How do your small groups work?
At Epoch, we recently added another one and shifted people around within the existing small groups. A needed change if you ask me. Not because the current groups didn't get along or were unevenly matched, but simply because they had been together for so long. In a small group setting, the social dynamic of the group is affected by several factors. And counter-intuitively, communication within a small group is more difficult than that within the corporate setting.
I am of the belief that small groups are where real community happens. Now I know we all have our views and preferences about how a church should run, but whether you are a mega-church or a 20 person start-up, your corporate worship service does not allow much communication to take place. One person speaks at a time. Often the goals, vision, purpose, and message of a church are given here. So from an organizational communication standpoint, yes, communication does take place. And there is even an element of fragility here, as more people will hear the message (and by message, I do not just mean sermon) within the corporate setting. But pastors have notes, worship leaders have words on a projector screen, and the announcement guy writes down bullet points on one of the guest cards.
In a small group, however, all eyes are on the person talking. There are no notes or other visual reminders about what to say; just an invitation to let other group members in on the heart and mind of the one sharing. And people are expected to talk in this setting. This may not be true public speaking, but sharing can still be a vulnerable thing. That's why its important that small group environments are safe for the flow of ideas. People must feel a sense of trust and comfort if we expect them to be real. This sense of security must be sustained from meeting to meeting. As this happens, the environment will become a solid staple, and those who were once too shy to talk become much less guarded.
It takes time for a group to get to this point. And to be sure, a group may never get to a point where people are completely open books, as some issues need to be handled between a husband and wife or a patient and counselor. But what becomes more devastating than when people refuse to share personal prayer requests is when they refuse to share their deeper spiritual concerns, questions, and celebrations with other group members. If the ultimate goal of small groups is to build deeper community within a local church through further exploring the heart of God (a byproduct of which is a more holistic understanding of our own spiritual needs), then those of us involved in a small group must not be intimidated to be open with what we want to say. And as leaders, we must speak. We must challenge, we must cultivate, and we must inspire those in our groups. Yet sometimes, those in our group have become as challenged, cultivated, and charged as they can be in their current groups. Sometimes, people can get to know each group member so well and even come to expect and predict everything each person has to offer. If this happens, a small group can even stifle the progress of its members. For this reason, I believe it is important to occasionally place different people together in small groups.
Recently, I posed the question of how to do small groups to several churches across the U.S. Willow Creek Community in Chicago, Fellowship Church (Little Rock and NWA), The Village Church in Dallas, The Journey Church in St. Louis, Sandals in Riverside, California, and the Church at Rock Creek in Little Rock. I expected to get one over-arching theme. Instead, I received several. Some believed in indefinitely keeping the groups as they were. Some believed keeping the same people together would lead to a halt in growth.
Regardless of which side these churches took on switching people around or keeping the same people in a small group, there was one consistent trend: change. For groups who switched people around every year, the type of change that took place is obvious. For those churches who kept the same people in the same group every year, the changes were either using a different curriculum every so often, having a different person lead the conversation each week, holding the small group meetings in different homes from week to week, or allowing each small group to take the summer off. However they chose to do it, the aim of these churches was to keep their small groups from becoming a ritual.
When two or more gather together in Jesus' name, His promise is that He is there with us. But also when two or more gather together, they have the opportunity to create a culture of mental and spiritual stimulation, or mental and spiritual complacency. However the leaders of churches or small groups choose to do this, it's crucial that small groups constantly adapt to make each experience a growing opportunity for those who participate. When this happens, people will want to be a part of such a group.
The Spirit has the power to accomplish this with or without us - but if we are walking with the Spirit, part of keeping in step with the Spirit means he is leading us further from where we were, and closer to the Father. And Christ has a supernatural way of challenging and deepening us, mind, heart, and soul. Our churches get to be a part of such cultivation.
In order to improve the culture of your churches' small groups, the answer is simple: find ways to make them more dynamic.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Interpersonal vs. Organizational
When we hear the word communication, we often think of a person speaking (i.e. I studied in the speech communication department, so I must know how to speak well). This is one part of communication, but many more aspects exist.
In the same way, when we hear that a church has a communication problem, we may immediately think the pastor does not preach well. Or we may think the announcement guy makes confusing statements. Or the radio and TV spots are ambiguous. These are all parts that make up the way a church communicates. But before this blog can go further, we must first understand the difference between interpersonal communication and organizational communication.
