We’ve made great strides this fall in the small group battle and Satan wants to seize the initiative.  He will succeed if we do any of the following:

1.   Abandon our strategy (model)

2.   Become inflexible

3.   Think about ourselves

Let’s think about the first point.  As we lead our groups ministry on each campus it’s easy to see the places where the enemy exploits our weaknesses.  The two most glaring problems with our group ministry model are in the areas of leader training and the assimilation of attenders into groups.

Picture yourself in the middle of a battle.  When a strategy (model) breaks and people are becoming casualties on the battlefield we are faced with a choice:  will we respond or react? 

What’s the difference?  Reacting is throwing out the model.  Responding is taking proactive steps to shore up the weaknesses in the model.  Reacting is rash.  Responding is well-thought-out.  Reacting is desperate.  Responding is decisive.

When you’re frustrated with a ministry strategy do you tend to focus on the problems with the model, or do you tend to focus on finding solutions to the problems?  Focusing on the problems is reactive.  Responding by providing solutions is proactive.  If you find yourself focusing on the benefits of a different model and wishing to give up on the model, then it’s probable that you’re being reactive.  But if you find yourself leading through solutions that make up for the model’s weakenesses then you are being proactive.  May we always be characterized by our “proactivity” rather than our “reactivity” because the former wins the war and the latter loses it.

So now you may be thinking, “Should we NEVER change or adapt the model?”  Well hold that thought because next time I’ll talk about the danger of inflexibility and focusing on ourselves during the battle.

At LifeChurch.tv we’ve measured the number of LifeGroups because it is simple to track.  Although participation (attendance) was measured in previous years, measuring participation has always been difficult and the best we’ve been able to do is extrapolate statistics from survey results. 

This year we decided to eliminate the participation metric and only go with # of groups, but I’m beginning to think that was a mistake.  We’ve realized that a needed goal for this fall is to move our entire organization to 40% of our weekend attendance participating in LifeGroups.  I recently wrote the following bullets to our LifeGroup/Mission pastors:

·         TWO SIDED COIN:  There are two sides to the coin of group health on a campus:  % of participation and number of groups.

·         FAT LIFEGROUPS:  If you wind up with 40% participation this fall but you’re averaging 15 people per group, that’s not ultimately healthy because there’s no room for new people in those big groups.

·         MALNOURISHED LIFEGROUPS:  If you wind up with a TON of groups but only an average of 3 people per group you have a bunch of struggling demoralized groups.

·         WITHOUT QUESTION:  It is healthier for a campus to have 40% participation averaging 7.5 per group than 40% participation averaging 15 per group.

·         TWO-FOLD FOCUS:  While the overall goal is 40% participation, your own passion for the health of the ministry should drive you to focus not only on participation but on the number of groups…if this is your focus, your goals will be met!!!!!!!

I’m really starting to believe that by tracking # of groups AND participation we can best gauge the health of our church regarding LifeGroups.  The bottom line is this though:  measurables only guide, the ownership of creating and leading healthy groups happens on the ground level and must be executed by the campus LifeGroup/Missions Pastor.  That means that the pastor’s focus should be on leadership, not hitting numbers.  The numbers simply point in the direction that the leadership should take, when leadership heads that way, achieving the numbers will happen.

Related to the parties I’d like for us to discuss 3 things:

1.  What resources do we need to have ready every week for people to find/fill a LifeGroup?

2.  What resources do we need to have ready every week for people to start new LifeGroups?

3.  How can we effectively train CPs to use the resources.

Please share your ideas!!!

In short, the comments that we are making show that we have a tendency to think LG Health takes place in the third leg of our stool (keeping).  Our thought process goes something like this:  “If a leader is trained, growing, etc. then the group will be healthy and a healthy group will last”.  While this makes a certain amount of sense ultimately I believe this line of thinking is wrong.  Hear me out.

Real LG Health happens not with just one leg (keeping) but with the entire stool!  A deeply spiritual person does not necessarily guarantee group success or health.  Group success and health requires a comprehensive approach and support system beginning with the staff.  As we head up the LG ministry on our campuses we must have a comprehensive and balanced approach to all three legs (starting, filling, keeping) or the stool will collapse.  As we provide solid leadership in all three critical areas (starting, filling and keeping) we create an environment of ministry-wide health that will directly contribute to the individual health of every group.

We frequently say things like “everything rises and falls on leadership” and to a great extent that’s true.  We, the staff, lead the ministry.  We can’t blame the lack of group health on LifeGroup leaders, we have to own our part.  Ultimately we are responsible for the health of EVERY LifeGroup, and we can lead them to individual health ONLY as we focus our efforts on all three legs of the stool which will create ministry health.

Which area(s) are you strong in?  In which areas do you struggle the most?  How do these things contribute to the ministry-wide health (or lack thereof) on your campus?

Also, something we need to do is identify the Characteristics that might make someone a great leader.  I’ll prime the pump with a few characteristics, then you chime in.

Teachability, Likeability, Passion…

That’s roughly the entire population of New York City, Los Angeles, and Houston combined.  Every day the entire population of three of the largest cities in the U.S. dies without Jesus!  That’s exactly why we do what we do.  It’s also why LifeReach is so important to our LifeGroup ministry as well.

Just a reminder that getting people out of the living room is a battlefield we should all be willing to die on!  Pick up your water pistols…there are the gates of Hell…let’s storm them!!!!!!

Essentially what he says is that group ministry is failing in many churches because our purpose for groups is wrong.  In his estimation healthy groups serve the church (serving teams).

I think that he’s right to a certain extent.  Serving is the most important thing groups do, but I don’t think it’s serving the church…it’s serving the world.  (Can anyone say “LifeReach”?)

Here’s what I posted as a response on his site.  Tell me what you think.

———————————————

Thanks for pushing this hot button David. On one hand I agree with you: Groups should serve. On the other hand I disagree. If I’m hearing you correctly, a win for small groups is serving the church (greeting, driving carts, etc.). I believe that a good group serves the community not just the church. God created us to change the world so like David said, “Rethink your small groups”. I’d like to encourage all of us take things a step further and
get our groups off the couch and into the community. That’s where our groups should be found…after all that’s where Jesus led his Group.

The exception for Jesus and his group was to meet in a house or an “upper room” (living room in our culture). It was also not the norm for his group to meet in the Temple. Jesus’ group was most readily found on the street touching the untouchable and loving the unlovable.

Serving the Body of Christ is a start, and a good one. Serving the world is where we all need to wind up!

Love Ya David!

Alan Danielson,
LifeGroups Team Leader
LifeChurch.tv

Identifying the first leg was simple:  without groups there’s no group ministry so “Starting” LifeGroup is leg one.  The next two legs address the fact that groups tend to die for two reasons:  not enough people and/or not enough training.  So the second leg is “Filling” groups and the third is “Keeping” groups.

The idea is this:  Every campus LifeGroup/Missions pastor must own the fact that the stool will stand only if the campus is effectively building each leg consistently.

What are your ideas about Starting, Filling, and Keeping?  In which of these areas have we been successful?  In which one’s have we failed?  How can you successfully build these legs on your campus?

Now’s your time to give input.  Your ideas will shape our ongoing strategy!