Group dynamics for the Kingdom

Alternative title: “What’s the ideal size for this group given what God wants it to accomplish for His glory?”

I recently listened to the H3X podcast interviewing Guy Caskey. He briefly mentioned Neil Cole’s work on group dynamics in the book Church 3.0, and I’ve been taking a deeper dive into it.

Two premises from Neil Cole that are worth stating at the beginning:

First, all of the world, including our spiritual family and disciple-making relationships, has some natural group sizes in which we function best. As humans, “we are drawn together in groups of a variety of sizes to accomplish what is necessary for us, as individuals and as an entire group.” p 138

Second, “one size does not fit all… Expecting one size to meet all needs is not only unrealistic but disappointing to all involved.” p 157

So, with those in mind, let me lay out the groups Cole shares, as well as make some observations.

“The base unit of life: two or three people”

Where do we see this in Scripture? This one is all over the Word. Cole provides a good list on page 142, but throughout Scripture, we see mention of groups of two or three being key to community, accountability, etc.

My thoughts: I think we often want to expand groups of this size when instead we should be trying to duplicate them. While we shouldn't be opposed to a group of three becoming a group of five or seven, the dynamics that make a group of three amazing get ruined when you increase to seven. Instead of adding three to become six, why not multiply three to become nine (but in three separate groups)?

Question: Are you a part of a group of two or three that focuses on the core aspects of following Jesus?

“The leadership team: four to seven people”

Where do we see this in Scripture? The inner three disciples (if you include Jesus as part of the group), the leaders in the church of Antioch in Acts 13, the first deacons in Acts 6

My thoughts: I don’t necessarily like the name Cole gives this, but I do agree that this is a natural-sized group that often forms. This is the group size that organizations should assemble and deploy to tackle specific tasks or pursue specific unreached peoples or regions. I have observed that organizations and churches can attempt to have a single paid staff person fulfill a role better suited for a team

This is also a key size for a training team. If you are planning a Four Fields Intensive training (or similar) this is the size of team you want.

Question: When you have a major project or task God is putting on your heart for the Kingdom, do you have this size group? Often we tend to throw as many people as possible into a room and think that more will mean a better output, but a ‘lean and mean’ team of four or five is better suited to tackle a project than a bloated team of ten or more.

“The family unit: 12 to 15 people”

Where do we see this in Scripture? Most obviously, the twelve disciples. But also when a ‘household’ comes to faith it was probably around this size.

My thoughts: Cole rightly says that this is the size that feels most like an extended family. "It contains enough diversity to meet a number of needs and yet is small enough to maintain a high level of intimacy. It is easy for all of its members to keep track of everyone's health. It can accommodate breaking off into smaller groups and yet remain intact." (p146) I can think of so many examples of gatherings of the church (be it house churches or small groups) that have been amazing for everyone involved when at this size.

Question: Whether you are in a mega-church or a house church, do you have a group of believers that you belong to that fits this family unit size? I think you need it (in fact, that’s why most mega-churches want their people in small groups… to get to the smaller group dynamics that will more naturally meet needs.)

“The training group: 25 to 75 people”

Where do we see this in Scripture? Jesus sent out the 72

My thoughts: "This size is ideal for short-term assignments involving specialized training and mobilization."(p148) I think this is an ideal size for any sort of training. I immediately thought of a 'mid-level’ or ‘intensive’ when I read about this size group. Yet, even when you have just 50 people at an event you have to work to keep monologue lecture from being the primary method of teaching.

“The relational network: 100 to 150 people”

Where do we see this in Scripture? There were 120 people in the upper room before Pentecost. (As we see below, they were a portion of a larger number of disciples.)

My thoughts: Personally, I have often been fascinated by Dunbar’s number so this size of group is intriguing to me. Cole applies it in this way: "We have found by experience that a network will very rarely grow beyond fifteen house churches (or 150 people).... What is necessary... is to reproduce more networks, rather than try to add more house churches to an existing network."

While this makes sense to me intuitively I reached out to a couple of friends who have seen simple church networks grow to four or more generations to verify if they have seen the same thing. A friend with knowledge of movements in India has not seen the cap of 15 house churches/150 people. However, he did share that the leaders of those house churches meet in cascading groups of four. (We call these 1-3-9 groups in my circles: One leader meets with his three key disciples who are each leading their own churches. Those leaders in turn meet with their three disciples, coaching them to start churches. In each of those leadership meetings, however, there is a group of four which interestingly enough matches the leadership team size that Cole mentions.)

“The occasional public gathering: 200 to 500 people”

Where do we see this in Scripture? Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that 500 people were together when they saw the resurrected Jesus.

My thoughts: This is the place for the occasional organization or denominational conference… a meeting every one to three years to gather people, celebrate, cast vision, or, in other words, to ‘rally the troops.’

“What’s the ideal size for this group given what God wants this group to accomplish for His glory?”

Let’s review the second premise I listed:

Second, “one size does not fit all… Expecting one size to meet all needs is not only unrealistic but disappoint to all involved.” p 157

I remember a pastor that attempted to use Francis Chan's Multiply book with guys at his church. I'm pretty sure he did so in a group of at least 6, maybe even 12. I don't believe there was much multiplication because he unintentionally skipped multiplying at the base unit level. In fact, I can think of other examples where leaders (including myself) gather six or more people in a discipleship group… but without multiplication in a unit of two or three, it is very unlikely to happen in a group of six or more.

Many organizations have a tendency to over-emphasize conferences and retreats. Instead of matching the size of the group to the purpose of the event, they usually just plan a big event and get as many people to it as possible. More is better, right? Except, if our main desire is family-like time together, then invite 12-15 people. If the main purpose is a ‘leadership team’ that is gathering to plan a specific project, then get four to seven people. If we need to rally the troops, gather a group of 100 or more, but don’t try to rally the troops with 25.

Here are a few takeaways for me personally:

• If you’re asked to be on a team or group of any sort, make sure its size matches its purpose.

• It’s okay if your 'family unit’ sized church or small group doesn’t always seem to be 100% on mission. That’s better suited for the ‘base unit’ or the ‘leadership team’ size. Can you grab a key disciple or two from your family unit to go out on mission with?

• I think I could make a pretty good argument that every believer should be in a group of two or three (for accountability and discipleship) as well as a family unit (for fellowship with the body of Christ). Are you?