In fact, this idea of community might indeed be the central
contribution of Paul’s writings (Banks 1994:2). Those
congregations that only stress the church service on Sunday morning do
not truly experience the N.T. concept of the
body of Christ as a participating, interacting organism. John
Mallison captures this point when he says,
Small groups provide situations in which mutual ministry can take
place. Only a small number can minister in a large gathering and then
only in fairly superficial manner to each individual. The majority are
denied an opportunity to exercise their ministry to the gathered church”
(1989:10).
George Hunter believes
that Christians who attend ‘church’ without attending a small group
are only experiencing ‘half’ of the Christian life:
“Many people are involved in the
congregation, and are thus involved in its proclamational, sacramental,
and liturgical life, but not in the cell; they therefore never
experience half of what ‘church’ has to offer. Only in the church’s
redemptive cells do we really know each other, and support each other,
and pull for each other, and draw strength from each other, and weep
with each other, and
rejoice with each other, and hold each other accountable, and identify
each others gifts, and experience what it means to ‘members of one
another’ (1996:48).
Even the
so called ‘seeker sensitive’ churches of today are
discovering that the true body of Jesus Christ must provide
opportunity for believers to come together and experience their
membership in the body of Christ (Hunter 1996:45-65).
Rick Warren who is the founder of one of the largest churches in
America (10,000 people attending each Sunday) says,
“One of the biggest
fears members have about
growth is how to maintain that ‘small church’ feeling or fellowship
as their church grows. The antidote to this fear is to develop small
groups within your church. Affinity groups can provide the personal care
and attention every member deserves, no matter how big the church
becomes….One of the sayings I quote to our staff and lay leaders
repeatedly is, ‘Our church must always be growing larger and smaller
at the same time….Large groups celebrations give people the feeling
that they are part of something significant. They are impressive to
unbelievers and encouraging to your members. But you can’t share
personal prayer requests in the crowd. Small affinity groups, on the
other hand, are perfect for creating a sense of intimacy and close
fellowship. It’s there that everybody knows your name. When you are
absent, people notice” (1995:325,326).
The church as the temple of the Holy Spirit punctuates His
working in our midst. It is the Holy Spirit who refreshes and
ministers Christ’s healing through the participation of each member.
Addressing the church at Corinth, Paul declared, “Don’t you know
that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in
you? (I Cor. 3:16).
Just like the imagery of the
body of Christ, this description of the church as the temple of the Holy
Spirit is tied closely with
the gifts of the Spirit working through the living body of Christ. It is
the Holy Spirit who sovereignly chooses
and distributes the gifts to each believer (I Cor. 12:11),
and He is also the One who directs
the exercise of the gifts (Acts 13:1-3).
Much of the cell based literature underscores the leading of the Holy
Spirit in the cell. The
ministering to one another through the gifts of the Holy Spirit is an
oft-repeated emphasis. Effective
cell leaders are those who invite the Holy
Spirit to guide and lead each part of the cell experience
(Neighbour 1992:124-127).
The People of God motif is especially relevant to the cell based church.
The church is primarily a
an organism and not a building. Thomas Goslin rightly declares, “When the early church founders spoke of churches, ecclesias,
they were referring to gathered communities of believers, not
buildings”(1984:2).
Elmer Towns affirms, “In
the early church it is clear that ‘church buildings’ as such did not
exist until the second or third century” (Towns 1983: 257, 258).
According to Donald McGavran, archeologists find no hint of
church buildings before the year A.D. 150 ((McGavran in Goslin 1984:
ii).
This is not to say that the
early believers did not meet to
celebrate in the temple (Acts 2:46;5:20, 25, 42) and in the portico of
the temple (Acts 5:12). Until persecution made such celebration events
impossible, large gatherings were quite common in the life of the early
church. However, it should be noted that
oftentimes today we become so caught up in maintaining our
expensive buildings that we quickly forget that the church must be
primarily concerned with fulfilling
her role as a ‘called out assembly of God´s people.’ Because
of the anxious concern ‘to utilize’ the expensive building, the need
for more intimate, body oriented gatherings
can sometimes be overlooked.
