  |
 |
|
|
|
|
Explaining Cell Churches This guide has previously been published by Administry, and now available free of charge on-line. Introduction “Cell Church” is the buzz word most people have heard describing “a new way of being church”. However, I prefer to speak of small group church”, because Cell Church is only one of a number of streams in this wider movement which includes Base Ecclesial Communities and Household Church or Home Churches. Many observers of the National church scene have identified that Home Groups have become tired and stale. Robert Warren describes them as “past their sell-by date”. Whilst leaders try to revitalise them with new ideas – Warren asks if the root problem is actually that any group with an inflow but no outlet gets stagnant. He challenges small groups to become open and evangelistic to find new life and re-vitalise the church in mission. Certainly Home Groups came to this country some 35 years ago from other continents where they have always had an outreach dimension, being variously bases for evangelism, multiplication and social action. But we applied them in our pastorally centred mode of church. In his book “Natural Church Development” Christian Swartz reports the results of his comprehensive international survey of 1000 churches to establish the factors determining quality and growth. Of 157 factors analysed, the single highest correlation between quality and growth was “Intentionally multiplying small groups”. We should take note! So what is cell church?
1. Core Identity and Difference First an illustration. Fig. A. is Ian Freestone’s picture to contrast a church with House Groups and a cell-based Church or Home Church. The traditional way of being church is centered on the congregation and Home Groups, are just one of the many programmes usually supported by only a proportion of the more committed members. Hence Freestone describes this as the appendage model of small groups. In contrast the Cell based church sees the home churches (cells) as the foundational building blocks of the church – the weekly Sunday service being a celebration of the lives of the constituent cells. Furthermore the centre of gravity also shifts to the small groups because the ministry of the church is worked out in and through the cells. Any central programmes that remain, should be to support the work of the cells. Pastoral care, discipleship, leadership development evangelism, social action and mission, etc… all happen through the small groups. This pure expression of the cell church system is a very radical shift from our inherited model of church and the challenge and cost of such complete change must not be underestimated. Experience is showing that a full transition may take 5 to 10 years. However, several of the benefits can be obtained with adaptations involving partial implementation of selected principles. Now lets develop the essence of cell church in more detail with three defining differences. 2. Three Defining Differences of Cell Church Cell is fully church Cells are not a partial expression or just a programme of church, they are church! As with Base Ecclesial communities the key understanding is that the small group is as authentically church as any other expression. Some would add to this that everything that a church does, including the sacraments, must therefore happen in the small group. Others including the Catholics, argue that different activities are appropriate at different sized gatherings but this doesn’t make them any less church. Outreach from a Welcoming Small Group Secondly, small group church sees the Cell as the main focus for mission and evangelism. Most traditional Home Groups lack this element and may even tend to resent visitors / non-Christians as inhibiting deep bible-study or deep sharing. In physics, the smaller the circle, the higher the proportion of its surface in contact with the area around – so it is argued that small groups can better develop links and penetrate social settings. It may be true that when evangelism is only implemented at the congregation level it will (a) always tend to degenerate into event centred “missions” and (b) involve only a few – the evangelists and the keenly evangelistic. Cell based evangelism claims that mission and outreach naturally become a continuous way of life when it is part of cell identity and activity. It also involves everyone in evangelism. John Finney’s research not only showed that relationship with a Christian friend was the most effective aid to peoples journey of faith – it emphasised that even more effective was a group of Christian friends. Hence the evangelistic power of an open small group. Yet another benefit of the cell as the place for evangelism, is that it enables evangelism to flow into nurture without the convert having to move into an unfamiliar group. If more arguments were needed, the effectiveness of Alpha confirms the place of the small group in evangelism and a cell based church addresses the occasional problem of fall-out post-Alpha. All Ministry Is Through Cells
Thirdly, whereas congregation centred church organises all the ministry at the congregational level with a range of programmes (pastoral team, womens group, prayer group, evangelism team etc) cell church organises all the ministry out of the cells. Hence as with evangelism, the small group is the focus for a whole range of church goals …. which it is claimed are better achieved in cells. They include the discipleship and transformation of each believer, the identification and growth of their gifts for service at home, work, society and church; and pastoral care and development of leaders through apprenticeship. Cell church proponents claim that the organising of all church programmes at the congregational level is very inefficient needing a disproportionate share of resources. They contrast the two systems of being church as illustrated in Fig. B. This highlights the fact that there is still central church leadership and some central programmes, but they now serve the ministry in and through the cells. It also underlines the claim that cell church shifts from the common pattern that 20% of the members of churches do the work for the other 80% …. to almost full involvement of everyone. This underlines that it is a missionary model of church rather than Chistendom-mode. 3. Other Common Characteristics Table 1 gives a list of common elements of cell church which include:-
4. A Different “System” of Church This leads us to the underlying issue that cell church, applied in its pure form, is a different church “system”. Most of us are not used to thinking 'systems' and take our inherited congregation-centred church system for granted. An analogy can help; until the 1950s all watches worked on a 'system' of springs, movements, winders, balance wheels etc. When the quartz 'system' wasinvented, Swiss watch makers said it wouldn't sell because it wasn't a 'watch' at all since it lacked those elements. History proved them wrong; it not only sold, it extended the use of watches to everyone, including children! Cell church claims that a similar radical paradigm shift is involved in their more biblical system? Table 2 is how they would contrast the two systems and Fig. B. has already illustrated this.
