Small groups are immensely popular in evangelical circles these days, and increasingly commonplace in Reformed communions. I’m not sure how much of this is due to the influence of New Calvinism or whether it’s due to old-guard Reformed folk warming up to broader evangelicalism. Maybe both. Regardless of the source, it’s definitely a popular construct. Some would even argue that it’s a staple for ordinary church life.
I’ve been back and forth on small groups for some time. In my more skeptical moments, the following concerns have come to mind.
First, in classic Reformed ecclesiology – which in my judgment is radically biblical – where do small groups fit? They are not the public assembly, where the believers of a local communion “come together” to observe the corporate worship of God (Acts 14:27, 1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). And you can’t assign them to the private (Mat. 6:6, 14:23) or family devotion categories (Gen. 18:19, Deut. 6:4-9), since you can’t have a small group with one person or just one family. So if they are not in the three, traditional categories of worship/means of grace ministry (WCF 21.6), what place should they have?
I suppose an argument could be made that we can get them in the door by the body life argument. Small groups could be seen as a manifestation of koinonia, our sharing in the common life of the Spirit. Isn’t that Reformed? “Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification” (WCF 26.2). Well, I admit coming together for the Lord’s day services is not all there is to church fellowship. There is much to be done on a smaller scale and with more intimacy. Fine and good. “They that feared the Lord spoke often one with another, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name” (Mal. 3:16). But when informal, spiritual conversations transition into small groups, something changes. It is formalized, it requires organization, structure, and facilitation if not leadership. In short, it becomes programmatic. So if it is programmatic, where does it fit in the apostolic program? Is it a component of the ‘ordinary means?’
Second, there is the collective wisdom of our Reformed forbears. While I’m no expert in 16th and 17th century church history, it does appear that the Westminster Divines discouraged small groups from having a normative place in the life of God’s people. In fact, they appear to have been suspicious of them. “Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly” (Directory for Family Worship, Section 7).
Third, there is the obvious susceptibility of small groups to the influence of egalitarianism, feminism, and a host of other -isms. Clearly they are more vulnerable; and what is more, I have to wonder whether they are not in some ways the product of these extra-biblical spirits of the age.
So I ask the question – or to be more frank, I raise the doubt. For now, at least.
See also “More on My Allergy to Small Groups“
West Port Experiment 
Often it the blind leading the blind.
Very interesting article indeed my friend. I am just a 3 year old Christian so I am very much a novice in all of this. I was excited about a year or two ago when I was preparing to attend a week long InterVarsity conference on small groups. I thought for sure this would be one of the main things we worked out. What is the biblical mandate for small groups? (I knew better than to hope for the reformers views or the westminster divines thoughts) Unfortunately InterVarsity dealt more with methodologies. I beseech all who read this to pray for InterVarsity as there is some disturbing trends there. Nevertheless it planted this question in my mind as well. The closest thing I have found to authorization from God’s Word is Jetho’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18. Any thoughts on the passage? If it follows it would still be contrary to the popular notion of small groups in that anyone can lead one. As Jethro notes it is to be led by ‘able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens’
I think you are operating under the same cultural assumptions that make Small Groups needful. No one in the first century would’ve thought to define themselves apart from community while we find it almost impossible be in one. We live in the most individualistic time of the most individualistic civilization. It is true that the “institutionalization” of small groups is lamentable, but it must happen since we don’t get together apart from such “programs”. The apostolic community lived together and had everything in common. The Pauline Epistles are to the “churches” (plural) of Galatia, Ephesus, etc. We go to church and then go home. They had agape feasts and hung out all Lord’s Day.
Seen through the lens of modernity and individualism, the Bible scarcely makes sense. That we have to organize small groups shows are lack of “one another-ing” and our culture of selfishness. When I lived in Korea, neighborhoods got together to study God’s Word without having to be told. I don’t even know the names of the couple two doors down from me. Shame on me.
Robert – you make a good point about the different dynamics we face in 21st century American society. We are radically individualized and genuine community has been altogether lost. This is actually one of the things I like to discuss on this blog and one big reason I’m a hearty advocate of rediscovering the parish principle in modern missions. The church should be intentional in evangelizing with an eye to community restoration – or, really, reinvention. I wrote a paper on this under ‘About WPE.’
You mention of the agape feasts. Why do so many churches pass over the opporutnity to do something comparable on the Lord’s day? We do in our church – two services, with a meal in between. While it is not a total panacea, it certainly helps. And for that matter, the church could have meetings on week-days.
I think we are in agreement, just coming at it from different sides. That’s awesome that your church does that; I wish more would.
As a cultural problem, I think there is more latitude in how to deal with it. I went to a Dutch church where everyone sang harmony and all knew their parts. Now, at my PCA church, people hardly know the melodies to most hymns. We are in for a long slog, slowly teaching people Psalms and Hymns over the course of years. The same “cultural” education is needful for ‘community’.
