# Danger of Cell Groups?



## Toasty (Aug 12, 2016)

I have a friend who wants to talk with me about the danger of cell groups. What are cell groups and what is the supposed danger of them?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 12, 2016)

Some of the potential dangers . . . 
* lack of ecclesiastical supervision 
* pooling of ignorance when discussing what it "means to me" over "what it means"
* petri dish for anti-church movements and waves of discontent
* depreciation of the means of grace in favor of the meaning of camaraderie
* arrogance of believing the cell to consist of the "true believers" against the merely nominal ones at church
* danger of substituting the cell for the church
* erosion of pastoral authority

How is that for the start of a list?

Some churches have a vibrant and useful cell group structure that may be useful in evangelism and in assimilation of new members. But, when people talk about the "dangers," they are probably thinking of some of the points made in my off-the-cuff list.


----------



## hammondjones (Aug 12, 2016)

I'll largely echo the above, and say that I have been in churches where they say from the pulpit "Sunday Morning is nice, but if you aren't in a small group then you aren't in church." Motivations may be sincere, but that sort of approach to corporate worship isn't in accord with Reformed piety, in my opinion.


See Dr Clark's comments on small groups as modern-day conventicles, below and elsewhere.
http://heidelblog.net/2007/08/why-a-second-service/



> The pietists have never really cared as much for the stated services and official preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments as much as they have favored “small groups.” Originally they were known as “conventicles.” Today they’re known as “cell groups” and “home groups” and the like. In the 18th and 19th centuries they were called Holy Clubs...
> 
> The small group was essential to the pieitist quest to make sure that everyone in the congregation was really and truly converted and had the right sort of religious experience. Nothing wrong with healthy, Christ-centered religious experience oriented around Word and Spirit but that isn’t what pieitism is about. What moves pietism, what makes it what it is, is the quest to experience the risen Christ without the mediation of the preaching of the Word and Sacraments.





http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/p369-direct_pub_worship.html



> Of the Assembling of the Congregation, and their Behaviour in the Publick Worship of God.
> 
> WHEN the congregation is to meet for publick worship, the people (having before prepared their hearts thereunto) ought all to come and join therein; not absenting themselves from the publick ordinance through negligence, *or upon pretence of private meetings.*


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> Some of the potential dangers . . .
> * lack of ecclesiastical supervision
> * pooling of ignorance when discussing what it "means to me" over "what it means"
> * petri dish for anti-church movements and waves of discontent
> ...



It is also a method of control used in charismatic (usually) congregations with cultic tendencies, even some Calvinistic ones, allegedly. In those cases it is an instrument of abusive pastoral and ecclesiastical authority as opposed to an erosion of it. Some of them are dedicated to delving into every detail of the members private lives as much as they are to any kind of teaching. It is a key component of those groups that are influenced by the Shepherding Movement.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2016)

hammondjones said:


> I'll largely echo the above, and say that I have been in churches where they say from the pulpit "Sunday Morning is nice, but if you aren't in a small group then you aren't in church." Motivations may be sincere, but that sort of approach to corporate worship isn't in accord with Reformed piety, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> See Dr Clark's comments on small groups as modern-day conventicles, below and elsewhere.
> ...



It should be noted that some of what were termed conventicles, particularly in the 17th Century, were orthodox gatherings led by Puritans and were not at all pietist in the way that Dr. Clark describes. If I'm not mistaken, all non-conformist and dissenting meetings in Britain would have been considered conventicles during the Restoration and perhaps at other times. (This included Covenanters, Congregationalists, Baptists, etc.) It is a term that referred to meetings that weren't sanctioned by the state. Better to just say pietist, in my opinion, rather than to use a word that typically had a different connotation. I'll stand corrected if it can be shown that the word was often used in the way he uses it. He's certainly read much more than I have! But the only use of conventicle that I am familiar with is in reference to dissenting services when established church services were the only lawful religious gatherings. Given his mention of Walther, it seems that he may be thinking more of the Lutheran context, where it does appear to have been used in connection with pietism. 

