Just a system
Roberta asked me to "test" Mac Swift's contention that the cell group system is there to control members and monitor dissent.
I'm still thinking about what Mac said. Certainly, in my previous previous church, this was at least partially true. I remember, during the cell group leaders' training, the pastor telling us how to clap. We ought to clap on the second and fourth beats of a song, he said, because when we sing, we tend to place emphasis on the words that fall on the first and third beat. Clapping on the second and fourth beats would ensure the claps didn't drown out the lyrics. This would be important when it came time to realise the dream of recording a worship album à la Hillsong (a church in Australia that is well-known for its musical output).
The pastor further said that cell group leaders were responsible for teaching their members "how to clap". And I remember my cell group leader commending us for picking it up fast, too.
However, I don't think all cell churches (churches operating exclusively under the cell group system) use cell groups to control members and monitor dissent. Doug, The Mute Troubadour, commented:
It's not cell groups that are the problem; good heavens! What could be more Wesleyan than cell groups?! It's more the way mega churches organize themselves, the hierarchy, the over-emphasis on the pastor-as-leader, which finally becomes the pastor-as-CEO (or worse).
I think he's right. The cell group system is just a system. It can be used for good or ill. At one point, I was not terribly in favour of the system. I liked the concept the way it puts people in smaller groups to build relationships and encourage one another but I didn't like the method (4W's), which I thought a tad too rigid. It was only later that I realised how much difference a leader can make. Coz it's the leader who decides whether to see those "how-to" thingies as rules set in stone or mere guidelines. Similarly, the leaders of the church are the ones who will determine the true role of the cell groups.
As for dissent and scepticism... I think much depends on how you express dissention. Being typically non-confrontational, I'm still learning to speak to the right person about my concerns, instead of grousing about things behind the leaders' back or simply keeping quiet till I can no longer ignore whatever is disturbing me. At the same time, there are many ways to put your questions or disagreements across, and many tones of voice you can use.
A few weeks ago, I did bring up a very minor issue; I was met with attentiveness and a willingness to listen. That was encouraging. And listening goes both ways. I have to rein in my scepticism ("Of course they'll say that they have to explain it somehow, right?"). Give and take. Sounds like a relationship! ;)
And I've seen my suggestion/comment taken to heart. Which I find pretty amazing!!