I heard my friends on “Ordinary Means” podcast the other day mention making a list of all the Bible passages which impel us to do something or other “to one another”. There are over a hundred. What a shocker this is for most Americans today!
This is a great point Michael. I have not considered section 7 of the Directory in this light. The key, I think, is when this kind of group gets formalized with structure and organization. I believe this whole movement towards small groups in this manner is another result of the “lay ministry” movement interpreting Ephesians 4 in regard to the everyone is a minister perspective. Small groups then become a way to provide an outlet for lay ministry. At that point we clearly have something at odds with Reformed ecclesiology. Thanks for the post.
Robert makes basically the points I would. Geographical separation of church members (more than a few miles in any direction) and size (more than can fit around a dining room table) mean that congregations that worship together often need to meet in other settings as well, in order to encourage, counsel, pray for, admonish, love, and help one another. Like larger worship gatherings, this can be done badly and destructively or biblically and healthily. This actually seems like putting legs on a parish mentality: believers who live near each other care for each other. In Jerusalem the Christians met in very large gatherings (probably in the thousands) in the temple, and “from house to house”. Both are appropriate, and the substance should be the same: attention to the apostles’ teaching, prayer, and fellowship.
I won’t be mischievous and wonder aloud whether the Lord’s Supper would appropriately be celebrated in a household midweek meeting, or whether the regulative principle of worship applies. I could, but I wont. 😉
Actually, small groups were part of the daily life of believers in the first century. In Acts we read of the believers meeting daily in the temple and from house to house. They were not meeting as families in those houses. In Corinthians Paul refers to the times “when the whole [Corinthian] church comes together.” The clear inference we are to draw from that is there were times when just parts of the church came together (otherwise “whole church” is redundant). Small groups seem to be in mind in much of the New Testament writings (especially in the “one another” passages). These house-to-house meetings in the early church may have been more spontaneous than our organized small groups (much like the Korean Bible studies Robert mentioned) but that is simply a reflection of culture. Is today’s culture (at least in the US) terrible at community? Yes, absolutely. Is it possible that the culture of those who wrote the WCF was more conducive to building community? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean the WCF was right in neglecting small groups? No, it does not. While today’s emphasis on small groups may be partly in response to our culture (though as I indicated, it has biblical support as well), that is no less true of the WCF’s neglect of small groups.
Daniel, You need to add “Confessing sins” to one another, to your list?
http://timchester.wordpress.com/2006/11/16/a-messy-church-or-a-pretending-church/
Wouldn’t it be better if we just had lots of small churches. Say if a church gets bigger than 50-60 its classed as obese and is split and planted on another street?
Anyway, have you read “The Radical Wesley”? It examines the Class System, that was Wesley’s real genius! Ever week believers met in ‘Small Groups’ in homes, (with accountability) to disciple one another. They would pray, study God’s word, confess their sins and support, challenge and pray for each other etc. The book sites that this was one of the main reasons for the success of Wesleyan Churches growth. That and preaching in every village across Britain!
Now ok that was with a backdrop of failing mainstream Anglican Church, which was the only option for most people and held services that were not accessibly to the working class converts of Wesley.
Surely the other strength of encouraging small groups is the opportunity for them to become a Church in their own right and plant in another street.
As for informal Small Groups, if you can’t trust Christians to meet up informally to pray, confess, encourage, challenge and study God’s word together, how are you to get them to reach their neighbours in the informal setting of their kitchen, coffee shop, gardens, bus stops, gyms etc.?
Also a New Zealand study sited that churches were most successful when the Small Groups became a clique. This was because they concentrated on their own small group, and did not try to maintain relationships with hundreds of people across the Church. The people in the Small Group were loved and cared for. And this is what I see happening in Acts.
Andy Wilcock
Well, I’m open to arguments; but I continue to harbor reservations.
Here’s another. With all the emphasis in small groups, does family worship/family religion get eclipsed? Do pro-small group churches make it a high priority and cultivate it by preaching, teaching, and regular elder visitation? That was the old Reformed model, as I understand it. Every house should be a Bethel, a “little seminary,” as the Puritans put it. We have “small group,” if you will, every single evening. It’s called family worship.
I realize that some make a case from the “house gatherings” referred to in Acts and the Epistles. But I ask, is there enough evidence to get from there to the 20th/21st century small group model? Maybe. But I’m not convinced. Seems to be a reading back into the data. I wonder whether or not they were full-fledged house churches, with a distinct body of elders, regular preaching, catechizing, and the celebration of the sacraments. If not, and they were kind of chapters within the larger church, I have my doubts that they would look as Brethrenesque as is supposed.
Thanks for the feedback!
[…] like so many other Reformed folks. I have already raised some questions on the subject in a previous post. I really do question how ecclesiologically Reformed it is after […]