Some would argue that the church today is still suffering from the days of
Constantine. It was in those days that
there was a definite transition
from the home church model to
the temple based paradigm (Hadaway,
Wright, & DuBose 1987:70-72). . When the church met in the home, the
dynamic of God’s chosen people was kept clear and focused. However,
when the church became powerful, political, and institutionalized,
it quickly forgot its moorings. It forgot that God was more
interested in developing His
people, rather than a powerful institution.
The church as God´s People is closely
tied to the understanding
that the church is the family of God (Eph. 2: 14,15). As
God´s chosen people we have been adopted into His family, the
church. The home cell group highlights
this truth by the simple fact of meeting in houses.
J. Goezmann, confirms this reality when he says,
“What could be conveyed by the idea of the family of God had,
in fact, already come into being in the primitive Christian community
through the house churches. The household as a community...formed the
smallest unit and basis of the congregations. The house churches
mentioned in the N.T. (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31, 34; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16;
Phlm. 2; I Tim. 1:16; 4:19) no doubt came into being through the use of
the homes as meeting places. The gospel was preached in them (Acts 5:42;
20:20), and the Lord´s supper was celebrated in them (Acts 2:46)
(1975:250) .
Banks contends that Paul’s
metaphor of the family, “…must be regarded as the most significant
metaphorical usage of all” (1994:49). We should primarily see each
other as members of a God’s family. We have been adopted into His
heavenly family, and therefore can honestly call each other ‘brothers
and sisters’.
And quite
frankly, there is nothing quite like the atmosphere of a home to confirm the fact that we are indeed, God’s family.
The atmosphere of the home has a way of confirming our familial
relationship. I suppose
that this is true due to the fact that
the home adds a distinct flavor of family living due to the
decorations, furniture, kitchen, etc. It doesn’t take long to taste
and feel the presence of family interaction.
As a result, it has been our experience that
members warm up to each other much more quickly in the atmosphere
of a home than they would
during a similar meeting in the church.
I’ve attempted to
show how that cell groups can add a vital dimension to church
life. It’s been my contention that the Biblical imagery of the church comes to its richest meaning when believers
encounter one another in small groups. Previously, we grappled with
several key definitions which have been used to describe the true church
of Jesus Christ down through the ages. I
tried to answer the question, What is the true church of Jesus
Christ?
Now
I’d like to grapple with how cell-based ministry relates to the
definition of the true church. I
will attempt to answer this
question in a practical, experiential manner rather than a theological
or philosophical way. In other words, what must a believer experience in order to
be in touch with the true church of Jesus Christ?
I’m
referring to the local church in today’s contemporary world. In order
to be part of the true church of Jesus Christ, is it enough to ‘check
in’ on major holidays to one of the church services? Is weekly
attendance at a Sunday a.m. service sufficient? How about two services
per week? Maybe two
services and one ministry assignment? Obviously there are as many
answers as there are questions. The reason for even raising these
questions is my concern
that a person might connected with the true church of Jesus Christ
without ever experiencing
the true church of Jesus Christ.
I
presently attend a church which is well-known for its excellent youth
and children’s ministry. The church has grown numerically as a result,
and there are new people almost every
Sunday morning. It
seems that many of the adults are
willing to attend the church because of the excellent programs for their
children. Yet, because of the lack of
adult ministry opportunities, the majority of the adults only
attend the Sunday a.m. service. The youth pastor recently commented to
me that the numerical growth of the church on Sunday morning was
superficial. He felt that the adults of the church could not experience
the true church without having more contact during the week.
Indeed
proponents of the cell model would
propose that the true church takes place in the
cell. The cell is the basic building block of the church, and thus a
pastor of a true cell church would not cringe the slightest at referring
to the cell as the church (Beckham 1995:28). In my opinion, it’s not a
matter of choosing between the celebration time in the church or the
cell in the home. In my opinion, it’s a both/and proposition.
