How people choose a church

[com7fy8]

I have been in various churches. My biggest problem was myself. It was becoming quite clear that I did not know how to love and I needed to find the local church with leaders who were qualified according to 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

Then I prayed for God to make me honest enough so I could find and connect with a real church. And I got with people who seemed to be good examples for me, and held to the Trinity and the Bible and salvation through Jesus.

 

[jas3]

The Pew Research Centre conducted a poll a few years ago asking people why they chose the church they did, after for example moving to a different area. The most common reasons were the quality of the sermon, the welcome they got, how much they liked the style of worship, and the location of the church. Well behind these was the specific teachings of the church.
So what I’d like to hear people’s views about is whether “doctrinal purity” is, or even ought to be, a consideration in people’s choice of a church. If it’s not, doesn’t that make the religious wars of past centuries quite pointless, and no church should claim to be “the one true church” or whatever?

People make all kinds of decisions without taking into account the most important considerations. Of course a church's orthodoxy is a crucial consideration in choosing it.

 

[Alan pavelin]

When I went looking for a church the only consideration I had was finding the Truth. Not my truth or somebody else's truth but the Truth. Even if it conflicted with my feelings or opinions. You might say "doctrinal purity" was the only thing that mattered at all. Some group over here cannot hold to some idea while another group over there holds to an entirely different idea and they both hold the Truth. And I eventually found the Truth in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church doesn't follow some individual who stood up one day and said "the Church is wrong. Come follow me", or, "I found something in the bible I don't think anyone ever saw before. Come follow me". The Orthodox Church was founded by Jesus Christ in the first century and had held and taught the Truth ever since.

 

[Alan pavelin]

In terms of what I call “doctrinal purity” I think the Orthodox Church comes out top. I have an excellent book by the Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart. But against that is the fact that Orthodox churches tend to become very nationalistic. A current extreme example is the way the Russian Orthodox leaders blasphemously describe Putin’s war against Ukraine as a “holy war”. I could not stay in a church like that.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The Pew Research Centre conducted a poll a few years ago asking people why they chose the church they did, after for example moving to a different area. The most common reasons were the quality of the sermon, the welcome they got, how much they liked the style of worship, and the location of the church. Well behind these was the specific teachings of the church.
So what I’d like to hear people’s views about is whether “doctrinal purity” is, or even ought to be, a consideration in people’s choice of a church. If it’s not, doesn’t that make the religious wars of past centuries quite pointless, and no church should claim to be “the one true church” or whatever?

The Pew Research Center is effectively exposing a humanistic, human-centered rationale for finding a Church! People want something "to their liking," where they will feel "comfortable," and so forth! Churches that cater to such nonsense is a dime a dozen and it is no wonder that so many are filled with unregenerate "goats!" I am also shocked at some of the responses here who seem to be going along with such a mindset!

Of course we want to be "comfortable" in a Church but I would not feel at all comfortable where doctrinal purity takes a back seat to pragmatism and a seeker-sensitive, marketing based business approach in order to get "warm bodies" in the pews! I do not care how eloquent or dynamic the preacher is if the message lacks substance or, worse yet, reeks of liberal and/or heretical theology!

A church will be quickly dismissed if I go to their website and I have difficulty finding their statement of faith. It should not be any more than one or two clicks away from the main page under "Who we are" and "What we believe!" If I call them on the phone asking questions about what they believe and they are dodgy with their answers, I will thank them for their time and will quickly scratch them off the list.

Regarding doctrinal purity, the following are absolutely essential:

1. The inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the scriptures
2. The virgin birth and deity of Christ
3. The penal substitutionary atonement
4. Bodily resurrection
5. Literal second coming (pre, post, or a-millennial is a secondary issue).
6. Man's total depravity - Original Sin
7. Authenticity and validity of miracles recorded in the scriptures.

I would also like to see some mention of a historical confession such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, Belgic Confession, London Baptist Confession, New Hampshire Confession, Baptist Faith and Message, Etc.

I want to know that they are serious about their teaching, preaching, and their desire to equip the saints.

