Comments on: Why our Growth Groups serve together http://hunterbiblechurch.org/2010/02/25/why-our-growth-groups-serve-together/ Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:39:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Lachlan Wetherall http://hunterbiblechurch.org/2010/02/25/why-our-growth-groups-serve-together/#comment-1918 Lachlan Wetherall Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:41:34 +0000 http://hunterbiblechurch.org/?p=2098#comment-1918 Thanks Dave for your response. I agree that the most helpful method of organising rosters is going to depend on church size, which means that as we grow we have to adjust how we do things. Whatever method we use, we have to be clearminded about pros and cons. Thanks Dave for your response. I agree that the most helpful method of organising rosters is going to depend on church size, which means that as we grow we have to adjust how we do things. Whatever method we use, we have to be clearminded about pros and cons.

]]> By: Dave Moore http://hunterbiblechurch.org/2010/02/25/why-our-growth-groups-serve-together/#comment-1916 Dave Moore Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:10:05 +0000 http://hunterbiblechurch.org/?p=2098#comment-1916 One more thing... I expect that when - god willing - we grow to around 300 people at a meeting, we'll need to stop getting Growth groups to serve and have dedicated teams of people who's primary minsitry at HBC is things like setup and packup, and they are "on" for a few weeks at a time... that is, this model of using Growth groups is really particular to our church size, rather than being universally "right" like i might have implied. One more thing… I expect that when - god willing - we grow to around 300 people at a meeting, we’ll need to stop getting Growth groups to serve and have dedicated teams of people who’s primary minsitry at HBC is things like setup and packup, and they are “on” for a few weeks at a time… that is, this model of using Growth groups is really particular to our church size, rather than being universally “right” like i might have implied.

]]> By: Dave Moore http://hunterbiblechurch.org/2010/02/25/why-our-growth-groups-serve-together/#comment-1915 Dave Moore Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:08:12 +0000 http://hunterbiblechurch.org/?p=2098#comment-1915 Thanks Lachlan, they're good points. Especially about how smaller groups might find they have a larger load to bear than smaller groups. At HBC:City we have actually combined a few smaller groups on the roster because of this... maybe we need to see if we should do that at HBC:Lambton too? I can see how it might sound like I've suggested one is "good" and another "bad", when I actually don't think that. Rather, I think they each have their place depending on the size of a church. So in a church of about 50-100 people, I think the "individual" roster system is a good system, because almost everyone knows everyone else, and there is a degree of confidence we can have in people taking on what is helpful for them. However, in a church with over 150 people, where many people don't know many others very well, I don't think we can have that same level of certainty. Even I've turned up early and seen people putting up chairs who I've never met before!! It turns out that they were great Jesus-hearted people, which is wonderful, but its does show that people can be rostered on to serve who may not be supported in a context of church relationships. As to where people's gifts lie, I hope that people will have the ability to see that the roster is an opportunity to serve in one way, not a limit to how they could serve. So, if there was a person in your group who really struggled to be there early for setup, but really loved the idea of welcoming, there's an opportunity for them to suggest that they do that aspect of setup when your groups on, or maybe even arrange a "individual" swap with one of the people from the group on morning tea. That is, we want people to put their shoulder behind the the big purpose of church, not just the task. Thanks Lachlan, they’re good points. Especially about how smaller groups might find they have a larger load to bear than smaller groups. At HBC:City we have actually combined a few smaller groups on the roster because of this… maybe we need to see if we should do that at HBC:Lambton too?
I can see how it might sound like I’ve suggested one is “good” and another “bad”, when I actually don’t think that. Rather, I think they each have their place depending on the size of a church.
So in a church of about 50-100 people, I think the “individual” roster system is a good system, because almost everyone knows everyone else, and there is a degree of confidence we can have in people taking on what is helpful for them.
However, in a church with over 150 people, where many people don’t know many others very well, I don’t think we can have that same level of certainty. Even I’ve turned up early and seen people putting up chairs who I’ve never met before!! It turns out that they were great Jesus-hearted people, which is wonderful, but its does show that people can be rostered on to serve who may not be supported in a context of church relationships.
As to where people’s gifts lie, I hope that people will have the ability to see that the roster is an opportunity to serve in one way, not a limit to how they could serve. So, if there was a person in your group who really struggled to be there early for setup, but really loved the idea of welcoming, there’s an opportunity for them to suggest that they do that aspect of setup when your groups on, or maybe even arrange a “individual” swap with one of the people from the group on morning tea.
That is, we want people to put their shoulder behind the the big purpose of church, not just the task.

]]> By: Lachlan Wetherall http://hunterbiblechurch.org/2010/02/25/why-our-growth-groups-serve-together/#comment-1914 Lachlan Wetherall Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:11:02 +0000 http://hunterbiblechurch.org/?p=2098#comment-1914 Dave, I think your post is overly polarised in presenting the former way of rostering (=bad) and the new way of rostering (=good). I think there are pros and cons for each way. For instance, the way we have previously organised rosters for morning church meant that people were deliberate about choosing when, where, and how to serve. There was a high degree of confidence that people were serving with a willing and generous heart. On the other hand with growth groups rostered on to serve, a person may find themselves rostered on to do X, simply because they are part of group A, when really they would much rather (and perhaps be more gifted) in serving at Y. In the worst case scenario a person in a group may end up doing a job out of grudging duty, or because of peer pressure, or because of a prideful desire to impress other group members. The group based roster system also has the downside that smaller sized groups may end up bearing a greater load than larger sized groups. On the plus side, I heartily endorse your third point above. Having been a part of unichurch groups in the past that were rostered on together to serve at church, those times were great times for building the group, for expressing our unity and togetherness - and it was fun. One thing that I think will be helpful as we make this change is to make it clear when organising growth groups, and inviting people into them, that serving at church together as a group is part of the responsibility of the group, but not just a responsibility, but a privilege to serve together. Dave, I think your post is overly polarised in presenting the former way of rostering (=bad) and the new way of rostering (=good). I think there are pros and cons for each way. For instance, the way we have previously organised rosters for morning church meant that people were deliberate about choosing when, where, and how to serve. There was a high degree of confidence that people were serving with a willing and generous heart.

On the other hand with growth groups rostered on to serve, a person may find themselves rostered on to do X, simply because they are part of group A, when really they would much rather (and perhaps be more gifted) in serving at Y. In the worst case scenario a person in a group may end up doing a job out of grudging duty, or because of peer pressure, or because of a prideful desire to impress other group members.

The group based roster system also has the downside that smaller sized groups may end up bearing a greater load than larger sized groups.

On the plus side, I heartily endorse your third point above. Having been a part of unichurch groups in the past that were rostered on together to serve at church, those times were great times for building the group, for expressing our unity and togetherness - and it was fun.

One thing that I think will be helpful as we make this change is to make it clear when organising growth groups, and inviting people into them, that serving at church together as a group is part of the responsibility of the group, but not just a responsibility, but a privilege to serve together.

]]>