Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

New Christian "Cells"

Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 12:40:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
some people like going to large Mega churches. the anonymity is more comfortable when your just another face in the crowd to them.
other people like small church's were you can get closer with other members of the church, and the pastures can afford to give more attention to you.

They both are usually agreed to have pro's an con's a organizational structure for the church. But I've been reading up on this one guy, Mike Slauter and his church in ginghamsburg. http://redpillbrethren.tumblr.com......

Its a Mega-church by all rights but it retains the small church feel to it because of how it divides into 'cells' http://ginghamsburg.org......
These cells are made up of 12 people (like the disciples) who can grow in a much closer relationship with each other as small group. they worship together apart from the main church, they serve together in community service, and they can even act like a AA group in that agreement to not disclose whats said in the group to give accountability to each other and support over there common goal to quit sin.

This idea is not totally new, in fact this method was how my church the 'Methodist' got started when it was just a movement within the Anglican church. http://www.patheos.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
John Wesley had people mean in Bands, really small groups that seems just made for confessing sin to each other, then a slightly larger group as big as Mike Slauters 'Cells' of 12 people but these were called classes. and then several classes would make up the 'society' which for all purposes is what we would think of a regular full church. you didn't get to worship with the society if you were in a class but not baptized. classes were for those still considered in the stages of previenent grace were you are learning the basic good news. the society was the lowest level of the structure that shared communion. Becoming part of the full church came with expectations back then, you couldn't just show up and take communion wit them, you had to show you were already part of the body by going through baptism.

Slaughters church has a certain degree of selectness too in letting people become members. It's a large commitment to be able to call yourself part of them.

I was wondering if any of the other Christians here thought this organizational structure would be a good one to try and get back to with in modern times, copy at least to a degree Slauters suite with forming 'Cells' within a church. or even take it farther to the smaller groups within the Cells like the 'Bands' in the early Methodist movement.
I think small churches right now would not logistically be able to transition into a system like this without a large number of there members being fairly active and a large spurt in church growth as they try the change.
But as for churches that are Mega-churches right now, I think its a change they should institute right away.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 11:41:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
come on now, someones bound to be a little interested in this topic. 'Cells' are a rarely used organization structure for a church and would make what church means to socioity radically different if it was instituted in all of them.

everytime in history its been used it's encuraged making attending Sunday morning service a more exclusive thing you have to earn your way to. Like in wesleys day you you had to have a 'waver' to show you had been baptised and proved yourself a believer to attained the 'socioty' level of the church. wich was for all purposes our normal only level of a church.

Mike Slauters church has also taken to not admitting members in very easily. people can join the cell first of couse but only after there so involved in that do they get the chance to seek to become a member of the whole church.

That's way different from the lax way its done now for most all churches. when I joined my local church, doing that was the same as joining all of the United Methoist church

you would think such radical change that allows easy ground for greater pickyness of its members would spark more discussion on a debate sight, but I guess not.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 4:29:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 12:40:08 AM, Marauder wrote:
some people like going to large Mega churches. the anonymity is more comfortable when your just another face in the crowd to them.
other people like small church's were you can get closer with other members of the church, and the pastures can afford to give more attention to you.

They both are usually agreed to have pro's an con's a organizational structure for the church. But I've been reading up on this one guy, Mike Slauter and his church in ginghamsburg. http://redpillbrethren.tumblr.com......

Its a Mega-church by all rights but it retains the small church feel to it because of how it divides into 'cells' http://ginghamsburg.org......
These cells are made up of 12 people (like the disciples) who can grow in a much closer relationship with each other as small group. they worship together apart from the main church, they serve together in community service, and they can even act like a AA group in that agreement to not disclose whats said in the group to give accountability to each other and support over there common goal to quit sin.

This idea is not totally new, in fact this method was how my church the 'Methodist' got started when it was just a movement within the Anglican church. http://www.patheos.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
John Wesley had people mean in Bands, really small groups that seems just made for confessing sin to each other, then a slightly larger group as big as Mike Slauters 'Cells' of 12 people but these were called classes. and then several classes would make up the 'society' which for all purposes is what we would think of a regular full church. you didn't get to worship with the society if you were in a class but not baptized. classes were for those still considered in the stages of previenent grace were you are learning the basic good news. the society was the lowest level of the structure that shared communion. Becoming part of the full church came with expectations back then, you couldn't just show up and take communion wit them, you had to show you were already part of the body by going through baptism.

Slaughters church has a certain degree of selectness too in letting people become members. It's a large commitment to be able to call yourself part of them.

I was wondering if any of the other Christians here thought this organizational structure would be a good one to try and get back to with in modern times, copy at least to a degree Slauters suite with forming 'Cells' within a church. or even take it farther to the smaller groups within the Cells like the 'Bands' in the early Methodist movement.
I think small churches right now would not logistically be able to transition into a system like this without a large number of there members being fairly active and a large spurt in church growth as they try the change.
But as for churches that are Mega-churches right now, I think its a change they should institute right away.

I do not think it will happen in America within the Mega Churhes.

Our American culture i think would preclude this.
We are culturally seperating from contact with people more and more.

- "We" watch our tv's (I don't but I mean our culture)
- "We" work our job and hate our co-employees
- "We" argue with our spouse and children.

When "we" do let in another couple for example they judge us on how we raise our children for example. If "we" do not keep a clean enough house for them, "we" do not cook the right foods for dinner, "we" can not even have a theological discussion without one person getting angry.

"We" prefer face book to "breaking bread".

I cannot say as that I blame them.
When a mother in Alaska, gets 4 years probation for using tabasco sauce to put in the mouth of her lieing child, wouldn't you worry about just letting anyone into your home?
How about the mother in Texas who get 6 months in jail and another 3 years probation for just spanking her disobedient child?

When you let people into your home nowadays they can turn on you in a heartbeat. Unless you confirm a list of social agreements it is scary now to let people into your personal space.

Realize I have let an ex-con live in my home that I did not know.
I am willing to allow the Holy Spirit to guide me in who I interact with but these people in Mega Churches are not the "sold out for Jesus" crowd.

Just my opinion.