How people choose a church

[Godcrazy]

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?

well like John Ramirez says a pastor with ministry and former devil worshipper, it does not matter even if you are in what you think good church if you do not live holy and have a relationship with God, he could take out those very easily. And he mentioned that is all that matters. (that does include live after the bible) as I understand it Jesus spoke about wheat and the tar. How they grow up together. And are harvested. This is a thing now.

 

[Tigran1245]

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 most important thing is apostolic succession. Second in importance is the succession of doctrine from the Apostles. Everything else is less important.

 

[David Lamb]

The most important thing is apostolic succession. Second in importance is the succession of doctrine from the Apostles. Everything else is less important.

I disagree that the most important thing is apostolic succession, as (with the exception of Mathias being chosen to replace Judas Iscariot) it is not even mentioned in the New Testament. Certainly the doctrine the apostles taught is important.

 

[Tigran1245]

I disagree that the most important thing is apostolic succession, as (with the exception of Mathias being chosen to replace Judas Iscariot) it is not even mentioned in the New Testament. Certainly the doctrine the apostles taught is important.

Without apostolic succession there are no Sacraments. And without the Sacraments there is no salvation.

Here are the biblical verses for the doctrine of apostolic succession:

1. Christ as the Source of Apostolic Authority

John 20:21 – “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
Matthew 28:19–20 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

These passages show that Christ entrusted the apostles with His own mission and authority. The Church’s ministry begins with this divine commission.

2. Replacement of Judas (Continuity of the Apostolic Office)

Acts 1:20–26 – The apostles choose Matthias to replace Judas “to take part in this ministry and apostleship.”

This episode demonstrates that the apostolic office was not intended to die with the apostles themselves. The Church deliberately maintained the continuity of apostolic authority.

3. Transmission of Ministry through the Laying on of Hands

Acts 6:6 – The apostles laid hands on the first deacons.
Acts 13:2–3 – The Church in Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Saul for their mission.
2 Timothy 1:6 – “Stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
1 Timothy 4:14 – “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you… with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”

These passages establish the biblical pattern of transmitting spiritual authority and ministry through the laying on of hands — the essential act of ordination in apostolic succession.

4. Appointment of Bishops and Presbyters

Acts 14:23 – “And when they had appointed elders in every church… they commended them to the Lord.”
Titus 1:5 – “I left you in Crete that you might appoint elders in every town.”

Paul commissions his disciples to ordain new leaders, indicating a structure of authority that extends beyond the apostolic generation.

5. The Necessity of Legitimate Ordination

Hebrews 5:4 – “No one takes this honor upon himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.”

This principle underlines that sacred ministry must be received through lawful appointment, not by self-assertion — reinforcing the idea of succession through proper ordination.

 

[David Lamb]

Without apostolic succession there are no Sacraments.

Why ever not? The Lord's Supper and baptism do not depend upon apostolic succession, but they are taught in apostolic doctrine.

And without the Sacraments there is no salvation.

Here are the biblical verses for the doctrine of apostolic succession:

1. Christ as the Source of Apostolic Authority

John 20:21 – “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”
Matthew 28:19–20 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

"Disciples" means followers, in other words, Christians. By no means was every disciple of Christ an apostle. 11 of the initial 12 were. An example of "disciples" being used for Christians was when Paul was in Troas:

“Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” (Ac 20:7 NKJV)

So when Christ said to the first disciples, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," He was telling them to evangelise people, not appoint additional apostles.

These passages show that Christ entrusted the apostles with His own mission and authority. The Church’s ministry begins with this divine commission.

2. Replacement of Judas (Continuity of the Apostolic Office)

Acts 1:20–26 – The apostles choose Matthias to replace Judas “to take part in this ministry and apostleship.”

This episode demonstrates that the apostolic office was not intended to die with the apostles themselves. The Church deliberately maintained the continuity of apostolic authority.

No it doesn't demonstrate that. It shows that God wanted the remining 11 to be 12 again.

3. Transmission of Ministry through the Laying on of Hands

Acts 6:6 – The apostles laid hands on the first deacons.

Deacons are not apostles.

Acts 13:2–3 – The Church in Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Saul for their mission.

Saul/Paul was called "as one born out of due time" to be an apostle. The laying on of hands did not make him an apostle, it was part of setting him and Barnabas apart as missionaries.

2 Timothy 1:6 – “Stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
1 Timothy 4:14 – “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you… with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”

These passages establish the biblical pattern of transmitting spiritual authority and ministry through the laying on of hands — the essential act of ordination in apostolic succession.

Nothing in those verses specifies apostles.

4. Appointment of Bishops and Presbyters

Acts 14:23 – “And when they had appointed elders in every church… they commended them to the Lord.”
Titus 1:5 – “I left you in Crete that you might appoint elders in every town.”

Paul commissions his disciples to ordain new leaders, indicating a structure of authority that extends beyond the apostolic generation.

Bishops/overseers and Presbyters are not apostles.

5. The Necessity of Legitimate Ordination

Hebrews 5:4 – “No one takes this honor upon himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.”

True, no Christian minister becomes such by making a "career choice." But what has that to do with apostolic succession?

This principle underlines that sacred ministry must be received through lawful appointment, not by self-assertion — reinforcing the idea of succession through proper ordination.

I agree that all Christian ministers are appointed by God, but it is nothing to do with apostolic succession.

 

[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?

That’s an excellent and thought-provoking question. I’ve often seen how people decide where to worship. The reasons vary some choose a church because of the sermons, others because of the music, the friendliness of the congregation, or simply the location. Yet, the Bible reminds us that while feelings matter, faith must rest on truth.

When people move to a new area, they naturally look for a church that feels like home. They want to be welcomed, inspired, and uplifted. These desires are not wrong. The early church was built on love and fellowship. Acts 2:42–47 tells us that believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” The love and community they shared drew many others to Christ. So yes, how people are treated in church matters deeply. Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). A warm handshake and a kind word can often speak louder than a thousand sermons.

However, there is another side to the story and that is truth. In our desire to make church comfortable, we must be careful not to compromise the very foundation of our faith. Paul warned in 2 Timothy 4:3–4, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” That time, my friends, has surely come. Many today prefer churches that make them feel good rather than those that help them grow in righteousness.

Doctrinal purity may sound like an old-fashioned term, but it is essential to a healthy spiritual life. It doesn’t mean being judgmental or arrogant about what we believe. Rather, it means holding fast to the truth of God’s Word in love. Paul told Timothy, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Timothy 4:16). A church that preaches sound doctrine will always point you toward Christ not human opinion or popularity.

Some might ask, “Does doctrine really matter as long as we love Jesus?” The answer is yes, because right belief shapes right living. If we misunderstand who Jesus is, what salvation means, or how grace works, we can easily drift into confusion. That’s why Jesus compared truth to a solid foundation: “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matthew 7:24). A church built on the shifting sands of opinion will not stand in times of testing.

So how should a believer choose a church? I often tell people to look for four things:

1. Biblical Teaching: The Word of God must be central, not just occasionally mentioned. A true church feeds your soul with Scripture that convicts, corrects, and encourages (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
2. Christ-Centered Worship: Worship should draw your heart to God, not just entertain your emotions. Jesus said, “The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23).
3. Loving Community: You should sense genuine love and fellowship among believers, not cliques or competition (1 John 4:7–12).
4. Spiritual Growth and Service: The church should help you grow in faith and give you opportunities to serve others (Hebrews 10:24–25).

These are not just preferences; they are biblical principles that guide us in finding the right spiritual home.

Regarding the question about religious wars and divisions yes, history has seen its share of pain because of doctrinal disputes. But that doesn’t mean truth no longer matters. Jesus prayed in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” Unity in the church must be built on truth, not at the expense of it. We can love one another even when we differ, but we must never abandon the foundation of God’s revealed Word.

At the end of the day, choosing a church should not be a matter of convenience but of conviction. Pray before you decide. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. Visit, listen, and discern where God’s Word is honored and Christ is exalted. Remember, a church is not a club to join but a family to belong to a body where every believer grows together in grace and truth.

So yes, doctrine matters, love matters, worship matters but above all, Christ matters. Choose the place where His presence is real, His Word is preached, and His people walk in love. Then you’ll not only find a church; you’ll find your spiritual home.

Near to me,
The right church will not just make you comfortable; it will make you more like Christ. When love and truth walk hand in hand, that’s where the Holy Spirit dwells, and that’s where you belong.

Blessings
Pastor Waris

 

[ChubbyCherub]

I find all of this so interesting but also overwhelming. I don't know what sacraments, apostolic succession, liturgy, creeds and everything else means!

Here is maybe a not so interesting fact: My IQ is 140, for whatever that is worth. I'm university educated. I'm in a white collar, legalistic, professional job.

Despite all of that, I feel overwhelmed by all of these terms and feel like I'll never get to Heaven because I did not study the bible in university.

That's my tantrum done!

 

[PloverWing]

I find all of this so interesting but also overwhelming. I don't know what sacraments, apostolic succession, liturgy, creeds and everything else means!

Here is maybe a not so interesting fact: My IQ is 140, for whatever that is worth. I'm university educated. I'm in a white collar, legalistic, professional job.

Despite all of that, I feel overwhelmed by all of these terms and feel like I'll never get to Heaven because I did not study the bible in university.

That's my tantrum done!

That's just because those words are technical terminology used in a particular kind of church which is different from the churches you've attended. Your childhood church also had its own specialized vocabulary; I remember from one of your posts that you spoke of wanting an "altar call", a term that's familiar to many Baptists in the US but which is going to be foreign to most Anglicans.

So, no worries. Every church seems to have its own secret language.

 

[CoreyD]

I find all of this so interesting but also overwhelming. I don't know what sacraments, apostolic succession, liturgy, creeds and everything else means!

Here is maybe a not so interesting fact: My IQ is 140, for whatever that is worth. I'm university educated. I'm in a white collar, legalistic, professional job.

Despite all of that, I feel overwhelmed by all of these terms and feel like I'll never get to Heaven because I did not study the bible in university.

That's my tantrum done!

You are definitely not alone, since many people find religion... especially what is called Christianity, today, so confusing..
What simplifies things for many, is having a study of the Bible considering various topics, and verifying what the Bible teaches on each.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Doctrinal purity should be a top priority for Christians.

It may not be a top priority for religious folk, but that's their choice to make of course.
Now days, "churches" are so watered down and operating through compromise.

 

[jas3]

"Disciples" means followers, in other words, Christians. By no means was every disciple of Christ an apostle.

He was telling them to evangelise people, not appoint additional apostles.

Deacons are not apostles.

Nothing in those verses specifies apostles.

Bishops/overseers and Presbyters are not apostles.

If you would do even five minutes of research on what apostolic succession is instead of assuming it means the creation of new apostles distinct from any other position of church authority, this could've been a much more constructive response. Instead, you missed @Tigran1245's point entirely. To restate what he said at the end of his post, apostolic succession refers to the succession of ordination through a series that originates with the Apostles.

 

[jas3]

I find all of this so interesting but also overwhelming. I don't know what sacraments, apostolic succession, liturgy, creeds and everything else means!

Here is maybe a not so interesting fact: My IQ is 140, for whatever that is worth. I'm university educated. I'm in a white collar, legalistic, professional job.

Despite all of that, I feel overwhelmed by all of these terms and feel like I'll never get to Heaven because I did not study the bible in university.

That's my tantrum done!

It doesn't take that much to get up to speed on these things, especially for someone with internet access. My first introduction to them, aside from passing knowledge from growing up Methodist, was reading Catholic Answers tracts and Wikipedia articles in my spare time. There's obviously a lot more depth to these subjects than those sources will cover, but they're easily accessible starting points.

 

[Tigran1245]

Why ever not? The Lord's Supper and baptism do not depend upon apostolic succession, but they are taught in apostolic doctrine.

They depend precisely on apostolic succession. Without the priesthood (i.e., succession), bread remains bread, not the Body of Christ. It will be just a show.

"Disciples" means followers, in other words, Christians.

In Matthew 28:19–20 Christ is not speaking to all disciples; He is addressing the Eleven (cf. Mt 28:16). The command to “teach,” “baptize,” and “observe all I have commanded you” is a formal mission and authority given to the apostolic college. This commission is not generic evangelism. The verbs teach and baptize describe sacramental and authoritative functions that require a specific mandate.

The Apostles, in turn, transmitted this authority to others through ordination. This is what the Church calls apostolic succession.

Deacons are not apostles.
Bishops/overseers and Presbyters are not apostles.

They are not Apostles, but they have apostolic succession.

Saul/Paul was called "as one born out of due time" to be an apostle. The laying on of hands did not make him an apostle, it was part of setting him and Barnabas apart as missionaries.

Paul’s apostolic calling came directly from Christ (Gal. 1:1), but Scripture still shows that his ministry was confirmed and integrated into the Church through the laying on of hands (Acts 13:2–3). Even personally called apostles from God were required ecclesial recognition and transmission grace of priesthood (i.e. apostolic succession) through the Church. Calling from God ≠ apostolic succession.

 

[David Lamb]

They depend precisely on apostolic succession. Without the priesthood (i.e., succession), bread remains bread, not the Body of Christ. It will be just a show.

But the bread does indeed remain bread. Writing about the Lord's Supper, Paul said to the Corinthian church:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1Co 11:26 NKJV)

It was still bread when they ate it.

In Matthew 28:19–20 Christ is not speaking to all disciples; He is addressing the Eleven (cf. Mt 28:16). The command to “teach,” “baptize,” and “observe all I have commanded you” is a formal mission and authority given to the apostolic college. This commission is not generic evangelism. The verbs teach and baptize describe sacramental and authoritative functions that require a specific mandate.

The Apostles, in turn, transmitted this authority to others through ordination. This is what the Church calls apostolic succession.

They are not Apostles, but they have apostolic succession.

Paul’s apostolic calling came directly from Christ (Gal. 1:1), but Scripture still shows that his ministry was confirmed and integrated into the Church through the laying on of hands (Acts 13:2–3). Even personally called apostles from God were required ecclesial recognition and transmission grace of priesthood (i.e. apostolic succession) through the Church. Calling from God ≠ apostolic succession.

But the laying on of hands was not Paul's calling to apostleship, but to set him and Barnabas apart for missionary work.

 

[Tigran1245]

But the bread does indeed remain bread. Writing about the Lord's Supper, Paul said to the Corinthian church:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1Co 11:26 NKJV)

It was still bread when they ate it.

Paul indeed calls it “bread,” but sacramental language often names a thing by its appearance, not by its inner reality. The Apostle uses “bread” phenomenologically, because it still looks and tastes like bread. In the same passage he says:

“Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27)

If it were only bread, no one could be “guilty of the Lord’s body and blood.” Paul clearly distinguishes ordinary food from this sacrament (see 1 Cor 11:29–30), teaching that the Eucharist is not common bread but a true participation in Christ Himself (1 Cor 10:16). So, while the shape remains bread, its inner reality is changed (as the whole Church always confessed before protestantism) into the real Body and Blood of Christ.

But the laying on of hands was not Paul's calling to apostleship, but to set him and Barnabas apart for missionary work.

Calling to apostleship was before laying on of hands, but receiving special grace and real power of apostleship was in the Sacrament of laying on of hands.

 

[CoreyD]

But the bread does indeed remain bread. Writing about the Lord's Supper, Paul said to the Corinthian church:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1Co 11:26 NKJV)

It was still bread when they ate it.

But the laying on of hands was not Paul's calling to apostleship, but to set him and Barnabas apart for missionary work.

Has anyone mentioned that Jesus Christ was an apostle, and why? Hebrews 3:1 Perhaps that might make it clear that the term 'apostle' is not used to refer to any and every Christian, but specifically to those specially selected, and sent forth.
Those specially selected and sent forth, were... Jesus - sent forth by God; the 12 - sent forth by Jesus; Paul - sent forth by Jesus.
Like you previously said, David, no other person was specially chosen and sent forth by God or Jesus, subsequent to the foremost apostle - Jesus Christ.
Has anyone used the scriptures to show otherwise?

Regarding the idea of cannibalism, the disciples who had their mind on their belly, they too, misunderstood Jesus words at John 6:26-66
What about today... nearly 2,000 years later... especially after the death of the apostles, and the great apostasy? 1 Thessalonians 2:3-12

 

[David Lamb]

Paul indeed calls it “bread,” but sacramental language often names a thing by its appearance, not by its inner reality. The Apostle uses “bread” phenomenologically, because it still looks and tastes like bread. In the same passage he says:

“Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor 11:27)

If it were only bread, no one could be “guilty of the Lord’s body and blood.” Paul clearly distinguishes ordinary food from this sacrament (see 1 Cor 11:29–30), teaching that the Eucharist is not common bread but a true participation in Christ Himself (1 Cor 10:16). So, while the shape remains bread, its inner reality is changed (as the whole Church always confessed before protestantism) into the real Body and Blood of Christ.

I don't think we will ever agree on this point so I'll leave it there.

Calling to apostleship was before laying on of hands, but receiving special grace and real power of apostleship was in the Sacrament of laying on of hands.

We don't read anywhere in the bible that hands were laid on Paul to impart the power of apostleship. I repeat, the laying on of hands was part of the church a Antioch obeying the Holy Spirit and setting Paul and Barnabas apart as missionaries.

 

[Tigran1245]

We don't read anywhere in the bible that hands were laid on Paul to impart the power of apostleship. I repeat, the laying on of hands was part of the church a Antioch obeying the Holy Spirit and setting Paul and Barnabas apart as missionaries.

There are many places in Scripture that clearly state that the gift (grace of priesthood) was imparted through the laying on of hands.

“Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1Tim 4:14)

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2Tim 1:6)

 

[David Lamb]

There are many places in Scripture that clearly state that the gift (grace of priesthood) was imparted through the laying on of hands.

“Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery” (1Tim 4:14)

“For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2Tim 1:6)

Why mention priesthood? Paul and Timothy were not priests, except in the sense that Peter says all Christians are priests:

“But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” (1Pe 2:9 NKJV)

1 Timothy 4:14 mentions the spiritual gift that was in Timothy, but not mention of him being a priest.

 

[lismore]

I find it sad that what a particular church teaches seems to be seen as so comparatively unimportant.

Hello David. Yes.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3)

We are living in the time the bible foretold.

God Bless You