joshheilman.com

I have to admit, I’ve often been critical of ‘big church‘. You know, the mega-churches, those gathering places with thousands and thousands of people, pastored by well-known ministers, often well-known for things other than being Christlike.

I’ve been critical because I don’t like big churches. I get lost. I think that a church’s responsibility is to create new communities - new church plants - when they are large enough. I hear of building “expansion” to have larger Sunday services and think, “If we’re/you’re big enough to spend all that money expanding, we’re/you’re big enough to plant.“

I’ve probably unfairly evaluated a lot of big church. It’s easy to rail from the outside. It’s easy to point fingers. It’s easy to look at my church and think worse thoughts of others. And it’s plain arrogant.

So, I’m beginning to be more gracious in my thoughts and words about big church. I find it easy to extend grace to individuals; why not to organizations? So, I’ve decided that - big or small - churches should be evaluated on this basis: what they offer to the community.

Now, I don’t mean what services, assistance, or events do they offer, nor do I mean community simply as those in close proximity to the church building.

What I mean is, “Does the church serve its own ends for its own people or does it seek the welfare of the community?” Does it seek to transform society by empowering its members - the body of Christ - to influence their own little worlds? And I don’t mean teaching adherents how to guide someone in “the sinner’s prayer”, as good as that might be. I mean, do we encourage Christ’s Body to act compassionately, the see with Jesus’ eyes the world around them, to give of one’s self and family to those in need, to aid in community development, to give a “cup of cool water” to someone thirsty?

I’m convicted by this blog by Rick Whitter. I count myself of the Pentecostal cloth, but what does that mean? Does it mean exuberant worship services? Speaking in tongues? Giving a “word of wisdom”? Barking like dogs? I think Rick has it right: the real evidence of the Spirit’s infilling was “these people gave.“

I couldn’t say it better than this:

“The DNA of the Spirit at work in the people of Acts is identified in their helping, their giving, their sharing, their feeding of the hungry, their clothing of the poor, their getting involved in correcting social injustices. As one with a Pentecostal heritage, I think I can offer a healthy criticism of our current operation. We have made Pentecostalism a style of worship. The Bible never does that. Pentecostalism is first and foremost a set of convictions that demands compassion by those who wear the label. A truly Spirit-filled person will get involved in efforts to address the needs of the less fortunate. A Spirit filled church really can’t be one unless they speak out and act on behalf of those who need help. Agreed, being Spirit filled it is about the manifestation of the gifts, no problem with that. It is about the unprecedented unity that they enjoyed, no doubt. But it is also about making a difference in the lives of hurting people. Not just praying for a miracle for those who are hungry, but creating a miracle by feeding the hungry. That is the work of the Spirit. That is what will make a difference in our world.“

That’s enough for us to spend the rest of our lives perfecting.

That’s evidence of the Spirit.