I want there to be a well organized and biblical church governance in place. I prefer to see an eldership-led, congregational rule in place where there is accountability and the membership is held accountable regarding their personal walk. I want to see moral character and integrity modeled in the church leadership.

I want them to take their doctrinal position seriously but I would also be wary of any lack of balance or the over emphasis of certain pet issues including certain "standards" (Legalism is eschewed), election vs free will, eschatology, King James Onlyism, "free grace," landmarkism, and so forth. If my personal position differs somewhat, they need to be OK with this and I need to show grace and respect towards them as well.

There is no "One true Church" but Christ established ONE CHURCH nonetheless! We need to be "True to death" regarding the "Faith of our Fathers" and to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)!

 

[PloverWing]

A church will be quickly dismissed if I go to their website and I have difficulty finding their statement of faith. It should not be any more than one or two clicks away from the main page under "Who we are" and "What we believe!" If I call them on the phone asking questions about what they believe and they are dodgy with their answers, I will thank them for their time and will quickly scratch them off the list.

Regarding doctrinal purity, the following are absolutely essential:

I just looked at my church's website to see how hard it was to find the statement of faith. It's one click away from a drop-down menu on the main page, so I think that passes your test.

The statements of faith, however, are the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, which only include three of the seven items on your list (items 2, 4, and 5). So there's a bit of disagreement about which doctrines are essential.

For those looking for churches, I agree that it's important to be clear about which doctrines you consider essential and where you can live with some disagreement.

 

[Yarddog]

The Pew Research Centre conducted a poll a few years ago asking people why they chose the church they did, after for example moving to a different area. The most common reasons were the quality of the sermon, the welcome they got, howI chose the much they liked the style of worship, and the location of the church. Well behind these was the specific teachings of the church.
So what I’d like to hear people’s views about is whether “doctrinal purity” is, or even ought to be, a consideration in people’s choice of a church. If it’s not, doesn’t that make the religious wars of past centuries quite pointless, and no church should claim to be “the one true church” or whatever?

I was baptized in the Catholic Church because God told me to.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

I just looked at my church's website to see how hard it was to find the statement of faith. It's one click away from a drop-down menu on the main page, so I think that passes your test.

The statements of faith, however, are the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, which only include three of the seven items on your list (items 2, 4, and 5). So there's a bit of disagreement about which doctrines are essential.

For those looking for churches, I agree that it's important to be clear about which doctrines you consider essential and where you can live with some disagreement.

Actually, the Apostles and Nicene creeds say more than for what you are giving it credit. It makes reference to the scriptures implying that this is upon which these creeds are based. We may also understand that "Christ died for our sins" based upon the phrase "for our sakes and for our salvation." The affirmation that Christ rose from the dead implies at the very least that this miracle was authentic.

I would not be content with just having the Apostles and Nicene creeds. Anyone can cut, paste, and add these to their websites. Same goes for the historic confessions (Westminster, Belgic, London Baptist, etc.). Some would say "No Creed but Christ" and "the King James Bible is our Statement of Faith" but what does this actually mean? Anyone can say "I believe the Bible" but a written statement of faith tells people you have actually studied the Bible and based upon what you have read and studied, this is what you believe. I would therefore prefer to see a Church taking the time to write up a statement of their own showing that those in leadership have given considerable thought regarding what they actually believe as well as a mission or vision statement which gives direction and purpose.

The big problem though is that most will not be honest with you regarding their theological liberalism so such written statements of faith only go so far. As with the creeds and confessions, you can copy and paste some "boilerplate" SOF that you can find using a Google search. You therefore have to get to know them to see who they really are. A Church website is more like someone's resume which gets you "in the door" but will not guarantee you a job.

According to your profile though, I see you are Episcopalian of which I would have a great bit of disagreement. Liberalism has invaded this denomination at practically every point. There may be a few individual members of the clergy and perhaps a handful of congregations who are faithful to the scriptures and I am probably just being gracious here. Several years ago, I met an Anglican Vicar who seemed doctrinally sound and faithful to the scriptures but he was likely more the exception rather than the rule. One thing though about the Episcopalian denomination is that they are typically open and up front regarding who and what they are about so you do have this in your favor.

 

[JustaPewFiller]

The Pew Research Center is effectively exposing a humanistic, human-centered rationale for finding a Church! People want something "to their liking," where they will feel "comfortable," and so forth! Churches that cater to such nonsense is a dime a dozen and it is no wonder that so many are filled with unregenerate "goats!" I am also shocked at some of the responses here who seem to be going along with such a mindset!

Of course we want to be "comfortable" in a Church but I would not feel at all comfortable where doctrinal purity takes a back seat to pragmatism and a seeker-sensitive, marketing based business approach in order to get "warm bodies" in the pews! I do not care how eloquent or dynamic the preacher is if the message lacks substance or, worse yet, reeks of liberal and/or heretical theology!

A church will be quickly dismissed if I go to their website and I have difficulty finding their statement of faith. It should not be any more than one or two clicks away from the main page under "Who we are" and "What we believe!" If I call them on the phone asking questions about what they believe and they are dodgy with their answers, I will thank them for their time and will quickly scratch them off the list.

Regarding doctrinal purity, the following are absolutely essential:

1. The inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the scriptures
2. The virgin birth and deity of Christ
3. The penal substitutionary atonement
4. Bodily resurrection
5. Literal second coming (pre, post, or a-millennial is a secondary issue).
6. Man's total depravity - Original Sin
7. Authenticity and validity of miracles recorded in the scriptures.

I would also like to see some mention of a historical confession such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, Belgic Confession, London Baptist Confession, New Hampshire Confession, Baptist Faith and Message, Etc.

I want to know that they are serious about their teaching, preaching, and their desire to equip the saints.

I want there to be a well organized and biblical church governance in place. I prefer to see an eldership-led, congregational rule in place where there is accountability and the membership is held accountable regarding their personal walk. I want to see moral character and integrity modeled in the church leadership.

I want them to take their doctrinal position seriously but I would also be wary of any lack of balance or the over emphasis of certain pet issues including certain "standards" (Legalism is eschewed), election vs free will, eschatology, King James Onlyism, "free grace," landmarkism, and so forth. If my personal position differs somewhat, they need to be OK with this and I need to show grace and respect towards them as well.

There is no "One true Church" but Christ established ONE CHURCH nonetheless! We need to be "True to death" regarding the "Faith of our Fathers" and to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)!

That's the funny thing about doctrine.

To those that really know it deeply (such as a long time church member / long time Christian, theological student, etc) it is very important.

To those that don't know much (such as someone that is not a Christian or a new or "nominal" Christian) well, they probably won't know enough doctrine to place much importance on it once you get past the broad common points.

There are more people in the latter category and results are going to reflect it.

Think of this way. A non-Christian probably isn't going care what your doctrine is. But if welcome them, and indicate you care about them to some degree, then they may be receptive to your teaching of doctrine.

If you make them feel an unwashed heathen then you will probably never get the chance to share doctrine with them.

I'm NOT saying doctrine isn't important. But it probably isn't the first thing the masses are looking for, because they don't know enough about it to know it is important.

 

[PloverWing]

Actually, the Apostles and Nicene creeds say more than for what you are giving it credit. It makes reference to the scriptures implying that this is upon which these creeds are based. We may also understand that "Christ died for our sins" based upon the phrase "for our sakes and for our salvation." The affirmation that Christ rose from the dead implies at the very least that this miracle was authentic.

Mmm. The creeds don't take a specific position on the nature of the Scriptures beyond "He has spoken through the prophets". The creeds also don't specify which of the theories of the atonement is the correct one. (Perhaps penal substitution, but perhaps ransom or recapitulation or one of the others. These two creeds don't say.) And they mention some miracles (creation, Incarnation, virgin birth, resurrection) but not others.

More relevant to this thread, however, is this:

According to your profile though, I see you are Episcopalian of which I would have a great bit of disagreement.

