuring the cell group meeting, treating the cells as a program instead of as a primary functional structure, lack of pastoral care and regular contact with the cell leaders,  too much emphasis on the meeting and not enough emphasis on relationships,  failing to multiply the cells when they become too large, and lack of training about cell-based ministry for new believers and future leaders (pp. 66-67).   

A final warning – Even this “functional structure” can be corrupted, even though it is ideal.

It is obvious from the growing body of literature about cell-based ministry as a functional organizational structure for congregational life that although the structure is primarily relationship-driven, it requires leaders to ensure that the structure does not become unhealthy.  The reality is that there is no structure that cannot be degraded, corrupted, or misused in a congregation.  But cell-based organizational structures seem most suited to the needs of congregations who want to remain relationally-driven in their ministry activities while using organization to do the things that will enable them to fulfill their shared mission.