Yet, if a
person only attends the Sunday morning worship service on a weekly
basis, has that person
experienced the true church of Jesus Christ?
Is it possible to sit passively, shake a few hands, sing a few
songs, and participate in the true church of Jesus Christ? Isn’t the
true church of Jesus a living organism? Doesn’t it demand interaction
and participation? If a person does not experience fellowship and
community in the church of Jesus Christ, has he experienced the
heartbeat of Christianity?
Yes,
it would probably be
correct to say that those who attend an evangelical church
on Sunday morning are normally treated to a Biblically, relevant
message. This is good and right and hopefully the person will have been
touched by God before he leaves the building. Yet, if one only possesses
theological correctness without the very life of God
pulsating within his/her heart, there is a serious imbalance.
Hadaway touches this raw nerve by saying,
“…churches have grown larger and larger
in the wake of rapid Christian advancement in recent times, churches
like society itself, have become more and more impersonal. They have
come to reflect, understandably, the bureaucratic model which
increasingly has influenced all organizational forms in society,
religious as well as secular. What has been needed is the recovery of
caring in a way which would touch people lives significantly. It is not
enough to hear it from the pulpit, read it in the Bible, or see it in
individuals. It has to be experienced in community. The house group
movement has accomplished this” (1987:211)
Most
pastors determine those who are ‘in
their church’ by Sunday morning worship attendance. There are exceptions, but
for the most part, this is the standard measurement for determining
whether or not a church is growing numerically. I personally believe
that God wants His church
to grow, and therefore I, too, desire to see as many new faces as
possible on Sunday morning (primarily the unchurched). Most pastors,
like myself, will
diligently labor to fill their Sunday worship services as a sign that
their church is growing and that they are doing God’s will.
Yet, if a
church is content with the Sunday morning worship attendance as the key
sign of success, I wonder if that church is truly fulfilling the call of
Jesus Christ. Could a church that is a model of ‘church growth success’
be rebuked by the Lord, “I know your deeds; you have a reputation of
being alive, but you are dead” (Rev. 3:1). Could it be that many do
not know how to provide a true sense of community to their members?
Perhaps, there is a lack of knowledge concerning how to lead the
congregation to a deeper sense of Christian fellowship. Hadaway
insightfully notes the difference between the two structures,
“The home cell group provides a place where Christians can come
to know and understand one another, not hurriedly during opening
assembly prior to church school or semiformally during a postworship
coffee fellowship. Instead, the development of close, caring, face to
face relationships occurs naturally and intentionally in the comfortable
setting of a member’s home (1987:244).
In
the past, I have primarily
viewed the role of cell groups as a way to grow the church
(numerically). In Ecuador, I started and directed
a cell group ministry in both a mother and daughter church.
The ministry was very successful and the church grew rapidly as a
result. However, my vision
is expanding and deepening. Cells
are not only a church
growth technique; they are
also a key vehicle for the
church of Jesus Christ to experience the
true church in a living, dynamic way.
Can the
cell group by itself be considered ‘the true church of Jesus Christ’?
Could a person participate in a cell group without attending the
celebration service and be part of the true church? I’m sure there are
various ways to answer both
of the above questions. I
suppose that in some cell groups the Word of God is proclaimed
and the sacraments are administered by highly competent leaders.
Therefore a person might argue that there is no need for any
other gathering. Indeed, the house church movement is based on such
premises. They find Biblical
evidence for an independent house church structure.
I will talk more fully in chapter five about
cell groups and house churches in the primitive
church. Suffice it to say that there are strong arguments
on both sides.
Some can find evidence for a
cell/celebration pattern throughout church history, while others
argue in favor of independent house churches in those early times.
However,
even if it can be successfully argued that the N.T.
pattern favors independent house churches, I think that it’s
important to remember that the early church was a persecuted church. In
times of persecution, flexible
forms are needed to sustain church life (the present Chinese house
church movement is an example). Yet,
before the early church was forced to go underground, the pattern of
cell/celebration seems to have been normative (Acts 2:46). I would argue
that when and where the
church can freely operate, it seems that
cell groups should function
within the local church. In this way,
members can experience both the large gathered, celebrating
church as well as the intimate, nurturing cell church.
