I have been wrestling with how to run a dynamic small group with a primary focus on spiritual formation.
I have been coming up with some principles for small groups. Follow these and you pretty much can expect to not be chosen to lead a church-based small group, but you just might have a dynamic group. So far, I have:
No chit-chat
No curriculum or prearranged questions
No strict time limits
No leader
To this list, I would add: No concern about who does or does not participate in the discussion.
Yes, I am being a bit cynical. Maybe I will provide a justification for each of these, but let’s back up a minute. The number one issue that everything else may hinge on is agreement of the participants on the purpose of the group.
Why is the group meeting? The implicit, if not explicit, reason why most small groups meet is for socialization. People like to socialize and have the opportunity to make some friends. Churches are glad to oblige and tag on religious lessons and activities. This not only helps meet the needs of people, but it helps hold the institution together. No argument here. Socialization makes life rich. If I were primarily concerned with meeting the needs of people like me and holding a critical mass of people together, I probably would support the whole small group operation. But that is not my primary concern for a small group I want to participate in.
I am interested in going on a venture of spiritual formation, and to share that venture with others doing the same.
Here lies the problem. Putting people with different agendas into a small group is a set up for a frustrating group experience for both sides. I think a small group needs to be explicit about its purpose and be intentional about sticking to it. In the case of the NCCZ, we need to be explicit about its purpose. This may take a night or two around the fire to articulate.
Let me take a stab at it.
The NCCZ is the second part of the two parts to the Bed Project. In one part, we practice, in the other part, we talk about what we experienced in our practice. The two go together. One doesn’t work without the other. If you don’t practice, you won’t have much to talk about. What we practice could be generically called spiritual disciplines. We want to practice spiritual exercises in the context of building and delivering the beds. We know that as we try and do this, we will confront, head-on, both the obstacles and means of spiritual formation. We want both of these, the obstacles and the means, to be the content for discussion in the NCCZ. This will require intentional, well-directed effort in our practice and intentional, well-directed effort in our discussion. If practice is tried, nothing is wasted, there will be something to talk about – success or failure is fair game to talk about.
2 comments:
So you point is that if one was practicing then perhaps at some point that person may have a compelling reason to participate?
I am not fully following the point of making the desctiction "No concern about who does or does not participate in the discussion."
Who for example would be exempt from the "hot seat"?
In traditional small group leadership training, the leaders are taught to be concerned about everyone participating. So, you would strive to decrease to talk of the talkative ones and increase the talk of the quiet ones. Why?
If your goal is to make everybody participate or to feel like they were heard, then maybe that is a good strategy. But if our goal is to discuss our practice, then the goal of participation becomes secondary.
Post a Comment