What Is Wrong With Small Groups?

[Allan]

Alan, I have a question about this, if it's ok. Do you know....doesn't the bible say where three or more christians are gathered in my name it is a church? So they are technically not doing anything wrong per se, because it could be considered a church?

Actaully - it doesn't.

As web has stated, that verse is in reference to church discipline, and not about how many make up the church.

 

[Joe]

Thank you...

 

[youngmom4]

First of all, I am being realistic. When people are connected with other believers, you'd be surprised what the Holy Spirit accomplishes. Just because someone is shy and timid doesn't mean they never feel comfortable making comments.

I agree. DH and I attended a church for over a year, during which he might have said two words in Sunday School. We changed churches over the summer, and in the second week in our current SS class, he began actively participating and still does every week.

 

[TCGreek]

That verse is in regards to church discipline, not becoming a church.

Webdog,

I have to agree with you here, for "in my name" carries with it the "authority of."

 

[convicted1]

I am one who tends to feel more comfortable in churches that are smaller rather than larger. My home church has 60-65 members, but the crowds average about 100-125+....mind you, we meet at my home church one weekend a month. It makes it so that we can visit other churches throughout the month...this is an old tradition that the Old Regular Baptist kept through the years. A while back, a man I worked with was baptized at his home church that had about 400 people there. The church could probably hold 750+ easily. It seemed like the "intimacy" was non-existent. It also seem like there were cliques everywhere. My wife has an aunt and uncle who live in South Carolina and they attend a SBC church that has over 2,000 members! They have three sunday morning services; 8:00, 9:30, and 11:00. It's good to see a church thrive like this, but their are members there that probably don't see each other in church maybe 2-3 times a year. This is why I like the smaller churches...I know that the OP was about groups and not churche, per se, but I thought I would add my two cents. May God bless.

 

[Brother Bob]

Actaully - it doesn't.

As web has stated, that verse is in reference to church discipline, and not about how many make up the church.

Well, the scripture may be church discipline, but the statement that Christ will be in the midst, if you meet in his name is true anyway. He said I will never leave you. If I have a prayer over a hospital patient of which I have done this week at least twice, the Lord is with me or the prayer don't go above my head. Ask in "faith believing"......... Same is true if we meet at a house and have a small meeting, if the Lord is not there, it sure gets "cold".

BBob,

 

[lbaker]

IMHO small groups are one of the best things to happen to the church in a long, long time. They provide a chance, for those who are willing, to experience great spiritual growth and intimacy with fellow christians.

 

[webdog]

Well, the scripture may be church discipline, but the statement that Christ will be in the midst, if you meet in his name is true anyway.

I don't want to derail the thread...but I hear this said often, and was curious about it. Since that verse is speaking of Church discipline, where do we get that it is also applied in prayer and worship of two or more? I mean, is Christ not among a single person who prays and worships, but you need the Scriptural mandate of two or three? That has always been a point of confusion for me

 

[Amy.G]

I don't want to derail the thread...but I hear this said often, and was curious about it. Since that verse is speaking of Church discipline, where do we get that it is also applied in prayer and worship of two or more? I mean, is Christ not among a single person who prays and worships, but you need the Scriptural mandate of two or three? That has always been a point of confusion for me

Me too. And of course Christ is there with the one person. If you have the Holy Spirit, God is with you. So there are always 2 gathered.

That verse is talking about church discipline. It goes back to needing 2 or more witnesses to make something valid.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I don't want to derail the thread...but I hear this said often, and was curious about it. Since that verse is speaking of Church discipline, where do we get that it is also applied in prayer and worship of two or more? I mean, is Christ not among a single person who prays and worships, but you need the Scriptural mandate of two or three? That has always been a point of confusion for me

You are not confused brother. Stick with the context, in which you are correct.

 

[webdog]

Whew! Now I can stop pulling strangers aside while I pray :laugh:

I hear that always said at church, on TV, here, everywhere.

 

[Brother Bob]

Whew! Now I can stop pulling strangers aside while I pray :laugh:

I hear that always said at church, on TV, here, everywhere.

Well, the Lord said it so it must be true. As Amy said, if its just you and the Lord is there, that makes two............... can't go wrong my friend.

BBob,

 

[TCGreek]

I don't want to derail the thread...but I hear this said often, and was curious about it. Since that verse is speaking of Church discipline, where do we get that it is also applied in prayer and worship of two or more? I mean, is Christ not among a single person who prays and worships, but you need the Scriptural mandate of two or three? That has always been a point of confusion for me

Webdog,

The idea of two or three follows the Deutoronomic law, where there must be two or three witnesses to establish a charge, and we see this in Matt 18:16 and Deut.17:6.

 

[DHK]

Whew! Now I can stop pulling strangers aside while I pray :laugh:

I hear that always said at church, on TV, here, everywhere.

Where two or three are gathered there am I in the midst of them.
--True in principle, but not a definition of a local church. Where 90 to 100 believers are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them (also), but it is still not a local church (not necessarily).

A local church has structure.
It has a pastor and perhaps deacons.
It has a form of government.
It has a statement of faith that defines it.
It carries out the two ordinances that Christ commanded it (baptism and the Lord's Supper).
It's goal is the Great Commission.