Besides, the types of cell groups with which I'm acquainted are not considered a substitute for corporate worship, which is what the statement from the DPW is referring to.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 12, 2016)

There are all sorts of potential dangers if groups are run poorly or have bad purposes. But there are also all sorts of dangers in simply showing up for a worship service one hour a week but otherwise having no interest in spending time within the community of believers—praying, discussing the Word, eating together, sharing, encouraging, bearing burdens, practicing hospitality, etc.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 12, 2016)

Jack K said:


> There are all sorts of potential dangers if groups are run poorly or have bad purposes. But there are also all sorts of dangers in simply showing up for a worship service one hour a week but otherwise having no interest in spending time within the community of believers—praying, discussing the Word, eating together, sharing, encouraging, bearing burdens, practicing hospitality, etc.



Though many who do "pray, discussing the Word, eating together, sharing, encouraging, bearing burdens, practicing hospitality, etc." outside "the hour" and with ones local congregation are not necessarily in "potential danger".


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 12, 2016)

> It should be noted that some of what were termed conventicles, particularly in the 17th Century, were orthodox gatherings led by Puritans and were not at all pietist in the way that Dr. Clark describes. If I'm not mistaken, all non-conformist and dissenting meetings in Britain would have been considered conventicles during the Restoration and perhaps at other times. (This included Covenanters, Congregationalists, Baptists, etc.) It is a term that referred to meetings that weren't sanctioned by the state. Better to just say pietist, in my opinion, rather than to use a word that typically had a different connotation. I'll stand corrected if it can be shown that the word was often used in the way he uses it. He's certainly read much more than I have! But the only use of conventicle that I am familiar with is in reference to dissenting services when established church services were the only lawful religious gatherings. Given his mention of Walther, it seems that he may be thinking more of the Lutheran context, where it does appear to have been used in connection with pietism.
> 
> Besides, the types of cell groups with which I'm acquainted are not considered a substitute for corporate worship, which is what the statement from the DPW is referring to.



Chris, the use of "conventicle" terminology may muddy the waters. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Clark's points are addressed to the rise of pietism and the uber-influential _Pia desideria or Earnest Desire for a Reform of the True Evangelical Church_ in 1675. Small groups (as we call them today) were among Spener's six proposals in the pietist program for restoring the life of the church: "The earnest and thorough study of the Bible in private meetings, ecclesiolae in ecclesia ("little churches within the church")." This moved beyond the practical necessity of meeting in unsanctioned gatherings to avoid persecution and represented a strategic effort to use the sociological elements of "small groups" in much the same way as they are used today. Clark is spot on in terms of the effect pietistic use of "small groups" had on the church at large (in my opinion). The "small group" movement does tend to pit the interpersonal intimacy of the house-church (aka "community" groups, sharing groups, small group Bible studies) against the purported impersonal public church meetings with pastors and corporate worhsip. This dichotomy of Gemeinschaft vs. Gesellschaft serves to diminish the value placed on Word and Sacrament in favor of the "sharing" of "needs," "burdens," and "prayer requests."

A rough analog to this phenomenon can be seen in the differentiating of "worship" (meaning praise choruses) from "formal church services." I can still remember one of my kids coming home from college and speaking rhapsodically about the meaningful dorm times where the students in the Christian college did "worship" as opposed to the really boring stuff we did in church. In his mind, "worship" became a synonym for repetitive, aspirational, praise songs on a guitar to be set opposed to all that stuff connected to "regular" church. That is part of what can happen when small groups are emphasized to too great an extent. Rather than becoming tools of evangelism and assimilation, they help untether folks from their ties to the church. Small group = church/community; corporate worship = impersonal ritual. And, in many cases, the "Bible study" has more to do with a pretext for griping about child rearing, lousy jobs, or frustrations in one's sex life. I can still remember during seminary being part of a small group where our senior pastor's wife took a good bit of time to explain why she was sexually frustrated and that her husband did not "satisfy" her!!!


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> > It should be noted that some of what were termed conventicles, particularly in the 17th Century, were orthodox gatherings led by Puritans and were not at all pietist in the way that Dr. Clark describes. If I'm not mistaken, all non-conformist and dissenting meetings in Britain would have been considered conventicles during the Restoration and perhaps at other times. (This included Covenanters, Congregationalists, Baptists, etc.) It is a term that referred to meetings that weren't sanctioned by the state. Better to just say pietist, in my opinion, rather than to use a word that typically had a different connotation. I'll stand corrected if it can be shown that the word was often used in the way he uses it. He's certainly read much more than I have! But the only use of conventicle that I am familiar with is in reference to dissenting services when established church services were the only lawful religious gatherings. Given his mention of Walther, it seems that he may be thinking more of the Lutheran context, where it does appear to have been used in connection with pietism.
> >
> > Besides, the types of cell groups with which I'm acquainted are not considered a substitute for corporate worship, which is what the statement from the DPW is referring to.
> 
> ...



