Introduction

Imagine walking into the office of a local church and being greeted by a team of Christians who have one obvious and overwhelming goal, to win their nation to Christ.  The strategy for achieving their goal is plainly stated and centrally posted for all to see.  So many Christians have been steeped in the traditional American way of doing church that this may sound like fantasy.  However, this is the reality which Larry Stockstill found when visiting Faith Community Baptist Church, a cell group church in Singapore.¹

The purpose of this article is to examine the cell church model and evaluate it as a missions strategy.  I will probe the underlying philosophical constructs and proponents of cell group churches.  In this pursuit I will seek to uncover the biblical principles upon which cell group proponents base their strategy. I will also examine the production of some contemporary examples as well as seek to determine strengths and weaknesses of the cell concept as a missions strategy. In the course of this discussion I will point out areas where this form seems best suited as well as any hidden or inherent dangers discovered in utilizing this strategy in part or in whole.

It is clear that small groups have been profitably used by the church for some time.  “The Pietists thrived on cottage prayer meetings.”² A similar pattern emerges in the Anabaptist
movement,³ and John Wesley, possibly because of his Moravian background,⁴ used small groups in his class meeting model.  It has been concluded that the cell church model is not a new invention but simply the modern adaptation of Wesley’s method,⁵ but cell group advocates would contend that theirs is a return to the methods of the first century church.⁶

In this article I will also deal with the belief within the cell church movement that “the traditional church worldwide is slowly being replaced by an act of God” which will be “as powerful as the upheaval in 1517 during the time of Martin Luther.”⁷ Even those who disagree with the method, or the fact of an ongoing reorientation, agree that the notion of cell-driven churches will totally reorient our understanding of ministry.  To scrutinize these phenomena further one must first understand the problem cell advocates have with the traditional church and an explanation of cell church philosophy.

The Shortcomings Of The Traditional Church (as seen by advocates of the cell church)

In his seminal work, Where Do We Go From Here?, Ralph Neighbour forcefully contends that “the church structure we have duplicated over and over in this country is shockingly inefficient!”⁸ The traditional churches’ “Program Based Design is neither biblical nor efficient.”⁹ He cites three reasons that the “Program Based Design”¹⁰ model of traditional churches is inferior.  One, it is woefully inadequate in evangelizing the unchurched. Two, the traditional church is hindered from doing ministry by the weight of the programs it attempts to sustain.  Three, traditional churches are perceived to be preoccupied with buildings and money by the unchurched.

The Program Based Design church is particularly inept at reaching “‘Type B’ unbelievers”¹¹ Because the church is constantly insulated from the unchurched, few traditional church members have any unchurched friends.  There is a major disconnect between the church which the world sees and the church’s view of itself.  According to Neighbour’s research, conducted in bars in Dallas, Texas, the “unbeliever viewed the church as a set of programs which required buildings, meetings and money.”¹² This perception of the church by the unchurched is self explanatory when viewed along with the negligible time spent in personal evangelism in traditional churches and its overall relative impotence in evangelism.  Thus, the traditional church is deemed inadequate in both effectiveness and efficiency.

Because the traditional church focuses its energy on training people to carry out programs, and not to do ministry, there is an increasing strain placed on fewer and fewer people to do more and more, resulting in high burnout rates.  According to Neighbour, the traditional church involves no more than fifteen percent of its total membership as working volunteers and has a typical inactive membership of between forty and fifty percent.¹³ Because of this inherent design flaw both the leadership and membership in the traditional church busy themselves with the doing of church tasks in order to sustain programs to attract people.  All the energy of the church is given to programs, forgetting that the prime directive is the reaching of lost people.

Lastly, while accumulating huge debts in attempting to build more grandiose facilities to attract individuals from the shrinking pool of the already churched, the traditional church emphasizes money more than ministry.  Because of this, the unchurched individual’s perception that “all you want is money” is fed.  These factors cause large ratios of baptisms to dollars spent.  Another statistical advantage apparent in the cell church is the average number of members required to produce one convert. “The best traditional church ratio was twenty to one,”¹⁴ which seems particularly out of line when compared to the cell church which maintains a baptism ratio of one convert for every 4.5 members year after year.

In reaction to these shortcomings of the traditional church, cell church proponents have looked for answers from the church of Acts.  Dale Galloway, who has grown a cell group ministry in the Portland area, has organized his concept of church around the text of Acts 20:20.¹⁵

how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, Acts 20:20 (ESV)

According to cell church advocates their study of the first century church has led them to the Biblical method for doing church originally intended by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, those in the cell church believe they have rediscovered God’s will, and are returning modern Christianity to its intended form.

Explanation Of Cell Church Philosophy

Before the cell concept can be evaluated as a missions strategy, terms must be defined, some history must be understood, and some basic underlying strategies of those who are utilizing this method must be ascertained.

A cell church is defined as“a non-traditional form of church life in which small groups of Christians (cells) meet in a special way in their homes to build each other up in Christ and to evangelize the unsaved. It is a church which defines its cells as the basic building blocks of church life.”¹⁶

Great importance is placed both in the analogy of human cells and on the method in which some human cells divide.  “The term ‘cell’ is frequently used because of the analogy to a living organism composed of many cells that give life to the body.”¹⁷ Certain cells within the human body grow and then split in half, with each half becoming a new and vital cell.¹⁸ The analogy is carried further in the means of sustaining leadership for each cell as it divides from growth.  Just as the human cell contains all the genetic material necessary to sustain both new cells after division, the leadership of each new cell in the cell church is taken from within the previous cell, and leaders are constantly produced as growth occurs.
Worship in the cell church consists of a  “celebration” service. This gathering of all the members of cell groups within a region for an area-wide time of worship, praise and Bible teaching; is the largest assembly in a cell group church.¹⁹ Unlike the traditional church, however, the cell church requires that a critical mass of 120 participants be reached before corporate worship through celebration services is recommended.

As mentioned previously efforts to develop leaders must be a high priority in the cell church.  The network through which these leaders are developed and relationships maintained within a cell church is the application of what is understood as the “rule of twelve.”  Simply put, the principle is this: Jesus had twelve disciples whom he trained to lead the church, thus the church should follow His example and develop relationships through groups of twelves.  These twelves become the cell leaders’ disciples, or assistants; and as cells multiply, these relationships will enable continuity to remain within the groups.  Every week those being mentored meet with their own mentor and with the twelve for whom they are acting as mentor.  This process allows these relationships to grow and be maintained.²⁰

Another competing form of cell organization is the “Jethro Structure.”²¹ Based on the instructions in Exodus given to Moses by his father-in-law Jethro.

¹⁷ Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. ¹⁸ You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. ¹⁹ Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, ²⁰ and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. ²¹ Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. ²² And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. ²³ If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.” Exodus 18:17–23 (ESV)

This model places cell leaders in responsible and accountable positions over ten people, zone supervisors over fifty people, zone pastors over one hundred, and district pastors over one thousand people.  This concept is seen as beneficial by those who are attempting to transition traditional churches to cell churches.  This is because the biblical text provides a philosophy of organization along with instructions for designing a framework which can be easily implemented into most existing organizational structures, regardless of their size.

A Brief History of the Cell Movement

The priority of cell churches has most prominently been advanced by David (Paul) Yonggi Cho and Ralph Neighbour, Jr..  Cho discovered the cell concept as he went through a period of severe trials.²² He grew his church in the traditional way at first to around 2,400 members, yet he admits now it was centered on “the Great Cho.”²³ He did everything: he was the pastor, administrator, Sunday School director, and oftentimes the janitor.  Because he wanted to do everything his own way, he did the preaching, counseling, visiting, and outreach.  He was always on the move,²⁴ and finally it caught up with him, as he collapsed in exhaustion.  Out of necessity, he discovered the concept of home cells for ministering to the church.  After the concept was originally rejected by his deacons and a period of embattlement and innovation,²⁵ God raised up the largest church in world history on the Korean peninsula, the Yoido Full Gospel Church.

Half a world away, and roughly five years later, Ralph Neighbour went through his own trials.  Depressed by the lack of evangelistic success he observed in the churches of the Texas Baptist Convention, where he headed the state department of evangelism, Neighbour began to search for new methods of evangelism. Growing churches, he observed, were usually located in the newer housing areas where church members simply “visited the visitors.”  The unchurched in Texas were unreached, and there was no sign that this was ever going to change in the traditional church.  He spent many sleepless nights in his Dallas home, and soon began to write a strategy for an experimental church, a church which would find, or create, solutions to these problems.  The document soon grew to 68 pages.  He writes,

“One day, Ruth and the boys sat me down and said ‘Look! You’ve got to do more than walk the floor.  If we need to, we’ll all go to work to support the family needs.  Let’s go and do it!’ That was all I needed.  We began to pray about the location for the test, and God opened a door for us.  In 1969, a non- traditional church in Houston was formed with 38 courageous pioneers.”²⁶

Neighbour believes that the Lord led him into the cell church.  Furthermore, others will wander away from the traditional church, and he is certain that their numbers will continue to increase over time. He writes:

“My purpose for sharing . . . is for you to understand why people migrate from the traditional church to the cell group church.  It’s not the movement of sick neurotics; it is the migration of thirsty hearts.  And it’s not to imply that everyone is called to be a part of the migration.  Most of those who have life investments in the traditional church probably will not do so.  It’s certainly not necessary to join a cell group church to be in the Lord’s will. Christ is among all His churches, not just some of them.  He stood among the Laodiceans and Thyatirans, and He is among all the problemed churches today as well.  But He has moved on to develop a younger Bride that is far more beautiful.  There’s a definite movement to report . . . a movement which will be significant through the end of this century.”²⁷

Each of these pioneers have in common a passion for God and a pragmatism about evangelism.  Each discovered the validity of cell groups, seeking to minister to the needs of their people while encouraging them to do evangelism.  The traditional church simply did not meet the members’ needs in becoming disciples nor in equipping them to reach the lost.  These men have concluded that, unlike the traditional church with its “Program Based Design,” the cell concept allows all the energy to go into the people making it a “People Based Design”²⁸ model.

Theology and Biblical Basis for Cell Group Churches

Pragmatism and practical concerns are not the only reasons that Neighbour, Stockstill and others advocate the superiority of cell group churches.  There are also biblical and theological convictions which they hold deeply.  Neighbour writes that “the Holy Spirit is the author of this (cell church) pattern.”²⁹ In the New Testament “the word for ‘build’ used in Matt. 16:18 is oikodomeo.”³⁰ According to Neighbour this word refers most often to construction using material called “living stones,” and describes the main work of the “living stones” themselves.

Neighbour believes that Jesus intended to be the builder of the church, but it is clear to cell church proponents that the “living stones” are empowered by Christ to share in the building up, or edifying, of all nearby “stones.”  In this manner people within the church are united by love, and the “stones” empowered by Christ will continually build each other up.  Proponents concur that this phraseology carried over into the church of Acts as well.  In Acts the church meets from house to house or oikos to oikos. Instead of interpreting this as the church’s humble beginnings, cell church advocates believe that this house to house method is the biblical technique for doing church in the New Testament.

While their interpretation of the biblical word oikos is correct,³¹ the infusion of so much theological meaning without a clear biblical instruction to do so is not the best example of biblical hermeneutics and could even be considered an example of isegesis.  While it is clear from the biblical text that the early church met from house to house, that this was done as a methodological principal is questionable.  One could argue as convincingly that this method was for conveyance, or security.

In his book The Second Reformation, William Beckham points out that Luther intended to reform worship along a threefold pattern.  First, was to use the Latin mass, and the second was to add German Liturgy. The third was a kind of worship which appears to be consistent with cell strategies. In Luther’s preface to The German Mass and Order of Service, he wrote:

“The third kind of service should be a truly evangelical order and should not be held in a public place for all sorts of people.  But those who want to be Christians in earnest and who profess the gospel with hand and mouth should sign their names and meet alone in a house somewhere to pray, to read, to baptize, to receive the sacrament, and to do other Christian works.”³²

Luther continues to discuss what D.M. Lloyd-Jones pointed out Luther observed in the Anabaptists “a quality of life in their churches which was absent in the churches to which he belonged.”³³ Beckham’s point is that the cell church is completing the reformation originally intended by Luther.

Beckham also believes that the cell church is a two-winged church which reflects the nature of God in his transcendence and immanence. Transcendence describes God’s nature as above and beyond man, while immanence shows that God’s nature is close and near.  Both of these attributes of God are expressed in Scripture and are reflected in the structure of the cell church.³⁴ Churches have distorted these two truths by losing balance in either direction throughout the church’s history.  The need to validate both knowledge and experience cannot be done within the old traditional forms. “The solution is for the church to be the body of Christ through which [H]e lives and reveals [H]imself in transcendent greatness and immanent comfort.”³⁵ Achieving this balance is believed by cell church advocates as more possible in cell churches than in traditional churches.

Cell Church Organization and Structure

Cells are limited to no more than fifteen individuals in size.  This enables the groups to shepherd individual needs with caring and compassion which becomes impossible in larger groups. Neighbour suggests that two types of cell groups be organized within a church: shepherd groups and share groups.  On one hand, shepherd groups form the “Basic Christian Community”³⁶ because in them edification of the members occurs as the “one anothers” of scripture are carried out, and missionary activity is maintained as the needs of unreached people are kept in the forefront of the groups consciousness.  On the other hand, share groups are formed with three or four mature shepherd group members for the purpose of “connecting believers to hardened unbelievers,”³⁷ the “type B” variety, so that they can attract them with the power of Christ.

As cells multiply new leaders, apprentices are constantly trained in leading and ministering to the small group.  They learn how to teach, counsel, witness, and share with those who are hurting.  Administration is kept to a minimum so that the needs of people continues to be the focus.

The Fervor of the Cell Church

Cell church literature clearly portrays a people with a zeal and fervor for winning the lost to Christ, especially through the cell strategy.  There is also a belief that the cell method is God’s chosen method and that he is generating a second reformation within the church.  This reformation will return the church to its intended form, reap the harvest to come and prepare the church for the coming persecution.  The traditional church is in need of discovering a new incarnational paradigm in which God’s presence, power and purpose are lived out with his people before the world. This manner of life is going to be accomplished at the cell level of the church, and those churches and denominations which do not make the shift will be left behind the cell church in growth.³⁹ The most concise and effective description of the cell church’s view for the absolute necessity of reform is presented in Beckham’s analogy of the two-winged church.  “The creator once created a church with two wings: one wing was for large group celebration, the other wing was for small group community.”³⁹ The church has cast off one wing and still expects to fly.  It is from this perspective — that the current church is only half of what it should be — that the cell church proponents draw the sense of urgency which permeates their writings.

The destination envisioned by these and others within the cell church universe is of a day soon in North America when metropolitan-area churches of 25,000 – 50,000 members will be common, dwarfing today’s so-called mega-churches.⁴⁰

The Meta-Church Philosophy

Within the realm of renewing the church through small group ministry, and sounding less threatening than Neighbour, is Carl F. George.  In his book The Coming Church Revolution he offers the traditional church an alternative to the radical solution called for by cell church purists.  He calls it the meta-church.  Meta is a Greek prefix that means “change.”  Using the analogy of a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, George describes a period of transition in which the church must enter a “cocoon” before it can be transformed into a church equipped for the future.⁴¹ The meta-church is not so much a structure to impose on an existing church as it is a diagnostic tool which allows the church an option “when cell size ministry is not present”⁴² and member needs are not being met.  George writes that small groups are not what the church needs most, but rather the church most needs empowered, spirit-gifted leadership.  Small groups are the best means to develop this leadership.  He suggests that churches take what he calls the “Jethro principle” from Exodus and apply it to the congregation.  While making this application to the existing church structure, the awareness is raised of the need for members’ spiritual growth and development; existing structures are able to be transformed over a period of time and with limited controversy.  This approach has been used with success on the mission field when dealing with established churches of the Program Based Design.⁴³ The meta-church model is more enticing to pastors of traditional churches because it is perceived as less intimidating and is more accepted than the more extreme cell church.⁴⁴

Neighbour agrees that George’s meta philosophy is appealing; however, he insists that, while it may make the medicine needed by the church taste better, George’s additives which sweeten the taste may hinder the curative power of the medicine. Therefore, churches which opt for the lightened dose may find that, after having taken the medication, its headaches persist.⁴⁵ Neighbour’s objection is that every cell church could be classified as a meta-church, but every meta-church cannot be classified a cell church.  Hence, Neighbour is afraid that George’s lesser form may pollute what he believes to be the form which the Holy Spirit has chosen to prepare for a future, worldwide harvest.  George and Neighbour agree on a destination, but they disagree on the method of arrival.  George is more accepting of steps in the right direction while Neighbour holds out for steps along the prescribed path back to the biblical model of Acts which he believes is God’s will for every church.

The preferred trend for the future of church planting as envisioned by these and other contemporary authors would be to plant cell group churches from the start and to shepherd established churches in beginning and implementing the meta-church model, at the very least, as an interim step to fully transitioning to the cell church.

Contemporary Examples

Although many examples of contemporary cell churches exist which could be studied to determine their effectiveness as mission strategy.  Four cell churches and one meta-church will be discussed here: cell churches in Mongolia, Singapore, Orlando and the Ivory Coast of Africa, and a meta-church in Milwaukee.

Perhaps the greatest value in evaluating the cell group church in as near an unbiased fashion as possible can be found in Mongolia.  The Christian church did not exist there until 1990;⁴⁶ therefore, it has no traditional expectations of what church should be to encumber it.  A church was established in Erdenet by a church in Ulaanbaatar through the work of Swedish missionaries.  For six months they made weekly visits to establish a small group of about twelve teenage girls who meet regularly.  From this initial group the principals of Neighbour as outlined in his book Where Do We Go From Here? have been applied; and, as of 1996, a church of five hundred had grown.  According to David Rhodes who has written of his time in this Mongolian church, “discipleship has taken root,” and “evangelism happens in a natural and on-going way.”⁴⁷ As groups grew to fifteen members, they were split.  Each cell leader had a deputy so that, when the cell was split, new leadership was ready to assume the new leader positions.  Most cells grew to fifteen in less than a year.  “After three years a ‘passing of the baton’ service was held, and a full-time compliment of five staff (occupying various positions) under a pastor has been appointed from within the body of the Church.”⁴⁸ The leadership of this church is completely in the hands of the Mongolians.  Pastoral care is handled by the cell leaders, and the church planters meet with the cell leaders and teach them on a regular basis.  The experience of this church in Erdenet led Rhodes to conclude that future church plants within his Anglican denomination should “consider a cell approach very seriously.”⁴⁹

One of the more successful contemporary cell group churches is First Community Baptist Church in Singapore.  This church was founded in 1986 by Lawrence Khong.  Within four years it had grown to 4,500 members. First Community baptizes over 800 people each year ⁵⁰ and holds services in both English and Cantonese.  The church’s resourcefulness and commitment to evangelism was made clear in one of their most effective evangelistic meetings.  In one of the largest halls in the country, a banquet was held for the Buddhist parents of cell members.  After a traditional, ten-course Chinese dinner, a movie was shown, followed by a testimonial of a popular movie star from Hong Kong.  The pastor followed this by explaining the plan of salvation, and many came forward to receive Christ.⁵¹ This commitment to evangelism still persists in this growing church as evidenced by a document posted on the internet by Melvyn Mak, the deputy senior pastor of First Community.  He writes that two factors make up the cell agenda: edification and evangelism.  Edification, is a factor because, when the cells meet, they touch lives; and evangelization, because the cells must reach out and multiply. “If these two things are not present in a cell, then as far as we are concerned the cell agenda is not fulfilled.  We would close it or mix the members around.”⁵² The traditional office of deacon has been retained in this cell church’s structure and placed in its organizational chart at the level of zone supervisor,⁵³ (See Appendix A) just above the level of cell group leader.  This church has been used as a model for other cell churches through the past writings of Ralph Neighbour.

A cell church which did not have such a fantastic beginning was attempted by Donald Clark in the Buenaventura Lakes/Meadow Woods section of Orlando, Florida.  Clark was seeking to ascertain the effectiveness of the cell model in planting new churches for the United Methodist Church.⁵⁴ After two years the church had not grown to the “critical mass” of 120 people needed, as determined by cell church methods, to have a celebration service.⁵⁵

In contrast, the Ivory Coast of Africa is an area where traditional ministry has failed to sustain church growth, and a cell group strategy would seem feasible.

“According to statistics of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Ivory Coast mission only retained 2.69 percent of those who were baptized.  The remaining 97.31 percent either left the church or became a member of other denominations. This represents the lowest retention rate of any mission in West Africa.”⁵⁶

According to Ralph Andrews, who studied this problem in depth there are two main reasons for these alarming statistics. First, there was an absence of any small group ministry in the mission; and secondly, there had been no systematic follow-up of those who had been baptized.⁵⁷ Today, in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, there is a cell church which has over 30,000 members and is planting churches among Francophone Africans as far away as Houston, Texas, and Paris, France.⁵⁸ This remarkable turn around is attributed to the application of cell principles by church leaders and the resulting increase in evangelization and ministry by a newly mobilized laity.

A final example is Elmbrook Church, a meta-church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  This church was traditionally organized when, in the early seventies, it began to experience fast growth, attributed mostly to the Jesus Movement.  In reaction to the growth and the problem of absorbing the new members, the church examined the situation and decided to implement a cell type ministry.  Their cell ministry fits into the category of a meta-church and would not satisfy cell church purists because the small group meetings are not the “primary activity”⁵⁹ of the church.  The church established Neighborhood Home Groups for the purposes of developing a sense of community assigning local responsibility and adequate oversight.  The Elmbrook church requires the leaders of each of these groups to meet the biblical qualifications of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1:6-8.  These groups were designed to replace traditional, mid-week services and typically meet on Wednesday evenings.  The church has grown and sustains more than one thousand members.⁶⁰

Implications As A Missions Strategy

Do the approaches of cell group or meta-churches produce a sound missions strategy? The answer to this question will be sought through Aubrey Malphurs’ test for a good missions strategy.  Malphurs asserts that a strategy is good if it has a biblical mission, moves people from spiritual pre-birth to maturity, and clearly explains how the ministry will accomplish its mission.⁶¹ According to Malphurs test, cell churches are a sound missions strategy.  Cell churches begin with the biblical mission of carrying out the Great Commission among all the people in the world.  Secondly, cell churches are organized around the principles of bringing individuals through each stage of the Christian walk, beginning with establishing relationships prior to conversion and continuing to maintain mentoring relationships.  Finally, cell churches clearly explain their ministry objectives to each cell member through training and application by expecting personal as well as cell growth.

Furthermore, the cell strategy ought to be examined in light of the two mandates that Peter Wagner suggests are held in tension in any mission strategy.  These are the cultural and evangelistic mandates.  The cultural mandate, or social responsibility, suggests that doing good works for individuals or society is a biblical mandate for missions.  The evangelistic mandate places emphasis on reconciling those lost in sin to a holy God.⁶² The debate as to which must be underscored has gone on for many years.  In a properly functioning cell group, however, a balanced approach has been reached which can stress both together.  By meeting people at their point of need, the cultural aspects of missions are met and a relationship is begun that, over the course of time, can bring the desired evangelistic effect.  Beckham’s two-winged church approach, which emphasizes both the transcendence and immanence of God, encourages cell members to emphasize knowledge of God and experiences with God.  These considerations seem to meet Biblical standards in both word and deed.

Another set of principles held in tension which must be considered in the formation of a sound missions strategy is Spirit versus structure.⁶³ Some ministry opportunities simply cannot wait.  It is in these time-sensitive areas that a cell church, which has properly empowered its people to minister and make ministry decisions, is better prepared for the mission setting than a traditional “wait until the board meets” or “wait until the missionary comes” structure.

The great variable between the traditional church model and the cell church is the investment of time and trust in the people.  The cell church trusts the people to respond appropriately and timely to ministry needs while the traditional church is less trusting of its membership’s response.  When a need is met within the group and people see God provide for someone in a real and personal way, the motivational impact to all involved is hard to over estimate. In this way cell ministry can give a sense of renewal and community to everyone involved, providing an impetus to move closer to Christ and to one another. Thus, the cell group church can, when properly functioning, disciple members through their response to ministry needs and responsibilities in the group.

Mission Strategy Strengths

A positive aspect of the cell church as a missions strategy is that “Americans have not been leaders in the development of cell churches.”⁶⁴ This may make it an even more meaningful missions strategy in many countries which have an anti-American bias.  It cannot be said of cell group churches that American missionaries are attempting to impose another Western or American agenda on others.

The cell method is a good choice as a missions strategy in areas that are less open to the gospel.  Take the Erdenet example: because buildings and land were never a part of the original philosophy, the church could grow relatively unnoticed by those who might not approve of a Christian church.  By the time a building is needed, a church exists of three hundred with five local full-time staff, who should be better equipped and encounter less local government opposition than would a foreign missionary with Western monies to invest.  Yet another aspect of this strength is its financial feasibility.  Since there is no initial investment in property or buildings, start-up money can go toward a staff which invests its time in leading cells and training cell leaders.  This is a great advantage, particularly in major urban areas where the cost of property is prohibitive.

Another advantage is that the cell method is easily indigenous.  By its design foreign missionaries are not the center of church life.  Again in Erdenet, from early on the missionaries taught the week’s lesson to a young Mongolian, Bayraa,⁶⁵ who then taught the cell group which gave this church indigenous leadership from its outset.  After the first several cells are functioning, local cell leaders take control.  This church within a relatively short time span, has members of the indigenous population in control.

Cell churches are also desirable in areas where persecution is a definite possibility.  The cell structure in the house churches of China have shown that this method is more resistant to persecution.  It has been estimated that when the Communists took over China, there were less than one million Christians, but that today, in spite of intense persecution, there are between twenty-five⁶⁶ and sixty million⁶⁷ Christians in China due to the large success of Chinese house churches.  Stockstill gives this resistance to persecution of cell group churches as his main motivation from the Lord to convert Bethany, the church he serves as pastor, from the traditional design.  He writes that he felt impressed in his mind that “a hostility will come against the body of Christ in America causing believers to make adjustments in the traditional ways they have met together”⁶⁸ and that “with the cells in place, . . . even if the ‘trunk’ of the tree were to be cut down, the ‘roots’ of . . . cell groups would continue to flourish easily underground.”⁶⁹ Cell life is not centered around one building; and, therefore, it is not as easily visible in the community to government officials.

Another strength of cell groups as a missions strategy is their nearly instant contextualization.  Once again its structure lends itself well to the local context because cell leaders are locals.  Thus the potential cultural quagmires many foreign missionaries get caught in are lessened.

A last advantage is one that applies to the individual who enters a cell group meeting for the first time.  Because the strategy is based on relational evangelism, the first time visitor finds the cell small and non-threatening, unlike attending a large traditional church for the first time.

Missions Strategy Weaknesses

With all of their positive attributes, there are still several problems that prevent accepting the cell group model as a universal missions strategy. Among these are risks of syncretism,⁷⁰ the cell church’s form of government, claims of exclusivity as a biblical strategy, the uncertainty of the reproducibility of its first generation leadership and the potential for minor cults ⁷¹ to form in some cells.

One major problem facing any utilization of the cell group model is the danger of syncretism.  Trusting the people to minister under the power of the Holy Spirit is a characteristic discussed earlier of cell churches.  Giving total control to a group of fledgling Christians, however, does raise the possibility of syncretism and the lack of doctrinal responsibility in the minds of denominational missions agencies. Those who train the cell leaders must be certain that they place mature Christians in positions of leadership.  Cultural biases beyond the appropriate contextualization can creep into cell life unless they are vigilantly guarded against. In some cultures there are obstacles in inviting persons into your home which need to bear further consideration.  For example, a member of a higher social class would be very resistant to accepting an invitation to the home of someone of a lower class, or vice versa.  Missionaries working in countries which are experiencing social or political change also need to be aware of the possible mixed motives some people may bring to their new-found faith.  It is possible that some who have been disaffected are coming in hope of attaining leadership and prestige for themselves and their family in the new societal order.  Unfortunately, “Christianity is seen as Western (or affluent)”⁷² in many areas of the third world, and missionaries and church planters need to be certain that Christ and not an allure to Western culture is maintained as the central appeal.  As previously discussed Clark’s unsuccessful cell church plant in Florida faced the problem of an inadequate core of mature believers who shared his vision.⁷³ It is this early phase of developing the nucleus of leadership which will lead the second generation of cells which seems most critical.  Here cell church planters must exercise determination and discretion in allowing cell leadership to move beyond the first generation.  When the competing concerns of being successful or being biblical are considered by a possibly immature cell leader, there is opportunity for compromise which could lead to a syncretised gospel.  The successful example in Erdenet was due to the time spent by the Swedish missionaries, along with a group from a church in Ulaanbaatar, over a six-month period developing that first group of twelve teenage girls.⁷⁴ From these examples the absolutely critical nature of an initial commitment to train first-generation cells until leaders reach maturity becomes evident.

Another weakness of the cell concept is in its governance.  The level of authority and possible weak links of accountability that could be exercised from cell leaders up to church staff or senior pastors or vice versa is apparent.  By the nature of a top-down management structure, cell churches have a form of church government that is at odds with denominations which are traditionally congregational in polity.  While the cell church places great emphasis on training and maturing lay cell leaders, the organizational structure appears autocratic.  The topics for consideration flow from the Senior Pastor through the district pastors down to the cell leaders.  For instance, when David Yonggi Cho encountered his initial wave of seven obstacles, he took direct and appropriate actions without any apparent checks on his power.  The cell groups autocracy will be well received among some world cultures, such as the African culture of the Ivory Coast which possesses a “chief mentality.”⁷⁵ However, the issue of church polity must be considered by Southern Baptists who, for the most part, practice congregational polity.  This will raise questions for mission agencies such as the International Mission Board.

Other areas of concern are the claims of exclusivity of the cell church.  Some cell church advocates have adopted a militant tone when referring to the traditional church.  Within their literature the cell model is presented as the only biblically correct model for doing church.  Near the end of his book, Neighbour concludes, “A church structure based on programs is unbiblical, inefficient and impotent in today’s society.”⁷⁶ While he goes on to give a “10” to the saints who make up these churches, his displeasure toward program- based churches is clear, as evidenced by his giving up all attempts of transitioning Program Based Churches.  In explaining his reluctance to conduct such seminars in traditional churches, he writes, ‘their hopeless state depresses me every time I return to one of them.”⁷⁷

There is little doubt concerning the abilities of Cho, or Neighbour, in leading Christian people by casting vision for the cell model, but, in its multiple incarnations it is unclear whether the leaders in each church would be as gifted or responsible.  Cho readily admits that obstacles arose during the transitioning of his church from a traditional to a cell group model (See note 10).  Furthermore, because mission strategies must be reproducible, and most successful cell churches are still in their first generation of leadership, the issue of reproducible leadership into the second generation is one which has not yet been fully explored.  Because the cell model seems to need strong leadership from one who can motivate followers while casting vision to become obedient to Christ’s commands to minister and evangelize, this issue will need future clarification.

A potential problem remains in this movements tendency to de-emphasize preaching and corporate worship.  The cells meet weekly, but the celebration services are not necessarily weekly events.  In beginning cell churches celebration services are delayed until there is a “critical mass of 120 to 200 persons . . . present in stable home groups.”⁷⁸

Another weakness, as Cho admits, is that “minor cults” have been formed by some groups.  Cho suggests that many home groups have been created outside of churches or established denominations.  In some instances members of these groups begin to submit to the cell group leader instead of the pastor of their church.  Gradually, some of these groups have developed into “minor cults.”  Some leaders have exercised control of their members even telling them whom they should marry and when as well as if and when members are permitted to have contact with their unbelieving relatives.  Cho concedes that he does not have the answer to preventing this from occurring.  In fact, he says, “The Bible doesn’t have the answer either.”⁷⁹ He concludes that each case depends on the person and the circumstances, and that this is why it is critical for cell leaders to be accountable to other leadership such as a denomination or a fellowship of pastors outside their own local church.

In conclusion, it is clear that cell groups are a method which can be extremely successful as a missions strategy, particularly in urban settings.  It is also clear, however, that the cell church is not a panacea which will right every wrong in the church and usher in a millennium of peace on earth.  The cell group is one way that a small group ministry can multiply.⁸⁰ The cell concept is an important one for pastors to consider as they strategize ways to bring meaningful small group ministry to their church and for church planters to consider as they plant new churches.  As a global mission strategy it should be one of many options, chosen when circumstances of potential persecution, cultural norms, or urbanization make it advisable for the situation.  As a potential second reformation the cell church can be helpful in reminding churches of the two-wings of the church and can help us in acquiring methods for accomplishing our mission both to one another and to the unreached.  God the Holy Spirit, however, will continue to use whatever methods He chooses to grow the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

End Notes

1. Larry Stockstill, The Cell Church (Ventura CA: Regal Books, 1998), 19.

2. John Mark Terry, Church Evangelism (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997), 89.

3. Jim Egli “A Bird’s-Eye View of the Global Cell Church Movement” Cell Church Magazine 2 no. 3: 5

4. Brian C. Jenkins,. Nuclear Age Church: A Study of Recent Trends in Australia and New Zealand In the light of World Models and Scriptural Beginnings. (G.M. Elliott Library, Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary) Text-fiche. 13.

5. Louis M. Strickler, “From Class Meetings to Cell Groups: The Strength of Early Methodism for the Twenty-First Century Church” (D.Min. Diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 1997) 134.

6. Dale E. Galloway 20/20 Vision: How to Create a Successful Church. (Portland OR: Scott Publishing, 1986) 125.

7. Carl F. George,  “What is a Meta-Church? (And how does it differ from a pure Cell Church?)” Cell Church Magazine. (1993) [magazine archives on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http:// www.touchusa.org/cellchurch/archives/volume2/issue2.htm; Internet.

8. Ibid., 17.

9. Ibid.,39.

10. Ibid., 39.

11. Ralph W. Neighbour, Jr. The Shepherd’s Guidebook. Rev. ed. (Houston: Touch Publications, 1990) 256.  “Type B” unbelievers have no interest in the Scriptures, and question their inspiration.  They are not open to Bible study, attending church services, and may even be hostile to the Christian Message.  This in contrast to “Type A” unbelievers who accept the validity of the Scriptures, have a Christian frame of reference, and are open to Bible study and the Christian message.

12. Ralph W. Neighbour, Jr. Where Do We Go From Here. (Houston: Touch Publications, 1990) 80.

13. Ibid., 49.

14. Ibid.,85.

15. Galloway, 20/20 Vision, 125. “Here is God’s own master plan for church growth in your church: ‘You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house’ (Acts 20:20, NIV).”

16. Cell Church Website, [on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http://www.cell-church.org/; Internet.

17. Larry W. Wakefield,  “The Cell Church: A Paradigm for Evangelization in Mexico” (Ph.D. Diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998) 21.

18. Karen Hurston, “The Importance of Small Group Multiplication” Global Church Growth 32 no.4 :13.

19. Neighbour. The Shepherd’s Guidebook. 251.

20. Stockstill,. The Cell Church. 95-104.

21. William A. Beckham The Second Reformation: Reshaping the Church of the 21st Century(Houston: Touch Publications,1995)188.

22. Paul Yonggi Cho Successful Home Cell Groups. (Plainfield NJ: Logos International, 1981)3-19.

23. Ibid.,11.

24. Ibid.,3-4.

25. Ibid.,31-47. After this decision was made Pastor Cho had seven key obstacles which he had to overcome. First, was that he had given the women no training to teach, so they had to feel their way along.  Secondly, there was a lack of discipline at the early cell meetings with members attempting to out do one another with the refreshments which they offered. Thirdly, outside speakers would be invited to the cells and receive offerings without the pastors knowledge or approval.  Fourth, at some cell meetings members began to borrow money from one another and to promote investment opportunities.  Fifth, as cell meeting attendance grew space became a problem. Sixth, leaders were tempted to borrow from the offering before it was turned in to the church. Seventh, was an attempted split involving three district leaders responsible for two thousand members each.

26. Ralph W. Neighbour, Jr. Where Do We Go From Here? A Guidebook for the Cell Group Church. (Houston: Touch Publications, 1990.

27. Ibid.,88-89.

28. Ibid.,45-47.

29. Ibid., 20.

30. Ibid,. 40.

31. Walter Bauer, A Greek lexicon of the New Testament, ed. And trans. William F. Arndt, F Wilber Gingrich, and Frederick Danker [BAGD], 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979),s.v. “?????.”

32. William A. Beckham The Second Reformation: Reshaping the Church of the 21st Century(Houston: Touch Publications,1995)116.

33. Ibid.,116.

34. Ibid.,83-86.

35. Ibid.,131.

36. Neighbour,. Where Do We Go From Here?. 194.

37. Ibid,. 194.

38. Beckham, Second Reformation, 24.

39. Ibid.,25.

40. George, “What is a Meta-Church?”

41. Carl F. George with Warren Bird, The Coming Revolution Empowering Leaders for the Future. (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1994) 26.

42. Wakefield, “The Cell Church,” 23.

43. Ibid.,25.

44. Ibid., 23.

45. Ralph W. Neighbour, Jr.,  “How New is Your Wineskin?(Understanding the Difference Between The Meta-Church and Cell Church Designs)” Cell Church Magazine. (1993) [magazine archives on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http:// www.touchusa.org/cellchurch/archives/volume2/issue2.htm; Internet.

46. David Rhodes,. Cell Church or Traditional?: Reflections on Church Growth in Mongolia. (Cambridge: Grove Books Limited, 1996) 3.

47. Ibid., 7.

48. Ibid., 8.

49. Ibid., 22.

50. Egli, “A Bird’s Eye View”5.

51. Neighbour, Where do We Go?. 27.

52. Melvyn Mak, “The Cell Group Agenda Defined”(1999) [Memo on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http://www.fcbccells.org/~cellc/current/ThuJan21140801CST1999.html; Internet.

53. Bill Beckham, “Making the Shift to Cell Church Ministry” Cell Church Magazine 2 no. 3: 5-7.

54. Donald J. Clark,  “New Beginnings: A Strategic Cell Group Model for New Church Development in Multi Cultural Urban Communities” (D. Min. Diss., United Theological Seminary, 1998)106.

55. Ibid.,111.

56. Ralph J. Andrews, Using Cell Groups to Effectuate and Sustain Church Growth in the Ivory Coast. (G.M. Elliott Library, Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Bible College & Seminar). Text-fiche. 2.

57. Ibid., 2.

58. Egli, “A Bird’s Eye View”5.

59. Joey Beckham, “I’m Still Confused: What is the Difference between the Meta-Church Model and the Cell Church Model?” Cell Church Magazine 2 no. 4:18.

60. C. Kirk Hadaway, Stuart A. Wright, Francis M. Dubose Home Cell Groups and House
Churches. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987) 113-128.

61. Aubrey Malphurs,. Strategy 2000: Churches Making Disciples for the Next Millennium. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996) 55.

62. Peter C. Wagner,. Strategies for Church Growth: Tools for Effective Mission and Evangelism.(Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1989) 99-100.

63. Frank R. Tillapaugh,.Unleashing the Church. (Ventura CA: Regal Books, 1982) 79.

64. Wakefield, “The Cell Church,” 13.

65. Rhodes. “Cell Church or Traditional?” 9.

66. Jenkins, “Nuclear Age Church,” 131.

67. Egli, “Bird’s-Eye View,”5.

68. Stockstill, The Cell Church, 15.

69. Ibid, 15.

70. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (Avenel NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1994), s.v. “syncretism” the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

71. Cho,.Successful Home Cell Groups, 90.

72. Ibid.,13.

73. Clark, “New Beginnings,” 107.

74. Rhodes,. Cell Church or Traditional?. 5.

75. Andrews, “Using Cell Groups,” 90.

76. Neighbour, Where Do We Go From Here? 404.

77. Ibid,.88.

78. Clark, Donald J., “New Beginnings,”111.

79. Cho,.Successful Home Cell Groups. 91.

80. Karen Hurston, “The Importance of Small Group Multiplication,” Global Church Growth 32 no.4 :13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Beckham, William A. The Second Reformation: Reshaping the Church of the 21st Century.
Houston: Touch Publications,1995.

Cho, Paul Y. Successful Home Cell Groups. Plainfield NJ: Logos International, 1981.

Galloway, Dale E. 20/20 Vision: How to Create a Successful Church. Portland OR: Scott
Publishing, 1986.

George, Carl F. The Coming Revolution.  Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1994.

Hadaway, C. Kirk, Wright, Stuart A., DuBose, Francis M., Home Cell Groups and House
Churches. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Strategy 2000: Churches Making Disciples for the Next Millennium.  Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996.

Neighbour, Ralph W., Jr. The Shepherd’s Guidebook. Rev. ed. Houston: Touch Publications, 1990.

. Where Do We Go From Here? A Guidebook for the Cell Group Church. Houston:
Touch Publications, 1990.

Rhodes, David. Cell Church or Traditional?: Reflections on Church Growth in Mongolia.
Cambridge: Grove Books Limited, 1996.

Stockstill, Larry. The Cell Church. Ventura CA: Regal Books, 1998.

Terry, John Mark. Church Evangelism. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997.

Tillapaugh, Frank R. Unleashing the Church. Ventura CA: Regal Books, 1982.

Wagner C. Peter. Strategies for Church Growth: Tools for Effective Mission and Evangelism. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1989.

Dissertations

Clark, Donald J. “New Beginnings: A Strategic Cell Group Model for New Church Development in Multi cultural Urban Communities” D. Min. Diss., United Theological Seminary, 1998.

Oh, Sukhwan. “A Strategy for planting Cell Based Churches For The Emerging Asian
Americans: A Case Study Based on Oikos Community Church” D.Min. Diss., Fuller
Theological Seminary, 1998.

Strickler, Louis M. “From Class Meetings to Cell Groups: The Strength of Early Methodism for the Twenty-First Century Church” D.Min. Diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 1997.

Wakefield, Larry W. “The Cell Church: A Paradigm for Evangelization in Mexico” Ph.. D. Diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998.

Microform Editions

Andrews, Ralph J. Using Cell Groups to Effectuate and Sustain Church Growth in the Ivory
Coast. G.M. Elliott Library, Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary.
Text-fiche.

Jenkins, Brian C. Nuclear Age Church: A Study of Recent Trends in Australia and New Zealand In the Light of World Models and Scriptural Beginnings. G.M. Elliott Library, Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary. Text-fiche.

Articles

Beckham, Bill. “Making the Shift to Cell Church Ministry” Cell Church Magazine 1 no. 2: 5-7

Beckham, Joey.  “I’m Still Confused: What is the Difference between the Meta-Church Model and the Cell Church Model?”Cell Church Magazine 2 no.4:18.

Egli, Jim. “A bird’s-Eye View of the Global Cell Church Movement” Cell Church Magazine 2
no. 3: 5

George, Carl F.  “What is a Meta-Church? (And how does it differ from a pure Cell Church?)” Cell Church Magazine. (1993) [magazine archives on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http://www.touchusa.org/cellchurch/archives/volume2/issue2.htm;
Internet.

Hurston, Karen. “The Importance of Small Group Multiplication” Global Church Growth 32 no. 4: 13.

Mak, Melvyn. “The Cell Group Agenda Defined”(1999) [Memo on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http://www.fcbccells.org/~cellc/current/
ThuJan21140801CST1999.html; Internet.

Neighbour, Ralph W. Jr.,  “How New is Your Wineskin?(Understanding the Difference Between The Meta-Church and Cell Church Designs)” Cell Church Magazine. (1993) [magazine archives on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http://www.touchusa.org/cellchurch/ archives/volume2/issue2.htm; Internet.

Website, Cell-Church. [on line] Accessed 26 October 1999. Available from http://
www.cell-church.org/; Internet.

APPENDIX “A”

APPENDIX “B”

Selected Cell Church Web Addresses

www.cellgroup.com
www.cellchurch.co.uk
www.ccn.org.hk
www.cell-church.org
www.bccn.org
www.smallgroups.com
www.crossearch.com/Church_and_Denominational_Resources/Cell_Churches
www.rnc.org.au/Missions/Article2.html
www.rnc.org.au/Missions/Brochure.html
www.rnc.org.au/Missions/OVERVW.html
www.nadei.org/cell-church/intensives.html
www.bccn.com/index.html