Sharing vs. caring
Where do liberal churches get our models for small group dynamics? In the first post in this series, I pointed out that the liberal churches I have known have two models for understanding small groups: the “sharing model,” and the “doing model.” [Link]
While I believe the “sharing model” is dominant in liberal churches today, a third model of small groups has been blossoming in more conservative Christian churches. In this model, cell groups or house churches gather together to respond to the word of God and to care for each other. Although this model seems to draw some inspiration from the experiments in group work that flourished in the 1960’s and 1970’s, the model emphasizes caring for others more than it emphasizes personal development. Call this the “caring model” of small groups: you’re called to care for others, and to bring others into the circle of caring (here I’m extracting the theology from the model of group dynamics).
Not surprisingly, as the cell group concept, based on a “caring model,” has been brought into liberal churches, the cell groups often become transmogrified by the existing dominant “sharing model” in those churches. In conservative Christian churches, it is assumed that small groups should incorporate new members, thus growing enough to split into two groups every four to twelve months. In liberal churches, however, cell groups become covenant groups or “small group ministry,” groups which are closed for a year to enable participants to build trust in order to allow deeper sharing. In liberal churches, rather than building the caring function into the cell groups, the minister(s) retain most of the caring function, though the minister(s) may develop a program of lay pastoral caregivers (not integrated into the covenant groups or small group ministries); who, not surprisingly, meet together in a small group, closed to outsiders, where they are often encouraged to share deeply with each other.
I now believe that the “sharing model” leads to an inward orientation; it emphasizes personal development and it closes out the outside world. It seems that the “caring model” leads to an outward orientation, where each person learns to care for other people, in an ever-widening circle (at least in theory). This may help explain why liberal churches, dominated by an inward-looking “sharing model,” are shrinking and dying; while the conservative Christian churches which use an outward-looking “caring model” seem to be ever-expanding.
OK, I had better admit my bias here: I would rather be a part of a church that had an outward-looking “caring model”; I’m getting tired of the endless “sharing” in liberal churches that seems to lead to nothing more than an inward orientation and membership decline. Having admitted that, I’m going to ask: Does this distinction make sense to you? Is your liberal church oriented more towards the “sharing model” than a “caring model”? And if so, which model do you prefer?
I’ve avoided starting covenant groups at my church for one major reason: people say they’re leery of them, and I agree. I think they work great for some people but I’m afraid they encourage the notion of church as therapy group, and that’s a model that we cannot responsibly manage over the long term.
We have several caring groups and I like the idea of having more, with the outward orientation you reference.
Hey PB — In the original conception of covenant groups (see Carl George’s books), that kind of small group is actually supposed to be more of a caring group, explciitly designed to carry out much of the church’s pastoral ministry in large to very large churches. Unfortunately, Carl George’s conception doesn’t translate easily to a liberal church — and in the process of translation, I’m afraid convenant groups in UU churches emphasize sharing rather than caring.
Sigh.
Coming from a somewhat different tradition– Sufism is sometimes referred to as a “way of service”. My tariqa supports orphanages and school sin various parts of the world, and the personal orientation of most members is definitely towards “doing” rather than “sharing”.
Interestingly though, we do regard ourselves as having personal relationships with God unmediated by the community– however, we are still supposed to be deeply responsible for others in our lives, whether members of the tariqa or not.
Hi again, Tiel Aisha Ansari — Thanks for your perspective. I believe what I’m reporting is more of a sociological phenomenon than a theological phenomenon, and it relates to the sociological character of the historically mainline Protestant churches in North America. The theology of my liberal church (Unitarian Universalism, now a post-Christian tradition) really doesn’t support the sociological phenomenon which has so strongly emphasized sharing over doing, and sharing over caring.
Indeed, I can find no theological justification for us spending more time sharing than doing or caring. Which raises the interesting question of why, exactly, we keep on doing it — habit, I suppose.