Wednesday, August 6, 2008

No one loves me but Jesus - debunking a few myths of a cell group

In my last post, I may have come across as a little Pollyana-ish with regards to cell groups. I have never said, and will never say that cell groups are certaintly the absolute sure-fire places where it's group hugs and back slaps all night long and everyone comes out feeling all warm and fuzzy.

Far from it.

I have been in cell groups in the past where I was tempted to fake a seizure just to get out (I decided against it because they would just start praying over me and that would have prolonged the agony...). I have been in one where someone tried to punch me. And i was the CG leader. (How's that for contending da faith, Balboa?)

So, not all CG's are equal. But somehow, people come in with certain assumptions , and I want to debunk these myths:

1. I will be accepted immediately

No, you won't. Not if you're a jerk. Not even if you are a Christian jerk. Because no one likes one and at the end of a hard week; rest assured that if you bring an attitude to a cell group, someone is going to want to Bible bash you; and not in the theologically approve manner either

2. There are no cliques

There are always cliques. There will always be. Get used to it. Your mum and dad is a clique. They take you everywhere, include you in most things, except when they...uh,you get the idea. The number one fear of someone going into a cell group is - rejection. You think that you when you walk in there, you'll see a couple flirting with each other, two guys talking about some obscure hobby that only they and 3 others in the world know anything about; and two other members who eye you up and down contemptously, judging you all the time.

In other words - they all have a clique and have zoned you out. As Christians, we try not to do this but we do mimic the world, and anthropologically, there are strong reasons for being cliquish. The 12 disciples - were they a clique? James and John? Jesus and Peter? The gospels talk alot about them both.

A good cell group will recognise that it has to have a balance of being both open enough to give the chance to an outsider to come in without compromising the integrity of it's aim: to focus on becoming more Christlike. Notice I said nothing about being warm, touchy feely or stuff like that. Why?

3. Acceptance is automatic

The seeker movement (with a great deal of influence from secular group therapy teachings) tries to convey the notion that a cell group should be openly inclusive and accepting of anyone that wants to come in. That notion is slightly falacious

When the church was being persecuted in the early days, they met behind closed doors and were very careful of outsiders trying to join as no one was sure if they were genuine or spies. Therefore, whoever wanted to join had to prove themselves as sincere, genuine lovers of Christ

Bearing the family name of Christ carries a responsibility. It is less a membership card to a country card and more of draft card to war. It's serious business. No one forces someone to go to a CG; it's an honour and a privelage. And we in recent times have devalued it so that it's sold so desperately like a 50% off pastry near closing time.

If you want in - show us you are serious. Now, in our society, we tend to value those who speak out more and a more assertive. The extroverted ones. What if you're quiet and are an introvert? But if you're an introvert -why do you want to be part of a group of extroverts anyway? :-)

Whether you are quiet or not. Everyone craves intimacy and acceptance. To do this, you have to open yourself up and run the risk of going against a fundamental human reluctance to be vulnerable. How you do this - is up to you

In a nutshell, cell groups are a perfect representation of the imperfect. Bickering, whining, weak, neurotic people who need grace more than anything. But hey, didn't that sound like the 12 disciples? It's all the more reason why I think cell-groups are so important. They give us an opportunity for us to depend more on God and less on ourselves. To take each other as crutches rather than live in denial that we have two good feet when in reality we are crippled.

But there is one who heals the lame

And his name is Jesus

8 comments:

Christopher Sam said...

Right on, emo bro...

child_of_God said...

lolz. short question but long reply. hehe. not bad..nice points. :P

child_of_God said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
child_of_God said...

Hmm.. I was just thinking about the post. There is a difference in cliques then and cliques now. When Jesus wanted to do a one on one personal session with any of the disciples, he would first pull them aside from the main group first before telling them anything. For example, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus brought only those who he wanted to know about the Transfiguration, namely Peter, James and John. He didn’t bring all 12 up, put the other 9 aside, transfigure, and only explain it to Peter, James and John. He did not say to the other 9, “Oh, it was nothing, really. Nothing much you should know.” Nowadays, we see people in a group which even though still in the main group talking about things only they themselves know. Furthermore, because only they themselves know, they are not bothered if people over hear because those who overhear won’t understand anyway. When the person asks what is going on, they just reply, “Oh, its nothing. Don’t worry about it.” In my opinion, this nonsense should not be in a CG but it is. If you want to talk your personal tales, pull your accomplice aside and away from the group and do it then. Don’t make people feel left out because you want to feel exclusive for being ‘in the know’ when the other person is lost in an Amazon jungle. This is not showing love (not the warm, touchy feely or stuff like that kind of love) to a fellow brother or sister. Interestingly, a CG’s focus was to become more Christlike, is it? Just my 2 cents.

The bjjmissionary said...

Those are good points and I agree with you on the Jesus and his disciples point unreservedly.

CG's in some sense reflect social groupings in the secular world. It's essentially a group of people put together to know Christ better. Honestly, if you really asked some of them - you would get answers saying that they would rather not interact with certain members of the CG

Is this a Christlike example? No, definitely not. But we are learning to walk in his footsteps so this is a path we have to tread first. We are constantly seeking the ideal. It's the same thing when people just go to a CG and look bored. I go " why do you even bother coming in the first place?"

Thus, I am not going to agree totally because I don't want to let an individual of the hook and maintain that sometimes, you (the indivudual) has a responsibility to force your way (or earn your way) into that clique to change it. You see what I mean?

child_of_God said...

hmm...what you say is also true that we, as an indivdiual, should also make an effort to 'punch' our way in and take the first step. But my point is this: some indivuals or people in a CG tend to create an atmosphere that sorts of intimidates and discourages people from making that move. Continuing from the example in my previous post, people may tend to think, "Oh..private talk...can't barge in"

And, yeah, i guess everyone is learning. But I have a slight issue. Overtime, that excuse can tend to become obsolete. The thing is that some individuals do not want to 'unclique'. This adds to the previous problem where the person punching in would most likely face a one way communication...not nice.I agree that we are all learning. No doubt about that. But learning produces some fruit of the effort which can be seen clearly. I guess thats the sign someone is learning.

The bjjmissionary said...

sure, child_of_god, and that is a valid point. I remember in the very first christian retreat that i signed up for in Australia (the Anglican Missionary society), it was pretty unnerving as I didn't know anyone. I must have had some cajones back then because after half a day of being by myself; i kinda barged into on of those CG groups. At first I was told " Do you mind, this is a private group " or something very similar to that. But oddly, it didn't put me off and eventually I managed to get to know a few of them quite well. But this left a bittersweet taste obviously. The initial sense of rejection led me to really question the over exagerrated goodness of Christians (by the way, it wasn't the first time I questioned this - some not so nice incidents at our church when i was at Sunday school had already set that in motion..)Also, while I kept in touch with some of them for a while. Eventually, we drifted apart. The awareness of impermaneance and hollowness of the experience led me into Zen Budhhism during my teenage yearsBut aiyah...that's another blog post for the future! :-)

child_of_God said...

lolz. okies. :P i think this post has the most and the longest comments. haha. :P