For some reason, this 2016 article from The Gospel Coaltion cropped up on my timeline recentlyam Allberry writes that small groups are not a direct replacement for the church. I must admit that I’m a little confused about the target of his article. I’m not sure who is claiming that they are. The result is a rather peculiar article. As is often the case with these lists of 3 or 4 reasons why x or y is so, most of the reasoning simply does not stand up as quality is sacrificed for quantity. Sam gives the following reasons as to why small groups are not the church.
- Small groups cannot give a full picture of the people God has reconciled
- Small groups are hindered because they are small
- Small groups aren’t led the same way as a church
In effect, these all boil down to one reason and it is a terrible one. Sam’s problem with small groups is that they are small. Given, Sam recognises that sometimes churches can be small, in effect his arguments imply that it isn’t possible for a small church to be healthy.
There is absolutely no reason why a small group cannot be diverse and include a cross section of people from different ages, social backgrounds and ethnicities. Nor does a group have to become homogenous as like attracts like. That risk is true at any size and always requires intentionality to counter. There is no reason why a small group could not have Biblical leadership, led in the same way as the church via a plurality of leaders and there is no reason in natural terms why a small group of believers gathering in a home cannot do all the things a church would do together on a Sunday, singing, praying, looking at God’s Word, allowing people to use their different gifts to build one another up, even communion and baptism in that context.
In fact, the only reason why you won’t see all of those things is because a church intentionally decides that the small group is not the church and therefore does not have all of those things present. It is because a constituted church is saying that we gather as the full church for those reasons that the small group isn’t the full expression of church.
This matters for two reasons. First, whilst I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that small groups replace the church as a matter of course, I have seen a few examples where individuals have relied upon the small group for gathering. There may be times when this is just out of laziness or a consumer attitude but in my experience, these have been rare. More often than not, there have been where health issues which made it difficult for the person to join with a larger group work and unbelieving family circumstances made it impossible for people to get to Sunday worship. I find Sam’s article very unhelpful for them. Sometimes, the small group is all that is available to people.
Secondly it matters because some church planters seek to intentionally multiply and grow by keeping churches small and duplicating whenever the congregation grows too large to fit into a home. Sam’s arguments seem to run against such church planting approaches.
I have a third concern. We have so got into the habit of trying to build arguments around the “five or six reasons” model and I think it is affecting our ability to reason logically and Biblically. We end up trying to overwhelm people with volume rather than sharp, precise Biblical reasoning.
So, yes, beware of making one part of the church the whole thing but make sure your reasons are right.
Faithroots 