This tutorial is about history—the history of small groups. And yes, small groups have made a significant impact in the life of the church. John Mallison writes,

In the intervening history of the church, new spiritual life has been marked by the emergence of small groups. In the Middle Ages, amidst a church which had grown fat and short of breath through prosperity and muscle-bound by over-organization, dynamic Christians such as St Francis of Assisi gathered in small groups for prayer and study, and training and service. They kept a flame burning amidst the darkness of a decaying ecclesiasaticism. Various sections of the Anabaptist movement in Europe formed dynamic house-centered groups. The Hutterites in Moravia, Southern Germany, lived out a New Testament-style community life, which had a far-reaching impact….The Lutherans also used cells for nurturing (1989:6).

John Mallison is by no means exhaustive. Rather, I include this quote simply to set the stage for the rest of this tutorial. Small groups have had a significant impact upon the history of the Christian church, and therefore, I undertake this study with a great deal of excitement with what I might find.

In the history of the Christian church, small groups have been use both as an evangelistic (e.g., Monastic Movement, Moravians) as well as for discipleship (e.g., Bucer, Pietism). Small groups have also been used very effectively as an organizational tool (e.g., modern small group movement). The Historian Herbert Butterfield strong believes this by saying,

The strongest organizational unit in the world’s history would appear to be that which we call a cell because it is a remorseless self-multiplier; is exceptionally difficult to destroy; can preserve its intensity of local life while vast organizations quickly wither when they are weakened at the center; can defy the power of governments; is the appropriate lever of prising open any status quo. Whether we take early Christianity or sixteenth—century Calvinism or modern communism, this seems the appointed way by which a mere handful of people may open up a new chapter in the history of civilization” (Herbert Butterfield, ‘The Role of the Individual in History’, Writings on Christianity and History ed. C.T. McIntire (New York: UOP, 1979) p. 24. Quoted by Bill Beckham in The Two Winged Church Will Fly (Houston, TX: Touch Outreach Ministries, 1993), p. 119).

How the Tutorial Fits into the Dissertation

This tutorial will play a very important part in my overall dissertation. In fact, an edited, and very limited version of this tutorial will comprise chapter three of the dissertation which will simply be entitled, “A History of Cell-Based Ministry.”

For the most part, my actual Ph.D. research focuses primarily on the modern cell movement and more specifically, cell-based ministry in Latin America today. However, this tutorial will supply the needed background information in order to successfully complete the rest of my Ph.D. research. The truth of the well-worn phrase, ‘Those who do not learn from history, usually end up repeating it’ is very applicable to this study. The lessons that others have learned form the use of small groups will be invaluable for the future of the movement.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to trace the historical foundations for small group ministry in order to learn important lessons from history. My hope is that these lessons will both inform and warn the small group movement today. In a positive sense, the information gathered from a historical analysis of small groups can help guide those who would seek to implement cell ministry today.

At the same time, there are various warnings that must be heeded. For example, throughout the history of small groups, there have been times when small groups developed into factions and sects that became divisive elements in the church. Reasons for such factions and ways to avoid them will be helpful information for future small group leaders. On the other hand, the history of small groups is replete with examples of those who seemed to exercise too much fear and caution. Their hesitancy, choked and stagnated, a bold, confident approach to small group ministry (e.g., Luther, Zwingli).

Goals

I have identified at least three goals for this study:

To trace the history of small group involvement in a broad, sweeping format, from the early Biblical times to the present day small group movement.
To provide as much information possible about the small group strategy from each time period, as time and space allows.
To evaluate each small group model from the vantage point of the current small group movement (i.e., with the modern day knowledge of small group effectiveness)
To set forth principles that will offer correctives and affirmations for cell-based ministry today.

Problem Statement

The central research issue of this dissertation is an analysis of the contribution of cell-based ministry as a positive factor for church growth in selected growing churches in Latin America.

Research Questions

What have been the patterns of church growth that these churches have experienced before and after the implementation of a cell-based ministry?
How have these churches utilized their cell-based methodology as a tool for church growth?
What have been the patterns that characterize effective cell leadership in these churches?
How have the cultural distinctives of these churches affected their cell-based ministry?

Delimitations

This tutorial has several limitations:

I will not be covering all of the small group movement throughout history. For example, I will not be covering the Puritan small group movement, small initial bands in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, and other such movements.
I will be using broad brush strokes in contrast to detailed ones. Each section will attempt to cover in a general sense how the church of Jesus Christ has used small groups throughout history. With 2000 years to deal with, it is obvious that I cannot expand and explore these movements in great detail. I will therefore only describe in a general sense various patterns of small group involvement throughout the history of the church.
I will be critiquing historic small group movements with the present small group knowledge. I understand that this can be very dangerous. Times, cultures, and circumstances often provide the reasons why certain structures and methodologies were used as opposed to others. For example, the circumstances that gave rise to the monastic movement are totally distinct and foreign to our present culture. The same could be said about the state church concept found at the time of the reformation. In other words, I simply want to acknowledge the danger of projecting current circumstances and knowledge upon historical realities of yesteryear.
I will not be able to provide a lot of contextual back ground and information about each particular era. This is a weakness in that it could lead to misinformation by the reader. However, for the sake of space and focus, I felt that I must use this approach.
I will be emphasizing certain historical eras of church history more than others. For example, William Dean wrote 563 pages about cell groups in British Methodism for his Ph.D. thesis (1985). In keeping with my focus of painting broad strokes in this tutorial, I will try to cover each era in a balanced way without spending too much time on any one movement (note 1).

Definitions

It might be helpful to introduce a few reoccurring terms that will appear throughout this tutorial.

Cell-Based Church

Those churches will be considered cell-based if at least 60% of the regular adult attendees are also involved in a church related small group. These cell groups should regularly meets for the purpose of edification and evangelism. The cell group ministry is not considered to be just another program in the church but are viewed to be the very heart of the church.

Since this concept forms the heart of my Ph.D. research, I will spend more time describing what a cell-based church might look like. Although not all of the following characteristics will be present in a cell-based church, yet the vast majority will be present:

Cells Form Part Of The Local Church Structure (commitment to cell and celebration)
Emphasis Is On The Components Of The Cell (as opposed to labeling all small groups cells)
Similarity Among the Cell Groups (with regard to teaching materail, format, etc.)
Partnership In Evangelism (the group sees themself as an evangelizing unit)
Groups Must Multiply In A Certain Time Period (or be dissolved)
Uniformity Of Lesson Material (as opposed to each leader deciding what they will do)
Strong Administrative Control (required reports, strict Jethro model)
Ongoing Cell Leader Training (not optional)
Rapid Releasing Of Leadership (due to rapid multiplication, many new leaders must be raised up)
Very Few Programs Apart From Cells (other programs are discouraged or cut out)
Cells Take Care of Basic Church Duties (cells replace volunteer help)
Commitment Of Head Pastor To Cell Minsitry (or the cell ministry will not succeed)
Cells form Basis for Pastoral Team (each pastor has a major role in the cell system)
Goal Of 100% Participation Of Members In Cell Groups (normally between 70-90%)

House Church

A house church is a fully functioning, complete church that is meeting in the home. Although there might be interrelationships between various house churches, each one is a self-sustaining, self-propagating entity. Neighbour describes the difference between a cell group and a house church this way,

“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).

Moravians

The Moravian movement began in 1722 when a few refugees from the persecutions of Protestants in Bohemia and Moravia settled on the estate of Nicolas Ludwig, Count of Zinzendorf (1700-1760). Zinzendorf formed this group of refugees into a missionary minded church that sent missionaries all over the world. Like the Monastic Missionary bands, the Moravians used small group structures to spread the gospel.

Small Group

My definition of a small group will be more general in this tutorial due to the historical nature of the subject matter.

Broader Definition For This Paper

The way that I have described small groups in my Ph.D. research thus far is:

Cell groups are small groups of people which are intimately linked to the life of the church (Acts 2:46). These groups meet for the purpose of spiritual edification and evangelistic outreach. Those in the cell groups are committed to participate in the functions of the local church and when new people outside the church are added to the group, they too are encouraged to become responsible, baptized members of Christ’s body. The cell group is never seen as an isolated gathering of believers who have replaced the role of the local church.

However, for this paper, I will need to expand this definition. The small groups that I will be studying in this paper cannot be neatly categorized in the framework of the cell church today. There are simply too many contextual and historical factors at work. For example, due to persecution in the early church, the house church movement was a different phenomenon than the small group movement today. Although, it can be argued that the house churches formed linked with the church at large in celebration events, those events were irregular due to the intense persecution.

The issue of small groups in the Monastic Movement also presents a different picture from the modern cell movement today. The same can be said of the Anabaptist small groups and those in the Pietistic movement. Another factor concerns groups size.

Larger Size For This Paper

In this tutorial, I will also need to adjust my concept of group size. For example, many small group experts today believe that the perfect size for a small group lies between eight and twelve people. Mallison, who is a veteran small group practitioner states, “Twelve not only sets the upper limit for meaningful relationships, but provides a non—threatening situation for those who are new to small group experiences…It is significant that Jesus chose twelve men to be in his group” (1989:25).

On the other hand, George sets the number at ten. He is more emphatic by insisting that the perfect size for a cell group is ten since it is “...the time-tested, scientifically validated size that allows for optimal communication” (1993:136). Although perhaps a bit dogmatic, George’s point is well worth hearing. He feels that in order for a leader to give quality pastoral care, the group must be kept small (1990:125-127).

Although I personally (along with others) believe that fifteen is a healthy limit, I will not strictly stick to my definition for the purpose of this historical study. We know that an early house church have had between 25 to 40 individuals (Mayer 1976:295). The Monastic Movement seems to be more ‘congregational’ in size than ‘cell’.

Rather than focusing on size and some kind of a precise definition, in this paper, I will define the term small group as a Christian group which is limited in size and that meets regularly for the purpose of edification and/or evangelistic outreach.

Pietism

In a narrow sense, it signifies the movement for spiritual renewal that sprang out of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in continental Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Bloesch 1973:103).

Assumptions

I hold to several assumption that might affect my interpretation in this tutorial:

That the small group methodology is highly effective as a church growth paradigm and should be studied in order to better equip Christian leadership today
That an effective small group will manifest both discipleship qualities as well as evangelistic qualities with the goal of eventually giving birth to a daughter group
That it is God’s will that His Church grows.

Overview Of This Tutorial

This tutorial will cover a number of historical small group movements:

The Biblical small group movement
Small Group Teaching in the Old Testament
Small Group Teaching in the New Testament
The Early Church House Movement
The Development of Small Groups Throughout the Middle Ages
Small Groups in the Monastic Movement
Small Groups in Among the Early Church Fathers
Small Groups Among Early Sectarian Movements
Martin Luther and Small Groups
Martin Bucer and Small Groups
Small Groups in Anabaptism
Small Groups in Pietism
Small Groups in Moravianism
Small Groups in Methodism
The Modern Small Group Movement

The justification for a the broad, historical approach to small group ministry is to depict general patterns and similarities that were utilized throughout history. For my current Ph.D. research, it seems more important for me to understand the interconnectedness of small group ministry since Biblical times, rather than become an expert on just one movement.

Chapter 2: Small Groups in Biblical Perspective

Small groups have played an important place in Biblical history. The book of Exodus gives us principles for the organization of a small group ministry (Exodus 18). Jesus demonstrated the power of small groups by personally organizing one and then dedicating His time and energy to that small group. The early church is also an excellent example of the power in a small group ministry. Yes, the Bible is complete with illustrations and instructions concerning small group ministry.

Small Groups in the Old Testament

History is often called His story. From the creation of the world, to God’s dealing with the nation of Israel, the Old Testament traces God’s handiwork. Many theologians have suggested overriding themes that best describe the Old Testament. The Kingdom of God motif has been chosen by many. Others prefer to see the concept of covenant as a unifying theme. There might even be those who would choose to look at the O.T. from the lenses of small group ministry (note 2). Although I will not try to force a small group paradigm upon the Old Testament, there does seem to be some noteworthy small group concepts.

Small Group Concepts

There are many general concepts from the Old Testament that establish the core values of small group ministry. One of those concepts is the community of God’s people. This perspective of God creating a people for the purpose of relationship is a common thread. G. Ernest Wright observes that community was God’s central act in the Old Testament (quoted in Gorman 1994:34).

Community and communion can first be seen in the Trinity. The first small group was between the Godhead. The relationship that existed from the beginning between the three in One is the perfect model of unity and harmony. Garth Icenogle suggests, “…from the beginning, God existed in community as group being in creative action. From a historically classic Trinitarian view of God, the divine group existed as three persons in conversation and mission” (1994:22).

After the pattern of this relationship between the members of the Trinity, it can be argued that God originally created man for relationship with Himself. Although it’s fruitless to argue that God needs man’s company, the Bible seems to indicate that God finds great pleasure in relating to mankind. Julie Gorman writes “God is not a force or a principle or an impersonal dynamic. God is a person enjoying and pursuing relationships. The entire account of Scripture is a record of His commitment to developing encounters with others” (1993:24). This theme of community and communion that is so evident throughout O.T. history is also a key small group theme (Watson 1978: 67-74).

In a general sense, the entire Bible can be linked to one of the focal points of small group ministry—the development of close relationships. However, it seems to me that one should be careful not to read small group themes into the Bible that might not exist (note 3). With this caution in mind, I will not attempt to extract small group themes from the Old Testament that are not specifically stated or that are not already commonly used among small group advocates. I will try to be as specific as possible.

One of those specific themes that is used widely in the cell church today is the organizational principle that Jethro first introduced in Exodus 18 when he gave timely counsel to Moses.

Jethro’s Advice To Moses

Moses was God’s man. It was he who had led the nation of Israel out of Egypt. The entire nation of Israel looked to Moses for advice and direction. Yet, Moses lacked the skills of delegation. He seems to have taken upon himself too much responsibility. Jethro’s advice to Moses is straightforward,

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).

From this passage, it is clear that Moses was trying to do all the work himself. He felt that since he was God’s anointed leader, all of the work rested upon his shoulders. The counsel of Jethro not only liberated Moses to concentrate only on the ‘difficult cases’, but it also provided a better system of care for the people. George writes,

No one can listen to a hundred voices at once. Most leaders have a hard enough time keeping track of ten without the flock starting to feel uncared for. Further, just as Jethro’s judges were unsalaried locals who did their work when they could, out of their shepherding time so church lay workers can handle only so much span of care before they themselves burn out. For these reasons, small groups that grow beyond ten need to divide” (1991:125).

Principle Utilized In The Cell Church Today

This concept of ‘span of care’ and pastors over pastors is a major theme in the cell church today. Everyone is monitored, pastored, and accountable—from the high level pastor of pastors to the cell intern. Paul Cho is an example of someone who has done that. 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).

Describing this phenomenon, Logan states,

Every one of the half million members of the church interacts each week in a cell-group body life. Whereas the typical church grows to a point where it stretches to the limit its pastors’ ability to minister to each member, a cell group church has no limit as long as you are effectively mobilizing laity to minister through cell groups (1989:120).

It seems that the cell group is uniquely furnished to provide ample opportunity for lay involvement. The cell leaders pastor, visit, evangelize, counsel, administrate, and generally care for their cell members. For example in pastor Cho’s church, it would be impossible to effectively minister to the 650,000 people apart from the cell groups. However, with 55,000 trained cell leaders in 22,000 cell groups, the church is fully able to disciple its members.

Levels of Leadership Assures Pastoral Care

The two major models in the cell church today (Meta Model and Pure Cell Model) both pattern their stratified leadership after Jethro’s advice to Moses in Exodus 18 (note 4). For example, 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 5). 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 6).

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 7). 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 8).

Jethro Model Maximizes Church Organization

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 9). Cho could say this because every leader is accountable to another leader who is also accountable to someone else.

Weekly statistical, prayer reports are handed in each week. These reports 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, and other important details (note 10).

Small Groups In The New Testament

The small group movement today does not see itself as an isolated unit. All of the small group literature that I have read finds an intimate link between present day involvement and early New Testament history.

Christ And Small Groups

The first New Testament example of a small group is the small group that Christ chose. Many have expounded upon Christ’s small group, and the fact that he spend so much intimate time with them. (Hull 1988:225-250). Icenogle comments,

Jesus modeled God’s way of transforming the world. He called out a small group of people to experience their own exodus journey together, to move from the enslavement of controlling social, political, and religious patterns to enter into the freedom of ‘pouring new wine into new wineskins’ (1994:118).

Beckham also notes that, “For three and a half years, He lived with twelve leaders who were His special community” (1995:135). Mark’s gospel tells us the first priority for this called out community, “He appointed twelve—designating them apostles---that they might be with him…( 3:14). For three years, this small group spent time with Jesus.

Yet, was there another, more far-reaching purpose behind the formation of this initial small group? According to Beckham, Christ’s example of spending time with twelve disciples is the perfect model for starting a cell church. He writes, “

The Leadership Core Stage provides a group to own and oversee the vision….Jesus called out a core group to model His ecclesia or ‘called out ones’….They formed His basic community through which He would prepare future leaders (1995:153).

In this study New Testament, I must focus my attention on the small group paradigm that is most relevant for he small group movement today—the early church.

The House Church In The New Testament

It’s worth noting that the early church did not have their own buildings. The record of the book of Acts mentions that from earliest times the believers met both in the homes and in the temple (Acts 2:46).

Paul substantiates this point in Acts 20: 20 when he recalls his ministry among the Ephesians, “You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house.” John Mallison, who has been actively involved in small group ministry for over twenty years, testifies to this truth, “It is almost certain that every mention of a local church or meeting, whether for worship or fellowship, is in actual fact a reference to a church meeting in a house” (1989:5). Hadaway, Wright and DuBose add, “From the beginning, homes appeared to be the place for the most enduring dimensions of early church life” (1987:40). In a day when home meetings are foreign and church meetings are a way of life, it’s important to remember the home context of the early church.

Biblical Examples

In Acts 12:5 we observe that the church was meeting and praying for Peter in the home of Mary, the mother of John. It appears that primarily due to the early church persecution, the role of the house church became normative (Barclay 1955:228). Murray notes,

It was necessary and appropriate in apostolic times,.. to make their homes available for the congregations of the saints....In a city like Rome or Ephesus (I Cor. 16:19) there would be more than one such congregation. Hence there would be other churches and it would be proper to speak of the churches of Rome (1957:228,229).

Bruce also supports this fact by stating,

Household churches are frequently referred to in the NT epistles. Sometimes the whole church in one city might be small enough to be accommodated in the home of one of its members; but in other places the local church was quite large, and there was no building in which all the members could conveniently congregate. This was certainly true of the early Jerusalem church; there we find one group meeting in the house of Mary, the mother of Mark (Acts 12:12); and although Luke does not specifically call that group the church in her house, it might very well have been described thus. Priscilla and Aquila were accustomed to extend the hospitality of their home to such groups in the successive cities where they lived--e.g. in Ephesus (I Cor. 16:19) and Rome (16:5). At Colossae itself Philemon´s house was used for this purpose (Philem. 2) (1957:309,310).

Bruce’s comment about Priscilla and Aquila are quite interesting. He mentions their home ministry in Ephesus and Rome, but it is also likely that Priscilla and Aquilla opened their home in Corinth as well. It was in Corinth where they first teamed up with Paul (Beckham 1995:106). Writing about these two, Beckham says, “They were leaders, and yet leaders who functioned at the most basic level of ministry. Aquila and Priscilla were home church leaders, the basic working unit of the early church” (1995:106).

Archaeological Examples

Along with the Biblical evidence for the existence of house churches in the early church, there is also a plethora of archeological evidence. Mayer points out,

Students of archeological ruins point out that the Christians had no place for larger assemblies. If a community had a wealthy member who had a larger house, his largest room could hardly have accommodated more than this small group (1976:295).

More specifically, archeological discoveries in the city of Capernaum in Galilee indicate that a house church met in what appeared to be the house of Peter the apostle (Tan 1994:43). In Clementine Recognitions ( 10:17), Theophilus of Antioch used his home as a meeting place. From the descriptions of Clement of Alexandria in Egypt, it appears that a house church met in the home of a wealthy member of the congregation (Tan 1994:43). The list of such findings could go on. Suffice it to say, the house became the church in those early days. Although oftentimes forced to do so, it seems that God in His sovereignty permitted such a situation to exist. He knew that the His Church would best function in a intimate home atmosphere.

The Intimate Atmosphere Of The Home Gatherings

Many believe that the size and atmosphere of those early house church meetings greatly added to the effectiveness of the ministry of the early church. Thankfully, the impersonal atmosphere of a large gathering in a gothic like cathedral were not possible in those early days. Rather, the structure was simple and warm. Mayer describes the home meeting best when he says,

It is important to note that the Christians of Justin’s day, like those of Jesus’ and Paul’s time, usually came together in small groups. Most of these groups probably did not number much more than 25 to 40 individuals….In these small groups, Christians knew each other intimately, they loved and cared for each other, and the Gospel did its work with maximum effectiveness (1976:295).

Those of us who are Bible students know that one of the first principles of Biblical Inspiration is that inspiration only extends to the intent of the Biblical author when He was writing the Scripture. Application is an entirely different subject. Therefore, it’s essential to understand the context from which the New Testament authors wrote their inspired epistles.

In many cases, that context is the home. When reading the New Testament, it’s important to remember that the exhortations to love one another, to use the gifts of the Spirit, and to participate in the Lord’s Supper all have their roots in the family atmosphere of a home (Goetzman 1976:250).

A whole different set of dynamics and images exist in a larger building structure. It’s fair to say that Paul might have laid down a different methodology had he been writing to a church meeting in a huge cathedral or building. Because our church structure today is so often based upon the church building, it’s hard to place ourselves in the New Testament context when we read the Scriptures. Take, for example, the practice of communion. We practice communion in a much different atmosphere today than those early Christians experienced. Barclay writes,

There can be no two things more different than the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in a Christian home in the first century and in a cathedral in the twentieth century. The things are so different that it is almost possible to say that they bear no relationship to each other whatsoever” (Barclay quoted in Beckham 1995:111).

The Relationship Among The House Churches

It has already been suggested that the early house churches were not independent entities. Rather, they seemed to meet together both in the confines of the local house church as well as celebration events.

Biblical Examples

For example, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul both addresses the individual ecclesia which met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla (I Cor. 16:19), but he also greets the ecclesia as a whole ( I Corinthians 1:2 and II Corinthians 1:1). This seems to indicate that a general relationship existed (Neighbour 1990:44). At this point, Banks agrees (1994:32).

The same can be said about the church in Thessolonica and in Rome (I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1; Rm. 16:23). It might also be suggested that on occasion the house groups gathered for special celebration events. The Love Feast of I Corinthians 11 and Paul´s visit to Troas in Acts 20:6-12 could be examples of this type of joint celebration.

Scholarly Debate

The Biblical evidence has its support among scholars who have studied the New Testament texts. For example, F.F. Bruce comments, “Such house churches appear to have been smaller circles of fellowship within the larger fellowship of the city ecclesia” (1957:310). George Hunter writes,

The early church experienced two structures as necessary and normative for the Messianic movement. They met as cells (or small groups) in ‘house churches’; and the Christians of a city also met together in a common celebration or congregation (except for periods when persecution prohibited public celebrations and drove the movement underground, meeting in homes only) (1996:82).

However, in Paul’s later usage of ecclesia, Banks debates the view that the house churches were connected to a common celebration structure. He insists that the house churches were independent entities with no organizational framework to bind them together. However, it’s important to note that Banks does acknowledge that Paul did seek to link the various house churches together, although this was not through a common celebration model (1994:42,43). Banks believes that Paul intentionally planted these independent house churches, so that true Christian fellowship and community would be experienced (1994: 26).

Although the evidence can be debated, it does appear that the celebration/cell model was normative in the New Testament, especially when persecution was limited.

The Emphasis On Cell And Celebration

This structure of both the celebration and the cell structure is first seen in the first meetings of the church after Pentecost. In Acts 2:46 states, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and at together with glad and sincere hearts,…” It’s clear that the Jerusalem church both met in the large area in the temple (Solomon’s Colonnade) and in homes.

Acts 5:42 tells us that there were meetings both in the temple courts and from house to house. Finally, in Acts 20:20 Paul mentions that fact that he taught in Ephesus both publicly and from house to house (Malphurs 1992:212). There can be no doubt that both structure were used in the New Testament. Elmer Towns is quite insistent about the two pronged structure when he says, “To be a whole church, it must have the cell as well as the celebration. I conclude that the norm of the New Testament church included both small cell groups and larger celebration group” (Towns quoted in Geroge 1993.136)

Necessity Of Small Groups Due To Church Size

We have seen that the celebration (large gathering of the church) and the cell (gathering of a small group) were normative in the early church. The early church benefited both from the larger church (celebration) and from the small group (cells in homes). This was necessary because conservative estimates tell us that the size of the Jerusalem church along was probably around 20,000-25,000 people (Malphurs 1992:212).

With such a large congregation, it seems impossible that the Jerusalem church was able to care for such a large group of people. Much like the earlier counsel of Jethro, it was essential for the apostles to delegate their ministry into smaller units. As we’ve already seen from Acts 2:46, the huge church was broken down into manageable units through the home gatherings.

Necessity Of Small Groups Due To Persecution

In the early part of the first century AD the celebration/cell experience took place on a daily basis. However, due to persecution, as the history of Acts progresses, the celebration ceased to be a daily experience. We aren’t sure about the regularity of the celebration event because eventually the early church was forced to emphasize the home meetings more than the gathered celebration. Yet, even if the midst of persecution, it does appear that there were periodic celebration events. Beckham believes that one can find from church history an abundance of evidence that the church has always met in both homes and large celebrations (1995:108).

House Churches Today

The house church movement today has done a great service to the church by reminding us of our New Testament roots . This movement rightly points to the New Testament as the basis for their practice.

Restricted Area House Churches

Those house movement which are meetings in restricted areas to the gospel are probably even closer to the New Testament model. China is an excellent example. The house church model in China is working very effectively in an land where persecution to the gospel is a fact of life.

Yet, when there is liberty to meet openly and without restrictions, it appears that the celebration/cell paradigm is more Biblical. As we have seen, it appears from the Biblical evidence that there was a dual function of both the general assembly of believers and the individual house churches. Beckham wisely states,

The problem today is not in proving the church existed in both large congregations and small cells during the first century. That is evident in the New Testament. Our problem today is that the traditional church ignores the New Testament pattern and lives without New Testament community. In light of the overwhelming evidence, how can that continue? (1995:109)

Dangers Of Isolation And Lack of Accountability

Yet, many house churches today do not recognize any authority beyond them-selves and do not follow the cell/celebration paradigm. Neighbour asserts,

Usually, each House Church stands alone....Often they may not grow larger than their original number for years, having no aggressive evangelistic activity. They do not become a true movement of church expansion....In contrast, the cell group church recognizes a larger structure for church life. It is composed of many cells, but no one cell would ever consider existing apart from the rest (Neighbour 1990:203).

It is my opinion that if a house church does not recognize any authority beyond themselves, there are various dangers that can occur. One of those dangers is the issue of independence and isolation. When a small group leader exercises control without outside accountability, false doctrine and other problems can develop. The small group movement today which is intimately connected with the local church structure can usually avoid that problem. Hadaway explains,

Deviations of any major sort are unlikely in home cell groups, however, because, unlike house churches, they are closely tied to a host church. Leaders are trained and supervised by church leaders, and potential problems can be quickly spotted and resolved (1987:248).

Loose Connection Among House Churches

This is not to say that all house churches are independent entities. Many do have accountability structures among themselves. At least one group of house churches has even constructed a separate headquarters to meet the needs of the various house churches (Hadaway, Wright, Dubose 1987: 242). Some house churches seek a relationship with other house churches.

Del Birkey writes as a representative of the house church movement and as a house church pastor, “…single-cell house churches can grow by forming an interdependent nexus with one another. In this way each comes under an umbrella of fellowship while remaining dynamically single-celled” (1988:79). Yet, even when house churches exists under an ‘umbrella of fellowship’ between themselves, I have to wonder if this type of informal relationship does justice to the cell/celebration practice of the New Testament. Especially, under normal conditions, the primitive church clearly favored the approach that included both cell and celebration.

Along with the house church paradigm, so pervasive in the background of the New Testament, are several common apostolic teachings that tie in so beautifully the value of small group ministry (note 11).

The Body Of Christ Motif

The New Testament clearly teaches that the church is not a building or an organization. It is a living organism. As a living organism under the headship of Christ, it’s function is spiritual as opposed to political. In the early church, the atmosphere of the house church enriches this important concept.

Exercise Of The Gifts

In all three of the major passages (Eph. 4; Rom. 12; I Cor. 12-14) in which Paul talks about the body of Christ, he defines each member’s part by their corresponding gifts. In fact, when Paul talks about the church as the body of Christ, the implication is that the believers were able to participate in the exercise of their spiritual gifts. They had the opportunity to interact among themselves. Banks reminds us, “Paul’s communities were instead theocratic in structure. Because God gave to each individual within the community some contribution for its welfare, there is a strong democratic tendency. Everyone participates authoritatively in its activities” (1994:148).

How did everyone participate? Along with the united celebration (Acts 2:46a), we read that they also broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts (2:46b). Paul taught the people, not only publicly, but also from house to house (Acts 20:20). It is with this intimate atmosphere in mind that Paul could say, “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction...” (I Cor. 14:26).

Looking at the effectiveness of the early church and drawing from my own personal experience, it seems that there is no better atmosphere for the exercise of one’s giftedness than in a home group. The primary atmosphere of the early church was the intimate character of the home. This atmosphere of participation is being rediscovered in a fresh way through the cell group movement. Churches are realizing that as they grow bigger, they must also grow smaller. Only in the intimacy of a small, closely knit group will many Christians ever be able to exercise their spiritual gift. George reminds us that, “Because of the intimate, accountability-inviting context of an affinity-based group, participants will readily accept the call of God that accompanies the discovery of their gifts” (1993: 136).

Following the same line of thought, Dr. Ralph Neighbour asserts,

All are to exercise spiritual gifts to edify others. The early church did exactly that! Recognizing there cannot be total participation by every member when the gatherings are only made up of large, impersonal groups, the people of God moved from house to house in small groups. By moving among their residences, they became intimately acquainted with each person’s surroundings (Neighbour, 1990:41).

Ministry To One Another

The body of Christ motif also demands that we not only exercise our gifts, but that we also recognize other parts of the body, and that we are sensitive to meet their needs. It is this intimate sense of community in the body of Christ which the cell movement today has recaptured (Snyder 1975:143-148).

In so many churches today, those who attend are consumers and not participants. There is the tendency to go to a building on a special day of the week, in order to receive some type of ministry , at a price—the offering . The church at large has become an audience of consumers (Beckham 1995:43-45). Yet, the Scripture is filled with passages about our responsibility to minister to one another (e.g., I Thess. 5:10; 5:18). Yet, in so many large churches the ministry one to another is sadly neglected. Malphurs writes,

How do we implement these commands and ‘each other’ passages in the church? Most people note them mentally and attempt to apply them when possible. Small group meetings and ministries provide an ideal community in which these may be implemented” (1992:216)

In fact, this idea of community might indeed be the central contribution of Paul’s writings (Banks 1994:2). Those congregations that only stress the church service on Sunday morning do not truly experience the N.T. concept of the body of Christ as a participating, interacting organism. John Mallison captures this point when he says,

Small groups provide situations in which mutual ministry can take place. Only a small number can minister in a large gathering and then only in fairly superficial manner to each individual. The majority are denied an opportunity to exercise their ministry to the gathered church (1989:10).

George Hunter believes that Christians who attend ‘church’ without attending a small group are only experiencing ‘half’ of the Christian life:

Many people are involved in the congregation, and are thus involved in its proclamational, sacramental, and liturgical life, but not in the cell; they therefore never experience half of what ‘church’ has to offer. Only in the church’s redemptive cells do we really know each other, and support each other, and pull for each other, and draw strength from each other, and weep with each other, and rejoice with each other, and hold each other accountable, and identify each others gifts, and experience what it means to ‘members of one another (1996:48).

The People Of God Motif

The People of God motif is especially relevant to the cell- based church. The church is primarily a an organism and not a building. Thomas Goslin rightly declares, “When the early church founders spoke of churches, ecclesias, they were referring to gathered communities of believers, not buildings”(1984:2). Elmer Towns affirms, “In the early church it is clear that ‘church buildings’ as such did not exist until the second or third century” (Towns 1983: 257, 258). According to Donald McGavran, archeologists find no hint of church buildings before the year AD 150 ((McGavran in Goslin 1984: ii). This is not to say that the early believers did not meet to celebrate in the temple (Acts 2:46;5:20, 25, 42) and in the portico of the temple (Acts 5:12). Until persecution made such celebration events impossible, large gatherings were quite common in the life of the early church. However, it should be noted that oftentimes today we become so caught up in maintaining our expensive buildings that we quickly forget that the church must be primarily concerned with fulfilling her role as a ‘called out assembly of God´s people.’ Because of the anxious concern ‘to utilize’ the expensive building, the need for more intimate, body oriented gatherings can sometimes be overlooked.

Some would argue that the church today is still suffering from the days of Constantine. It was in those days that there was a definite transition from the home church model to the temple based paradigm (Hadaway, Wright, & DuBose 1987:70-72). . When the church met in the home, the dynamic of God’s chosen people was kept clear and focused. However, when the church became powerful, political, and institutionalized, it quickly forgot its moorings. It forgot that God was more interested in developing His people, rather than a powerful institution.

Chaper 3: Small Groups before the Reformation

The early church offers an exciting glimpse into the power and effectiveness of small group ministry. The atmosphere and nature of home meetings brought out the best in Christian community and fellowship. However, persecution made home meetings mandatory during those initial years. When Christianity became the state religion during the days of Constantine, large, sacred buildings became more esteemed than intimate home fellowships (Plueddemann 1990:4). From the historical data, it seems that these developments had an immediate negative impact on the church of Jesus Christ.

The Demise Of The House Church

Most historians point to Constantine to mark the major transition from intimate home fellowships to impersonal church buildings. It was during his reign that the church became legitimate in the eyes of the world. The immediate, negative effect of this change was the demise of the house church. David Tan writes,

The house or community church remained the normative form of church life up until the time of Constantine (c.274/280 to 337). He was the first Christian emperor of Rome. From that time on church buildings (basicilicas, chapels, etc.) began to replace the community church (1994:43).

Yet, even before Constantine came to power, there seems to have been certain factors that were working behind the scenes. One of those factors was the development of a distinction between the clergy and the laity.

Distinction Between Clergy And Laity

This distinction was a gradual one that became a factor early on due to the earnest desire to discern between the true church and teaching of Jesus Christ in the midst of falsity and deception.

The Need For Authority

In the face of sects and false doctrines, there arose a growing need to point to the true, visible Church. At a time when the body of Scripture was still emerging and the consensus was by no means unanimous, many voices were clamoring for authority. Gnosticism and similar religions were making widespread headway. It seemed clear to many that the only way to distinction between the true church and the false one was through the actual physical representatives of the apostles. In other words, the way to distinction the true church from the false one was to establish apostolic succession.

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic succession became a quest to determine who were the direct disciples of Jesus Christ. That is, it was an attempt to point out the disciples of the apostles themselves up until the present time. If this could be shown, then it was thought that the ever-spreading heresies would be stopped.

In the first quarter of the second century, the case for apostolic succession is made very clearly by Irenaeus, an early church father (Latourette 1975:131). Latourette points out,

He insisted that the apostles had transmitted faithfully and accurately what had been taught them by Christ and had not, as the heretics asserted, intermingled with them extraneous ideas. He was emphatic that the apostles had appointed as successors bishops to whom they had committed the churches….These bishops had been followed by others in unbroken line who were also guardians and guarantors of the apostolic teaching. He hints that he could, if there were space, give the lists of the bishops of all the churches, but he singles out that of the Church of Rome,… (1975:131)

Irenaeus mentioned that he could point out the list of bishops from Christ to the present, if he chose to do so. A number of other early church fathers went beyond Irenaeus and actually attempted to establish such a link between the original apostles and the current leadership (note 11).

A Widening Gap

It’s understandable that the early church leadership wanted desperately to establish a barricade, a fortress of protection against the onslaught of Gnosticism and other heresies. At the same time, the result of their efforts was the establishment of a concrete wall that separated the ordinary lay person from the holy line of the bishops. This wall became wider and more fortified until the time of the reformation when the reaction was so great that the voices of protest were finally heard.

By the third century, this line of succession along with the distinct church offices had become quite developed in the church (note 12). In major cities, bishops began to grow in power, evolving into patriarchs and popes. Their word became the Word of God. It was they who established correct doctrine and condemned those who did not agree (note 13). This wall of distinction between laity and clergy is noted by Paul Johnson in his work, A History of Christianity,

It [Christianity] had also acquired many of the external characteristics appropriate to its new status: official rank and privilege,... elaborate ceremonial designed to attract the masses and emphasize the separateness of the priestly caste (1976:103).

The ministry of service which was so typified by Christ Himself began to develop into a profession. Although leaders like Tertullian protested vehemently against these hardened structures, their voices were drowned out (Johnson 1976:80,81).

By the time of Cyprian (fifty years after Tertullian), one can notice the distinct shift from the bishop as a servant-shepherd of God’s flock to an administrative ruler (Mayer 1976:296). Mayer writes, “What emerges in the people’s mind is the picture of an administratively strong pastor upon whom in many real ways their future hopes depend” (1976:296).

Inadequate Ministry Structure

It is not that Cyprian and other church fathers like him had lost their vision for the church or had stopped following Jesus Christ. Rather, there seems to be a change in the care structure that ultimately helped strengthen the separation between the laity and the clergy. Mayer notes, “…as the congregations grow larger and the intimate supportive relationships of the smaller groups disappear, the nature of Christian charitable work changes…(1976:297).

When the house church structure was functioning properly, there was liberty for the laity to minister. The priesthood of all believers was in full force and the needs of the church were being met. When the distinction between clergy and laity became too strong, a great vacuum was created. It was because of this artificial vacuum that Tertullian ended up becoming a Montanist. Johnson correctly sums up Tertullian’s frustration,

In his orthodox days, Tertullian had attacked the Montanist—type heretics because ‘they endow even the laity with the functions of the priesthood.’ Now, having denied the penitential power, he became a Montanist himself….He appealed to the ‘priesthood of all believers’ against the ‘usurped’ rights of particular office-holders, unspiritual ‘lordship’, the ‘tyranny’ of the clerics. Even a woman, if she spoke with the spirit, had more authority in this sense that the greatest bishop” (1980:81).

In many ways, persecution was a blessing in disguise. It helped to place the ministry in the hands of the laity. Although it didn’t prevent the ‘succession’ philosophy from spreading, it did help stem the tide.

Centralized Ministry Versus Decentralized

The frustration felt by Tertullian and others like him went largely unheeded. In fact, the gap between the laity and the clergy continued to increase. William Brown writes about that time period saying,

…the reversion to an ‘official’ priesthood or ministry…cast the laity chiefly into the ‘role of hearers of the Law and spectators of the mysterious tableau of the sacrifices. This passive role in worship became once more the normal experience of the people of God as the church developed (1992:37).

The spontaneity that was once so present in the local house church began to come under stricter control of the elected bishops (Rosell 1995:Tape 5).

It seems that when the priesthood of all believers is not esteemed and practiced, small group ministry usually dies out. Strong centralization which fears the ministry of lay people normally throws cold water on the flames of cell ministry. The word that perhaps best captures the true meaning of this type of ministry is ‘decentralization’. Decentralization means that ministry is taken out of the hands of a ‘chosen few’ and placed in the hands of the laity. No one is allowed to sit passively. Everyone must be involved. Like in the early church when the house groups began to grow and multiply, there was a constant need for new leaders, interns, song leaders, witnessing teams, etc. In other words, the responsibility has to be shared among many people (Hadaway, Wright, DuBose 1987:171).

It seems that during the period of 250-450 AD, the tendency was toward centralization in the hands of a few instead of decentralization in the hands of many.

Lessons For Present Day Ministry

The deadening of the early church due to an unhealthy distinction between laity and clergy should be a constant warning to the church today. I believe that there is a built in tendency for us to place the ministry in the hands of a few, instead of allowing the laity to do the work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:11,12)

The Need To Utilize The Laity

The ‘unemployment’ of the laity is a very serious issue that is facing the church today. The typical teaching and preaching ministry on Sunday morning does not involve enough lay people. Only very ‘gifted’ and ‘highly educated’ people are allowed to use their gifts. The Western church has in many ways contributed to the widening gap between lay people and clergy. Hadaway writes,

“The clergy-dominated Christianity of the Western world has widened the gap between clergy and laity in the body of Christ. This division of labor, authority, and prestige is common when a professional clergy exists (Hadaway, Wright, and DuBose 1987:203).

To correct this problem, it seems to me that we need to be constantly reminded that it’s okay to take risks with lay leadership, even to the point of allowing them to fail in their initial attempts.

The Need To Take Risks With Lay Leadership

I have heard on more than one occasion about the dangers of allowing lay leaders to do the work of the ministry through the cell groups. And yes, there are very real dangers involved.

Yet, examining the ministry of Paul, the apostle, one discovers that Paul was willing to take risks. As Paul evangelized the then known world, he trusted in the Holy Spirit to guide and direct the new lay leadership (Allen 1962: 84-94). I believe that God calls upon us to do the same. I have found, along with many others, that leading a cell group is an excellent way to give the laity ‘hands on experience’ (Malphurs 1992:217).

If cells are going to multiply rapidly, new leaders must be constantly sought and released. It seems to me that this is the key. Paul Cho agrees. He was recently asked by Larry Kreider why the cell church concept had not experienced the same, exciting fruit in America as it has in Korea. Without hesitating Cho said that the problem here in America is that pastors are not willing to release their lay people for ministry (note 14).

The Legalization Of Christianity

Besides the huge gap that developed between clergy and laity, the other factor that contributed to the demise of the house church was the sudden legalization of Christianity. Because of the incredible conversion of the emperor Constantine, a new chapter in the history of Christianity was opened for the persecuted church (Latourette 1975:91). Christianity was suddenly acknowledged and accepted as the state religion. Christians could now worship in public places.

It’s amazing to think that just 250 years before, many did not know of this little religion. Now the Christians are received with pomp and honor. Christians in Rome in 250 AD might have been 30,000. By 340 AD Christianity had grown to some 340,000 (Harnack quoted in Rosell 1995: Tape 8). For the first time in history, it was advantage to be a Christian.

Ornate Structures Replace Simple Ones

The initial surge of church building began to take place between 250-300 AD. Christians were willing to undergo much personal sacrifice and hard labor in order to erect huge, ornate church buildings. It was surmised that a holy, sacred God is worthy of a fabulous, magnificent temple. Large basilicas gradually began to dot the landscape.

Laxity Leads Toward Secularism

With the sudden freedom to legally be a Christian and with the great influx of undiscipled people joining the church, a certain complacency and tendency toward secularism began to develop. Prior to Constantine, Christians lived in a hostile world. They were threatened with death. They were on their toes continually. Martyrdom purified the church. To many it was the ultimate test. When Constantine came, everything changed so suddenly. Laxity developed in the church. This laxity did not go unnoticed. Paul Johnson writes,

In the second half of the fourth century, for the first time, we get hints of public complaints against the wealth of Christian clergy and the splendour of its buildings. Some Christian writers took note: ‘Our walls glitter with gold’, wrote Jermoe, ‘and gold gleams upon our ceilings and the capitals of our pillars; yet Christ is dying at our doors in the person of his poor, naked and hungry (1976:79).

When the church ceases to struggle against the world, something is desperately wrong. Yet, in the midst of this spiritual dearth, it seems that small group structures filled some of the void.

Small Groups Among the Clergy

Ambrose, the bishop of Milan (339-397 AD) lived during the time when it was acceptable to be a Christian. People were permitted to join the church legally, and therefore the churches received a great influx of people. Although there is no record that small group structures were established to care for the burgeoning needs of these growing congregations, we do know that Ambrose and his colleagues resorted to small groups to fill their own spiritual needs. Mayer writes, “Ambrose and his clergy associates continued to draw much of their own Christian strength from small group associations. Assistant clergy gathered around Ambrose and this group ministered the gospel of Jesus Christ to each other” (1976:298).

Apparently, quite a number of the early church fathers found a tremendous amount of strength in small community interaction. Mayer writes, “This was the common pattern for centuries: the real strength and vitality of the church lay in the small groups of clergy gathered around a cathedral and the bishop or in the small group of monks gathered around a strong and influential leader” (1976:298). One person who was significantly influenced by small groups was St. Augustine of Hippo. Again and again, Augustine writes about the powerful impact that small groups had on his life ( Mayer 1976:298).

The Rise Of Monastic Orders

Latourette explains the context of monasticism,

It was partially as a reaction against this laxity and partly because of the dissatisfaction which the teachings of Jesus and the apostles aroused with anything short of perfection that monasticism arose…To some degree it was a rebellion of the individual against the organization of the Catholic Church, regimented as that was under the bishops and clergy (1975:223).

Obviously there were a number of reasons. However, whatever the case, we know that from 300 to 700 AD many monasteries appeared.

From Isolation to Community

The call and attraction of the desert demanded a more radical obedience. Many solitaries were drawn to the Judean wilderness. Scores of monasteries occupying 1000's of missionaries rose up over the dessert of Palestine. In the beginning, many of these zealous reformers were hermits. They kept entirely to themselves. However, the balance between individual isolation and Christian community began to occur. Brown writes,

…gradually some of these hermits discovered that if they grouped together in small communities they experienced spiritual as well as practical benefits. In time many of the features of the Christian community in Acts 2 were reincorporated into monastic life, and yet there was still a separation from the people (1992:37).

At first this movement developed quite apart from the clergy dominated Catholic church. In fact, it was looked down upon by those in authority. Yet, the end of the fifth century, monasticism had become so extensive that it became characteristic of the Catholic church (Latourette 1975:222).

Evangelistic Emphasis

For many people, the terms monasticism and evangelism are contradictions. And yes, many forms and expressions of monasticism confirm that suspicion. However, for the most part, the monks have filled the role as missionaries of the Catholic church. Small groups of monks were sent out as evangelistic teams. These small bands of dedicated monks were small, well-disciplined, and closely bound to the other communities of their order (to receive prayer and support).

Monastic Evangelism in Ireland

In Ireland, it appears that the entire church was organized around the monastery. Since Patrick, the Briton, went to Ireland around 388 AD, Ireland seems to have been the ‘bastion of learning and Christianity’ (Pierson 1989:9). One of the outstanding features of the monastic emphasis in Ireland was that as the monks migrated to other countries, they zealously spread the Christian faith (Pierson 1989:10).

Monastic Evangelism in England

Celtic Christianity flourished and grew through the efforts of the great Celtic evangelists and missionaries like Aidan, Brendan, Columba, and Patrick (probably the most famous and revered of all Christian saints). Churches and monasteries were established throughout Ireland, Wales, and Scotland -- the most renowned being at Iona and Lindisfarne. The Celtic missionary movement probably began with Columba in 563 when he went to Iona with 12 helpers (Hardinge quoted in Pierson 1989:10). Speaking of the inner drive that motivated these Celtic missionaries Hardinge writes,

Individual response to a divinely placed inner drive to spread their faith, singly or in groups, impelled Celtic missionaries to go forth. Without credentials or material support, self-reliant and trust in God they accomplished more than their numbers would warrant. Spontaneity, lack of traditionalism, and individuality were the features of this movement (Hardinge quoted in Pierson 1989:10).

In 596 AD Gregory the great (bishop of Rome at the time) sent the monk Augustine and 40 companions to England. Gregory felt that England should be converted. Through this missionary band some 10,000 people were converted and the church was established (Rosell 1995: Tape 13). Concerning this Roman mission to England, Latourettes notes, “While…it did not win as many converts as did the Irish, it effectively forged a connecxion between the Church in England with the Papacy which was not to be severed until the sixteenth century…(1975:346).

Monastic Evangelism To The Rest Of The Continent

Using the same small group strategy, Columban and twelve companions went to Gaul around 590. They preached and taught, living and toiling with any who shared hospitality with them (Hardinge quoted in Pierson 1989:11).

Waves of these small bands of missionaries were sent out all over the continent. A community of monks(10-12) would settle in a non-Christian area in Europe and establish a Christian church. They would preach and congregate those converted. They would teach those converts. Once they had established the church they would leave to go to another part of Europe. It was a marvelous missionary strategy.

Small Groups In The Middle Ages

By the year 1250 AD, the Gothic cathedral had achieved the pinnacle of its success and popularity. Ironically, the catacombs which at one time hosted the early persecuted Christians were now bought by the Roman Catholic hierarchies. Ornate churches were now built upon these meeting places (Tan 1994:44). One could argue that the outward church began to be identified with a building instead of a community of God’s people.

Monastic Small Groups Continue

Yet, as Elijah discovered, God always has His remnant. That remnant continued to be seem in monasticism in the middle ages. Under the direction of Berno, in about 950 AD, the monastery at Cluny experienced a revival. From that one monastery about 300 monasteries sprang forth. Latourette notes that at Cluny along with the larger monastery structure, “…there were still more smaller groups, cellae, ‘cells,’ affiliated with the larger units” (1975:418). Although Latourette does not go into detail concerning the purpose or function of these cells, the general impression is made that the Cluny movement experimented with small group structures.

From 950 AD to 1350 AD, men such as Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi, and Dominic entered the scene. These men were dedicated saints who followed hard after God, as they understood Him. From my knowledge, these men don’t stand out as having pushed the small group structure to new heights and depths. We do know that dynamic believers like St. Francis of Assisi did meet regularly with other like minded believers in small groups for prayer and study (Brown 1992:37).

Sectarian Groups Emphasize Small Group Structure

There were also various sectarian groups who were not favored by the Roman structure. Like the early church under persecution, these groups were forced to meet in small groups in order to survive. Our information about these groups is limited due to the awful persecution against them.

One of the more Scriptural groups was known as the Waldensians. Founded by Peter Waldo in 1176 AD, this group continued to preach the gospel even after being excommunicated by the Catholic church. Driven by the New Testament ideal, they began to preach against the abuses and non-Scriptural practices in the Catholic church (Latourette 1975:452, 453).

It seems that small group meetings played an important part among the Waldensians. Tan writes, “…the Waldensians met for simplified worship and fellowship in their homes” (1994:45). Because the Roman church branded the Waldensians as heretics, they were forced to go completely underground and were practically crushed (Latourette 1975:453).

Under the heavy hand of Rome, other such groups sprang up, desiring a more New Testament lifestyle. For example, there was a group called the Unitas Fratrum. Again Tan says, “In Czechoslovakia, just before the Reformation, the Unitas Fratrum assembled in homes to hear the teachings of Peter Chelicky around the 1400s (1994:45).

Other examples such as the Lollards and Hussites could also be cited (note 15). Yet, it wasn’t until after the reformation that the small group as a tool for discipleship and evangelism came of age.

An Examination of Small Groups before the Reformation

As one examines the types of small groups before the reformation and the priority given to these structures, a mixed message often comes across. On one hand, many of the principles of small group life are clearly there. On the other hand, there are many dissimilarities.

Obviously, my point of comparison is biased. My knowledge of small group ministry is founded not only upon my own personal experience, but also upon what is happening in the small group movement today. Yet, because I have no other yardstick, and because of my desire to draw out application from those historic examples, I will endeavor to compare the similarities and differences of small group ministry today with what took place before the reformation.

Small groups in Monasticism

For the most part, Monasticism was a purifying element to the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a powerful evangelistic outreach. To what extent, these monks were motivated by a quest for personal perfection or from a grateful heart due to the finished work of Jesus Christ, remains to be seen. Yet, what were the similarities and differences between small group ministry back then and today?

Similarities Among Small Groups

The study of monasticism is complex. There is a dizzying array of orders and reasons for existence. Not all of the small groups found in monasticism are applicable to this study. However, I have noted at least two small group values that were very prominent in the monastic small groups.

Sense Of Community

Apart from some of the more radical, legalistic orders, it seems that much of monasticism treasured and promoted community among the brethren (or sisters). The small group structure was utilized to promote this type of Christian community and brotherly relationship. In this sense, the monastic movement follows in the same vein of the small group movement today—a strong emphasis on community and relationships.

It also should be noted that monasticism fulfilled a prophetic role in a day and age when the Christianity had lost much of its meaning and intimacy. Monasticism arose because of a growing awareness that the Cathedral style of Christianity could not satisfy the God-given drive for a deeper, more personal relationship.

How true this is of small group movement today. For many, the church has become top heavy with programs. Pastors and lay people find themselves incredibly busy, but there is a growing uneasiness that the true purpose of the Church has been lost somewhere. For this reason, there is a renewed vision and quest for cell-based ministry. Small group ministry enables the church to meet face to face in intimate fellowship—much like the early house movement.

Evangelistic Effectiveness

Certain similarities can also be seen in the evangelistic emphasis. In this tutorial, I analyzed in some detail, the small group missionary method that was so successfully utilized in monasticism.

Like the missionary bands in the monastic period, so also missionary bands are becoming a common feature of the cell church today. For example, Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, Louisiana is using their 300+ cell groups for the cause of world mission. This summer (1996), they will send six teams of cell leaders for three week, on site visits to their unreached people groups ( Ministries Today July, 1996: 38). At Bethany’s conference I heard about one cell church in Singapore which is sending 140 cell groups (with all of their cell members) to unreached people groups (note 16). The ultimate goal of Bethany World Prayer Center is to send cells to plant churches among unreached people groups.

Differences Among Small Groups

On the other hand, there is quite a bit of dissimilarity between the two movements.

Emphasis On Asceticism

Although small group structures might have been utilized in fulfilling their particular purposes, these structures would have very little to do with present day models. For example, various monastic orders emphasized total silence or harsh asceticism---abstinence from some things normally considered good (e.g., marriage, family, sleep, etc.). Motivated by the example of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-29), normal everyday activity was replaced by the practice of rigorous spiritual discipline such as fasting and prayer (Rosell 1995: Tape 12).

It also should be noted that oftentimes the monastic lifestyle was an attempt at saving one’s soul through the denial of the body’s entanglements and the pursuit of Christian perfection (Rosell 1995:Tape 12). Obviously, only the most holy and committed would undertake such harsh discipline (note 17).These motivations and values have very little to do with small group structure today.

Absence Of The Family

Another key difference in my mind is the absence of the family unit in the monastic small group. Plueddemann notes, “…unlike the house churches, monasticism had no room for the family, Christian instruction in homes continued, but it no longer had an integral connection with church life (1990:6). In other words, there was imbalance in the small group. The family atmosphere that permeated the New Testament house church was largely absent in the monastic movement.

Closed Community

Small Groups in monasticism never really bridged the gap between the clergy and the laity. In other words, those who joined the monastic orders were considered different from the normal lay person. It seems that there were three classes of people: the priest (clergy), the saint (monk), and the lay person. The sacrifices of celibacy and ascetic denial were far too great for the majority of the laity to make.

In contrast the small group movement today, seeks to involve everyone—from minister to those sitting in the pew.

Congregational Size Groups

I also found it difficult to compare monasticism with the small group movement today because of the size of the monastic small group. One can talk about community, relationships, discipleship, and evangelism among the monastic community, but we are really talking about these characteristics on a congregational level as opposed to a small group level.

It is true that some of the missionary bands were comprised of smaller groups, but the smaller groups seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. Really, these monastic communities were individual congregations which worshipped as churches, while at the same time maintaining the broader connection with the Roman Catholic Church.

Small Groups Among Other Pre-Reformation Movements

In this category, I lack information to compare adequately. Such groups as the Waldensians, the Lollards undoubtedly used small groups, but the information about their small groups is lacking.

Summary of Examination

From this brief study of pre-reformation small groups, it seems clear that certain small group components or characteristics were actively present in the small group movement before the reformation. Small Group evangelism and small group community were important characteristics of the monastic motif, as well as some of the later pre-reformation groups.

At the same time, any meaningful comparison between small groups then and now is limited due to contextual, religious, social, and historic differences. Monastic structures were more congregational in size, anti-family in practice, and legalistic in conviction. Yet, the monastic movement was God’s reforming voice to an increasingly top heavy church which tended to separate the clergy from the laity

Chapter 4:Small Groups during the Time of the Reformation

Before focusing on small groups during the reformation period, it’s essential to provide a few details about the reformation itself. As has been noted earlier, there were many cultural, political, and religious factors that shaped the march of Christ’s church from those initial house meetings to the sixteenth century. For various reasons, that initial lay-oriented small group movement had turned into a top heavy clergy who dominated the affairs of its followers. Yet the winds of change began to blow. J. Edwin Orr comments,

Just before the fifteenth century something started to change the church. It resulted in a progression of spiritual awakenings in which small groups either spearheaded, became strong catalysts or, or followed as nurturing environments to revivals (quoted in Plueddemann 1990:6).

These small group awakenings renewed the cry in the hearts of so many for a return to the priesthood of all believers, for the authority of Scripture, and for holiness of living. The voices of change which in earlier years were blocked out, could no longer be silenced. Probably the best way to describe their cry is to compare the protests of the three major pre-reformation movements.

Pre-Reformation Protests

It’s amazing to note how similar their cries were. The Waldensians (Peter Waldo) the Lollards (John Wycliffe), and the Hussites (John Hus) all had almost identical concerns about the religious structures of their day. The following table gives an overview of the teaching of these movements:

TABLE 1

TEACHINGS OF THE WALDENSIANS, LOLLARDS, AND HUSSITES

(Adapted from Latourette 1975:451-453;662-669)

WALDENSIANS

1175AD

LOLLARDS

1375AD

HUSSITES

1400AD

Conformity to the New Testament
Commitment to the vernacular
The church of Rome was corrupt
The pope was not the head of the church
Masses and prayers for the dead were without warrant
Women could minister
Sacraments admin-istered by unworthy priests were invalid
Laymen could administer the Eucharist
Developed their own training of lay clergy

Popes can err and that a worldly pope is a heretic
The true church is made up of those elected by God; No visible church can control entrance or exclude membership
Popes nor bishops can know who the members of the true church are
Salvation does not depend upon connection with the church
Every elected person is a priest
Condemned the cult of the saints, relics, pilgrimages
Attacked transubstantiation
Layman might officiate in the Eucharist
Repudiated indulgences
Repudiated masses for the dead
Translated the Bible from the Vulgate into the vernacular

Denounced evils of the church
Christ and not Peter was the foundation of the church
Many popes were heretics and could err
Desired moral reform rather than ecclesiastical revolution
Laity could partake in the cup of communion
The Bible was the ultimate authority

Although the Catholic Church was somewhat successful in quelling the voices of these pre-reformation prophets, it could not succeed in quelling Martin Luther, and those who subsequently followed in his train.

Martin Luther’s Protests

Luther was the lightening rod for the Protestant Reformation. Latourette says it well, “A humble monk and university professor of peasant stock dared to set himself against the weight of constituted authority in Church and state….he did so as the risk of his life (1975:717). Yet, as we have seen earlier, the foundation for reform had already been laid by those who went before him. Luther’s protests against the church were remarkably similar. The major difference was that Luther succeeded in igniting and maintaining a revolution that the Catholic Church, whereas the others were primarily used to plant the seed. The following table describes the principle teachings of Luther:

TABLE 2

PROTESTS/TEACHING OF MARTIN LUTHER

(Adapted from Latourette 1975:703-743)

TEACHING OF LUTHER

1515 AD

TEACHING OF CATHOLIC CHURCH

1515 AD

Justification is by faith alone
Scripture alone is the rule for faith and practice
The laity has as much right as the pope to interpret Scripture
Popes and general councils could err
Popes could not establish articles of faith
Individual judgment should not be surrendered to neither church nor pope
All believers were priests
Indulgences did not remove guilt
The pope had no jurisdiction over purgatory

The saints had no accumulated surplus credits
The Hussites were correct in their views
Transubstantiation was wrong and placed people in bondage
The laity should participate in the cup and bread
The mass was not a good work nor a sacrifice; Rather a promise of the remission of sins by God

Only baptism and communion were valid sacraments
Scriptures should be translated into the vernacular, so that all could read them

Salvation through the Catholic Church (combination of faith and good works )
Scripture and Tradition have equal weight
The pope has ultimate authority to interpret Scripture
Pope and councils are inherent
Pope can establish articles of faith
Collective judgment of the church takes precedent
Distinction between clergy/laity
Could remove temporal penalties
Could remit the penalties on earth but only petition for those in purgatory
The saints could accumulate surplus credits
The Hussites were heretics
Transubstantiation was vital to one’s salvation
The laity could only partake in the bread
During the mass, Jesus Christ was sacrificed again and again. Mass was necessary for salvation
All seven sacraments were valid and necessary
Scripture was dangerous for the laity to use. Best kept in Latin

Like David before Goliath, Luther stood up to the Catholic Church and won. Through his teachings, Luther liberated the church from its Babylonian Captivity (Latourette 1975:712). Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was rediscovering the truth of justification by faith alone and the submission to the Scripture alone. It was because of these two foundational teachings that the church was able to throw off the shackles of institutional religion .

Yet, for the purpose of this study, I will focus on Luther’s emphasis of the priesthood of all believers. This truth was the long awaited key that loosed years of separation between clergy and laity. However, one has to wonder whether Luther went far enough in the application of this truth. When it came to providing structures so that the body of Christ could minister freely and exercise their God given gifts, it seems that Luther was bound by his personality, culture, and political factors that surrounded him.

Luther And Small Groups

Luther’s attitude towards small group ministry undergoes a radical change due to the actions of the Anabaptist movement. He initially entertained the idea of using small groups as part of his reformation, but later he changes his mind in the light of contextual circumstances.

Earlier Positive Attitude

In a number of his tracts, Luther expressed his concern about the Mass and Liturgy, and he even hinted at the need for house gatherings. In his Preface to The German Mass and Order of Service, he talks about the need for the gathering of all people in a celebration service. He then adds,

The third kind of service should be a truly evangelical order and should not be held in a public place for all sorts of people. But those who want to be Christians in earnest and who profess the gospel with hand and mouth should sign their names and meet alone in a house somewhere to pray, to read, to baptize, to receive the sacrament, and to do other Christian works…Here one could set up a brief and neat order for baptism and the sacrament and center everything on the Word, prayer and love… (quote in Beckham 1995:116).

Tan notes, “Luther saw the potential of the house church and had a vision of meeting in homes for deeper expression of faith which was absent in the institutional church” (1994:45).

Later Negative Doubts

If Luther, therefore, saw the potential for small group ministry and even talked about forming small groups for the purpose of discipleship, why didn’t he follow through on this conviction? The answer to this dilemma is found in one of Luther’s letter that was discovered in 1982.

Luther wrote this letter on April, 14, 1529 AD to a fellow priest named Karl Weiss. Because Karl had begun to involve his parish in a small group ministry, he asked Dr. Luther to write down some guidelines about small group ministry. Karl Weiss had taken Luther’s advice seriously about the formation of small groups of ‘earnest Christians’.

In his reply letter to Karl, Luther confesses that he had ‘changed his mind’ about the formation of small groups (White, ed. 1983:274). Luther states that he no longer believed that ‘earnest Christians’ should meet together in the home in order ‘to pray, to read, to baptize, to receive the sacrament, and to do other Christian works… (White, ed. 1983:274).

Anabaptist Movement Influences His Thinking

It’s interesting to note that when Luther first wrote about earnest Christians meeting together in 1526, the Anabaptist movement was just getting under way. However, it was in February, 1527 that the articles of faith for the Anabaptist movement were written and officially declared. Just three months after the signing of those documents, Michael Slater, one of the key authors, was burned at the stake (Latourette 1975:782).

My point here is that when Luther first talks about earnest groups of Christians meeting together in 1526, he was thinking about the pure potential of small group ministry. However, by April, 1529, with the added concerns of the Anabaptists, Luther changes his thinking due to the present realities.

Reasons For Change Of Mind

Here are the reasons given in the letter for Luther’s change of thinking about small group ministry:

People will fool themselves about who is an earnest Christian

Here, Luther’s doctrine of justification clearly comes into play. Luther came to realize that if one thinks that he or she is an ‘earnest Christian’ there is the danger of pride and a lack of understanding of grace. Luther taught that we are all on the exact same level due to our sin and the total sufficiency of Christ’s finished work on the cross.

“…that such self-styled ‘earnest Christians’ will start to think of themselves as the one, pure church’ (White, ed. 1983:275).

Luther warns, “If we allow small groups of Christians to separate from the rest, to read the Word, to baptize, and to receive sacraments, we will have established a new church (White, ed. 1983:275). The above quote must be read in the light of the Anabaptist movement which had separated from the reformed church only a few years earlier. With this separation fresh on his mind, Luther fears the potential divisiveness of small groups. He says,

All the elements [of the true church] would be there in these small groups and, as sure as Satan seeks to destroy our souls, some Pharisaicial spirit will conclude that his little group is the church, and that everyone outside is damned. Indeed, it has already happened, if I am to believe the rumor I hear. Certain false brethren rebaptize themselves and then sneak away from God’s church to meet with other misled fools in various holes and corners. They claim that they are the only true Christians, and teach that they must separate from all iniquity (White, ed. 1983:275).

Luther arrived at the conclusion that a small group atmosphere would engender more divisiveness than unity.

It is not Scriptural to separate from the church to set up a pure group of earnest Christians

At this point in 1529, Luther now believes that there is no Scriptural proof for such a small group endeavor. Rather, he quotes a plethora of Scriptures to indicate that the true church has always a mixture of both the pure and the impure (White, ed. 1983:276,277).

The problem of spiritual pride

Here is another point against the meeting of small groups. He writes, “He [Satan] would be able to get us to isolate all the strongest Christians, and keep them from the weak. Then the strong would grow proud, the weak would give up, and all would go to hell in a handbasket (White, ed. 1983:278).

Summary of Luther’s Thinking

It’s safe to conclude that at one time Luther saw the importance of small groups as a means of spiritual growth and was even thinking seriously about utilizing them in order to disciple groups of earnest Christians. However, it appears that the emergence the Anabaptist movement had a profound, negative impact upon the attitude of Luther towards small groups.

Critique on Luther’s View of Small Groups

In my mind, Martin Luther stands out as one of the greatest figures of all times. God placed in this one man a rare combination of intellectual brilliance matched with an incredible

HISTORY OF THE CELL MOVEMENT By Joel Comiskey A Ph.D. Tutorial Presented to Dr. Paul Pierson In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In Intercultural Studies The School of World Mission FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY TABLE OF CONTENTS