Do Small Groups Really Work?

It's an interesting discussion my pastor husband Geoff Surratt and I are having about small groups. Or as we like to call it, 'loving,intense fellowship'. He (my saucy husband) recently started a blog series entitled Why Small Groups Don't Work.  At the same time, I've been researching small group ministries in churches across the country for our upcoming Leadership Network Innovation Lab, putting together churches with the strongest, most intriguing models. Do you already see the rub?

Actually, we're both long-time small group leaders and attenders and totally sold on the small group concept. But in my research I've uncovered some interesting simmering questions that churches across the nation are pondering:

• Churches are taking a good look at their leadership training, saying they know training/equipping needs to happen but what and how? does it happen best in large groups or individually? online or in person?
• What's the role of the coach? does it work to have lay coaches who don't lead groups themselves?
• What's the real purpose of small groups? Is it community, connection, spiritual growth, mission or all of the above?
• What are we tracking and why? Is it just numbers? How do you measure life change?

These are questions the 8 churches in the RadicalFuture Innovation Lab for Groups Ministry will be wrestling with, but how about you? Are you asking different questions? I'd love to hear what you think is working in small groups and what's not.

Here's a question I'd love to ask our women leaders, do you think women's leadership development should be separate from men? Why?

If you tuned in to the Leadership Network webinar yesterday on Women in Leadership, we had lots of questions we didn't get to answer and I'll tackle some of them here tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Comments

[Carrie Thompson]

I really enjoyed the webinar on Women in Leadership. I was listening to it thinking "this is just as much for the men in our church than for the women, we know how we feel and work. The guys we serve with could gain alot from this. "
As for your question above, "should women's leadership development be different from men's" This is a question I have been asking myself for several years. I do not have a concrete opinion on it yet, but where I am right not is....I think the overall development should be the same with "special interested" dedicated to each groups differences. Overall leadership is the same for men as women, there are only a few small differences, so there should only be a few small differences in the training. As is stands now the leadership development isn't specifically directed at men, but it is mostly given by men, which causes women to shy away due to the fact they will be trained by a man. So is the barrier; that we don't permit men to train women or women to train men? If that is the case then I would say that is the reason for different developments for men and women, the result of why it is currently different for men then women. Aside from that I see no reason to separate them.

[sherry surratt]

Carrie, great thoughts! I tend to agree that leadeship development is the same for men and women w/some issues being different, especially if you are leading women-only groups. I think there's a benefit in cross-gender training, in fact was talking a young female leader who is setting up a leadership development track for other young leaders and she is thinking about combining the girls/guys for combined leader development, then splitting out to talk about heart issues.

[freelance writers]

for me it works compared to big groups because less suggestions more possibilities!