Training cell group leaders

How do you see the importance of structured training for the formation of an excellent cell group leader?

Well, when you talk about a cell-based church, or a church with small multiplier groups, you have two environments for the formation of leaders: the cell group and the church.

The cell group is the primary environment. The cell group leader must aim not only to multiply his small group, but to multiply himself in another person, that is, to generate a new leader. And I affirm this based on the biblical principle that says, for example, that each seed generates according to its species (Genesis 1:11).

So the small group leader, in the small group, in an informal and relational way must evangelize, consolidate, disciple, train and thus generate new leaders.

The second environment is the leadership school, which despite being secondary, is also important, because formal, institutional training takes place there and we can say that this training exists to guarantee the standard of training, to establish a plumb, a reference. And also, in some way, to maintain the quality of the preparation of the new leader of a small multiplier group.

The leadership school is there to set a standard. And the cell group leader, in this informal and relational context, will minister to their leader in training their experience.

But no cell group leader's experience will be complete. Every leader has their strengths and weaknesses. Then, the CCM, as a leader training school, comes in presenting everything in a formal, institutional way, reaffirming the leader's strengths, but also correcting their weaknesses.

Look at my case with my son Samuel. Letícia, my wife, and I don't have certain skills. I don't have some skills to work in his life. For example: with painting, which is the moment when he meets and later I will not be able to work with him, I don't know, Geography. Then, since his education goes beyond behavior and conduct, he needs other elements. I count on nursery schools, elementary schools, etc.

Regarding the churches that are making this transition to cell-group model, what do you see as essential in this environment?

I would say that in these cases the main figure is the presiding pastor. The church's senior pastor.

This pastor must first prepare himself as best as possible. Reading, researching, attending seminars, conferences, visiting cell-based churches. Invest in it so that your mentality is transformed and, in quotes, you are an expert in cell-based churches even without having practical experience.

From this point on, the senior pastor is the one who will, after a few other steps, open the first classes of the leadership school. It is he who must train the first leaders, supervise them in the practice of the cell group, and when there are already established small groups, multiplied leaders and even new supervisors, then yes, he can start counting on these supervisors and leaders to be teachers.

I think the fundamental point is for the pastor to be well prepared to train and oversee the first leaders both in school and in practice.

In which you would say, “Make mistakes on anything, but not on that here. Otherwise will it cause you a lot of problems in the transition to cell-group model?”

Two points: The first mistake is for the senior pastor to delegate to someone else the role of being the teacher of the first leader-training classes and of supervising the first cell groups. The pastor who does this is opening the door to division or the failure of the model in his church, he has to be in the lead.

The pastor who does this is opening the door to church division or the failure to implant cell-group model. The senior pastor must be in the lead.

The second mistake is haste. The rush to make things happen, whether during the administration of the courses, the opening of the first cell groups, the multiplication of the first groups or even the transition to the cell-group model.

Right now, the search for explosive growth is not cool.

Talking about Central's transition to cell-group model. How was the process?

Before the cell groups, Central had a Sunday Bible school that had, if I'm mistaken, 6 courses and about 90 students.

With the arrival of the cell groups, it all started with Pastor Paulo Mazoni opening classes of leaders' schools, and in the beginning, the Bible school and the leaders' school coexisted together. Maybe this happened in the first 3 years.

But over time, the school of leaders engulfed the biblical school and it was soon concluded that there was negative competition between the two.

Then Pastor Paulo Mazoni brought together a group of church leaders, of which I was a member, so that we could think of a new school. In other words, we would tear down the Bible school and build up a single new school. Then, after some meetings and conversations, we proposed and implemented the CCM in 2004, if I'm not mistaken.

We started with 4 levels:

1. First Steps: for baptismal candidates;
2. Basic: seeking spiritual maturity;
3. Training: focused on training cell group leaders;
4. Advanced courses: For those who had already completed these other 3 levels.

What was the greatest resistance encountered by the church to the process?

Resistance to cell-group model always comes from those who are already part of the church. Those who were in the church for a short time, they didn't object. But the old-school people, so to speak, who had Sunday Bible school in that model as a non-negotiable value didn't like it and some even left the church.

In this scenario, isn't it interesting to keep the leadership training school and the Sunday Bible school together?

While you are in transition yes. But I don't think it's permanently.

Let's say the following, let's suppose we have a 20-car train, it's running on a red track, but right in front of it there's a blue rail. Then, for a while you will have a part of the wagons on the blue tracks and another part on the red tracks.

But there will come a time when all the wagons will have overcome the red tracks there and will all be on the blue ones, so I mean, there comes a time when the transition ends.

The word transition is fundamental. During the 3 years of transition, the two schools were coexisting, but there came a time when we all concluded that it didn't work anymore, we needed just one school. One that would meet all the pertinent objectives of a church.

Then all the representatives were called, both those from the leadership school and those from the Bible school. Everyone got together and the proposal was approved and implemented.

And so, I have no doubt that the CCM far surpassed EBD and that it was even more successful in the task of training and teaching, biblically speaking, than the Sunday Bible school, which had a maximum of 100 students while today the CCM has already had more than 2,000.

How is the process of training new teachers?

Look, we have some requirements for a person to be a CCM teacher. First, he must be a cell group leader and, together with that, obviously, that he has taken the CCM courses.

Since the CCM is a leader training school, it doesn't make sense for us for the teacher not to be a leader, so the person being a cell group leader can apply.

From that I have a questionnaire, with more or less 13 questions, that I send to the interested person. The objective is to know your profile and experience. I want to know, in general terms, what is her commitment and history with Central, what is her baggage as a cell group leader and what is her experience with teaching, specifically biblical teaching, and also what is her availability.

If I found someone to stop and talk, I explain the entire CCM and present the courses. But not from the student's point of view, but from the teacher's point of view, I show the logic, the philosophy of each of the courses, and I also present the teaching methodology of the CCM, which is andragogy, teaching for adults.

Then I put that person through training with another teacher. She will accompany you during the course classes in the classroom, listening, paying attention to the teacher. The tenured teacher must give that person undergoing training the opportunity to teach a class.

In this class it will be evaluated by the teacher based on an evaluation form. I receive the form and if he is well evaluated he can take on a next class.

All teachers are evaluated by students on a 10-question questionnaire that evaluates everything from knowledge and content, to posture and communication. These reviews are tabulated and generate a report.

If the teacher is well evaluated I congratulate him and move on. If not I call him to talk, I address the points where he was not well evaluated, and I give a little practical training there. Finally he returns to the classroom.

So there's no formal training. However, I meet with the teachers 3 times a year: at the beginning of the year, at the beginning of the second semester and at the end of the year in meetings where we have words of inspiration, where we also have words of training techniques, of andragogy, something like that, in addition to more organizational issues.