Interpersonal communication is what we are most familiar with, such as when individuals speak back and forth to each other. This does not mean when more than two people are speaking together, an organization is formed. Instead, interpersonal communication relates to a type of communication that only represents individuals. A large group of 30 can come together to talk, and interpersonal communication still takes place. Within this group, many conversations occur. Someone's dog just died, a guy just got a new job, a young lady just got a zit, a couple is thinking about adoption, a child has to go to the bathroom. None of these conversations present any ideas, beliefs, or actions of anyone but the speakers. The listeners will likely engage back with comments about the zit or the need for a bathroom break, and then perhaps form some statements of their own.
If this explanation was confusing, then just think of it like this: interpersonal communication takes place when people communicate to each other through speaking, listening, and non-verbal cues.
Organizational communication is done on behalf of an organization. This can be achieved through a public relations statement in a press release, but it can also be done through the types of charities the organization supports. Or the type of people the organization hires. Communication even takes place by the work environment of an organization. The most famous understanding of this form of organizational communication takes place at Seattle's Pike Place Fish Market, as made known through the book Fish. This book takes the fish market's culture and turns it into an easy-to-read manuscript on how to create a fun atmosphere at work.
There are clear differences between interpersonal and organizational communication, although much overlap exists as well. Within any organization, interpersonal communication obviously takes place. One of my college professors even argued that there was little reason to seperate these two types of communication, claiming they both fell under the same umbrella. With organizational communication being such an unknown phenomena, however, I think having only one label for communication would prohibit many organizations from knowing how to effectively promote positive change. Interpersonal communication might fire up one or two, but an organization with actions that match its values delivers a message more powerfully than a room full of 100 individual linguistic geniuses.
As we continue to look at organizational communication for churches, I am confident that the theories and practices within this field of study will provide solutions for existing difficulties. Communication is a powerful thing - whether from the mouth of 1 or the hands of 1 million.
In the same way, when we hear that a church has a communication problem, we may immediately think the pastor does not preach well. Or we may think the announcement guy makes confusing statements. Or the radio and TV spots are ambiguous. These are all parts that make up the way a church communicates. But before this blog can go further, we must first understand the difference between interpersonal communication and organizational communication.
Interpersonal communication is what we are most familiar with, such as when individuals speak back and forth to each other. This does not mean when more than two people are speaking together, an organization is formed. Instead, interpersonal communication relates to a type of communication that only represents individuals. A large group of 30 can come together to talk, and interpersonal communication still takes place. Within this group, many conversations occur. Someone's dog just died, a guy just got a new job, a young lady just got a zit, a couple is thinking about adoption, a child has to go to the bathroom. None of these conversations present any ideas, beliefs, or actions of anyone but the speakers. The listeners will likely engage back with comments about the zit or the need for a bathroom break, and then perhaps form some statements of their own.
If this explanation was confusing, then just think of it like this: interpersonal communication takes place when people communicate to each other through speaking, listening, and non-verbal cues.
Organizational communication is done on behalf of an organization. This can be achieved through a public relations statement in a press release, but it can also be done through the types of charities the organization supports. Or the type of people the organization hires. Communication even takes place by the work environment of an organization. The most famous understanding of this form of organizational communication takes place at Seattle's Pike Place Fish Market, as made known through the book Fish. This book takes the fish market's culture and turns it into an easy-to-read manuscript on how to create a fun atmosphere at work.
There are clear differences between interpersonal and organizational communication, although much overlap exists as well. Within any organization, interpersonal communication obviously takes place. One of my college professors even argued that there was little reason to seperate these two types of communication, claiming they both fell under the same umbrella. With organizational communication being such an unknown phenomena, however, I think having only one label for communication would prohibit many organizations from knowing how to effectively promote positive change. Interpersonal communication might fire up one or two, but an organization with actions that match its values delivers a message more powerfully than a room full of 100 individual linguistic geniuses.
As we continue to look at organizational communication for churches, I am confident that the theories and practices within this field of study will provide solutions for existing difficulties. Communication is a powerful thing - whether from the mouth of 1 or the hands of 1 million.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Purpose of Developing Church
Hello.
(Sound of crickets)
As I write, no one has yet seen this blog. Quite understandable. As of this morning, it's brand new. And while grassroot-efforts rarely lead to highly subscribed blogs, I certainly hope this one gets some pub. Here's why: people do not know how to most effectively communicate.
What does this have to do with church? A better question may be "what is a church?" My answer will be different than most pastors. Not because I am anti-church or disagree with what most pastors would say, but because I view churches first and foremost as organizations.
Before you cry heresy, let me qualify that I DO believe the Church is the people of God, whose first and foremost mission is to glorify Him, show the love that He first showed us, and to produce disciples. To me, this goes without saying. I view church from an organizational standpoint because without such a view, any given local church will never be as effective as they can be.
Bold words, considering I've never had the sole responsibility of leading a congregation. As I have grown up, been involved, and led ministries in churches, I have been able to see many of the moving parts that make up a church. But it wasn't until grad school that I began to adopt this "organizational" view. From this vantage point, I came to believe that in many ways, a church is not that different from a corporate business, non-profit foundation, or other organizations that require the focus of many moving parts for one over-arching purpose.
Of course, the mission of a church is different. As stated above, the church has a holy mission - a mission ordained by God Himself. But more than just this mission, every local church needs to ask themselves "How can we most effectively carry out this mission?" And I wonder how often churches fail to identify their best way to glorify God, show His love to the world, and produce committed disciples of Christ. If an effective way to do this does not infiltrate every aspect of a church, opportunities will be missed.
Like other organizations, however, churches need to be strategic in producing results. And while we can't forget the guidance of the Holy Spirit, churches must not ignore their strengths, weaknesses, culture, surroundings, or goals. In other words, churches must intentionally plan to run successfully.
Back to my purpose for this blog: that people don't know how to effectively communicate. What does this statement have to do with a blog about developing churches? Communication is much more than what we say. Our actions tell people something about us. Even the actions of an individual tells a story, but multiply that by 30, 50, 100, 1,000, or more, and you've got a loud message from an organization. This could be a great message, or it could be a lousy one. It might be a message that stays within the church walls or that goes beyond them. Either way, the actions of a church communicate who they are and Whom they follow.
I believe that by equipping church leaders to communicate competently through their organization, the church will be as effective as the world needs it to be. Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, calls the local church "the hope of the world." I believe this too, but only if it brings an effective message that will change lives. This happens when we develop effective organizational communication plans for local church bodies. Be it issues of conflict, crisis, change, motivation, interpersonal or public relations, the church needs to be better trained.
My hope is that this blog will help. Thanks for reading, sharing your thoughts, and I look forward to learning with you.
(Sound of crickets)
As I write, no one has yet seen this blog. Quite understandable. As of this morning, it's brand new. And while grassroot-efforts rarely lead to highly subscribed blogs, I certainly hope this one gets some pub. Here's why: people do not know how to most effectively communicate.
What does this have to do with church? A better question may be "what is a church?" My answer will be different than most pastors. Not because I am anti-church or disagree with what most pastors would say, but because I view churches first and foremost as organizations.
Before you cry heresy, let me qualify that I DO believe the Church is the people of God, whose first and foremost mission is to glorify Him, show the love that He first showed us, and to produce disciples. To me, this goes without saying. I view church from an organizational standpoint because without such a view, any given local church will never be as effective as they can be.
Bold words, considering I've never had the sole responsibility of leading a congregation. As I have grown up, been involved, and led ministries in churches, I have been able to see many of the moving parts that make up a church. But it wasn't until grad school that I began to adopt this "organizational" view. From this vantage point, I came to believe that in many ways, a church is not that different from a corporate business, non-profit foundation, or other organizations that require the focus of many moving parts for one over-arching purpose.
Of course, the mission of a church is different. As stated above, the church has a holy mission - a mission ordained by God Himself. But more than just this mission, every local church needs to ask themselves "How can we most effectively carry out this mission?" And I wonder how often churches fail to identify their best way to glorify God, show His love to the world, and produce committed disciples of Christ. If an effective way to do this does not infiltrate every aspect of a church, opportunities will be missed.
Like other organizations, however, churches need to be strategic in producing results. And while we can't forget the guidance of the Holy Spirit, churches must not ignore their strengths, weaknesses, culture, surroundings, or goals. In other words, churches must intentionally plan to run successfully.
Back to my purpose for this blog: that people don't know how to effectively communicate. What does this statement have to do with a blog about developing churches? Communication is much more than what we say. Our actions tell people something about us. Even the actions of an individual tells a story, but multiply that by 30, 50, 100, 1,000, or more, and you've got a loud message from an organization. This could be a great message, or it could be a lousy one. It might be a message that stays within the church walls or that goes beyond them. Either way, the actions of a church communicate who they are and Whom they follow.
I believe that by equipping church leaders to communicate competently through their organization, the church will be as effective as the world needs it to be. Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church outside of Chicago, calls the local church "the hope of the world." I believe this too, but only if it brings an effective message that will change lives. This happens when we develop effective organizational communication plans for local church bodies. Be it issues of conflict, crisis, change, motivation, interpersonal or public relations, the church needs to be better trained.
My hope is that this blog will help. Thanks for reading, sharing your thoughts, and I look forward to learning with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)