In the big picture, a toolbox with all hammers isn’t very effective. You can hit nails, pry, and not much more. A good toolbox has hammers, wrenches, files, and screwdrivers. It has a drill, some pliers, and plenty of other tools.
So why do so many churches try to be a hammer?
Eugene Cho of Quest Church (Seattle, WA) recently blogged about the pursuit so many churches have to be a megachurch. He states:
Megachurches only comprise 1% of the churches in North America. But then why do the majority of the conferences revolve around the megachurches and their pastors?
I think megachurches and their leaders are doing phenomenal ministry. I really do. But we’ve elevated this 1% as the epitome and face of a successful ministry and created a machine of conferences, publishers, books, and networks based on this very limited expression.
Craig Groeschel of LifeChurch.tv (Edmond, OK) puts it this way:
In order to reach people that no one is reaching, you will have to do things that no one is doing. But in order to do things that no one is doing, you can’t do what everyone else is doing.
We each have a unique God-given calling, but many of us want to live the calling of the ministers in the limelight. Likewise, each church has a unique God-given calling, but too many churches distract themselves by pursuing the calling of famous megachurches. Consider how 1 Corinthians 12 reads when substituting church terms:
The Church has many different parts, not just one part. If the house church says, “I am not a part of the Church because I am not a megachurch,” that does not make it any less a part of the Church. And if the rural church says, “I am not part of the Church because I am not a gigachurch,” would that make it any less a part of the Church? If the whole Church were a gigachurch, how would you reach rural areas? Or if the whole Church were a rural church, how would you reach urban areas?
But the Church has many parts, and God has put each part just where he wants it. How strange the Church would be if it had only one part! Yes, there are many parts, but only one Church. The gigachurch can never say to the megachurch, “I don’t need you.” The Internet church can’t say to the church plant, “I don’t need you.”
In fact, some parts of the Church that seem weakest and least important are actually the most necessary.
To clarify, I do think it is good to study successful churches when the principles learned are considered within the context of your church’s unique calling. And I do believe that good ministry typically grows churches. However, some of the greatest ministries have the smallest numbers. Sometimes small is needed to be effective. Sometimes huge is needed.
I recommend that you study them all. Learn from megachurches, house churches, rural churches, and the rest.
Above all else, never lose focus of staying true to your church’s purpose. If God wants you to be a hammer, be a hammer. If God wants you to be a wrench, be a wrench.
[Photo credit: dipster1]
Great post.
I see the same issue in world missions but in two different arenas:
1) that “real” missionaries are only found in the 10/40 window (i.e. missions can’t happen in another part of your native country, or that first-world nations don’t need evangelisation) and
2) evangelicals in other countries are encouraged to mimic the American megachurch, even when it doesn’t work there culturally.
I know a church in my part of Western Europe, started by nationals but you’d be fooled that you were in a church in the States. In fact, nationals in the town that won’t even attend call it “The American Church”. It’s actually a stumbling block for many as they see Evangelicalism as an American exercise, making it easy to dismiss as they’d rather be loyal to their culture.
We’ve all got to stop mimicking and start being open to God’s leading in each situation.
I really like this post but this statement overwhelms me - “I recommend that you study them all.” How does one even begin to do this let alone continue to be a student of one’s own culture and then try to place that into the context of your own community.
@markeades
Rather than studying 10 megachurches, diversify and add some other church models to the mix.
You don’t have to be a perfect researcher, but try to find successful examples of different models so that your knowledge has depth and scope.
[...] [if you choose you can read the original article HERE] [...]
[...] Relevance posted an interesting article last week called “A Toolbox With All Hammers.” “In the big picture, a toolbox with all hammers isn’t very effective. You can hit nails, [...]
[...] churchrelevance.com: A Toolbox with All Hammers. Thanks for sharing [...]
[...] http://churchrelevance.com/a-toolbox-with-all-hammers/ [...]
Wow, very eye-opening, I love Craig Groeschel’s comments, so true. I know I have viewed the different parts of the body in a distorted view, lilke which one is best, or who’s got it right; the mega church, the house church, church planters, ect.. With so much to compare ourselves to, it’s hard to not get sucked in to trying to follow the latest success stories. I agreee that we just need to follow God’s leading and be content in where He has us, since He’s suppose to be leading our churches anyhow.