|
|
Misión Cristiana Elim El SALVADOR |
Pastor Jorge Galindo |
100,000 attending in 1996 5000 cells |
La Misión Carismática Internacional COLOMBIA |
Pastor César Castellaños |
35,000 members en 1996 4000 cells |
El Centro Cristiano ECUADOR |
Pastor : Jerry Smith
|
10,000 attending in 1996 1000 cells |
El Amor Viviente HONDURAS |
Pastor Rene Peñalva |
7,000 attending in 1996 600 cells |
El Agua Viva PERU |
Pastor Juan Capuro |
5,000+ attending in 1996 450 cells |
One of the churches that I will study is called the International Charismatic Mission (La Iglesia Carismática Internacional). Pastor César Castellanos has led this church from eight members thirteen years ago to the present 35,000 (Guell 1996:42).
Reporting on this church, Guell writes, “…the Castellanos attribute the church’s growth to their emphasis on home cell-groups---a focus they believe the Lord gave them after they visited David Yonggi Cho’s Yoido Full Gospel Church in South Korea….Today, Charismatic Mission has 2,600 home cell-groups for adults and 1,300 for youths. Each group meets weekly and has 10 to 15 members (1996:44).
Many cell churches are springing up across Latin America. Perhaps the cell church that is the most well-known is the Elim Church (Misión Elim) in El Salvador. This cell church has grown so rapidly that it now has a membership of 120,000 (note 8). Bethany World Prayer Center, the 7000 member cell church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana regularly sends their staff to the Elim Church to receive training in cell ministry. Other cell churches in Latin America have also received their initial vision from this church (note 9).
Chapter 3: Various Cell Strategies in the United States
North America has experimented with models of cell-based ministry with limited success. There seems to be a general skepticism that what has worked so successfully in Korea would also bear fruit here in the U.S. However, more recently various U.S. cell-based churches have seen significant growth.
In this chapter, I will begin by reviewing various models of small group ministry. I do not consider the first three models (I’m including in these three the small group movement) to be cell-based, and therefore I will not review them in great detail. The second two (Meta Model and Pure Cell Model) are closer to my definition of cell-based ministry. Therefore, I will analyze these two models in greater detail.
The Small Group Movement
In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 75 million out of the estimated 200 million adults are in a small group (Wuthnow 1994:370). One out of six of those 75 million people are new members of the small group movement, thus disclosing, that at least in the U.S., the small group movement is alive and growing (Wuthnow 1994:371). After listing twenty new innovations in the modern U.S. church scene Schaller says, “…perhaps most important of all, the decision by tens of millions of teenagers and adults to place a high personal priority on weekly participation in serious, in-depth, lay-led, and continuing Bible study and prayer groups” (1995:14). William Beckham wrote the book The Second Reformation to express forcefully his conviction that the church is the midst of a new small group revolution (1995:66,67).
The small group movement can be seen in the proliferation of books on the subject. Many Christian authors, seeing the positive potential of small groups for Christian growth and discipleship, have produced a multitude of literature which extols the virtues of small groups in general. Two Christian organizations, Serendipity and Navigators, are known for their numerous books and study guides on small group ministry. Several examples that I have come across include: Kunz (1974), Johnson (1985), McBride (1990), and Price and Springle (1991). The list could go on and on. Most of this type of literature applies equally to small groups in the church and outside the church.
The Covenant Model
The main spokeswomen today for this model is Roberta Hestenes (1983) (note 10) Her definition for this model is the following: "A Christian group is an intentional face-to-face gathering of 3 to 12 people on a regular time schedule with the common purpose of discovering and growing in the possibilities of the abundant life in Christ"(Coleman 1993:4:5)
From the definition it is obvious that this type of group is directed toward committed believers. One of the major goals of this model is to create long term community. There is a need for strong commitment and a high level of accountability (Coleman 1993:4:7). The word Covenant in this model refers to the commitments or promises that were established in the Old Testament between God and His people. One major focal point of this model is that the group makes a commitment (covenant) to fulfill particular goals, purposes, study topics, ground rules, and logistical details (Coleman 1993: 4:5)
Although strong on Christian responsibility and commitment, Coleman makes a wise observation, “Unchurched, non-Christians would not be interested in this type of group. There is no mechanism built into the system for the Covenant groups to multiply, or to close with honor. Frequently, Covenant groups will last until they die a horrible death” (Coleman 1993: 4: 7).
Covenant groups have a high commitment level, and therefore they are very beneficial for spiritual growth. However, due to the lack of cell multiplication and their closed system, his model is probably the least effective from a church growth standpoint.
The Serendipity Model
The founder of this approach is Lyman Coleman, who has been a small group leader for some four decades (Coleman 1993: 4:17). Coleman was especially influenced by Sam Shoemaker, who the pastor of Calvary Episcopal Church in New York City. Sam believed that all of the people around his church were his parish. His church grew in its vision to reach out to the entire parish. This vision to reach out to all people has greatly influenced Lyman Coleman (Coleman 1993: 4:17). He says, “The heart of the Serendipity model is the broken people at the door…the intention is to create a small group system where people outside the church can find a place of entry and be transformed” (Coleman 1993:4:19).
Growth Goals
He illustrates his approach by using a baseball diamond. To experience true koinonia, the group must reach all four bases. Lyman explains the base levels in this manner, “First base is telling the story of your spiritual past. Second base is sharing your current situation, and affirming the other members of the group. Third base is goal—setting. After a group has completed this process together, real community can be experienced” (Coleman 1993 4:19). Each base represents a higher level of group maturity. The time frame to complete all four bases is one year (Coleman 1993: 4:19).
Distinguishing Characteristics
Perhaps this model is best understood by the characteristics that distinguish it from other models:
- There is a definite beginning and end
Although his earlier models consisted of shorter time period groups, now Lyman Coleman suggest a one year time period. He says, “The end is marked by a period of releasing where everyone responds to his new calling” (Coleman 1993: 4:21)
- A democracy of options
People can be in a group whether or not they are members of the church or even attend the worship services. Coleman believes that this is a distinct from Paul Cho’s model (1993 4:21).
- Integrated model
This differs from a model which places small groups as only an appendage to the other programs in the church. There is a place for all kinds of groups in the church. “This model can also include traditional Sunday school, where people who are already involved can find a place for sharing and caring” (1993: 4:21)
- Collegiate system
This approach is similar to the old Sunday School system where there was a definite departure from one class and entrance into another class (Coleman 1993: 4:21). “This model has a two-semester structure, with ‘kick offs’ twice a year and closure at the end of each semester. There is also a graduation/celebration at the end of the year” (Coleman 1993: 2:21).
Dr. Coleman is truly an expert on small groups. In my opinion, his knowledge of how small groups function is second to none. The many books that his publishing house has produced have also had a powerful impact on the small group movement in America.
Personal Observations
However, I feel that this model as a church based model was weak in several key areas. First, although cell group multiplication is mentioned as a possibility (or one option) in this model, it’s not given a high priority. In fact, when critiquing the Meta Model, Coleman points out its over commitment to cell multiplication. He mentions that such rapid multiplication interrupts the group building process by ‘splitting cells to create new cells’ (1993: 4:13).
Second, it seems that the bulk of Coleman’s teaching relates to the quality of small group life, wherever that small group might be or whatever that small group might do (the variety of small groups that he promotes are dizzying). In other words, my general impression is that his model is not sufficiently centered in the church. The emphasis is on the small group and not on how the small group will contribute to the growth of the church. After reading through two of Lyman Coleman’s most recent manuals on small group ministry in the church ,(note 11) I sought in vain for any reference to church growth, or more specifically, how his model will more effectively win souls to Christ and integrate them into the church.
Third, I have my doubts about Coleman’s use of the collegiate system. From my knowledge of the large cell-based churches today, I’m not aware of any who use Coleman’s collegiate system of graduation (note 12). This approach seems very programatic and Sunday School oriented.
Fourth, I question his approach to small group diversity. He seems to infer that anything that is small and a group is a functioning small group (note 13). It has been my observation that a cell group must have certain marks (elements, characteristics) in order to be called one.
The Meta Model
The Meta Model was pioneered by Carl George. It is his attempt to adapt cell group principles and church growth found in the third world to a North American context (Coleman 1993:4:12). One of the key features of this model is the Jethro system which is based upon Jethro’s council to Moses to decentralize (Exodus 18), so that everyone would receive proper care (Coleman 1993:13).
Influences On George
I can see at least three major influences on George that helped him to establish the Meta Model:
- The growth of the cell church worldwide
George was impressed by the incredible growth of the cell church world wide (note 14). Not only has the cell church grown rapidly in number, there is also a built in capability to care for new converts.
- Church growth pragmatism
As a pragmatic church growth practitioner, it seems to me that George was drawn to study how to make the world wide cell church paradigm relevant to a North American audience.
- New Hope Community Church
Dale Galloway founded the New Hope Community in Portland, Oregon based on small groups (note 15). Originally, Dale’s model was a strict cell-based model, much like Cho’s church in Korea. However, it appears that the small group ministry at New Hope Community Church began to diversify and change. When I spoke with Dale Galloway at one of his seminars in October, 1995, (note 16) he told me that Carl George had done an in-depth case study of the New Hope Community Church before writing the book, Prepare Your Church for the Future. Dale told me that George’s book was simply a description of the small group ministry at New Hope Community Church. As I reflect on the Meta Model and New Hope Community Church, I have to agree with Dale Galloway’s comments.
Original Version Of The Meta Model
In George’s first book dedicated to cell ministry, Prepare Your Church for the Future, the Meta Model is introduced. The underlying thrust of George’s thinking is that because small group ministry has worked so effectively in large, growing churches around the world, it should be adapted to work in any size church, whether in North America or overseas. His overriding emphasis throughout the book is that our current models of church ministry simply do not provide sufficient quality care to sustain a growing church (1991:57-84).
I like to talk about the original version of the Meta Model because it seems that his first book comes very close to describing the pure cell approach used in most cell churches around the world. Throughout the book, the clear, overriding focus is on the home cell group which emphasize both pastoral care and evangelism (note 17). The book had a powerful impact on the North American church scene because George gives fresh, new North American terminology to the cell-based concepts that have worked so well overseas. In Prepare Your Church for the Future, there is no doubt that George is setting forth a new model of ministry for the church in North America and around the world.
Latest Version Of The Meta Model
In his most recent book, The Coming Church Revolution , George seems to redefine his so-called Meta Model. Instead of promoting a model, he now talks about a way of analyzing your church,
Meta-Church thinking examines the degree to which a church has been ‘cellularized,’ and its leadership linked… It tries to discern the degree to which group leaders are in fact convening their people, and the degree to which coaches are in fact working with group leaders. The Meta-Church, then,…is an X ray to help you look at what you have in order to figure out what’s mission (George 1994: 279,280).
In other words, instead of promoting a model, George is saying that he is providing the church with a way of discerning their small group involvement and how (or if) they are moving toward a purer cell group approach. George insists throughout his new book that the Meta approach is simply a way of seeing (X-ray machine) what you already have.
In this latest book, George spends most of the time describing his mapping strategy called the Meta Globe (note 18). This is George’s attempts to categorize all groups in the church within certain boundaries. This categorization is supposed to help a church examine their real structure. However, I have found the concept more confusing than helpful (note 19). In fact, I have found that trying to fit everything into the Meta Globe tends to force programs and ministries into categories that don’t naturally fit.
In the end, George’s new thinking (or perhaps the real model that didn’t appear in his first book) appears much like the Serendipity model. For example, he says, “Cells include Sunday-School classes, ministry teams, outreach teams, worship-production teams, sports teams, recovery groups, and more… any time sixteen or fewer people meet together, you have a small-group meeting(1994:69,70).
He goes on to redefine the Sunday School, "The phrase cell groups refers to an encompassing care system that includes Sunday School. A Sunday school is simply a centralized, on premises cell system. Churches should have as many Sunday schools as they can afford"(1994: 284).
George includes the word ‘revolution’ in the title of his latest book. Yet, he makes it clear that the small group ministry should not upset anyone in the church. Rather, he recommends that the cell ministry be introduced quietly into the church. It’s not even wise to tell the board when you introduce the cell ministry (1994:259). In my experience, this backdoor approach which avoids the serious, painstaking church planning needed to begin a cell ministry, usually has disastrous consequences. This approach is anything but revolutionary! It’s interesting to me that even small group authors which are considered more programmatic in their approach to small group ministry recommend church wide planning before starting a small group ministry (note 20).
In George’s latest book he also tones down his strict emphasis on continual ongoing leadership training (VHS). In his earlier work he recommended a bimonthly leadership gathering (1992:135-145), but now George says that it’s possible not to even have a regular VHS, if the basic structures and principles exists somewhere else in your church (1994:203).
It’s very hard to critique the Meta Model because I’m not sure what it is anymore. Carl George has not clearly defined himself. It seems like he ‘switched gears’ from his first book on cell ministry to his second. Perhaps, the lack of clarity in George’s writing has something to do with the fact that George does not write his own books (note 21). I have found that the very writing process helps one to think more logically and adds clarity to one’s thinking.
Characteristics Of The Meta Model Adopted by Other Churches
Whether or not George has clearly defined his Meta Model remains to be seen. However, it is clear that many large churches have adopted various characteristics of the Meta Model and even identify themselves as Meta Churches (note 22). In the next chapter, I will analyze six of these churches, but here I will list some common characteristics.
Variety Of Groups
Clearly this is one of the most common characteristics. Following the lead of Dale Galloway, these Meta churches feature a plethora of small groups. In fact, just about any type of small group is acceptable. I have heard of groups for married couples over fifty, drama groups, lawn mowing groups, parking lot attendant groups, cancer groups, staging groups, sports groups, Vietnam Veteran groups, etc.
Normally the various groups can be categorized into specific types or purposes, although certain Meta Models are so varied that they are hard to classify (note 23). Three common types of groups that most frequently surface in the Meta Churches are:
COMMON SMALL GROUPS IN THE META MODEL
Focus: A Particular Ministry |
FELLOWSHIP GROUPS Focus: Care For One Another |
DISCIPLESHIP GROUPS Focus: Spiritual Growth |
The emphasis on variety also extends to the length of the groups. Some groups go on indefinitely while other groups may only last a few weeks. Again, it depends on the purpose of the group or the vision of the leader.
Flexibility
As I have talked to the leadership in these Meta churches, one essential value that continues to surface is the flexibility of their system. Freedom of choice is highly esteemed and emphasized. The top leadership is careful not to assert too much pressure. This flexibility can be seen in at least three major areas:
Study Material
The leaders are free to choose their own material. Saddleback Church gives the leaders complete freedom, while Willow Creek Community Church only asks that the leaders obtain their material from the Willow Creek bookstore.
Group Meetings
Meetings can be held any day of the week at any location. I noted that at Willow Creek, many of the small groups arrive at church 1 ½ hours before their church activity in order to meet in their groups.
Multiplication of the Groups
Multiplication seems to be a desired ideal in the Meta system, but it is not enforced. Again, the strong emphasis on freedom of choice precludes any type of pressure for the groups to multiply. One staff person at Saddleback Church told me that several groups have been meeting as long as the church has been in existence (note 24).
Leadership Training
In all of the Meta Models there is some type of ongoing leadership training, but the system seems to be very flexible and changing. Willow Creek tried to gather the coaches (leaders of five small group leaders) every month. The Cincinnati Vineyard and Fairhaven struggled with monthly leadership meetings (VHS) but found it very difficult to train such a wide variety of cell leadership.
Jethro Model
The five major Meta Models that I examined exercised administrative control over their small groups through a loose knit Jethro structure. I’m using the term Jethro Model to refer to the counsel of Jethro to Moses in Exodus 18. Each cell leader has someone to whom he or she is accountable. That person (called by various names) is assigned to oversee no more than five cell leaders. Over the leader of five is another leader to whom the leader of five is accountable, and the process continues. How many times must the upper leadership visit those under them? Again, the buzz word, ‘flexibility’ was often used. At Saddleback Church the district lay pastors are encouraged to visit the cell leaders every quarter.
Small Groups Support the Church Program
Without exception, the Meta Churches have high powered programs. There doesn’t seem to be any conflict between the church programs and the small groups. In fact, oftentimes in the Meta Model there is simply a redefinition of the word program in order to include the small groups. For example, instead of calling it Children’s Sunday School, it is now labeled Small Groups For Children. Instead of the music program, there are now musical small groups.
In this reshuffling of programs for small groups, oftentimes key small group components are lost. Because of the incredible flexibility, variety, and lack of control that characterize these groups, there is little assurance that key characteristics and core values are being fulfilled and passed on.
This danger becomes particularly acute because of the very nature of most of these Meta churches. They tend to be more temple (church) focused than small group focused. The primary event centers around the weekend services. Not surprisingly, oftentimes the small groups in the Meta system exist to support the temple program. The very atmosphere of programmed, busy ministry can easily swallow up the life in these groups. An example is Willow Creek Community Church, the largest church in the U.S. I was told that the ‘bread and butter’ small groups at Willow Creek are now the task groups (note 25). These task groups meet to accomplish some ministry program in the church (e.g., ushering, money counting, etc.), but at the same time, they’re supposed to include more spiritual elements such as Bible study and prayer.
The Pure Cell Model
The one who has written the most extensively on the Pure Cell Model is Ralph Neighbour (1990). He also seems to have done the most research on cell-based churches worldwide, thus increasing the reliability of his studies. His writings are not only based on the careful study of cell ministry, but also on many years of personal experience. Here’s how he describes pure cell ministry,
“One of the greatest struggles of those wishing to make the transition from P.B.D. [Program Based Design] church life involves this shift in thinking: the cell is the church, and the church is the cell. It is the basic building block of the larger community called ‘local church’. There must be no competition with it—none at all. Everything in the city-wide structure must exist for the cells, be operated by the cells, and must strengthen the life of the cells. As in the human body, the life of the church is in the cells. Are people to be reached for Christ? It is done through cells. Are people to be built up in Him? It is to be done through cells. Are children to be nurtured? They are to be exposed from the start to the cell as normal church life. There are no Specialists and there are no programs in the cell group church” (1990:68,69).
This concept of the cell being the church and the church being the cell permeates all of Ralph Neighbour’s teaching and writing. He views the cell church as ushering in the second reformation (1990:6,7). When reading Neighbour, you get the impression that you should be either totally committed to the Pure Cell Model or you are against it by remaining in the traditional church structure. There is no middle ground.
Although it seems to me that Dr. Neighbour tends to be overly dogmatic, there is no doubt that he is the premier expert on the cell church worldwide (note 26). Yet, what is this Pure Cell Model? What are the distinguishing features? Here I will list some of the key principles in a simplified format. Later in my case study of Bethany World Prayer Center (a pure cell church), I will be describing many of these facets in much greater detail.
Cells Form Part of the Local Church Structure
In the pure cell church, cells are not isolated units. They are not individual, unconnected mini-churches. Rather, they are intimately linked to the life of local church body. Those who attend the cell groups are expected to attend the church. Those who attend the church are expected to attend the cell groups. This is precisely the model that is used in Korea. In referring to Cho’s model, Hadaway states,
Members of Cho’s home cell groups are also expected to attend the meetings on a regular basis. Attendance is not taken lightly, and when a member is unexpectantly absent from a cell group meeting, the house church leader contacts the absentee person the following day to learn why”(1987:99).
Cho own words are helpful here,
The local church is the strength of Christianity. Home cell groups contribute to that strength. Anything that dilutes the strength of the local church is to be avoided. That includes some of the parachurch ministries that sometimes take money and commitment away from the local church (1981:93).
This point needs to be carefully emphasized because of the growing house church movement around the world. In this movement, each house church is completely independent or only loosely connected to other house churches. Here, Dr. Ralph Neighbour’s makes a helpful distinction,
There is a distinct difference between the house church and the cell group movements. House Churches tend to collect a community of 15-25 people who meet together on a weekly basis. Usually, each House Church stands alone. While they may be in touch with nearby House Churches, they usually do not recognize any further structure beyond themselves (Neighbour 1990:193).
Emphasis is on the Components or Characteristics of the Cell
In the pure cell church, the cell is defined by its characteristics and not by the fact that it’s small and a group (George’s loose definition). The three major components of all cell groups include:
TABLE 3
MAJOR COMPONENTS IN CELL GROUPS
Get To Know God |
Get To Know Each Other |
Multiply The Group |
Similarity among the Cell Groups
Perhaps the phrase Quality Control best describes and defends this aspect of the pure cell system. It is quality control that enables a McDonald’s hamburger to taste the same in each of its restaurants. Customers expect that a McDonald’s hamburger will taste just as good in Georgia as in California (or Hong Kong). A similar approach can be found in the ministry of Evangelism Explosion. The reason they expect that each session is taught in a similar fashion is to assure that each trainee receives the same quality.
It is the quest for quality control in the pure cell church that requires that the small group format remains the same. The goal of each cell group is to multiply. For this reason, there is a constant need for new leaders. If these new leaders are going to be successful, they must know exactly what to do and how to do it.
Partnership in Evangelism
It seems to me that evangelism has the highest priority in the cell church. Each cell is required to aggressively evangelize the lost. However, cell-based evangelism is different than most forms of evangelism because the team approach is used in contrast to the individual approach.