It’s also important to remember that
most cell group leaders are not called nor equipped to be full-time
pastors and teachers. They are not expected to take ultimate
responsibility for those under their charge. Rather, they function more
as ‘under shepherds’. This role has Old Testament roots.
Jethro advised Moses
to, "..select capable
men from all the people….and appoint them as officials over thousands,
hundreds, fifties and tens” (Exodus 18:21).
This structure was recommended to help care for the people more
effectively. Moses was still appointed by God to lead that wandering
congregation. Because most cell leaders are not called to ‘ultimately’
oversee a group of people, it’s important that they are
accountable to a structure
that is larger than themselves.
It’s
also true that God has
given gifted leaders to his church (e.g., Eph. 4; Rom. 12; I Cor.
12-14), demands order (I Cor. 14:33),
and accountability (I Pet. 5; I Tim. 2,3). The cell group
structure that I am covering in this paper is accountable to gifted
leaders and is under their accountability. In this system, the
cell must be fully submitted to the plan and purpose of
the local church leaders. Paul
Yonggi Cho, who oversees some 55,000 cell leaders,
correctly insists that
the cell groups must be under the authority of the church, and that they
should never act independently (1981:108-139).
It is my
opinion that unless the cell groups are contributing to the life of the
local church, both in her
spiritual development and her outreach to the world, it is better
to immediately close them down. This
is not to say that there isn’t a legitimate role for small group
ministries in a ‘parachurch’
setting (Kunz 1974:4-15).
Yet, I believe that the primarily
goal of even these evangelistic communities,
should be the indirect strengthening of the local church.
I am fully aware
that much more could be
said about the nature of
the true church. For example we have yet to fully answer the question,
What makes the church the church? The answer to this question would
involve an in-depth discussion concerning the marks of the true church.
We might further explore important issues such as Form/Essence,
Phenomenon/Creed, Institution/Community, Visible/Invisible, and
Imperfect/Perfect as they relate to the church (Van Engen 1981:48-62).
Suffice it say, the focus of this paper
demands a limited coverage of all that is involved with the
theological considerations of the church. However, as we have attempted
to define the nature of the
church from a Biblical perspective, it also behooves us to
determine what the church is called to do.
In
Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus sets forth clear marching orders for His young
church. An analysis of these verses demonstrate that of the four
principle verbs listed in
Matthew 28:19,20, only the
one ‘to make disciples’ is used in a
direct command form (Bosch
1983:228-233) . The direct command given to the church is to make
disciples. Naturally, then, we must start with ‘discipleship’ as the
principal function of the church. Logan correctly asserts, Disciple
making is the foundational scriptural vision for churches. Yet it’s
interesting how few churches truly have disciple making at the core of
their vision---if they have a vision at all! (1989:30). Nevertheless,
since the Lord left His church with this one command, a correct
understanding of it is essential for the church to function properly.
What does
it mean to make disciples? Certain ones have tended to emphasize the
spiritual perfection of existing
Christians (Hull 1988:135-140) ,
while still others interpret Christ´s command in terms of
evangelism. Although McGavran has been heavily criticized for erring on
the side of evangelism, the way he later clarified the verb ’to
disciple’ seems to touch the root idea of the verb (McGavran
1980:123).
He
clarifies three aspects of
the verb ‘to disciple’. D-1 & D-2 point out the evangelistic
thrust of the Great Commission, whereas
D-3 accents the perfecting of existing believers. The important
aspect of McGavran’s analogy is that Christ’s command to
disciple is both an evangelistic command and a perfecting
command. The church is called to do both simultaneously. One
should not be highlighted at the
expense of the other.
Evangelism is a primary function of the church as it relates to
her call to disciple the nations.