Yes. As we move beyond the statements of the early creeds, you and I do have disagreement. I have had good partnerships with nearby Reformed and Baptist churches in various community ministry projects, and I respect them in many ways, but we do have some theological differences. As you note, we try to be open and up front about who we are and what we are about, and much theology is implicit in our Book of Common Prayer.

As a practical matter, when choosing a church, it's good to clarify which beliefs you see as essential, and to take those into account. My list of essentials is different from yours, but I'm glad you have your own list. I also agree that a church should be clear about what they believe and value.

For what it's worth, I see that the Presbyterian (PCA) church in my neighborhood also has a clear statement of their beliefs on their website, with a link to the Westminster Confession. I think they meet your criteria (though I also think they'd be a long Sunday commute for you ).

 

[Armchair Apologist]

That's the funny thing about doctrine.

To those that really know it deeply (such as a long time church member / long time Christian, theological student, etc) it is very important.

To those that don't know much (such as someone that is not a Christian or a new or "nominal" Christian) well, they probably won't know enough doctrine to place much importance on it once you get past the broad common points.

There are more people in the latter category and results are going to reflect it.

Think of this way. A non-Christian probably isn't going care what your doctrine is. But if welcome them, and indicate you care about them to some degree, then they may be receptive to your teaching of doctrine.

If you make them feel an unwashed heathen then you will probably never get the chance to share doctrine with them.

I'm NOT saying doctrine isn't important. But it probably isn't the first thing the masses are looking for, because they don't know enough about it to know it is important.

Yes, you are speaking of the reality of your average church congregation. Most nominal Christians who simply "warm the pews" believe that it is the job of "Professional Christians" to study the scriptures and understand the core doctrines of the faith. Many who claim to be "Christian" hardly (if ever) crack open their Bibles! Aside from the obligatory Sunday Morning Service, they hardly give their "Christian Faith" a second thought! Quite sad don't you think?

It is therefore the responsibility of the Church leadership to foster an environment where spiritual growth and making disciples takes center stage. They may not attract the goats who just want to be entertained but they will draw those who have a genuine hunger and thirst for substantiative biblical teaching and exhortation. Perfect example of this is John MacArthur and his Grace Community Church in the Los Angeles area. They have an average weekly attendance of over 8,000 - so much for Churches not growing that stick to the Bible!

I just saw this on YouTube earlier today and Alan Parr speaks directly to this matter:

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Mmm. The creeds don't take a specific position on the nature of the Scriptures beyond "He has spoken through the prophets". The creeds also don't specify which of the theories of the atonement is the correct one. (Perhaps penal substitution, but perhaps ransom or recapitulation or one of the others. These two creeds don't say.) And they mention some miracles (creation, Incarnation, virgin birth, resurrection) but not others.

The creeds certainly aren't conclusive but they are of historical significance and contributed to the "catholicity" (Unified, universally held beliefs) of the early Church. The historic confessions go into further detail but not everyone has the time or patience to read the Westminster Confession of Faith or London Baptist Confession so a concise statement of faith gives clarity with something that is easily read in a minute or two.

Yes. As we move beyond the statements of the early creeds, you and I do have disagreement. I have had good partnerships with nearby Reformed and Baptist churches in various community ministry projects, and I respect them in many ways, but we do have some theological differences. As you note, we try to be open and up front about who we are and what we are about, and much theology is implicit in our Book of Common Prayer.

As a practical matter, when choosing a church, it's good to clarify which beliefs you see as essential, and to take those into account. My list of essentials is different from yours, but I'm glad you have your own list. I also agree that a church should be clear about what they believe and value.

For what it's worth, I see that the Presbyterian (PCA) church in my neighborhood also has a clear statement of their beliefs on their website, with a link to the Westminster Confession. I think they meet your criteria (though I also think they'd be a long Sunday commute for you ).

There is much I would agree with and PCA Presbyterians are quite sound and orthodox in their faith. I am a Baptist though so I would take exception to their pedobaptism and covenant theology but such would not be deal killers if my choices were either this PCA church or a Baptist church that is liberal in their theology. I am a huge advocate regarding involvement in a LOCAL Church though!

