As we reflect on the experiments with neighborhood models it is clear that ABF-style adult classes on campus on Sundays, or a well-integrated, well-led small group network, a geograhic/neighborhood model is fragile. Without such components it becomes relationally weak and growth-challenged.

One option is off-campus medium-sized groups (like the Pastorates model used by Holy Trinity Brompton in London and in some Canadian churches). Members gather at least monthly on groups of 30 or so form connection, a few moments of teaching, and then some engagement. Many homes, even smaller ones, can accommodate 20-30 people, especially if there is sub-grouping. But the other elements are present (groups and/or classes) for intentional formation.

Another approach is an organized network of groups for spiritual growth within the broader geographic context. Many churches are using a small group structure but organized geographically. These include affinity groups, serving teams, meal groups, recovery, bible studies, etc. Without such a clearly integrated group network (as opposed to simply allowing small groups to form and exist independently), our observation was less than 20% of people connected to a neighborhood community after 2-3 years.

I will keep you posted on the progress being made in place-based models as churches continue to experiment. One thing is certain—there is no one model or system. The more rigid the structure, the less transferable the model is.

Last post in series.