Biblical Foundations for Small Group Ministry

[ewenlin]

I need some help fleshing out some thoughts.

Gareth Weldon Icenogle in Biblical Foundations for Small Group Ministry writes,

From another perspective we could say that, from the beginning, God existed in community as group being in creative action. From a historically classic trinitarian view of God, the divine group existed as three persons in conversation and mission. The Genesis account does not initiate an immediate trinitarian understanding of God, but does affirm a community of God in action through creation. Since this community is reflected in "image" and "likeness" on the human side as male and female together, we can extrapolate that God exists in plural being of at least two persons. Classic theological history understands God to be revealed as three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Ray Anderson, in On Being Human, clarifies this historical temptation of theology to move too quickly from the plurality of God to a classic trinitarian model. Talking about Genesis 1:26-27, Anderson says:

It is instructive that the plural pronoun is used with reference both to God and to "man" as created in the image and likeness of God. One must be careful about inferring from the plural pronoun here a trinitarian concept of God as "three persons," but there is at at least an intentional correspondence in this text between the intrinsic plurality of human being as constituted male and female and the being of God in whose likeness and image this plurality exists... Quite clearly the imago is not totally present in the form of individual humanity but more completely as co-humanity. It is thus quite natural and expected that God himself is also a "we."

The small group is the ideal microcosm in which to explore the simplicity and delicacy of the full God-human community (which includes both male and female) in action. The human community exists foundationally as small group, that is, at least one man and one woman in relationship with God. Three persons were together in the Garden "in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8). The foundational theological community is man, woman and God together.

Further on he writes,

The small group is the base community in which men and women can meet God and one another to be, to plan, and to act for the careful nururing of relationships with created things.

Icenogle is asserting a ontological and teleological foundation for men to gather in small groups, inferring from the plurality of the being of God and the initial paradigm of the Garden. Because God is a "community" of being, so should we.

First, what do you guys think about this?


Second, Icenogle basically traces examples or instances of community developed in both Old and New Testament and extrapolates a sort of systematic study of small groups in Scripture. From his preface,

It (the book) is an exploration of Christian community in the very nature and character of God. The general thesis is that God has set in motion from the beginning certain divine and human realities that are uniquely "imaged" and "reflected" where two or more persons come together in the presence of God.

So my issue then, is an exegetical one (hence the forum choice). Would it be a stretch to be reading "small group dynamics" from passages of Scripture?

For example, positing that Jesus must be the centre of every group, Icenogle cites the example of the disciples scattering after the crucifixion as "they had lost their common identity." Only after the Pentecostal experience did they come back together again.

How much of redemptive history should be taken as normative examples for us?

Putting it another way, how much should we "learn" from narratives without departing from either a redemptive historical or grammatical historical interpretation?

 

[ewenlin]

 

[ewenlin]

If I say that because Jesus worked with only a small group of 12, so also today we should have small groups.

If I say that because the apostolic church consists largely of dispersed groups of believers meeting in homes, so also today we should have small groups.



There should be a script attached to this emoticon such that it sends a pm to Bob so he can respond to every post that references it.

 

[ewenlin]

I'm going to go ahead and give this one last bump before I conclude that small groups have no place in Reformed theology. At least not on the Puritan Board it seems.

 

[TaylorWest]

Not sure how he gets male and female in there. For my part, I'm happier when small groups consist of men's groups and women's groups. Just seems much easier to tackle sensitive issues this way.

 

[Pergamum]

It appears that II Timothy 2:1,2 denotes close, personal discipleship and training, such that Paul could call Timothy his child or son. It appears that Jesus and Paul sank many hours of close, intentional, and personal mentoring into their disciples such that in II Timothy 3:10,11, Paul could say that Timothy "fully knew" Paul's manner of life.

Perhaps many would be suspicious of unstructured small groups led by unqualified people without the church's knowledge, but if a church can train its people and give them permission to serve and take initatiative, then I think small groups and bible studies allow people to bond and practice the "one anothers" of Scripture in small, more intimate settings.

 

[Christusregnat]

I don't know about small groups, but youth pastors are definitely biblical! Paul told Timothy, Let no man despise thy youth.

 

[Pergamum]

Hey Adam, youth pastors are biblical because if yous got kids, you is one.

 

[ewenlin]

Not sure how he gets male and female in there. For my part, I'm happier when small groups consist of men's groups and women's groups. Just seems much easier to tackle sensitive issues this way.

Throughout the book Icenogle argues that whilst mono-gender groups are beneficial in many aspects, we should strive for bi-gender groups as they most closely emulate the "community" paradigm in the Garden. It was, and now should be, male and female together with God.

But I am with you on this one.

It appears that II Timothy 2:1,2 denotes close, personal discipleship and training, such that Paul could call Timothy his child or son. It appears that Jesus and Paul sank many hours of close, intentional, and personal mentoring into their disciples such that in II Timothy 3:10,11, Paul could say that Timothy "fully knew" Paul's manner of life.

Perhaps many would be suspicious of unstructured small groups led by unqualified people without the church's knowledge, but if a church can train its people and give them permission to serve and take initatiative, then I think small groups and bible studies allow people to bond and practice the "one anothers" of Scripture in small, more intimate settings.

Good that you brought up training people. Would women then, be allowed to step into these leadership roles, where training and bonding takes place outside the church?

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 07:44:39 EST-----

I don't know about small groups, but youth pastors are definitely biblical! Paul told Timothy, Let no man despise thy youth.

 

[Pergamum]

Not sure how he gets male and female in there. For my part, I'm happier when small groups consist of men's groups and women's groups. Just seems much easier to tackle sensitive issues this way.

Throughout the book Icenogle argues that whilst mono-gender groups are beneficial in many aspects, we should strive for bi-gender groups as they most closely emulate the "community" paradigm in the Garden. It was, and now should be, male and female together with God.

But I am with you on this one.

It appears that II Timothy 2:1,2 denotes close, personal discipleship and training, such that Paul could call Timothy his child or son. It appears that Jesus and Paul sank many hours of close, intentional, and personal mentoring into their disciples such that in II Timothy 3:10,11, Paul could say that Timothy "fully knew" Paul's manner of life.

Perhaps many would be suspicious of unstructured small groups led by unqualified people without the church's knowledge, but if a church can train its people and give them permission to serve and take initatiative, then I think small groups and bible studies allow people to bond and practice the "one anothers" of Scripture in small, more intimate settings.

Good that you brought up training people. Would women then, be allowed to step into these leadership roles, where training and bonding takes place outside the church?

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 07:44:39 EST-----

I don't know about small groups, but youth pastors are definitely biblical! Paul told Timothy, Let no man despise thy youth.

We utilize women freely to teach other women and children. There are biblical commands for older women to teach the younger, and in a gender-segregated society (like in tribal societies or the Muslim world) paying heed to these directives concerning the utilization of women helps to reach every demographic of the population.

 

[ewenlin]

Any pastors here have/manage a structured program of small groups in church?

 

[CatherineL]

Not sure how he gets male and female in there. For my part, I'm happier when small groups consist of men's groups and women's groups. Just seems much easier to tackle sensitive issues this way.

My husband and I agree, but right now we're sort of in trouble with our Session because we're not attending one of the gender-mixed small groups. We did for a long time, when they met as a big group for worship, then split into men and women for study and prayer. Then the group we were in went to everyone together (except for prayer). I specifically have a conviction that my husband supports that I should not speak in a mixed group bible study. No one else in our group shares this, and my husband has been given a lot of grief from the pastor and elders (I think they thought he was pushing this on me or something). We did go for a while, but when the new semester started we decided to stick with just our gender specific groups. I lead a young mom's group and he goes to a men's morning group.

Anyway, our church is very concerned with everyone being involved in a gender - mixed small group, even though our church is very small (only maybe 12-15 families).

 

[ewenlin]

Trouble with the Session for small groups attendance? Wow, that's the last thing I'd expect.

 

[CatherineL]

Not like church discipline, just very heavy leaning.

 

[Herald]

Any pastors here have/manage a structured program of small groups in church?