When the first disciples received Christ’s last command, there
were only a handful of believers. Therefore it is necessary to interpret
the command of Christ to disciple the nations as a
call to evangelism. Yet, today, many churches have ceased to
actively engage in
reaching the non-Christian. Goals,
finances, and resources are
directed to those already inside the church. Non-Christians are
welcomed, if they show up. Certainly,
this is the case in most North American
churches today. George Hunter insightfully
summarizes the present situation,
“…the vast majority of
churches have not, within memory, reached and discipled any really
secular persons! Many churches would be astonished if it ever happened,
because many churches do not even intend to reach lost people outside
their church’s circle of influence. Their main business is caring for
their members” (1996:25).
However, in many churches
today, God seems to be sounding a wake up call.Churches are waking up to the fact that for too
long they have structured themselves for the sake and comfort of
the believers instead of the unchurched
(Logan 1989:63). One
of those movements today that is endeavoring to correct that problem is
the ‘seeker
sensitive’ movement. It is
an effort to give an ‘outward focus’ to an otherwise ‘inward
focused’ church. These
churches attempt to make their churches relevant to the world. “Unchurched
Harry” and “Saddleback
Sam” are given primary attention (Hunter 1996:12).
This is a
good sign because the church has often
tried to divorce the missionary enterprise of the church from the
edification aspect. “Missions’
becomes something that the church does instead of being the very
heart of the church itself.
However, as was mentioned earlier, pastors and theologians are
understanding the church of Jesus Christ as being a missionary church.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the church will only enter into
her fullness as a missionary church (Van Engen 1991:17).
I would
like to look at two types
of evangelism that Jesus calls His church to do. The first
relates to evangelism as a lifestyle. Referring to this aspect, Jesus
declares in John 17:23, “I
in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the
world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved
me.” It is this love in
action that is often the most effective means of outreach (Hadaway,
Wright, DuBose 1987:91).
The
second type refers to the church’s
active evangelism among the world. Perhaps, this type of
evangelism can best be seen in Christ’s initial call to His disciples,
“ ‘Come follow me,’ Jesus said, ‘and I will make you fishers of
men’ “ (Mark 1:17). Jesus calls us to be His fisherman. Each person
on this earth is only granted a limited time to decide for Christ. The
writer of Hebrews tells us, “…man is destined to die once, and after
that to face judgment” (9:27). This fact should jar us with a certain
urgency. With this in mind, cell groups in the church must take on
an active role in reaching the unchurched around them.
My goal
in this tutorial is to relate both of these two aspects of evangelism to
cell groups. There seems to be a new wave of interest in
evangelism through home cell groups. Yet, it’s not really a new
methodology. It’s as old as the Christian church. In fact, it appears
that most of the evangelism in the primitive church took place through
the home churches. Hadaway, Wright, and DuBose write,
“Another significant matter about evangelism in the New
Testament is that much of it---if not most of the more enduring type—took
place in the house churches. This was true not simply because the larger
homes were able to accommodate the function. It was also true because
proclamation took place as a result of the total witness of the
interrelated functions of church life in the homes” (1987:66).
I believe that we can
learn much from those early saints concerning how to effectively
evangelize. Yet, that same
form of evangelism continues in the cell church. Cho
credits the growth of his 700,000+ church to his system of cell
groups. Cho
highlights his methodology of cell group evangelism by saying,
“Our cell group system is a net for our Christians to cast.
Instead of a pastor fishing for one fish at a time, organized believers
form nets to gather hundreds and thousands of fish. A pastor should
never try to fish with a single rod but should organize believers into
the ‘nets’ of a cell system (Hurtson 1994:107).
According to Jesus, the church will win the world by
demonstrating our unity and love for one another. As was earlier stated,
the cell group ministry in the local church provides
opportunities for
the church to truly be the Body of Christ and the People of God. As the
church meets in a face to face encounter with each other there are many
occasions when this love can be demonstrated both on a spiritual level
(Heb. 10:25) as well as on a very practical level (I Jn. 3:17).
As the world beholds this type of practical
love and unity in action, Christ tells us that they will be won
to Himself.
They will not only hear the gospel, but
they will see the gospel lived
out. Several veterans of
the small group ministry team up to write,
“And that is the purpose
of all this---of caring for one another,...so that the world will know
that Jesus Christ is Lord. That’s why the church exists in the first
place. The ultimate goal of the small group is to expose people who don’t
know Jesus Christ to His love. We have small groups so the world can see
Christ fleshed out. It´s our way of taking Christ to the world” (Meir,
Meir, Getz, Doran 1992:180).
This ‘life style’ evangelism in the small group often takes
place through friendship. Frequently a non-Christian is hesitant to
immediately enter the doors of a church. It’s much easier to first
participate in a cell group in
the warmth of a home. Dale Galloway writes,
“Many people who will not attend a church because it is too
threatening, will come to a home meeting”
(1986:144). Later,
these same non-Christians will enter the church by the side of a friend
that they’ve met in the cell group.
In a
small group environment, it seems to be easier to treat the
non-Christian as a person with real emotions and feelings. The gospel
can be presented in a way that meets the needs of the new person (Mallison
1989:9). In fact, Dr. Peace
wrote the book Small Group Evangelism
because he believes that the small group is the ideal place to
evangelize. He believes that it is in the small group a
non-Christian can manifest deep,
personal needs and find the healing touch of Christ. Peace
writes,
“…in
a successful small group, love, acceptance and fellowship flow in
unusual measure. This is the ideal situation in which to hear about the
kingdom of God. In this context the ‘facts of the gospel’ come
through not as cold proposition but as living truths visible in the
lives of others. In such an atmosphere a person is irresistibly drawn to
Christ by his gracious presence” (1996:36).
God uses a variety of
methods to win non-Christians to Himself. Yet, it might be argued that
the very heart of evangelism is relational (Hadaway, Wright, DuBose
1987:81). We are inviting men and women to enter into a relationship
with the King of Kings. Yet, sadly, so much of the evangelism today is
impersonal.
In the
cell group, not only are friendship made that lead to effective
evangelism, those friendships are also kept after one receives Jesus
Christ. It is those friendships that provide natural links to the church
where the new person can either grow in the faith or find Jesus for the
first time. George calls
this type of evangelism, ‘side door evangelism’ verses ‘front door
evangelism’ (1991:73-75). Logan
explains this concept,
“In the ideal church of
the coming decades, what Ralph Neighbour calls the cell-group church and
Carl George terms the metachurch, assimilation of the un-churched will
occur through the side door—that is, through the unchurched person’s
involvement in a church’s cell groups (invited by a neighbor, friend,
or relative who is a member of both the church and the cell group)…”
(1989:66).
When one thinks that the
effective evangelization and rapid growth of the early church mainly
took place in the home, the wave of friendship evangelism through the
cell group offers exciting potential.
However,
numerical growth in the group must be intentionally planned. The members must be encouraged to aggressively evangelize. The reality of a lost world on the
edge of a Christless eternity should
never be far from the minds of both the leaders and members of the cell
group. Some have labeled
this type of concern ‘urgent
evangelization’ There
are many places in the Bible where this type of urgency can be found.
For
example, in the parable of the wedding banquet the king told his
servants to, “Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet
anyone you find” (Mat. 22:9). Paul
felt compelled to preach the gospel of Christ (I Cor. 9:16) because of
the love of Christ which controlled him (II Cor. 5:14). He tells us that
the knowledge that all men
would stand before the judgment seat of Christ was another motivation
for the persuasion of lost men (II Cor. 5:11).
It was this same urgency that stirred him to say, “How, then,
can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they
believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear
without someone preaching to them? (Rom. 10:14).
I
acknowledge that not all churches use cell groups for the purpose of
evangelism. Some groups are closed groups while others are equipped to
support those with a particular type of need. On the other hand, my
Ph.D. focuses on cell group ministry which has the
dual purpose of both aggressive evangelism and
warm, pastoral care. In
this type of church, there is a planned strategy to evangelize
non-Christians.
There are
many ways to do this. Since this is not a ‘how to’ paper, I will
just name a few:
1.
Plan a ‘friendship dinner’
instead of the normal cell meeting with the intent of inviting
non-Christian friends
2.
Use an evangelistic video
instead of the regular Bible based lesson
3.
Place a empty chair in their midst and pray for the next person who will
fill it (George 1991:99).
For most of the cell churches, this aggressive or ‘urgent’
evangelism is graphically seen in the
rapid multiplication of their cell
groups. The pastoral leadership encourages the cell leaders to
add new people (emphasis on non-Christians) with the goal of
multiplying the group when the number reaches fifteen. In many of the
most rapidly growing cell churches around the world, the time that it
takes for the individual cells to multiply is six months (Neighbour
1992: 32-35).
I
recently heard about a cell church in
Medan, Indonesia that was
established in the mid 80's. It now has almost 10,000 members and a
700 member "in house" Bible School to train church
planters and missionaries. The
cell groups in that church comprise the core of all church activities.
The effectiveness of their evangelism can be seen in this statement by
one of the former members of the church, “The cells never go over 15
in number. The goal of each group is to divide every year. In fact if a
cell does not divide, it is "absorbed" by other cells.
The goal is evangelism, then discipleship”.
Tony
Rosenthal, a Southern Baptist church planter, has developed an effective
way to plant churches using cell groups. In his system, a cell group
must give birth within six months or the group disbands. He has
discovered that groups tend to become stagnant and inward looking if
they are not constantly looking for new converts (Hadaway, Wright, and
DuBose 1987:262).
If the
group is going to multiply, plans must be intentionally formulated.
Karen Hurtson talks about one cell leader named Pablo, who shares with
the group his vision for multiplication
before every meeting. The people in Pablo’s group have a very
positive idea about cell group multiplication. They see the
multiplication of their group as a sign of success (Hurtson 1994:12).
Not all cells multiply in a matter of months. Some might take
two years. However, it is unwise to allow a group to continue
indefinitely. Stagnation is often the result.
Carl George, who has studied multitudes of cell-based churches
around the world gives this counsel,
"The gestation period for healthy groups to
grow and divide ranges from four to twenty-four months. The more
frequently a group meets, the sooner it’s able to divide. If a group
stays together for more than two years without becoming a parent, it
stagnates. Bob Orr, of the Win Arn Church Growth, Inc., reports that
groups that meet for a year without birthing a daughter cell only have a
50 percent chance of doing so. But every time a cell bears a child, the
clock resets. Thus a small subgroup can remain together indefinitely and
remain healthy and fresh by giving
birth every few months (1991:101)
Perhaps,
the period of time that it takes for a cell to give birth should not be
the primary emphasis. Rather,
it is the way that the top
leadership intentionally motivates the cells leaders to make cell
multiplication the chief priority. It is the vision and encouragement
that is communicated to the cell leadership
that makes the difference. In
commenting on the miracle of Paul Cho’s church and how it grew from
twenty small groups to fifty thousand small groups, Hadaway says, “…the
numbers continued to grow because a growth strategy was built into each
cell group” (1987:19).
This ‘growth
strategy’ is not easy to maintain. From my experience I have
discovered that it is a constant struggle. The members become
comfortable with each other. People tend to cling tightly to their newly
formed relationships, and do not want to let go, even if it means new
people being won into the Kingdom. Hadaway writes,
“…the
principle of cell division and growth seems critical here to help avert
the problem of exclusiveness. Cell division is not always experienced as
a pleasant plan of action for members who have developed deep
relationships in the home group meetings. However, the purpose of such
action is designed to prevent the kind of exclusiveness and inwardness
that can eventually undermine one of the most significant goals of cell
groups---outreach and growth “(1987:101).
Aggressive
evangelism, then, must
be a vital part of cell group ministry if we are going to fulfill
the great commission today. Many churches are finding this true as they
reach out to their non-Christian neighbors through a cell group
ministry.
CONTINUE TO PART 3 OF
CELLTHEOLOGY