The heart of cell church is expressed in it’s core values. These are listed in table
3 and are what shape this way of being church. The success of implementing or transitioning to any form of cell system is dependent on how well these values are communicated and owned by the widest possible number within the church. 6. The Shape of Cell Meetings We have highlighted the place of values and cell church follows the dictum that “we do what we value and value what we do”. Hence the activities of the small group meeting are designed to ensure that the values are worked out in practice every week. Central are the “Four W’s”…. whose order can vary. Welcome: This opening to the meeting includes all sorts of activities to get to know one another better. Hence they act to welcome non-Christians and newcomers on a level playing field with existing members since no Christian jargon or bible knowledge is involved. However, this section also opens up members to one another to really know each other, their history, likes and dislikes and all that makes them tick. Exercises such as “Icebreakers” and “Quaker Questions” are used. But beware… these are much more profound than at first glance. Just one or two have led Christians in home groups for over 20 years to admit they didn’t really know one another and have suddenly found compassion for the person they found most difficult. Worship: So often Home Groups either have no worship, or try a thin imitation of congregational singing. Singing can be helpful in a small cell but the gold to be mined is releasing those with gifts of creativity and imagination who can help a small group discover worship together in ways impossible in larger groups. They may bring objects that express their worship, write their own psalms, etc. Word: Here is another major shift from the tendency of the Home Group just to downscale from the congregation and deliver the mini-sermon style bible study with some discussion. Typical of most Home Groups treatment of the Bible is to gain more insight and understanding of it. In radical contrast, cell principles say that the unique role of the small group is to apply the truth of the bible to life. So the bible becomes the “action manual” and the questions not “what does this mean?” but “how do I need to change to live this?”. Add accountability to this approach to the Bible and cell church claim this is why their model is the only way to produce christians with significantly different lifestyles from prevailing culture and social norms. To live counter-culture involves costly sacrifice and can only be achieved by living alongside others in this way. Witness: If small groups are to be evangelistic then time must be given to this priority at meetings. This will range from i) planning how the Christians intend to get out of their “ghetto” and make non-Christian friends – at the badminton club, pub, weightwatchers, neighbourhood association etc. to ii) praying for one another’s non-Christian friends and contacts, to iii) planning and holding periodic social events to invite them to. Don’t misunderstand this concept; non-Christians are not being invited to all cell meetings and on occasion when the come they may find they know half the group! Along side these four W’s, some have applied a fifth…. “Wind”….. referring to the need to be open to the Holy Spirit throughout. Others simplify and bring the activities under three directions of UP (to God), IN (to one another) and OUT (to others in mission and evangelism). Developments and 'health warnings' Although cell church ideas have only been widely promoted in the UK for 6 years, many churches and even whole church streams such as New Frontiers have already adopted them. Significant encouragement’s are reported by many but some have already abandoned the process. What lessons must we learn to see healthy implementation and avoid failed expectations and burn out? First Steve Croft (an early pioneer in Halifax) warns that structures don’t produce life and growth – only the Holy Spirit does. Cell structures can helpfully channel life where others may hinder it. Secondly, Cell Church, like Willow Creek, church planting etc. – can be treated as a fad or fashion. Our consumer culture encourages this and it is reinforced by church decline which pressures leaders to grab at a “quick fix” approach. To become a healthy missionary church, leaders need to focus on underlying principles not external packages. To quote Wagner we need to be Adapters not Adopters and this material is aims to help you identify core principles and embark on a process of adaptation to your context. Cell church is a more radical change than most new insights and must not be underestimated. If it is, you will fail to carry people with the change and will either give up part way or worse, press on and risk a major split. Translating Asian or African experience of Cell also already seems to need reducing expectations such as the rate of multiplication and span of care of cell supervisors. Other lessons coming from early UK applications include the insight that the evangelistic fruitfulness of the model may be the hardest to realise and takes longest to come through. However, planting a cell-based church from scratch looks like offering an easier path with quicker mission effectiveness than other models. Sociology and History
The church growth movement analysed world trends and identified three broad sizes of social expression of Church. Small = Cell; medium = Congregation and large = Celebration. Table 4 is the way the Bible Society seminars over the past 25 years presented these 3 social sizes and linked them to home, parish church and cathedral. This may reflect our pastoral centred church in that none of the 3 levels is described as having a primary mission function! Cell church proponents claim that at constantine and the birth of Christendom, the church in the home that had extended and sustained the church for the first 3 centuries was lost. They describe the Christendom church as “one winged” with celebration only and no cell sized social units…. Unable to “fly”. However, my assessment would be that for 1600 years Christendom survived precisely because the function of church (for discipling nations in obedience to the Jesus’ model) continued in the new forms of extended Christian family and later in the Christian schools where children were discipled in the faith in small classes just as synagogues did in biblical times. Church (the people of God) functioned with both “wings” even though these didn’t bear the name Church! Our Mission Context and Cell Church Significance Our missionary crisis today in the West is that Christendom is passing; the extended family has gone; Christian nuclear family as a place of prayer, bible story and discipling values is going and Christian schools have largely gone. Add to this the breakdown of neighbourhood and community and the paramount importance of the recovery of a small missionary discipling faith community – cell, base community or household church – seems overwhelming. For centuries the main job of church has been performed outside the structure/building we called church. Now these have gone we have to re-create them with full missionary vigour. Table 5 gives other significant aspects for small group church.
The way forward This article can’t give you all you need to reach a decision as to whether these ideas are for you, let alone all the details of implementation. Table 6 outlines some next steps to explore further.
If you pursue cell church ideas for your existing church rather than planting a Cell Church it is vital to realise that amongst a range of adaptations there are three main routes available. Fig. D. illustrates these points on a continuum:
I - You just want to gain some of the improved qualities of cell life from implementing 4 W’s (see The Shape of Cell Meetings). II. As well as enhanced quality of small groups, here you add (a) dispersed pastoral care and (b) significant evangelism from cells. The former requires re-prioritising leaders' time to support cell leaders and the latter requires some elimination of central programmes which compete with cells and take members' time from relationships with non-Christians. III. Round at this third point the aim is to become a fully cell based church with the inevitable cost of completely changing the system and structures of the church. Under option III of transitioning to “pure” cell church, there is the possibility of a process of preparing to close all old Home Groups and later re-launch all as cells - the “Big Bang” approach. Alternatively a “Prototype” process starts with one cell made up of the overall leaders and only when the quality is satisfactory, spreading by multiplication through the church. The keys to success of these two approaches are obviously quite different. Factors that will influence the appropriate choice among these options, include…
Beyond this, don’t forget that cell is part of the wider small group church movement. It is largely Protestant in origin from Asia and Africa. Base Ecclesial Communities come from Catholic roots in Latin America and Household church comes from China, India and closed mission fields. A full understanding of each of these and their quite different relationships to traditional church structures will further help understand underlying principles and make the best foundation for selecting and leading the change process. More details of these different modes and of implementation are available from ACPI. If interested, please send us an e-mail. |
` |
|
Anglican Church Planting Initiatives (ACPI) Admin Office |