We utilize small groups. We meet in an elementary school, therefore no facilities for corporate gatherings afterwards. Small groups provide us a means to practice hospitality to visitors, fellowship, and teaching.
We rotate hosts homes giving all who participate the opportunity to show hospitality.

 

[Iconoclast]

15And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

16Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

17And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

18Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

I see in verse 16 a desire of the righteous to discuss the Lord and serving him with a view to edification. You can see several verses in the epistles that speak to this as well as the one anothering passages in the NT.
Such meetings should be under the over-sight of the eldership so as to not drift off in various directions. This does not have to be overly rigid.
In a sense the PB almost functions as a small group. I from time to time discuss issues from the PB with brothers in the church,and the Pastor.

 

[timmopussycat]

So my issue then, is an exegetical one (hence the forum choice). Would it be a stretch to be reading "small group dynamics" from passages of Scripture?

I don't know if it answers your questions directly, but the 2nd chapter of the following book does provide an exegetical defense of small group meetings, while identifying a major difference in practice between "small groups" as practiced on the Calvinist side of the Evangelical Awakening of the 1700's and today. I suspect that the churches today would benefit from a return to the original small group "Experience Meeting" agenda rather than "bible study" as is now generally the case.

The Experience Meeting: An ... - Google Books

 

[Pergamum]

[video=youtube;DC4pmIZ5GhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC4pmIZ5GhA&feature=related[/video]

Here is a youtube from John Piper on the subject of small groups

 

[ewenlin]

Wooo Thanks Perg!

 

[johnpesebre]

Hi. I have that book! I was surprised to read about it here.

"Icenogle is asserting a ontological and teleological foundation for men to gather in small groups, inferring from the plurality of the being of God and the initial paradigm of the Garden. Because God is a "community" of being, so should we. What do you guys think about this?"

The induction of the book seems inadequate In my humble opinion. Take the case of the above quote. He establishes the particulars (God as community) then infers that we also must be in community. Although the data is valid, the inference to me is inadequate.

It is a self-proclaimed "inductive" book. He says,

"This book, as it deals with selected biblical texts, is written, first of all, to be an inductive exercise into the nature of human community. The intent of the inductive process is to allow the subject or text observed to speak for itself, to create its own agenda for the observer, reader and listener."

There you have it: "to create it own agenda for the observer." The book does not operate from a deductive base. The inclusion of the concept of the Trinity begins the inductive formula but the resultant inference would be drawn by the "observer, reader and listener" and in this case him as the author.

I'm not saying that small group ministry does not have a biblical warrant. What I'm saying is that I suspect the work the author created concerning biblical foundations. For me it is novelty. If he wants to remove the novelty, he needs to engage his induction with a general biblical understanding of the subject.

 

[ewenlin]

Hi. I have that book! I was surprised to read about it here.

"Icenogle is asserting a ontological and teleological foundation for men to gather in small groups, inferring from the plurality of the being of God and the initial paradigm of the Garden. Because God is a "community" of being, so should we. What do you guys think about this?"

The induction of the book seems inadequate In my humble opinion. Take the case of the above quote. He establishes the particulars (God as community) then infers that we also must be in community. Although the data is valid, the inference to me is inadequate.

It is a self-proclaimed "inductive" book. He says,

"This book, as it deals with selected biblical texts, is written, first of all, to be an inductive exercise into the nature of human community. The intent of the inductive process is to allow the subject or text observed to speak for itself, to create its own agenda for the observer, reader and listener."

There you have it: "to create it own agenda for the observer." The book does not operate from a deductive base. The inclusion of the concept of the Trinity begins the inductive formula but the resultant inference would be drawn by the "observer, reader and listener" and in this case him as the author.

I'm not saying that small group ministry does not have a biblical warrant. What I'm saying is that I suspect the work the author created concerning biblical foundations. For me it is novelty. If he wants to remove the novelty, he needs to engage his induction with a general biblical understanding of the subject.

Wow! I was trolling the old threads and just saw your reply. Thanks a lot for this, I totally agree with you!