Net Fishing Versus Hook Fishing
What I’m referring to can be best illustrated by the tools of the fisherman—the net and the fishing pole. Cell group evangelism in the church uses the net to catch fish. Larry Stockstill describes it this way,
The old paradigm of ‘hook fishing’ is being replaced by teams of believers who have entered into partnership (‘community’) for the purpose of reaching souls together…Jesus used the ‘partnership’ of net fishing to illustrate the greatest principle of evangelism: our productivity is far greater together than alone” (note 29)
Likewise, Cho credits the growth of his 700,000+ church to his system of cell groups (note 30). Cho highlights his methodology of cell group evangelism by saying,
Our cell group system is a net for our Christians to cast. Instead of a pastor fishing for one fish at a time, organized believers form nets to gather hundreds and thousands of fish. A pastor should never try to fish with a single rod but should organize believers into the ‘nets’ of a cell system (Hurston 1994:107).
How specifically does Cho do it? In a 1993 interview with Carl George, Cho explained how his cells go net fishing,
We have 50,000 cell groups and each group will love two people to Christ within the next year. They select someone who’s not a Christian, whom they can pray for, love , and serve. They bring meals, help sweep out the person’s store—whatever it takes to show they really care for them…After three or four months of such love, the hardest soul softens up and surrenders to Christ (George 1995:94).
Commenting on Cho’s evangelistic method of net fishing, George says,
Cho is not talking about two ‘decision cards’ per group. Rather, his people win a person to the group, to the Lord, and then to the specific tenets of the faith. New people, without objecting to what is happening, are caught within the pastoral-care network of these groups…In short, Cho and others have discovered how to blend evangelism, assimilation, pastoral care, and leadership development within their small groups… (1994:94).
Although one might not agree with everything that Paul Cho says and does, the fact that he has 700,000 people in his church should cause us who are interested in church growth to listen attentively. Effective evangelism and discipleship through cell groups is not only a possibility; it’s a reality.
The Whole Group Participates in Evangelism
In every sense of the word, it is small group evangelism. Everyone participates in some small way—from the person who invites the guest, to the one who provides refreshments for the guest, to the one who leads the discussion. This participation can be seen in prayer . For example, at Bethany World Prayer Center ( Larry Stockstill is the pastor) each group has a small white board. Names of unsaved friends and family are written on the board and the whole group prays for each name until the person receives Christ and joins the cell group.
Groups Must Multiply in a Certain Time Period
This issue of cell multiplication seems to be the common thread that links all of the rapidly growing worldwide cell churches. In each one, there is rapid cell group multiplication.
Theme: Born To Multiply
In the pure cell church, the rallying cry is ‘born to multiply (note 31)’. There seems to be a genetic code established in every new group in the church—born to multiply. If the group does not multiply within a set number of months, most of these cell churches feel it’s best to dissolve the group and let those cell members integrate into groups that are experiencing growth and multiplication.
This concept of ‘born to multiply’ combines the truth of definite, specific small group cycles with the evangelistic goal of cell group multiplication. Instead of denying the one to emphasize the other, there seems to be an instant harmony between the two concepts.
Multiplication Maintains Intimacy
From a very practical standpoint, cell groups must multiply if they are going to maintain a state of intimacy while continuing to reach out to non-Christian people. There is common agreement among the experts that a cell group must be small enough so that all the members can freely contribute and share personal needs. Hadaway writes,
…the principle of cell division and growth seems critical here to help avert the problem of exclusiveness. Cell division is not always experienced as a pleasant plan of action for members who have developed deep relationships in the home group meetings. However, the purpose of such action is designed to prevent the kind of exclusiveness and inwardness that can eventually undermine one of the most significant goals of cell groups---outreach and growth (1987:101).
Length of Time before Multiplication
In many of the most rapidly growing cell churches around the world, the time that it takes for the individual cells to multiply is approximately six months (Neighbour 1992: 32-35). Neighbour states,
Long years of experience with groups has verified that they stagnate after a certain period. People draw from one another for the first six months; after that, they tend to ‘coast’ along together. For that reason, each Shepherd Group will be expected to multiply naturally after six months of be restructured (1992: 113).
I recently even heard of a Baptist Church in Modesto, California which is multiplying their cell groups every four months (note 32). However, not all cells multiply in a matter of months. For some it’s a matter of years. Carl George gives this counsel,
The gestation period for healthy groups to grow and divide ranges from four to twenty-four months. The more frequently a group meets, the sooner it’s able to divide. If a group stays together for more than two years without becoming a parent, it stagnates. Bob Orr, of the Win Arn Church Growth, Inc., reports that groups that meet for a year without birthing a daughter cell only have a 50 percent chance of doing so. But every time a cell bears a child, the clock resets. Thus a small subgroup can remain together indefinitely and remain healthy and fresh by giving birth every few months (1991:101)
Bethany World Prayer Center, a true cell-based church, has adopted the policy that their cell groups must multiply within one year or be integrated into the existing structure. From my study thus far and from my practical experience of starting and directing a cell-based ministry, it seems to me that this time period is the most realistic.
Uniformity of Lesson Material
In the pure cell church, there is normally uniformity in lesson material. All of the cell leaders cover the same lesson plan (note 33). In fact, the defining point of the Cho Model for Dr. Coleman is the fact that Cho uses his Sunday morning message as lesson material for the cell leaders (1993:4:9). Similar lesson material helps maintain the quality control.
Strong Administrative Control
In the pure cell church, there is strong administrative accountability. Everyone is monitored, pastored, and accountable—from the high level pastor of pastors to the cell intern (note 34). The philosophy behind this model is Jethro’s advice to Moses, (Jethro model). Jethro’s advice to Moses is straightforward and demands little explanation:
When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, ‘What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?…,’ ‘What you are doing is not good. You and these people who come to you will only wear themselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone….You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people…and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied” (Exodus 18:14-23).
Everyone is Pastored
Taking Jethro’s advice seriously, the pure cell church is organized into groups of tens, fifties, five hundred, and several thousand. The fundamental unit is the cell leader over ten. Then there are the section leaders which are over five cell groups, for a total of fifty people. Next are the zone leaders who oversee five section leaders for a total of 250 (note 35). It is my understanding that the district pastor will oversee up to five zone pastors which make him responsible for a total of 2500 people (Neighbour 1990:195) (note 36).
Each leader of leaders is expected to visit, counsel, teach, exhort, evangelize and help the leaders or members under their care. The difference between the zone and district pastors is that they also perform marriages, funerals, preach, offer communion, baptize, and generally carry out the professional work of the pastor (note 37). In the pure cell church, the cells are categorized geographically into districts according to zip codes. These geographical districts will often act as congregations (Neighbour 1990:356) (note 38).
Required Reporting
Administrative control also takes place through the required reporting from each cell group. From my understanding, these weekly statistical, prayer reports are not optional. They provide the administrative strength to the cell church. It is through these reports that the powerful Jethro organization takes place. A normal cell group report includes the weekly attendance in the cell group, the location of the next meeting, those who were saved, etc. (note 39)
For example, after Dr. McGavran had visited Cho’s church in 1976, he called it ‘the best organized church in the world’ (Hurston 1995:192). I heard Cho say in 1984 that even when he is in the United States., he can locate every person in his 500,000 member church (now much larger) through the cell system (note 40). He was able to say this because of the weekly reports that each cell group completes.
Ongoing Cell Leader Training
High priority is given to the ongoing training of leadership in the cell church. I personally do not know of a cell church that does not prioritize the continual required training of cell leadership. However, I have noticed that the amount of training and the flexibility of training schedules does vary (note 41).
It might be best to simply highlight the ongoing training model of the premier cell church in the world— Yoido Full Gospel Church. First, Pastor Cho offers pre-training for all potential leaders. These potential cell leaders must attend an eight-week leadership training course that is taught on Sunday afternoon in one of Yoido Full Gospel Churches’ small auditoriums (Hurston 1995:75). Topics covered in this eight-week course include: cell leader responsibilities, home cell-group growth, Bible lesson preparation, etc. (Hurston 1995:215).
From the beginning, Cho required that all cell leaders attend a weekly training session to prepare them for the next lesson and strengthen their ministry skills. However, due to the incredible growth of the cell groups, Cho discontinued that practice in 1988. Since that time, printed supplemental materials are available before and after the Wednesday night services (Hurston 1995:214).
At this time, the ongoing training in Cho’s church consists of semiannual cell leader conferences in which pastor Cho personally addresses the cell leaders. However, even in these semiannual conferences, the numbers are so large that half of the cell leaders attend the conference one day, while the other half attend the next day. Practical tips and vision casting seem to be the main agenda for these conferences (Hurston 1995: 75).
In Cho’s church the main means of ongoing training takes place through the pastoral oversight of each leader through the Jethro system. Personal help and training is most effective as (Hurston 1995:75):
- The district pastors minister to the needs of the zone pastors
- The zone pastors serve the section leaders
- The section leaders take care of the cell leaders
- The cell leaders meet the needs of the interns
The Rapid Releasing of Leadership
The rapid multiplication of small groups in the pure cell church makes it imperative that new leaders be found, trained, and released. This rapid releasing of new leadership can only happen as the quality control of each cell group is maintained, as diligent administrative control is exercised (e.g., the Jethro system and the weekly reporting), and as these newly released leaders find help through a ongoing system of leadership training.
Again, Paul Cho is the best example. Even in a church of 750,000, Cho has been able to maintain an average of one lay leader to every ten to sixteen church members (Hurston 1995:68). For example, in 1988 alone, 10,000 new lay leaders were appointed for ministry (Hurston 1995:194). In fact, when Paul Cho was asked where he got his leadership for his sixty thousand cell groups, (note 42) without even hesitating he said, “We get them from our new Christians” (Galloway 1995:105). I don’t believe that Cho immediately places these new Christians into leadership, but it does mean that his major pool of leadership comes from this camp (note 43).
Very Few Programs apart from Cells
Since the Pure Cell Model promotes cells as the most important part of the church, all programs or activities must give way to the cells. There should be no competing programs. In other words, in the cell church, the program exists for the cells or better yet, the program is the cells (Neighbour 1990:68,69) . Neighbour is the most radical here. He declares,
We must actively abandon the hope that stagnant churches can be renewed by painful restructuring and the tacking on of Cell Group Church principles….The church cannot effectively mix traditional patterns of church life with Cell Group Patterns. There must be a deliberate transition. After devoting nearly a quarter of a century to attempt to help ‘renew the churches,’ I am totally skeptical that it can be done (1990:36,37).
He goes on to say,
I returned to the disturbing point that has been made before in this book and will be repeated again and again, The Cell Church lifestyle is too New Testament to be blended into a PBD [program based design] structure. It causes endless conflicts for those who attempt it (1990:55).
At the same time, I have discovered that even the pure cell churches usually have a few pet programs--although they might call them something different (note 44). Realistically, perhaps it’s best to say that in the cell church very few programs exist.
Most churches that are seeking to transition from a programmed-based church to a cell-church will have to wrestle with the issue of cells and programs. Should all programs be abolished? Can some remain? Which ones? As we wrestled with programs and cells in our cell-based church in Ecuador, we arrived at the conviction that the cell groups had to be the very heart of the church, but that did not mean removing all of the programs. However, it did mean that:
- Everyone in the church would participate in a cell group.
- Each pastor would have a significant role in the cell group ministry.
- There would be an intimate connection between the cell group ministry and the other ministries of the church.
Cells Take Care of Basic Church Duties
The ideal cell church does not need another layer of structure (program) to take care of the basic, routine necessities of the church (i.e., counseling, follow-up, ushering, children’s needs, etc.). In fact, little volunteer help is needed. Rather, these needs are met through the cell groups. The various districts (or in a smaller church, the sections) rotate from month to month. With this format, the burdens of a church program do not weigh down a few people in the church (note 45)
Commitment of Head Pastor to Cell Ministry
The active leadership of the head pastor in the direction of the cell ministry seems to be a clear, distinguishing mark in the pure cell church. Cho declares,
There is only one way that the home cell group system will be successful in a church, if that system is to be used as a tool of evangelism. The pastor must be the key person involved. Without the pastor, the system will not hold together. It is a system, and a system must have a control point. The controlling factor in home cell groups is the pastor (1981:107).
Cho intuitively and experientially understands that unless the head pastor is directly involved in the cell ministry, it will not succeed. Cho talks about one North American pastor who attended his cell seminar training in Korea. This pastor was excited about the idea of cell groups, but decided to delegate the responsibility for it to an associate pastor. According to the Cho, the cells soon failed (1981:108). Why? Cho says,
The congregation sees the cell groups as only one of many varied programs in this big church. They don’t see them as the key to revival or to evangelism; after all, there are so many programs aimed at those goals. The pastor isn’t actively involved, so the members feel that cell groups can’t be all that important (1981: 108,109).
In my research and experience in cell-based churches, I have also discovered that the role of the senior pastor is absolutely crucial to the long term success of the cell-based system. I don’t believe that the head pastor can delegate his visionary leadership to someone else and expect to have a successful cell church. Larry Stockstill of Bethany World Prayer Center demonstrated his leadership commitment to the cell model in three areas:
- He personally prepared the lessons for the leaders
- He understood the role of instilling vision in the cell leaders by speaking to them every Wednesday evening.
- He visited a different cell group every week
- He connected his vision for cell ministry with his Sunday morning sermon.
Cells form Basis for Pastoral Team
I have already mentioned the pastoral roles in the cell church under the subheading of administrative control. However, suffice it to say that in the cell church each pastor has a direct role in leading and pastoring the leaders of the cell ministry (Jethro system). It’s always better if the staff pastors were one time cell leaders.
Goal of 100% Participation of Members in Cell Groups
Because cells form the basic building block of life in the cell church, it is expected that everyone participates. On the negative side, to refuse to participate in a cell group indicates that one is not truly in line with the vision of the church. My initial observations indicate that membership in the cell church signifies that one is a committed to the cell ministry of the church. However, in reality, there is no such thing as 100% participation, even in the purest of cell churches. Some talk about 90% participation, but 70% is closer to reality (note 46).
Comparison of the Meta Model and the Pure Cell Model
In this section I will compare the Meta Model with the Pure Cell Model. I do understand that these are only general categories. A fair amount of gray area exists between these two models. In other words, some churches using the Meta Model embrace many pure cell church principles, and other churches who might see themselves in the pure cell church category embrace many of the meta principles (note 47). Having said that, it does seem these two models have sufficiently distinguished themselves to deserve careful analysis.
Although earlier in this study I had mentioned two other small group models (Covenant and Serendipity model), they do not seem to be the choice of enough growing churches to warrant a comparative analysis. In my opinion, the Meta and Pure Cell Models are by far the most widely used in the church today.
Comparison by Jim Egli of North Star Strategies
I will start by synthesizing the main points of an excellent comparative article by Jim Egli (1993:1-8). In this article, Jim is primarily comparing the Meta Model as described in George’s book, Prepare Your Church for the Future, with Ralph Neighbour’s Pure Cell Model, as described in his book, Where Do We Go From Here? (note 48). The following table represents the major differences between the Meta Model and the Pure Cell Model according to Jim Egli:
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS
(Adapted from Egli, 1993)
META MODEL |
PURE CELL MODEL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison by Karen Hurtson of Hurtson Ministries
Karen Hurtson is the daughter of John Hurtson, who as an Assembly of God missionary worked hand and hand with Paul Cho in establishing the Yoido Full Gospel Church. Karen’s latest book, Growing the World’s Largest Church, is a recent case study of Paul Cho’s church. In that book, Karen examines what she calls the incorporated system with the integrated system. What she calls the incorporated system has many similarities with the Meta Model. The integrated system which she describes is the Pure Cell Model (1994:199-205) (not49).
INCORPORATED MODEL AND INTEGRATED MODEL
(Taken from Hurston 1994:199-205)
INCORPORATED SYSTEM |
INTEGRATED SYSTEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Observations
The observations both by Jim Egli and Karen Hurtson shed light on some of the key differences between these two systems. In studying the Meta Model versus the Pure Cell Model, several key points stood out in my mind:
TABLE 6
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF TWO MODELS
|
META MODEL |
PURE CELL CHURCH |
TYPES OF SMALL GROUPS |
|
|
SMALL GROUPS / CHURCH PROGRAM |
|
|
HEAD PASTOR |
|
|
ADMINIS-TRATIVE CONTROL |
|
|
MULTIPLICATION |
|
|
LEADER-SHIP TRAINING |
|
|
STUDY MATERIAL |
|
|
Summary of the Two Models
Here I’d like to highlight some key distinctions and similarities between the two models. I will also partly critique some of the potential weaknesses.
Similarities
- Both place a high priority on small group ministry.
- Both find support in the cell group success of Paul Cho.
- Both use the Jethro system to care for each leader.
- The elements of discipleship and evangelism are normally found in both models.
Distinctions
- Centrality in the Church
- Probably the major distinction between the Pure Cell Church and the Meta Model is the priority given to the small groups. The Pure Cell Model makes the cell ministry the central function in the church. Cells are seen as THE program instead of one of the programs. The concentrated effort of both leader and member hinges around what takes place in the weekly cell gathering.
- In contrast, the Meta Model tends to elevate the small group to the status of a very important program in the church. Because the seeker sensitive service is normally the major program in the church, the small groups seem to used as a supporting tool to the overall temple strategy of the church.
- Pastoral versus Evangelistic
- In the Pure Cell Model evangelism is a major priority in the small group. Cells are the net that draws in the harvest. In the Pure Cell Model, multiplication is not even an option. It’s part of the strategy. The Pure Cell Church positions the cells to fulfill the primary outreach of the church through the multiplication of each group.
- In contrast, the Meta Model utilizes the cells groups for more of a pastoral, networking purpose. The primary evangelism comes from the seeker sensitive service. Four of the five case study Meta churches in this tutorial depended on their seeker sensitive service to attract non-Christians. In these churches the cells are the way to close the back door, but not the primary means of evangelism. The one Meta church that depended on the cells to evangelize has recently been declining (New Hope Community).
- Similarity of Group Meeting Versus Various Group Structures
- In the Pure Cell Church, the same lesson and general format is used in all of the groups. The similarity of the small group gathering helps guarantee the quality control. Leaders and members know what to expect in a cell meeting and new leaders can be trained more rapidly. Cell leader training and multiplication of the cell group is more easily accomplished in the pure cell approach because all are trained in the same techniques, goals, and material.
- Due to the variety of small groups and material in the Meta Model, multiplication and ongoing training are more difficult to maintain. The needs of each leader is so unique and different that effective training and control usually breaks down.
- Tight Administrative Control Versus Flexibility of Structure
The Pure Cell System tends to emphasize tight administrative control. Weekly reports are a must. Oftentimes the cell leaders receive weekly or bimonthly training. The Jethro system is applied to a greater extend in the Pure Cell Model.
On the other hand, in the Meta Model, flexibility and variety are important values. The administrative control is often loose and flexible. The freedom that the Meta Model offers is very appealing in a North American culture which is very individualistic and likes to have many choices. In other cultures, these traits are not so highly esteemed.
Concern about the Variety of Small Groups in the Meta Model
In his Fuller doctoral dissertation on cell ministry David Tan states,
For the Meta-Church any type of groups within the church constitutes the cells. All these groups may have different agendas and purposes. The main principle is to involve as many members as possible in groups. Since it is impossible to enroll everyone and the agenda of every group cannot be identical, the goal of the Meta-Church is accommodation (Tan 1994:18).
As was mentioned earlier, in the Meta Model there are groups for everyone: children, ushers, parking lot attendants, greeters, staging, lighting, drama, vocal groups, orchestra, Vietnam Veterans, blended families, etc. (Galloway 1995:18). The concern that I have in labeling all of these activities as cell groups is that the emphasis subtly shifts from the components of small group life to a more generalized concept of anything small equals a small group.
This is a very subtle distinction, but I have noticed that this concept seems to have an adverse affect on the cell-based structure. It has the potential of cheapening the small group vision by saying that a small group usher’s meeting in the church is the same as a home based small group. In fact, the two are worlds apart, due to the setting and the purpose. I have a suspicion that the lack of quality control in this smorgasbord approach might eventually weaken the entire system.
For example, in Ecuador, our head pastor strongly insisted every week, that everyone attend a weekly cell group, so that they might receive personal care and might be able to reach their neighbors. What the people did not receive in the main worship service, we knew that they could receive through the pastoral care in the small groups. We also knew that the cell groups in the church would be open to receive the people that heard that announcement on Sunday morning.
Yet, how could our people in Ecuador receive this type of care by joining a ‘sports team’ which meets for a season, or by attending a ‘Sunday School class’ which meets for a semester and studies an academic subject, or by being on a ‘committee’ which might meet for a month. It’s not that such gatherings are not important, it’s simply that they do not fulfill the purposes of a cell group. By joining such a group, the person would not truly be pastored and in many cases would not be comfortable in inviting his or her friend. As pastors, we could not be assured that God’s purposes were being fulfilled in the life of our members.
By calling all small gatherings ‘cell groups’, I believe that a certain confusion is created (note 50). In summary, I believe that the focus needs to be on the elements that make up a small group and not the fact that it is a gathering