Of course. I am familiar with _ecclesiolae in ecclesia_ which was also an issue with Methodism, whether Calvinistic or Arminian. But as someone with a History degree who focused almost entirely on British and American History, I felt it necessary to mention the various Conventicle Acts, all (or almost all) of which were aimed at the Puritans. But I'll add that some, whether Lutheran or "Reformed" would consider the piety of even some of the Puritans and the _Nadere Reformatie_ to be rather pietistic and ultimately a bad influence on the Reformed churches, the first step on a slippery slope to "enthusiasm" and revivalism. (I'm thinking more of D.G. Hart, who (in my opinion) takes things to extremes in this regard in his overreaction against evangelicalism and fundamentalism, tending to throw true piety under the bus along with pietism. I would hope Dr. Clark, who I admire, would not agree. I do disagree with him in his assertion that dead orthodoxy does not exist. The fact that some may go overboard (Spener and men who followed) in reacting to a perceived wrong doesn't mean that there wasn't an issue to begin with.) 



> A rough analog to this phenomenon can be seen in the differentiating of "worship" (meaning praise choruses) from "formal church services." I can still remember one of my kids coming home from college and speaking rhapsodically about the meaningful dorm times where the students in the Christian college did "worship" as opposed to the really boring stuff we did in church. In his mind, "worship" became a synonym for repetitive, aspirational, praise songs on a guitar to be set opposed to all that stuff connected to "regular" church. That is part of what can happen when small groups are emphasized to too great an extent. Rather than becoming tools of evangelism and assimilation, they help untether folks from their ties to the church. Small group = church/community; corporate worship = impersonal ritual. And, in many cases, the "Bible study" has more to do with a pretext for griping about child rearing, lousy jobs, or frustrations in one's sex life. I can still remember during seminary being part of a small group where our senior pastor's wife took a good bit of time to explain why she was sexually frustrated and that her husband did not "satisfy" her!!!



I wonder if the wife going on about sex problems is a regional difference. Here in the more "repressed" South, even today that is probably much less likely to happen, especially in mixed company. Somehow I think that's more likely to happen at Fuller than at NOBTS. Many small groups here are segregated by sex, as I would imagine is often the case elsewhere. Perhaps radical egalitarians would think of that as being a great evil. 

While the problems with small groups are well documented, I'm not prepared to reprobate them altogether. Often something like that is about the only chance that many Christians have to fellowship informally. I'm glad that Dr. Clark doesn't rule them out entirely and says that they can be beneficial if run properly. 

Unless Henry's friend is a confessionally Reformed, Lutheran, or something similar, the "dangers of cell groups" may well pertain to what I mentioned about the Shepherding Movement in post #5. It may be a regional difference, but down here that is what "cell group" almost always means. I'm not sure that I've ever heard it in connection with anything but a group of that nature in a charismatic church. I don't think I've ever heard it used in the context of a Baptist, Presbyterian or non-charismatic evangelical church. The term small group or Bible study would typically be used to refer to what Dennis notes in post #3. But maybe the terminology is different on the Left Coast or elsewhere. And I'm not in the habit of reading church growth material, so maybe it is used by certain evangelical church growth gurus.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 12, 2016)

Pilgrim said:


> t should be noted that some of what were termed conventicles, particularly in the 17th Century, were orthodox gatherings led by Puritans and were not at all pietist in the way that Dr. Clark describes. If I'm not mistaken, all non-conformist and dissenting meetings in Britain would have been considered conventicles during the Restoration and perhaps at other times. (This included Covenanters, Congregationalists, Baptists, etc.)



