« First Impressions Update | Main | Passing the Baton at Hudson »

September 25, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

jose coronado

I think this may give people a reason not to multiply. The only large group I was part of seemed to be a few people talking and many people listening. And sometimes people don't show up because they figure, "I won't be missed in that crowd." I do agree that the "weirdo" factor is true although I may have been the weirdo factor.

Harold Ennulat

I think that it is nice to be able to consider a larger group as an option.

For (divide by 2) multiplying purposes I've been thinking that at least 16 on a regular basis is a good number for multiplication. This however can still put stress on both resulting groups as they "regroup" due to possible loss of some members, leadership dilution, and other factors.
Therefore if the group can be allowed to grow larger (and this would be different for each small group), then the resulting groups could multiply into somewhat larger groups initially and overcome some of the stresses that occur once the multiplication has occurred.

On the flip side many of our homes can not readily handle 16 or more people so this limits the hosting options for a group...

So perhaps it comes down to a choice (or a balance) between where the stress is felt more, either the stress of the group being to large or the stress of the newly formed group being able to gain critical mass.

Just some thoughts here to add to the mix....

Nelson Searcy

Thanks for the shout out to Activate! I glad you are finding the book helpful. We just posted a ton of free stuff related to the book at: www.ActivateBook.com

God bless you and thanks for the post!

Nelson Searcy
Co-Author: Activate - An Entirely New Approach to Small Groups
Lead Pastor, The Journey, NYC

P.S. I'm now blogging at www.ChurchLeaderInsights.com/blog

Jay Dorenkamp

Great post Henry. I appreciate you testing things that we do. Just because a given formula or recipe for doing something in the past has worked well, doesn't means it's always going to keep working. Your post to me demonstrates creative thinking and flexibility, thank you!

I do like the thought of being able to have larger groups. For groups where they are large and it's "working" I'm a fan to let it keep on "working" and not force a multiplication to stick within some arbitrary size guideline.

I wonder about the implications on people's commitment to the group. Will people just skip more if they think ther are so many others in the group that they won't be noticed or missed.

It's harder to host or entertain a larger group or to get enough room to sit people down in the same room, on the flip side, if the small group location rotates within the group, then the host would only have to do it a couple of times per year which takes some of the load off, so maybe it balances out.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

About Me

  • I'm the lead pastor of Five Oaks Church in Woodbury, MN where we seek to help people CONNECT with others and God, DEEPEN their relationship with Christ and IMPACT the world for Christ.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter