So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. - Acts 8:30–31 (ESV)

“Aren’t we just supposed to talk about the sermon?” This idea is a hidden (or not so hidden) premise in many leaders’ minds, an assumption that they bring with them into small group. Many a leader has made a semi-bashful admission that they had a pretty good discussion, but that they didn’t discuss the sermon. The implication is that, despite the high quality of the discussion, something was wrong because the sermon was not the centerpiece of the conversation. This article is about challenging the assumption that discussing the sermon is an essential aspect of small group. 

Engaging Students Where They Are

My main point is this: we are not simply trying to discuss the sermon in small group. In other words, whether a group did or did not discuss the sermon is no necessary indicator of the value or quality of the small group discussion. The point of small group is the students, not the sermon. That is why I chose the scene from Acts as the epigraph for this article. In the scene, Philip is concerned about whether the Ethiopian eunuch understands the text. Philip's main concern is the person reading, not the thing being read. Obviously, the text of Scripture is paramount, but Philip is not concerned about the Scripture. The focus is the eunuch, because the eunuch is the one who needs to understand Scripture. In love, therefore, Philip was rightly concerned about the man who was reading the Scripture.

Of course, it is on purpose that the sermon happens before small group, and that is because it is hoped that the sermon will facilitate small group discussion. The sermon is an appropriate event to occur prior to small group, but there may not be a connection between the sermon and the subject of discussion in small group. Ideally, the sermon inspires questions, doubts, confusion, and/or other reactions which small groups are designed to engage. However, the sermon is not the main purpose of small groups. The students are the main purpose of small groups. If the sermon provides helpful fodder for conversation and discussion, that is fine. But it is equally fine if the sermon does not. 

There is little benefit in forcing a conversation about matters which do not interest the students. Small group leaders do well not to force conversations about topics which do not interest the students. Instead, it is far more beneficial for the students to begin the discussion with something that interests them. From that point, the leader can leverage the point of interest to connect to related issues or underlying principles. The students are  more likely to be interested in discussing topics that have connections to things in which they are interested. If they cannot see the connection, they are unlikely to be interested. While we may assume it is obvious that our questions or topics are about their lives and how they live them, it may be much less obvious to them. And we should take that into account. Once again, small group leaders should come toward the students first, demonstrating a desire to engage with them as they are where they are, and not expecting the students to initiate and actively participate in activities whose value and interest they are unable or (at least, at first) unwilling to see.

Provoking Interest

Now I want to add to the above observation, namely, that leaders should start discussions with things that interest students and build from there, by making another practical point: leaders can try to start a discussion on a useful foot by seeking to excite student interest in something that leaders know ought to interest them. In other words, the previous observation may cause leaders to think (wrongly) that the only way to start conversations is around things that students are already interested in. But what I am saying now is that leaders can start conversations around things that students don't realize are so interesting. 

How can leaders excite interest where there isn’t any? This is a delicate art, because leaders cannot assume just anything will interest students, and neither can they assume nothing will interest students. To excite interest, leaders have to hit upon the fringe of what students understand, and then ask or suggest a thought that prompts the students to think about some things they have never before considered, but which is within their reach. To land on that fringe, leaders need to begin with a fairly accurate sense of what the students know already. Sometimes, perhaps even oftentimes, leaders need to challenge what the students think they know, but which they have never thought about in much depth, if any. Regardless of whether leaders are really building on what students already know or questioning whether they really do know something, leaders are constantly trying to understand where the students are and what they really know, always with a view to challenging and exhorting the students to live for God.

It has been said time and time again that people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. This saying does not carry the weight and authority of Scripture, yet it makes a lot of sense of the biblical command to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we are the best teachers in the world, but don’t love the students, aren’t we just noisy gongs and clanging cymbals? I dare say we are. It is, I think, partly for this reason that students are often not interested in discussing the sermon. At least, they are put off or repelled by the appearance that the leader is more interested in the sermon than the students. What?! What is the point of small group if it is not the people who make it up? The students do not serve the sermon. The sermon serves the students. The students must be made to be the point of the small group. The leaders must always and everywhere demonstrate that the focus and goal of the time in discussion is not to check off higher priorities beyond the students, but to make the students themselves the priorities. The great goal of the leaders is that the students might learn to live for God through Christ. The leaders are focused on that, which means they must be focused on the students, so they might understand where the students are in relation to that one great goal.

Conclusion

In conclusion, small groups are not slavishly dedicated to discussing the sermon each week. In our context, small groups happen after the sermon in part so that the sermon can serve as a sort of setup for what will be discussed in small group afterward. However, the sermon itself is not the point. The students are the point. If the conversation turns to a different doctrinal point, or a practical point of living, or a recent tragedy or ongoing trial, there is nothing wrong with that. Small group leaders in our context do not need to feel compelled to discuss the sermon; they should feel compelled to try to understand the students and where they are in relation to living for God. The sermon will most often be a good place to start because it is the easiest place to start, since everyone will have just listened to it together. If the discussion wanders from the sermon, that is not bad; something beautiful and good may have happened.