God is certainly able and willing to work when “two or three are gathered in” His name (Matthew 18:20), or when “thousands of people had gathered together” (Luke 12:1).”
The rivalry between big groups and small groups is not a true dilemma or dichotomy, as Bob Roberts writes:
Global pastors don’t get into this argument. They see the value of both the small scale and the large scale. They believe in starting small, but they also realize the impact large services can have on a community. To them, it’s not one or the other; it’s both, and it starts and continues with cells. In Paul’s letter to the believers in Ephesus, we see his description of relationships in organic cells, as well as the local congregation in the city, and the broader, universal church (cells: Eph. 4:14-17; congregation: Eph. 4:7-13; universal church: Eph. 4:1-6).
Whether in a small home group of a dozen people, or in a mega-church of thousands, there are key roles to be filled. These are listed in the New Testament. Bob Roberts lists five of the: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists.
When apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church, the other roles Paul identified later in this letter — pastors, teachers, and evangelists — take their God-given places in the scheme of things. Their collective role is to deepen and extend the DNA of the church, not to establish it. All of these roles are necessary for cells to thrive.
The purpose of any church or congregation is to find its collective role as a group, and to find individual roles for its members.
If a congregation has been established initially and primarily as a large, Sunday morning gathering, then to impose upon that congregation a structure of small groups as its main identity will be a somewhat forced and affected measure.
A congregation that has a history of being identified mainly as the large Sunday morning experience cannot, and should not, suddenly attempt to act as if it were really a collection of small groups. The inauthenticity of such a move would be clear.
A congregation which identifies itself as a congregation should delight in that identity, and strive to live it out well.
If a network of small groups in fact began as small groups, and only later merged to form a congregation, then such a church should cheerfully identify as a collection of groups, and not attempt to see the large congregation as its main identity, as Bob Roberts writes:
In many churches in the West, socialization is the primary characteristic of small groups. Pastors sometimes say, “We’re not a church with small groups; we’re a church of small groups.” That’s the right language, but getting people to gather isn’t the full story. For one thing, many of these groups are birthed long after the church is established, so the DNA of the church is primarily about the worship hour and people volunteering to make it successful. And many of these groups are little more than gatherings of friends, with little, if any, vision for making a difference in the community. In some churches, programs are offered for target groups such as men, women, and singles, and the church also has a program for discipleship. That’s the wrong metric. God hasn’t commanded us to make target-group ministries; he has commanded us to make disciples.
In either type of church — and here the thoughts go beyond, and even contrary to, what Bob Roberts wrote — the goal is discipleship. A congregation which began, and identifies as, a network of small groups needn’t seek to build an identity as a large Sunday morning experience.
And a congregation which began as a large Sunday morning experience needn’t try to do the mental gymnastics to recast itself as a network of small groups.
Both forms can be God-pleasing, and both forms can be used by God to build His kingdom.
Discipleship can be carried out in a wide variety of settings.
Whichever type of structure happens to be the inherited shape for a group of believers, they need only ask how they can go about the business of discipleship within that structure.
