Group Dynamics and Church
Back during my M. Div. studies (MABTS ‘83-‘84, ‘86-‘87; SWBTS ‘88-‘89), I took a class in Group Dynamics. Generally, M. Div. programs do not include Group Dynamics as part of the core curriculum. Neither does the Bible treat the subject of Group Dynamics in a scientific way, in the manner a Sociology Department in a university would do so today. As a result, it may appear “unspiritual,” from the viewpoint of some, to give much attention to studying the church from that perspective.
However, I am convinced that much of what the New Testament has to teach us about the church, both from the descriptive approach of Acts, as well as the prescriptive approach of the Epistles, is tied in to the way individuals relate to one another in the context of different types of groups, and how the characteristics of these groups affect the nature of these relationships. I am also convinced that much of what is lacking in many churches today can be attributed to a faulty application of basic principles of group dynamics.
I want to be careful at this stage to point out that I am not an expert in the scientific study of group dynamics. Far from it. The observations I am making here come not so much from the perspective of scholarly investigation as from years of casual observation of and reflection on the life and organization of the various congregations of which the Lord has given me the privilege to be a part.
Underlying my thoughts on this post is a good bit of reflection on the purpose of the church. The idea that the church has essentially five basic purposes – worship (or leitourgia), proclamation (or kerygma), fellowship (or koinonia), discipleship (or didache), and service (or diakonia) – was something I first learned in Systematic Theology class, under the able instruction of the late Dr. John Kiwiet. The Purpose-Driven Church by Rick Warren, which I regard as a classic, fleshes out this idea a bit more. I have also gained valuable insights on the purpose of the church through the writings and ministry of those involved in the Cell Church movement, notably Ralph Neighbour, Bill Beckham, and Joel Comiskey. More recently, several of those in the House Church (or “Simple” or “Organic” church) movement have added to my thoughts on this (including Wolfgang Simson, Frank Viola, Neil Cole, etc.). I have also read and reflected a bit on books on this subject by people such as Watchman Nee, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ray Stedman, and Howard Snyder. I have also benefited lately from reading the thoughts of several bloggers who think deeply about these questions, including fellow Southern Baptists Alan Knox, Guy Muse, and Ed Stetzer, as well as some of the non-SBC “missional” guys like Alan Hirsch, David Fitch, and others. I would have to add to the mix numerous personal conversations with missionary and ministry colleagues, assorted seminars I have had the privilege to attend, practical lessons learned in everyday church experience, and personal Bible study.
Obviously, there is no way possible to even begin to summarize here everything I have learned regarding the purpose of the church from all of these different sources of input. But, I believe it is helpful to know something of the different “wells from which I have drunk” to understand better from where I am coming.
Basically, I think that one of the main elements overlooked in many congregations today is the need for interactive relationships, in which each member of the body is given the opportunity to participate and put into practice the spiritual gifts that God has given them. The many “one another” verses in the New Testament are, in my opinion, foundational to a correct understanding of what church is all about.
While there is definitely a place for, and nothing inherently wrong, in and of itself, with meetings in which relatively large groups of people are lined up in rows, all looking to the front, listening to what the people up there have to say to them, I think that much of the essential purpose of the church will never be accomplished through this type of meeting alone. In Southern Baptist life, we have traditionally given lip service to this idea through the existence of all age Sunday School. In recent years, many churches have also included small group discipleship or affinity groups in their menu of church programs.
I am not necessarily advocating the use of one program or system of church organization over another here. The important thing is that, however you choose to organize church life, the various purposes the church is meant to fulfill are actually accomplished. And this is where group dynamics comes in.
Studies have demonstrated that, at least in normal Western contexts, once a group grows beyond 18-20 members, the dynamics of the group almost always change. It becomes much more difficult for there to be open participation. Some group members naturally begin to clam up. The unspoken expectation increasingly takes root among the members that the appropriate thing to do is to assume more of a spectator role, and not interrupt the person who is perceived as being “in charge.”
The problem in many congregations is that this principle can often find itself at odds with numerical church growth considerations. As church attendance begins to grow, there is often a corresponding lack of space for Sunday School classes and of qualified teachers (or affinity groups and leaders). The solution? Put more and more people in the same class under the leadership of the same teacher. The problem with this? This “solution” ends up changing the essential dynamic of the class, and converts it, for all practical purposes, into just one more “everybody in rows looking at the person up front” type of event.
I am not sure just how much this scenario plays out in churches across the Convention. But I have a sneaking suspicion that way too often. Biblically, church is not meant to be a “spectator sport.” It is not meant primarily to be an event in which one person (or a small group of people) speaks to a large group of other people. It is intended rather to be a local expression of the Body of Christ, in which each and every member ministers to and edifies one another. That, in my opinion, means talking to one another. It means getting into one another’s lives. It means sitting down and opening the Bible together, with each one taking turns sharing what God is teaching them. It means holding one another accountable for each one’s spiritual growth, and “spurring one another on toward love and good deeds.” It will also probably mean giving greater priority to the training of small group leaders. And, it may well involve some radical reorganization of such things as meeting times and meeting places in the overall life of the church.
Personally, I don’t care so much whether this happens on the campus of a church building, in private homes, or somewhere else. Nor whether you call it cell groups, affinity groups, house church, or Sunday School. I think it is possible to provide for this type of dynamic both in mega-churches and small churches; city churches and rural churches; churches with a contemporary worship style and churches with a traditional worship style. But, if there is not a regular time in the life of a congregation in which this type of “one another” interaction takes place in a meaningful way, and is actively facilitated by the group dynamics of the situation, I dare say something is seriously lacking with regard to the fulfillment of the basic purpose of the church.
Our church is small enough that I can actually make a comment or ask a question during the sermon. If our fellowship grows beyond the point of being able to do this, then it might be time for a church plant.
john daly reads this blog? i didn’t figure he had time between golf and divorces… :)
your point, geoff, is well made. and your frequent mention of the word ‘convention’ – referring i know to the SBC – just seems particularly apropros in light of the political conventions of the last couple of weeks. people naturally ‘herd’ underneath an up-front ‘shepherd’, so it becomes the responsibility of that shepherd not to fall into the easy path of just force-feeding the sheep. a steady diet of one point of view over and over and over cements that view in the minds of the hearers as the only view and, for the church in particular, as God’s view.
it’s interesting how john above mentions that his church provides the avenue to allow interaction during the sermon. large churches tend to try to allow this to happen in small groups. but even there attempts are made to limit opposing views. i filled out a packet to lead a small group in my church. as you probably know from some of my comments at out of ur, my views don’t necessarily toe the evangelical party line. so i was faced with sharing my real beliefs or slanting them to ‘fit’ the answers i knew they expected. i took the former route, not too surprisingly, and they politely said ‘no thank you,’ also not too surprisingly.
we are very polarized in all areas of life today it seems. i wonder if there’s any way to acheive the ‘one another’ ideals you mention anymore.
i’m sorry, mr. david rogers, i didn’t read the byline. i assumed geoff wrote this since his link brought me here.
John,
That is one way of dealing with this. I think it is good to have “sermons” in which there is room for 2-way communication. The greek word used in Acts 20:7, when Paul went on and on to midnight talking with the believers in Troas is ‘dialegomai,’ which seems to indicate there was a good bit of dialogue going on. However, once a group gets bigger and bigger, this type of communication gets less and less appropriate, and is seen not as contributing as much as interrupting.
Even in a “sermon” type setting, though, most people, even though the group is as small as your church, will not usually feel comfortable “interrupting” the speaker. Because of this, true “one another” ministry usually takes place at a different time and setting in most churches.
The solution in many “cell churches” and “house churches” to the growth problem is growth by division (or multiplication). I believe that the vision of intentionally and strategically planting new cells or house churches is another very good way to tackle this. In either case, the continual training of new leaders is crucial.
I do think there is a danger of emphasizing “one another” ministry at the expense of numerical growth, leading small groups to essentially become “navel-gazing” sessions.
Mike,
Welcome to SBC Impact! We welcome views that don’t necessarily “toe the party line,” though we do encourage everyone to adhere to the stated standards (http://www.sbcimpact.net/standards/).
I think your comment points out the need in local congregations to seek a biblical balance between effective “one another” ministry, and wise, loving leadership, especially on the part of the recognized elders or “pastors.” Every member ministry, as I understand it, is not the same thing as spiritual anarchy. And one of the main responsibilities of these men is to watch over the flock to guard it from false teaching, and to help ensure that everyone’s participation is indeed contributing to edification and not destruction (Acts 20:28-31; Eph. 4:11-16).
Of course, there are always leaders who abuse their authority, and, for all practical purposes, become dictators. As in all things, we must find the correct balance in all of this.
Blessings.
Mike,
Welcome to our collaborative blog.
Our John Daly is a runner, not a golfer (as far as I know…) :>
I am just one of the contributors here. You can click the link on our contributors page above to know more about us.
Brother David,
Good thoughts…. It does appear in scripture that there is a very close relationship between believers throughout scripture, and for good reason by way of good news! The command in scripture for us to love one another is not optional, because we have now been made normal by the Spirit’s gifting to encourage, admonish, etc. where God receives all the glory.
Is seems most people these days view the “church” as primarily of a “place” full of people that come to feed off of the “it”.. to get refueled, or hear some good music, or just do their religious duty for the week,…instead of recognizing the church as a gathering of individuals that have been called out specifically by God as the people of God to be the people of God.
It is certainly less trouble, more professional, and semi-corporate (American) to have people recognize their church as more of a place and not a people. If someone is convinced it is a place, then “it” is much easier to ignore or leave. If someone is convinced it is a place, then it is much easier to gossip about others that simply go to the “place” or “it”. When a church is recognized as a people called out by God, it seems to lose its pride, because it is forced to deal with people and not the “it”.
I am encouraged today that we have courageous Pastors that are finally teaching their flock that the church is primarily the people of God. It is not yet a common teaching, but it does appear to be happening. Praise God!
Thanks for the insight,….
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Good words. I, too, have been studying group dynamics from a small church culture perspective. There’s an excellent book I am currently reading “How Your Church Family Works: Understanding Congregations as Emotional Systems,” by Peter Steinke. It touches many of the characteristics you’ve mentioned here.
Also, I think a book entitled, “The Tipping Point,” stated that the maximum size group in which relationships can really happen is 150.
Les
Les
Chris,
Amen to all you say here! Thanks for the encouragement.
Les,
Thanks for your encouragement as well. The books you mention sound interesting. I have also been following your thoughts on small churches. I agree with you there is something to be said for a group of up to 150 in which everyone pretty much knows everyone else. But, even in a group like that, if you don’t break down into even smaller groups (10 to 20 people) on a regular basis, I believe it will be very difficult to experience the type of koinonia the NT describes.
Also, I believe it is possible to break down a large church into smaller groups, and facilitate this koinonia. And I believe it is good to graphically remind ourselves from time to time that the Body of Christ is bigger and broader than our little “homegrown” group. This can be accomplished by bigger gatherings of bigger congregations, and by joint gatherings of smaller congregations together with other congregations.
However one chooses to do this, though, I believe what must be avoided is anonymous, spectator Christianity. We must also, at the same time, avoid closed groups that are not open and inviting to new people.
David, Chris, and Les,
AMEN AMEN AMEN
Great Minds Think Alike!!!
Great minds have purposes, others have wishes. Little minds are tamed and subdued by misfortune; but great minds rise above it!!!
WASHINGTON IRVING (1783–1859)
Wayne Smith
David,
This is my first comment here at SBC Impact; although, I’ve been lurking here for several months. Good article about matters that I’ve been thinking about for a long time. Currently, I’m concerned (consumed even) with seeing worship become the active experience I believe it’s suppose to be rather than the passive experience that it has become which may be no worship at all. Cultivating relationships among congregants is a bit of a challenge for today’s church. Between vocations and vacations and everything in between, the people I pastor stay on the move.
Often, when faced with issues like the one you’ve raised concerning group dynamics, I’ve wondered what the church has done historically. For example, what was the church doing in 1215 AD to foster interpersonal relationships among church members? I have a feeling that until the 20th and now 21st century, the western church didn’t have as many distractions nor were congregants as mobile as they are now. It could be that until now, the church hasn’t had to concern herself with group dynamics because until now, groups were… well… dynamic. Still, it would be neat if a gifted church historian (which I am not) could research congregational interaction throughout the church’s entire history.
Billy Belk
Macedonia Baptist Church
Monroe, NC
Billy,
Great to have you out in the open. I could sense you lurking back there. :-)
Anyway, great comment. Yes, I think what you say about church history and the 20th and 21st century is probably true. But, we should not let the realities of history and the culture around us define who we are as church.
From what I have read of church history, there have been some significant “revivals” of living in community from time to time.
Have you read much about the Pietist movement or Wesley’s “class meetings”?
I agree. The subject of congregational interaction throughout church history would make a great study.
It could be that until now, the church hasn’t had to concern herself with group dynamics because until now, groups were… well… dynamic.
just so i understand your point, billy, i think you meant to say ‘static’, right?
m.r.
David,
I get what you’re saying about history. I guess I was influenced to a great degree by a church history professor who, on the first day of class, stated that we are all children of the enlightenment, and as such, we often think that we’re more intelligent that those who’ve come before us when, in fact, that’s simply not the case. I’ve never forgotten that, and as a result, I often find myself wondering about the church, its faith and practice, through history. Nevertheless, I’m still a poor student of history.
The Pietist movement that you mentioned was a great example of what I was thinking about. My understanding of the movement was that it was a reaction to the Forty Years War when European Christians were searching for greater spirituality which is a concern and quest of my own and one that I believe our friend the i-monk is concerned with as well. And of course, the Pietist movement launched a significant missions movement particularly among the Moravians.
***
Mike,
Thanks for holding me accountable concerning my lack of clarity. As a preacher, I understand the need for care and clarity when it comes to the choice of words in the pulpit, and I know the conviction of the Holy Spirit when I become careless in my preaching. Unfortunately, in my comment, I was striving to be cute rather than clear. I’ll work hard to keep that from happening again.
BB
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics