« A Break for Dot Com(unity) | Main | Bad Apple Effect »

October 19, 2009

Are Small Groups Just for White People?

An interview from Leadership Journal raises some interesting questions

by Sam O'Neal

I came across an interesting interview in the recent issue of Leadership Journal. The subjects of the interview were from River City Community Church—a multi-ethnic ministry located in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago. Leadership talked with Daniel Hill, who founded the ministry, along with several key leaders of the church.

Here's a brief excerpt of their conversation:

What kind of person is attracted to River City?
Hill: Most of our new people are white. But there's a revolving door with the white community here. They have a romantic notion of being part of a multi-ethnic church, so many of them get frustrated and leave when they realize how difficult it is to erase their assumptions about the way church is supposed to be.
What assumptions do white people carry into the church?
Arloa Sutter (pastor of community life): When I came I said, "Let's just start small groups! Everyone wants to be in a group, right?" The fact is small groups aren't as important to other ethnicities as they are to white people.

Small groups are a white church thing?
Hill: White people rely on small groups to connect. Other ethnicities form community more organically, more relationally. Immigrant communities find fellowship within extended families. In the city a lot of community happens on the front porch or sidewalk. So non-whites aren't as eager to set up structures and systems like small groups.

Carlos Ruiz (coordinator of community groups): I think whites really value efficiency.

Antoine Taylor (director of Sunday morning ministries): And releasing that value is really hard for a lot of them. They perceive other ways of operating as inefficient or disorganized.

Jennifer Idoma-Motzko (elder): They say it's not the right way to do church. And I respond bluntly by saying, "You mean it's not the white way to do church."

Obviously, there are some pretty strong statements there, and they raise several important questions:

1. Are small groups primarily a "white" way to do church?
2. If we assume that non-white ethnicities connect more easily and organically than whites, does that mean small groups have no use in those communities? Or can they be a supplement to those organic connections?
3. Are small groups really about efficiency? Is that the appeal they bring to churches, whether white or otherwise?

I've got some thoughts on these questions, but I would really like to hear what all of you think before I let loose.

posted by Sam O'Neal on October 19, 2009 11:47 AM

Comments

With some limited ministry experience in African-American churches, I've not found that that ethnicity ever has a small-groups program. They do, however, have great community-building events together that may take its place--like dinners, all-church meetings, and a lot of Bible studies. I'd love to hear more about this topic or other people's experiences. It's quite fascinating to me.

This is a very provocative topic that gets me thinking, especially from a sociological perspective. I have an idea which may or may not be correct. I don't think you can say that small groups are an inherently white thing - I think we can all agree that there's nothing biologically significant about liking small groups.

So the issue isn't ethnic but cultural - and I think the cultural issue is whether or not people live in close community with their family and neighbors or not. If I only interact with my congregation for an hour on Sundays, the need to connect with them midweek increases. If I see family and friends all the time, the need for a small group decreases. And doesn't it seem as though traveling long distances to go to church is a white suburban American phenomenon?

Consequently I think small groups make more sense in fragmented societies (e.g. white) than in community-based ones (e.g. black or Hispanic).

As an example, I attended a black church in South Africa for a while, and small groups seemed totally unnecessary because the congregation was together all the time anyway - we all lived in the same neighborhood, wandered freely in and out of each other's houses. I didn't feel the need for a small group there because I wasn't lacking anything that a small group provides, but I do feel the need for a small group in my compartmentalized suburban environment.

Would love to hear more on this topic and more opinions from others.

I'm not sure that small groups are for white people. I attended a black, multinational church that has had small groups for the last four years. Approximately half of the congregation has become actively involved while the other half hasn't. This is due to a number of factors such as work patterns; whether leaders have been effective; and individual perspectives on the necessity of small groups.

However, I agree that culture impacts the success of this ministry as even within our apparent 'homogeneous' congregation one can see differences based on national or ethnic backgrounds.

I am learning that looking at cultural diversity when it comes to leadership and group formation/dynamics is important for the success of this ministry.

When I 1st saw this question, I said to myself: "you've got to be kidding me! Small groups are one avenue for anyone serious about spiritual growth!"
After reading the article & thinking about my own cross cultural expereinces, I'd have to agree it is cultural.
But a big part of the "cultural" issue is we white Christians have done a lot to "create" a church that is often closer to the rules & rush of the world we also participate in around us.
Other cultures are slower by nature, less driven, & at times more contemplative. Good article. Thanks for sharing!

Yes, creating "community" by agreeing to meet for an hour and a half once a week is a very white thing to do. It's efficient. It isolates a problem and solves it. It's an outgrowth of a modern, individualistic, generationally- segregated point of view.

When have you ever seen a small group that included a person's parents and grandparents?

Most white folk I know would say "Eeew!" to that thought. "Sharing my doubts and struggles with mom and dad or with gramma? That's the last thing I'd want to do. That's why I moved away from them."

Yep, white.

When I first saw this headline, I thought, "WHAT??" So, good job in getting our attention. In reading the article, it's an extremely interesting premise, however, I wonder if it has a flaw.

Allow me to stop there and position myself - I am white, living in rural Pennsylvania with very little ethnicity nearby. The small community we live in is largely made up of large families - everyone seems related to everyone!

Working off of the theory in the article, I would have to surmise that small groups wouldn't work in my community. However, I believe the flaw in the theory is that it assumes healthy familial relationships – those families where love, affirmation, etc abound. I cherish those families when I come across them, but more often than not, I’m finding families that are bickering, strained, or outright estranged. In those situations, even though families may be nearby, and regardless of ethnicity, I would have to believe that there would be a place for small groups to meet needs.

As an African-American, when I was in seminary, one of the hardest things for me was the small group experience in the counseling studies. I hated it! However, I did grow from the experience. In the black community, counseling is not that popular although some of the stigma has gone away over time. We tend not to be people who readily shed our emotions publicly (apart from our worship experience) with professionals, much less in a small group environment. I wouldn't go so far as to say small groups are a "white thing", but I would encourage people to be more aware of cultural differences and embrace them. Too many times in the church, we insist that the way "we" do things is the only way or the right way. For instance, in a black, charismatic church, many would have a hard time transitioning to a non-charismatic tradition. That doesn't mean that charismatic worship is the only way to worship, but some have a tendency of thinking if there's no shouting, dancing or loud praise, it's not real worship. So we ALL need to get away from this exclusivist thinking and just appreciate the differences the various cultures offer and then minister to people accordingly. If you're in a multi-ethnic setting, don't force people into your mold. Have small groups for those that enjoy them and find other ways to reach the other people groups in your church. Talk to them and find out what ministers to them. And by all means, DON'T buy into stereotypes. Just because by and large blacks may not be into small groups or intimate sharing does not mean this applies to ALL blacks. Just as all whites I'm sure do not enjoy small groups. There are differences and similarities among the people of God's kingdom and there's room enough for all of us.

Pat, again. One thing I will add to my comments above. I currently attend a large, predominantly white church and to your questions regarding efficiency, I do find that our church tends to plan out everything. Now don't get me wrong, planning is good, but sometimes I feel we miss the opportunity for spontaneity. To have a church prayer meeting, there were meetings to plan the prayer meeting! I'm thinking to myself, "Well, at my last church (which was black and charistmatic), you just showed up for prayer meeting and prayed!" It just didn't have to be that complicated to my way of thinking.

I must be strange or maybe just blessed. I have been leading home groups for about 10 years or so and at one church my wife and I led the home group ministry with as many as 80 groups. presently our own home group has 25 to 30 people attending everyother week. Are they predominately white? NO... We have a mix of 6 different churches and the people are White, Black, Hispanics, japaneese.... saved and unsaved! Another thing as we gather each week we always open in prayer where we invite the Holy Spirit to take over and have his way in the meeting. at this point there is no skin color or ethnic groups because we are one in Christ. Then we worship and praise the Lord for about 20 minutes or so which again takes us into the Presence of The Lord so He begins to minister, then we have a teaching which I usually get one or two words from the Lord and go from there, some nights we don't even get to the message because the Holy Spirit has us anointing and praying for each other and this is something everyone needs. We close the night with communion then we have a home cooked meal and to see the ministry taking place then is amazing. I don't think small groups are about efficency but about affectiveness. Our group has just started going to the streets just to show God's love and pray with them. Our first time out we saw 14 salvations and many others rededicated their lives. Our church leaders are so open to reaching the lost through small groups... another thing each group should always have an open chair polocy and pray for the chair to be filled.
Well I better stop here, I guess if your group is about Christ and not us there will be no deviding walls and all will feel welcome.

Pat, I think you raise some really interesting points. It seems like you're saying that the interest in small groups is actually part of a larger discussion of the way we all experience intimacy. Is that right? This would also explain Greg's comment about how there is an increased need for small groups where familial ties are weak.

I guess this all comes back to what we knew already: God created us with a need for authentic community (intimacy) with each other, just as the persons of Trinity are in community with themselves and the church is in community with God. Very often that need is fulfilled through what we are calling small groups.

I don't think they are a "white" thing. We get the same high participation from our Black, Asian and Hispanic people as we do whites.

Most of the New Testament "one another" commands can only be obeyed in the context of smaller units. If we're going to let culture dominate, let's make sure it's a biblical culture and not a racial one.

As a part of a large, predominantly African American church, I have thoroughly enjoyed the small group experience for the past 5+ years. However, this has been my first experience with small groups, although I am 40 and have been in church my whole life. I think that whether or not small groups works depends largely on the size of the church. In smaller churches, where everyone knows everyone, there is less of a need for small groups. When you are part of a mega church where your first question to people is, "Which service do you attend?", then I think small groups become more important. They help to build a sense of community. So is it a white or black thing? I say neither. There are too many other factors that come into play.

This is a great conversation, and I think all of you are contributing some excellent points. Thank you!

I'm going to try and solicit some outside opinions from different ministry leaders next week -- including urban, suburban, and different ethnicities -- so that will hopefully give us even more perspective on the racial question.

I'm still curious about the "efficiency" issue raised in the interview. Is that the primary appeal to you for small groups? Do you find them to be an efficient system, or are they messy for you?

I have been in leadership at a predominantly African-American suburban church for the past 25 years. Small groups and Community are a part of the DNA of this church. In the 80's this was one of the most successful "Cell" Churches in America with 150+ small groups. Ninety percent of our new members and new converts came to the larger gathering having already been participating members of their small group. Small groups are a way of life for most members of this now 2500 + member congregation. I think the structure and culture of the church are more of a factor than ethnicity. It matters whether or not the church is a program base or people base. The church's approach to evangelism is key also. In our church we see our small groups as our community which helps us to reach our sphere's of influence. Community in and of itself is a core value and small groups are one of many strategic environments where one can engage this "spiritual discipline."

While authentic community is inherently chaotic, it also demands both humility and forgiveness of its participants - essential practices for the growing Christian. I have also worked to as a small group coach/consultant with predominantly European, African, Hispanic-American and Multi-cultural congregations. I have seen all of these groups successfully launch and sustain small groups that have lasted for years and have become a part of the culture of their faith community.

Whether urban, suburban or rural small groups can work if we help the people see this approach in the Bible and custom-design a culturally compatible small group model based on the unique needs and opportunities of that particular church.

Small groups are one environment or method through which authentic community can be experienced. For African Americans community is very much a part of our culture because, I believe, it has been a matter of survival. I find it much easier to move African American churches into small groups because relational connectedness and interdependence seems to be such a core value.

I definitely don't think small groups are just for white folks. I do, however, appreciate this question, discussion and the opportunity to share my perspective and experiences as well.

Hollie, yes I do feel part of the success of small groups is how we individually experience intimacy as well as community, some of which may be tied to cultural differences. Someone in an earlier post noted some of the various community-type things prevalent in black churches. Again, it's going to vary even among black churches. As you've read some of the other posts, there are some black churches in which they've had success. So some of the success or lack thereof is cultural and some of it is individual -- the individual person and/or the individual church.

As a displaced person (my closest family member is 750 miles away), small groups have been a valuable source of connection and community. It has become my "family" since mine is so far away.

I can't see how those with extended family connections nearby might not need a small group as much.

But in today's fragmented and transient society, there are many, many of us who need a small group that cares.

Very interesting article, as well as the feedback! I can say from my own experience (I am a group coordinator at my church) that groups in our area (a mostly white small town) are very messy, somewhat structured, sometimes frustrating, very organic in the way that they form and exist, and alot of fun, as well as a lot of work! They are places where transformation occurs, whether during or as a result of the time spent together with each other. I am glad to see the fruits from them as well.

I think there are some true and very interesting points about community that have been shared. I have participated in groups in a larger church and now in a very small church. And in my experience, the need for community in my current church is just as keen as it was in the larger church I attended.

I think that no matter our background, we all have a desire to be fully known and fully loved. The way this need is met may occur differently for different people. I haven't had enough experience with other cultures in a worship setting to know if these needs are met in different ways. Yet, I can't help thinking that groups would not be useful for us all no matter our background.

When we enter into relationships with the intent to pursue God together--seeking to grow and knowing it will be a safe place to self-disclose, transformation can take place. Authenticity is hard no matter who we are. It takes courage. When we come to believe we will be met with love and grace when we share...that people will walk with us in our struggles and will share their struggles with us...it is a beautiful thing.

Perhaps this kind of authenticity, encouragement, and exhortation happens organically for different people. I know that I have experienced individuals like this in my life, but not that often. Yet, if these relationships are not regular and intentional, I would imagine there is some desire or longing for relationship in a deep spiritual friendship kind of way, even if it looks different than a small group.

To me, your assertion that small groups are a white phenomenon lacks credible evidence. For instance, the largest churches in the world are all "cell churches" (meaning: a primary focus on small groups to grow). Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, Korea numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Most of the large churches of South America (Bogota, Sao Paulo, Santiago) are all cell churches. Dion Robert's church in Abidjan, Ivory Coast is a cell church. All of these churches are by geography and ethnicity, non-white.

If you are only referring to American Christianity, your premise may be more accurate. However, our church is multi-ethnic and here is my assessment. As the ethnic group becomes more affluent (and thus more busy), they tend to participate less in the cultural events of their ethnic group of origin. As a result, small groups take the place of those events and become very important to them.

In my opinion, it has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the members or the church. It all depends on the Church leaders and the needs of the members to determine if and when it is necessary. It also depends on what you consider small. In my opinion small could be as few as 2 or as many as 10. At my church which is predominently african american, we have many small groups within the ministry. And people are eager to be a part of a group rather big or small, no matter the race. It is according to what they need for spiritual growth and if the church fulfills the need they are there.

I would love to converse with Joe Santora who posted about halfway through these comments. Your experience is one I long for.

Small groups are a way that we organize and program community. Is it necessary to do that? Only where it doesn't exist. In fact, I've found that when it does exist, and we begin to organize it, it tends to go away and become plastic. What does this have to do with race/ethnicity? Everything! And nothing. It doesn't have anything to do with race/ethnicity, but it does have to do with cultures that happen to have a dominant percentage of a particular race. Culture comes from years of experience together. Our predominantly white suburban busy, success driven lives keep us from experiencing this community. However, I've also noticed that our small town/rural setting where I currently live helps us experience community in unhealthy ways. (ie gossip, every one knowing too much about everyone, etc.) Everyone needs community. Some are already experiencing it. Others need you to program it because they don't know how to experience it otherwise. However, once the experience becomes a greater reality, then it becomes less necessary to program it.

I work with church planting among all people groups. What I have discovered is that many other ethnic groups do not identify with the small group approach to reaching, discipling, and ministering to people--as white poeple do according to this article. There are many reasons, each unique to people groups such as Latino and African American. These differences align with social, cultural and economic distinctive. For example in the Hispanic community, they value the larger gathering, have smaller homes among those with low incomes, and the homes are dominated by men living in clusters where some in the home would oppose a small group gathering.
How and why people groups gather has made a decisiive difference in the way that I coach different ethnic church planters. One size does not fit all.

I love the discussion on this and interesting points of views. I have to concur with Joe Santora. My husband and I are Directors of LifeGroups at our multiculural, multi-campus, multi-generational church. We have approximately 55 groups and it is through those groups that community and real relationships develop. Some background on me, I am African-American, with a Baptist background. I was raised in a church culture where the women were not allowed to do anything other than participate in the nursery and the kitchen. How refreshing and freeing it was when my husband and I started attending the church that we are now members of where there are no limitations on us because of race or gender. To say that groups are a "white" thing is as Joe said, makes our church either strange or blessed. We have all races involved in LifeGroups and they are healthy, strong relationships. Surprisingly, at least according to the feedback contained herein, everyone of our groups is multi-cultural. I think one of the things that makes our groups unique is that our groups are intentional in the purpose they serve. We have groups for just about every subject as well as fellowship groups for those that want to do something other than read a book, study the bible or women's and men's issues. Someone mentioned cultural. Yes, I believe cultural plays a part, but when the love of Jesus is extended and the opprotunity for acceptance and encouragement occurs, those cultural lines dissolve and we get a picture of what Heaven will look like.

I agree that small groups are a big thing in white churches. Traditionally in the black church we've had small group but never fomally called them by name. I feel that part of our Christian experience there has to be some level of small group within any church black or white. I pastor a small African American church and I'm trying the small group concept and people like it. It's a change for some, but it offers accountability and I think that the factor why many people don't like small group.

Fascinating article. The concept discussed reminds me of two documents I have read over the years discussing the differences between cultures. One book, "Foreign to Familiar" by Sarah Lanier is a secular book (an easy read) that is for travelers around the world. Lanier breaks cultures down broadly by labeling them as "warm climate" and "cold climate" cultures. Warm climate cultures tend to be relationally driven (and other qualities), but cold climate cultures tend to be production or efficiency driven (among other qualities). Her point is that neither is right or wrong, but you do have to understand the differences when you visit or live in a different culture.
The second document is an article written by Catholic sociologist Stephen Clark in 1980. It's chapter 18 in a book called "Man and Woman in Christ," and Clark's chapter is called, "The New Social Environment: Technological Society." Traditional societies (family and community based) have always been around and have been the "norm". Technological society has been around only a couple hundred years and has dramatically affected personal, family and church life.
Both these documents opened my eyes to understand and appreciate cultures different from my own (white, cold-climate, and technological). With these documents in mind, I can see the potential trends in the topic of small groups versus "natural" community that happens in some groups or areas.
Fascinating discussion.

I work as a campus minister in Philadelphia with multiple churches. We have one particular church in the city theat is a multi-racial church on Sunday morning (with mostly African-American leadership). They have an extensive small group ministry in place with groups maeeting at various locations throughout the entire city (they use the term Cypha-Groups). While the large gathering on Sundays are multiethnic the small groups are basically all African-American. Small Groups are pushed heavily by the the church leadership and core. So maybe it matters more what ethnicity is promoting the groups. I also work with several ethnically based student groups on campuses and all of the have a small group program.

Great topic. Great discussion. I had never considered the differences. My small group seems to be going fine with five white couples, and two black, but I'm having fun pondering the concerns of the issue nonetheless.

I think something that hollie said in her first post is a big part of it. As it's been said, we were created for community. We gather together in a church where we feel the most comfortable and begin to build relationships. Outside of the 1/5 hours in church, it can be hard to get together because we often travel 20 miles (while passing many other churches including the one down the road) to our church. So if people live 20 min from church, they could live 40+ minutes away from the people they are trying to socialize with.

Interesting

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Are Small Groups Just for White People?

Comments

Search

Editorial Advisors

Most Popular Downloads

Most Popular Articles

Resources We Like

Poll

Free Newsletters

Recent Posts

Tags

Archives

Are Small Groups Just for White People?

Comments

Search

Editorial Advisors

Most Popular Downloads

Most Popular Articles

Resources We Like

Blogs We're Watching

Poll

Free Newsletters

Recent Posts

Tags

Archives