Chris,

I think our Presbyterian forefathers (I'll not speak of congregationalists and baptists) viewed conventicles as something lawful in churches unsettled, but not in churches settled in government. Historically, the strictest of Presbyterians have allowed for anomalies in extraordinary circumstances. This includes the superintendents of the first book of discipline, the statement in the Westminster Confession about magistrates calling synods, and the Seceders organizing a presbytery without Ruling Elders.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 12, 2016)

Chris,

At Fuller, in Church Growth lit, and in much evangelical "small group" material generally, the terms "small group," "covenant group," "community group," "growth group," "discipleship group," and "cell group" are used to describe the same animal (some of the terms are outdated,others are more current, but the beast was the same). In CA a few years ago, "cell" groups were all the rage among broad evangelicals of transdenominational stripe, not particularly related to charismatics, although some of the books touting them were written by a charismatic Korean (Cho). And, while I knew of some gender segregated groups such as "women's Bible studies" or early morning "men's Bible studies," mixed gender groups were pretty popular. In CA, the Christian Education staff person/DCE/Family Ministry Pastor (or whatever the going term is) was usually tasked to create small groups that were most often mixed gender. That also seemed to be the pattern at a church in IN where I served as interim last year. They had several small groups/cell groups/discipleship groups/Bible study groups/prayer groups/sharing groups (whatever) and all were mixed gender. All of my adult children attend non-charismatic Big Box churches (MI, IL, IN, AR, MO) where they ALL belong to mixed gender home groups.

My post #2 attempted not to throw the baby out with the bath water but concluded: "Some churches have a vibrant and useful cell group structure that may be useful in evangelism and in assimilation of new members. But, when people talk about the "dangers," they are probably thinking of some of the points made in my off-the-cuff list." By cell group I mean any kind of small group structure that generally meets in homes during the week for fellowship, "Bible study," and prayer.

You are correct that the term CAN be a term of art for more formalized and authoritarian structures. However, in my limited experience, most evangelical churches promote a "small group" program that includes various home groups doing pretty much the same stuff and using the wide variety of names (some really cutesy) to describe the same phenom. My critical remarks were directed to the list of dangers mentioned in my post #2 and parallel to the concerns by Dr. Clark.


----------



## Toasty (Aug 13, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> Some of the potential dangers . . .
> * lack of ecclesiastical supervision
> * pooling of ignorance when discussing what it "means to me" over "what it means"
> * petri dish for anti-church movements and waves of discontent
> ...



Some of those dangers can be overcome when the elders lead them or have oversight of them. 

What is the biblical basis of having such groups?


----------



## Warren (Aug 13, 2016)

Would an example of cells be cliques in the negative, or having a,b,c ministries (where abc stands for youth, young adult, young singles, married couples, college, foreign, young professional, family, retired, financial, etc?)Some churches will say if you don't belong to a small group, you aren't being well fed. To me, its the opposite; I'd rather not see the body of Christ fractured into a dozen cliques, each with smaller cliques and favorite pastors leading them. It just means more fracturing. Nothing against ministries, per se.


----------



## Toasty (Aug 27, 2016)

I talked with my friend about this. He says that the danger of cell groups is that a small group will split into two groups which will lead into those groups being split into groups and so on. He says that this kind of practice is not biblical. He said that it breaks up the unity of the body.


----------



## KGP (Aug 30, 2016)

My Grandparents have been apart of the same evangelical Baptist church up here in Canada for 60 plus years. Not sure how long it has been that the church has been doing 'life groups' as they call them now, but my grandparents have led one for many years. 

It has been for them a phenomenal opportunity to show hospitality and practically serve and encourage other believers. They have had a special impact on people of ethnic minority who have ended up in our area from China or Korea, etc.

Their group is an example of a group of people who faithfully meet together not only to encourage/pray/bear one another's burdens, but also to evangelize and assimilate into the larger church body.

I would hold up this group in particular as an example to counter what Toasty's friend presumes to be dangers of life groups. As my grandparents group has grown and brought more people in; and seen members mature in their faith; the group has split in order to better serve and accommodate more newcomers. 

Toasty's friend may say this divides the body; sure it does; but it is not a spiritual division; it is only a physical division for the purpose of increased fruitfulness. The unity we are not to disturb is the spiritual unity of the spiritual body; and so when groups like this divide for the purpose of fulfilling the 'one another's' to a broader base of people who are seeking connection with other Christians; the unity in the spirit and mission of Jesus is kept intact.


Like many things, life groups can be effective or they can be ineffective in promoting obedience to the great commission and the greatest commandment; they can even be dangerous. But largely this is dependent on the people in the group. Too often that is not the express purpose of the group.

The comment above about the quest to experience the risen Christ without mediation of the preaching of the Word and the Sacraments may very well be the strongest critique of these small groups; however in the churches where this is the case; I'd recon it is not a problem originating with the small groups as a concept so much as it is already latent in the theology of the parent church/denomination. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

