« What role will the lead pastor play? | Main | Church in crisis part 1 »
How will your groups grow and multiply?
By elaineb | September 7, 2008
This question has a related question of finding and training new leaders, which will be the topic of our next post. For now, it would be helpful to discuss the different models for small groups out there.
There are four basic models: multiply, grow & multiply, G-12, pioneering.
The multiply model starts with a core group of 8-12 people and sets a date for “multiplication,” or splitting into two groups. So I would start a group with 10 other people and plan to keep the group going for 18 months. During those 18 months, I would train a new leader, and after 18 months, half the group would go with the new leader and the other half would stay with me. Then the 2 smaller groups would be free to grow and incorporate new people. The advantage is that this is very intentional with new leader development and can help prevent long-standing cliques forming. The disadvantage is that it’s very rigid and structured.
Then there’s the grow and multiply. In this model, you start with a core group and when the group has 12 to 16 people, you split into 2 groups. You still intentionally train a new leader so that when your group has grown, there is a leader for them. The advantage of this is that it’s good for quickly growing groups and allows communities to remain intimate. It is also intentional about new leader training. The disadvantage is that the split can be emotionally difficult and become a popularity contest.
The G-12 model works well in a church where people tend to stay for many years. In this model, groups never multiply. Instead, a group of 12 people meet together for an indefinite amount of time. The leader of the group is training all the members in leadership. As group members become ready, they start their own small group without leaving their original group. Eventually, all 12 members are leading their own 12 member groups. This allows for multiplication without any disruption to the original community groups, as well as intentional leader training. The advantage to this is that you can build incredibly deep and rich relationships within each long-standing group, as well as continue to develop new leaders as they lead (rather than simply letting them go into leadership “on their own”). The disadvantage is that each person will be involved in 2 groups during the week, and cliques could easily form.
Pioneering is a model in which numbers are secondary to interests. This can be considered a “free market” model where standards for leadership are much lower. A leader gets 2 or 3 people to join them on a regular basis pursuing a common interest. Sharing prayer requests and praying together provides the spiritual bond, but the interest provides the rest of the activity. So you could have a C.S. Lewis book club, where all the members read C.S. Lewis books and discuss them monthly. Another group could be a knitting club, where members knit together weekly and pray together at the end of the night. Each group is not responsible for covering all the Pathways: instead the groups cover portions of individual Pathways. The advantage of this is that it provides low-level leadership training: people who are good at sign language but have little Bible knowledge can lead a group, giving them leadership experience and time to study the Bible more deeply. It also can prevent cliques, as people form and re-form in different groups fluidly over the years. The disadvantage to this model is that it can become chaotic, and leadership training is less intentional.
The church I attended in DC followed both the grow & multiply and the pioneering models. It was a good combination for that church, which was highly transient and very young. What do you think would be a good model for Evergreen?
Topics: Uncategorized |
September 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Both Grow&Multiply and Pioneering would, in fact, be good for ECC. I don’t believe you can have any group of people together for so many years without cliques and, well the opposite, happening - as we have now.
Elders - what are the qualifications you have for a journey group leader?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Yeah - uh - here’s what I think, since you asked for provocative comments. Models with names like G-12 make me queasy. I wasn’t aware that the journey group’s prime directive is to be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps we should order some tracts and start going door-to-door to preach the bad news of how sinful all the people not in the group must be.
In my view, laying these plans with the stated goal of expanding exponentially puts pressure on everyone to proselytize. I believe that the Evergreen community is a refuge for those who fear misguided evangelism. It is a somewhat fragile oasis where people recuperate from bad experiences. It is inherently organic in its growth.
I’m all for manging growth as it happens. We SHOULD be reaching out to people of all sorts to serve them - both Evergreen-wide and group-by-group. If, in response, they choose to join a particular group, wonderful. If said group begins not to fit in the designated living rooms comfortably, or if this state of affairs is reasonably expected in the near future, I’m in favor of leaders training new leaders and then splitting the group to maintain the close-community atmosphere, and to ensure that no one has to sit in the bathroom or the front stoop during meetings.
However, in my opinion, trying to follow some model for actively and intentionally targeting growth is a potentially dangerous slippery slope leading into a time vortex that could transport us back to 1955.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I think any of the four would work in the proper setting. I do not think a church should say that they do it one way and not any others. Groups of people are different so one group might like “grow and multiply” where another might like “pioneering”. What is important for me is the options and making the options known.
What I like is staying with a group till it has at least two things. One - another leader ready and equipped to lead/facillitate the group, watch that leader lead several times, and have that leader identify another person in the group as a potential apprentice leader. Two - the group is at least 12 people. Once it has these two things I start looking to back out of that group to start a new one with new people. However, I will keep connected with that first group by going to social events and periodically checking in with the leader of the group to see how things are going, kind of like a coach.
Personally splitting a group in two is never a good option, but it works in some cases.
As far as qualifications for a journey leader - The current leader of a group identifies another person in their group who can lead and they train them to lead. To lead a journey you should be good at it and enjoy it. You should make the time to prepare and have some biblilcal knowledge on your topic to help facillitate discussion.
(I do not think that a journey leader is a teacher who talks for the whole time without anyone else participating. Actually a journey leader should be talking the least. But this is just my opinion not a requirement from an elder.)
September 8th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I think the requirements for a Journey Group leader might be different based on the type of Journey Group under consideration. In my mind, the requirements for a knitting group leader who will only be responsible for taking prayer requests at the end of the night would be significantly less than a person who is taking on the responsibility for shepherding and facilitating the spiritual growth of the people in the group. That’s a topic in and of itself that we’ll have to grapple with in the near future.
Another mode of multiplication is the 2:3 mode. That’s when 2 journey groups split to become 3. So, two groups of 12 (for example) would split to 8, 8 and 8. Basically, each of the parent groups would have a leader or two branch off with a couple members of that group to join a leader or two and a couple members of another group to form a core for a third group. This tends to ease transition fears and maintains some of the relationships involved. It also ensures that 1 person or one couple is not responsible for leading a group on their own. I think that’s worth pursuing as well.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I like having all these options and making them known. Somehow we need to communicate this, even perhaps as a part of the relational pathway Sunday.
Requirements for leadership - for me, Alicia hit it on the head. Different groups require different leaders. I would say that we have to manage this in relationship but watch out for those who would seek power or be abusive. This kind of leader is dangerous in my mind….
September 9th, 2008 at 9:49 am
To address Doug’s comments: The point of this post is primarily to discuss how we plan to deal with groups that have, in fact, gotten too large for a living room. This is an issue for all churches and we need a plan in place to deal with that. Another important issue to consider: with long term groups like we have at Evergreen, there is an ever-present danger of “cliques” developing, which result in newcomers feeling left out. Without any plan to integrate newcomers, or a plan to create new groups for them, or a way to deal with cliques, we have problems.
As for evangelism, this post is in no way expecting or advocating that. But you raise a good question when you suggest that the journey groups are supposed to “be fruitful and multiply.” What ARE the purposes of our groups. There might very well be an evangelism group. You can see the discussion from a few weeks ago about “why we have groups.” I don’t think there was much discussion then, but it’s a very important question.