Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.)
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.