Even if the group is two or three, or 90 to 100, if it doesn't meet certain criteria it doesn't fit into the category of a Biblical church.

 

[Brother Bob]

Where two or three are gathered there am I in the midst of them.
--True in principle, but not a definition of a local church. Where 90 to 100 believers are gathered together, there am I in the midst of them (also), but it is still not a local church (not necessarily).

A local church has structure.
It has a pastor and perhaps deacons.
It has a form of government.
It has a statement of faith that defines it.
It carries out the two ordinances that Christ commanded it (baptism and the Lord's Supper).
It's goal is the Great Commission.

Even if the group is two or three, or 90 to 100, if it doesn't meet certain criteria it doesn't fit into the category of a Biblical church.

I agree, but could be a "meeting", or services, especially if conducted by ordained authority.

BBob,

 

[Humblesmith]

Regarding the OP:

Personally, I have had very positive growth and fellowship in a number of small groups, so I support them wholeheartedly, as long as they're voluntary.

I recently heard a pastor on the radio in an interview that was most definitely against small groups. His justification was that they allowed for false teachings, in that there were untrained people interpreting scripture, and since it was in a friendly atmosphere, no one would challenge or correct the false one. This pastor felt avoiding small groups helped unify the church.
My problem with that is that it promotes the idea that the average person cannot read and understand scripture for themselves, which is equally dangerous. If we have to go to trained holy men to tell us what the bible means, then it can end up cultish.

And speaking of cultish, some churches avoid small groups because of what was done in the Boston Church of Christ movement, where they used small groups to control the church. Overseers would "lead" small groups, to the point of telling people what jobs they should have, who they should date or get married to, etc. It was a way for cultic churches to control all aspects of member's lives.

But I've been in small groups off and on for 20 years, and they've been nothing but positive. The problems above can be very easily managed by the church leadership.

 

[dan e.]

I recently heard a pastor on the radio in an interview that was most definitely against small groups. His justification was that they allowed for false teachings, in that there were untrained people interpreting scripture, and since it was in a friendly atmosphere, no one would challenge or correct the false one. This pastor felt avoiding small groups helped unify the church.

This is evidence that many have a screwed up notion of what it is to be "trained" or "qualified". If it isn't a degree from an institution that you approve of...than you're not "qualified".

Garbage.

 

[Brother Bob]

This is evidence that many have a screwed up notion of what it is to be "trained" or "qualified". If it isn't a degree from an institution that you approve of...than you're not "qualified".

Garbage.

I agree, the institution where you are educated determines what you end up believing about the scripture. You can see that here on BB. Most time it does not matter what the scripture says, but what you have been taught about that scripture. If institutions were the answer, we would all believe alike. I give God the thanks for understanding, not institutions. As Paul said, I never learned it of man, and neither was I taught it. It comes from a much higher power than man.

BBob, :thumbs:

 

[reformedbeliever]

I agree, the institution where you are educated determines what you end up believing about the scripture.

I absolutely agree. Especially when they have an excellent hermeneutics curriculum. :thumbs:

 

[christianyouth]

This is evidence that many have a screwed up notion of what it is to be "trained" or "qualified". If it isn't a degree from an institution that you approve of...than you're not "qualified".

Garbage.

God has called and gifted certain men with the ability to teach the scriptures(Eph 4:10-11). I don't think there is any dispute on that issue. To say that everyone has the capacity to teach the Bible is unrealistic. We have all sat under teachers who couldn't teach 1 + 1 = 2. They usually don't have good communication skills and don't like to study the Bible. These people, I think we can all agree, are not 'qualified' to teach.

As far as formal biblical training, I don't think it's necessary, but it's certainly helpful. My old church's teaching staff was comprised of layman who had no formal training. The teaching was horrible. I don't use this to say that layman shouldn't teach, but in this case, they certainly shouldn't.

There are layman here on the boards who are very capable. They obviously love God and love thinking hard about biblical issues. They can communicate clearly and write coherent sentences. I think these people, if they feel led by the Spirit of God, could teach small groups. It would be great. But I can see the point of the Pastor. Small groups could open up doors for heresy if you have people who have not studied vigorously teaching God's Word. Also, some small groups, since they are designed for fellowship more so then for teaching, practice subjective biblical interpretation. "Hey Jim, what do you think this verse means", "Hey Tom, do you think this verse means ____", "What does this verse say to YOU". I've seen it! I'm not making this up. This has happened. Usually, in the small group setting.

But, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Our wednesday night, whether you want to believe it or not, is a small group study basically. The Pastor teaches, we raise our hands if we have a question or if we want to contribute, we discuss, there is good fellowship, good Bible teaching, and then afterwards we pray. This is excellent.

I've also seen that it is like balancing on a pin. At times the teaching of the Word was shortened because some guy who knows nothing of scripture thought he would throw in his 2 cents. At other times, people would contribute and throw off the train of thought of the Pastor by bringing up issues that were not dealt with in the text we are studying. All in all, I don't learn much on Wednesday nights, but it's a great time of fellowship.



Are small groups good? Yes. Should they be institutionalized? No. Let them be spontaneous. Should layman teach? Depends. Are they commited to study? Are they prepared to be spiritual leaders? Are they familiar with the scriptures? Can they communicate clearly?





Good thread so far. :thumbs: