We’ve talked about the challenge of multiplication and how sending seems more natural. What if, in addition to groups sending others to start new groups, those connected groups formed a network, or a hub, that got together periodically? It could be for a time of worship, for a party, or for service. Our group meets on Sunday nights. What if the fourth Sunday of every month, our hub got together at a restaurant or at the church?

In The Search to Belong, (more info here, his site here), Joseph Myers talks about four “spaces” where we find belonging: public, social, personal, and intimate. The public sphere can be compared to the belonging one feels at a sporting game among people he or she has never met yet shares an affinity with.

Social belonging occurs when one shares the “small talk” in relationships. This belonging includes that wide realm of people you may know, but don’t know well. You have not been in their home, and that is all right. You would still consider yourselves friends. Personal relationships are with those you’d consider your friends. You do things together. You have been to each other’s houses. You’re close.

Finally, that intimate sphere consists of those few people who know you well – really well. These are the people who know the dirt in your life and love you anyway. They have seen your “naked” self. Myers’ point is that the church has often emphasized the big group and the small group, but has ignored the many types of valid ways people connect with others.

I believe small groups best fit in that “personal” category. They’re your friends. Sometimes it goes to intimate, but most of the time, intimate happens in a one-on-one relationship, not a one-on-ten. Hubs allow a natural place for those “social” connections to happen, while allowing groups that have “sent” others to maintain “personal” connections with friends they may not see otherwise (maybe they’ll even invite them over!).

These are just ideas we’re thinking through. We want to keep things simple. Having hubs adds another level of complexity to the system, which can be dangerous. But it also provides a safe way to maintain relationships. Ideally, relationships are naturally spilling out beyond the meetings, but this mid-level gathering provides a place for those connections to happen. It also gives us leaders a place to invite a few new folks who might fit with a few of the groups. They can hang out at a hub meeting, see if they connect with some people, and then join one of the small groups the next week.

A huge advantage of hubs within a larger church system is that they can look different for different groups of small groups. One hub might choose to have a time of worship – especially if there’s someone in one of their groups who’s gifted at leading worship. Another might feel that’s a good time for some teaching. Some may just want a social time, while others may want to adopt a regular service project. Hubs can be a regular time for a wider swath of people to connect in a laid-back environment.

So that’s where we’re headed. Any thoughts?

So it’s time for our group to multiply. But multiplication is messy and hasn’t really worked in our context. What do we do?

Well, last week I introduced the idea to the group. We talked about how we value being open and open – to new people and with each other. I explained how multiplication doesn’t really make sense. If a small group is a group of friends who get together regularly to intentionally talk about their faith and serve together, it doesn’t make sense to just rip the group apart because we reach some artificial number.

But eventually something has to happen, because we can’t continue to be open and open – a group of 26 or so just isn’t the same as a group of 10.

So we decided to pray about it as a group. God’s in control here, and I believe he’ll bring a solution. We talked about a new model we’re playing with. Instead of multiplication, we’re talking about sending. What if a few couples or some couples and singles felt led to start a new group from our group? Just like a few people may go from a church to plant another church, a group could send a few people to start a new group. We can love and support them as they start something new. We can keep in touch. If something doesn’t work out, they still have a “home” to come back to.

This method seems like it would work better. You don’t completely change the culture of the existing group, and instead of loss, you see gain. You can tangibly see what’s come from your group.

But wait! There’s more. What if there was a natural way to keep connections across groups? We’ll talk about that next.

There is no perfect small group system. I wish there was, but there’s no one formula that will work for every church, meet everyone’s needs, and grow an active, healthy, outward-focused ministry.

That little confession leads us to today’s discussion. I’ve read lots of books on small groups, but I haven’t found “the” way to do them. Our church has more than 600 people in groups, but we’re still learning how groups “work best.”

One challenge for us is that many of the small groups are closed. A lot have good reasons – they’re more “support” groups than our typical small groups, they’re too big already and just don’t have more room for new people, etc. But there’s a challenge there. Personally, how do we continue to grow if we aren’t being stretched to welcome new people in? Organizationally, how do we grow the ministry if there is no room in existing groups? Obviously, one way is to start new groups, but I’ve found it takes a special person to start a group from scratch. There are a lot more people able to lead a group that already exists – one that has a culture, a momentum, and most importantly, members!

Healthy small groups have two important values – they’re open to each other and they’re open to others. Funny thing is, those values have to be held in tension. The group I’m a part of on Sunday nights is an amazing group. In the year we’ve been meeting, we’ve grown from one person showing up on a Sunday night to 16 people. The openness to new people has continually brought new life and perspective into the group. But I’ve also noticed that the bigger we get, the less some people share. Being open and growing hurts the other openness – of the individuals.

That means it’s time to multiply, right? Well, here’s the deal. That hasn’t ever really worked here. I don’t know of many places where this “multiplication” thing does work well. You spend time investing in people and becoming friends, and then you’re expected to split in half and never see each other again? That’s not how relationships work, and it seems counter-intuitive. Why would I want to invite new people if it just means it’ll mess up our group?

Many of those groups I mentioned above that are closed are open to inviting new people, they just don’t have room, and they haven’t been shown a good way to multiply. So how does your church handle small groups and multiplication? Do they do anything? I’ll tell you what we’re trying soon…

Ever notice something that needed to look different in an organization or group? Did you work to change it? How did you go about it?

I’m realizing (again) that it’s much more important to paint a picture of what could be than to focus on the thing that needs to change.

When we see changes that need to happen in a group or a culture, the first instinct is to tackle them one by one. What if, instead, we told the story of a new, exciting possibility?

What if, instead of pushing for small groups to invite new people in, we told stories about groups living life together, inviting others to be a part, meeting consistently, reaching out to the community around them, and seeing lives change because of their work? Instead of seeing a change of course, they’re motivated by a bigger purpose.

We can try to convince people until we’re blue in the face. But I’m going to start talking a lot more about the final goal and helping those who catch the vision take steps toward that reality.