One thought regarding your Church website. It may be good idea to include an "About" section where interested folks (prospective converts) could read about some of the distinctives of the Episcopalian tradition (History, Book of Prayer, 3-Legged Stool, etc.). Tell them a Baptist suggested it. I bet they would love it!

 

[CoreyD]

The Pew Research Centre conducted a poll a few years ago asking people why they chose the church they did, after for example moving to a different area. The most common reasons were the quality of the sermon, the welcome they got, how much they liked the style of worship, and the location of the church. Well behind these was the specific teachings of the church.
So what I’d like to hear people’s views about is whether “doctrinal purity” is, or even ought to be, a consideration in people’s choice of a church. If it’s not, doesn’t that make the religious wars of past centuries quite pointless, and no church should claim to be “the one true church” or whatever?

I was having a discussion with someone, only yesterday, on this subject.
They believe that religion does not matter, and any one is not better than the other.

I pointed out that religion is the biggest problem in the world, and the most dangerous element in society.
The reason being the powerful influence it has on people, and how far people would go, to act on such influence.

If worship is pure - that is, based on the pure unadulterated truths found in God's word the Bible, that will have a positive impact on society, because love of God, and one's neighbor results in less dishonesty, less theft, less unfaithfulness, less immorality, less crime, less anger and abusive speech, less death by conflict, less death by drug abuse, and first or second hand cigarette smoke, less death suicide, less broken homes, and so on.

On the other hand, since religion waters down, or adulterates God's word.... oftentimes giving people only what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3), all the above are a reality, and rampant... despite those people professing to be godly.
We can say, billions of people are made drunk with the adulterated "word of God", and they are stumbling about, in darkness, an daylight overshadowed by thick gloom.
The Bible puts it this way...
Revelation 17:2

those dwelling on the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her sexual immorality.

That, in reference to the great harlot - which the world's governments and merchants, will bemoan, when her judgment comes. Revelation 18:10-19

This harlot represents the international kingdom of religion, which is "in bed" with world governments, and which makes the merchants wealthy with her lavish Shrines and Cathedrals. Revelation 18:11-19
That glory will come to a sudden end, when silence will only be heard in her, and no more light will appear to shine in her. Revelation 18:22-24

That's ultimately why religion matters - God's judgment upon her will be swift and complete (Revelation 17:16, 17; Revelation 18:8, 10), and all those who are in her, will share in her demise. Revelation 18:4, 5
It matters now, however, because those who heed the warning to get out of those religions will benefit from real light. 2 Corinthians 16:14-16

So, yes, pure unadulterated truth is of high priority, on the things that matter to God. John 4:23, 24

 

[Beth77]

Then one of the elders got really angry with me about my beliefs about hell (I believe in CI).

What is "CI", please?

 

[Beth77]

In addition to the Bible, I have been learning theology here, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, etc.

As for attending a church (not yet doing) I like praise and worship services. I like preachers who can speak to various issues facing Christians and solutions to those issues with a scriptural foundation.

However, I dislike churches that act like commercial enterprises.

 

[Tom8907]

Absolutely it is a core consideration- I want to go to a Bible based church where the Bible is taught as the word of God and the Gospel is preached.

 

[stevevw]

I have been debating the church teachings and order regarding another matter but over the last month or so I have learnt a lot of the church and this has refined my beliefs about what makes a good and proper church. I was having some indecision about which church to worship with as I wanted to be as true and sure as possible.

I find there is a fair amount of information of the early church fathers like Clement and Ignatius which I think is the foundation of Christs church because they were disciples of the disciples and still fresh from Christs crucifixtion and resurrection.

One think that stood out was that they actually lived the words in the new testament. Many were executed for Christ. So the times caused them to be tested and many proved true. So I am hanging off every word they teach.

The overriding theme was being Christlike. The more meek and quiet and servant like a bishop was the more they were praised. The same simple message over and over again of Christs sacrifice and how they are to sacrifice their own life in living that example.

Ignatius was actually writing his letters to the churches on the way to his execution at Rome just like Paul when he was under house arrest waiting his execution. Clement was a disciple of Peter the Rock and was also executed.

Their writings supliment Pauls and the disciples and build a good understanding of what a church should look like. I have always believed that if a church is living like this, standing with Christ in todays climate they should be hated. But at the same time the example of Christ shinning out from a church is a powerful force in the world and will also be a light for the lost.

Christ, Peter and especially Paul were always warning about the wolves and false teachers. They knew that it would not be long before the world started to put pressure on the church and teachings to conform with the pagan and secular ideologies.

Another thing I noticed was that the church was particular about seperating themselves from the wider society. They were a close community that supported each other in everyway. Looking after their own.

It seems today many churches want to be relevant to the wider society. Its more about social justice on earth rather than in heaven. Sin and repentence is exachanged for inclusion and a love that covers all sins.

But I believe that God doesn't allow the church to be unnoticed and good people will rise up and become like the early church. Will sacrifice their lives for Christ. Will be strong and bold on the truth that it will be hard to deny by their example.

As to the church I think is closest to this I would like to say the Catholic church but they need to get back to some basics. But whatever church it is I believe it needs to be close to Orthodox and tradition because if Christ church does not change then todays churches are no where near like the early church.

In some ways I see modern times as becoming not too different to the time of the early church where Christians are going to be tested on their faith more and more. So it may be that the natural evolution of the seperation of church and State will cause for the true church to rise up again.

 

[Skipper80]

The Pew Research Centre conducted a poll a few years ago asking people why they chose the church they did, after for example moving to a different area. The most common reasons were the quality of the sermon, the welcome they got, how much they liked the style of worship, and the location of the church. Well behind these was the specific teachings of the church.
So what I’d like to hear people’s views about is whether “doctrinal purity” is, or even ought to be, a consideration in people’s choice of a church. If it’s not, doesn’t that make the religious wars of past centuries quite pointless, and no church should claim to be “the one true church” or whatever?

Doctrinal purity is not something everyone considers when choosing churches. some people choose to go to church for emotional celebration and nothing more.

I think it should be a consideration for people when choosing a church because they should care if a pastor is possibly lying to their faces or if the liturgy is not based in Scripture.

 

[pastorwaris]

The Pew Research Centre conducted a poll a few years ago asking people why they chose the church they did, after for example moving to a different area. The most common reasons were the quality of the sermon, the welcome they got, how much they liked the style of worship, and the location of the church. Well behind these was the specific teachings of the church.
So what I’d like to hear people’s views about is whether “doctrinal purity” is, or even ought to be, a consideration in people’s choice of a church. If it’s not, doesn’t that make the religious wars of past centuries quite pointless, and no church should claim to be “the one true church” or whatever?

Thank you for bringing up this important point. The Pew Research data does give us a sobering glimpse into how modern Christians often prioritize comfort, experience, and convenience when choosing a church. While things like a warm welcome, inspiring worship, and a relatable sermon certainly matter, I believe doctrinal purity should not be left as an afterthought it should be foundational.


In Acts 2:42, we see that the early Church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Teaching came first, not as an accessory but as a pillar of faithful worship. If the gospel message is distorted even slightly it can affect salvation itself. Paul warns in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

The sad irony is that many believers today would rather attend a church that "feels right" than one that teaches what's biblically true. But emotion and truth are not always the same. A loving welcome and beautiful worship cannot replace the truth of God's Word rightly taught.


Regarding your point about religious wars and denominational claims yes, history has its excesses. But the pursuit of truth was not always wrong in itself. If there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5), then it follows there is a faith worth preserving. That doesn’t mean we divide over every secondary issue but it does mean that what a church teaches about salvation, Christ, Scripture, and the gospel does matter.


In short, while community and worship style are blessings, the doctrinal faithfulness of a church should be a Christian’s first concern because eternal truth is more important than temporary preference.

What are your thoughts on how we balance grace and truth in our church search?