From: bob@morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Cell Group Churches
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:29:21 GMT

Our church (Xenos Christian Fellowship in Columbus Ohio USA and
elsewhere) has been organized around small, lay-led home groups for
about two decades now.  In contrast to the common situation of a more
traditional church changing its structural gears and downsizing, ours
started with a few men living together in a house near the Ohio State
University campus, inviting friends over for Bible studies.  There was
a strong antipathy towards the "institutional" church and all its
structures, and we've always tought that the wine is more important
than the wineskins.  At all levels, the group is more focused on Bible
study and personal interaction than on any liturgical standards or any
ecclesiastical structure.

As we've grown (~3500 in Columbus by now) we've found that we needed
to acquire some of the more traditional trappings, like a paid
full-time staff.  Not surprisingly, the large-group teaching quality
improved when the elders no longer needed to hold down an outside job,
and they became more available to pursue the work of the church.  And
now, with our large groups having met in rented space for so long,
we're in the midst of a building fund drive.  Yes, we're still based
on small groups with lots of personal interaction, but we also need to
get larger groups (~600-1200) together every week or two.

Our structures and methods have evolved over the years, to meet the
need of the moment.  If a group claims to be seeker-sensitive,
flexible, and not bound to tradition, it must be willing to discard
its own comfortable old practices when they're no longer appropriate.
For example, our at first larger gatherings met during the evenings,
in rented space at the YMCA and elsewhere.  Only a few years back we
figured out that some of the Yuppie(tm) crowd would be more
comfortable, and would find it more convenient to bring their kids, if
we had a large meeting on Sunday mornings.  We hesitated quite a while
on that one, because we feared the institutional image it might bring
upon us - people might think we'd sold out.  Now it's among the best
attended of all our large public meetings, and it has expanded to two
separate sessions (we're still reluctant to call them the early
service and the late service, though :-).  We're also finding that it
doesn't really hurt all that bad to get up on a weekend morning, even
if you were out slam-dancing with the guys in your cell group the
night before :-)

We have discovered areas of subtle doctrinal imbalance that have
sometimes proved very difficult to correct.  For example, we went a
*long time* before we had any need to take a collection.  Financial
responsibility was rarely tought, and an organized collection was
scorned as too closely associated with the dead old institutions in
which many of us had been raised.  We saw the charge in Romans 12:1-2
as applying to every area of our lives, but somehow we forgot to bring
our financial blessings along with the rest of the "living and holy
sacrifice" we're presenting for God's purposes.  Of course now, as
we're growing and expanding into lots of different areas of ministry,
we find ourselves with a tougher struggle against the old attitudes.
Herbert Kane said that the last part of a man to be converted is his
billfold, and we're finding that all too true.

We have also had a problem, historically, relating with the other
churches in the city.  We had no single center of operation like a
church building that they could see, and we seemed to be scurrying
around everywhere like busy little mice.  Our theology is very
conservative but our theopraxy leans from liberal to radical, and the
Establishment wasn't too comfortable with that.  They didn't like it
much when we'd wear jeans, go to a bar, and drink beer, all while
discussing the finer points of the Arminian position, or whatever the
conversation turned to that evening.  So when we, for example, call
for a commitment to personal discipleship as a normative part of the
Christian life, some saw us as a mind-controlling cult.  Thankfully,
we're softening the strident tone of our old anti-institutional
rhetoric, and we're learning to loosen up a bit on our old
heavy-handed counsel.  We're also surprising people by showing up in
leadership positions in missions committees and inner-city relief work
groups, and by bringing along a huge volunteer force to several
important and widely-lauded local inter-church projects.

These are just some observations about our experiences with a
fellowship that's been built from the bottom up around small groups of
committed believers.  Every church is different, and will encounter
different challenges.  But the benefits are as you describe: a living,
organic unity between the members of the Body.  Our people can really
see how "the eye cannot say to the hand, `I have no need of you'".
It's not just another passage to teach some week, it's something that
we live out day-to-day.  That sort of relational environment is a
crucible for the Accuser to do his work, trying to tear down what God
is building up.  Another benefit of small groups is that you know the
people you're praying with, as much more than a handshake over the pew.

Oh well, enough of my ramblings.  I hope this will encourage you as
your church undergoes its transition and learns to experience the
benefit of more intimate fellowship.  If anyone has questions about
what we're up to and how we go about it, I'll do my best to answer.