How to Choose a Church: Quick Notes

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, many people have declared that they will attend Church for the first time in a long time, or ever. This is excellent and I hope they follow through. But their next natural question is one that I wrestled with for literally five years before I made up my mind: Where should I go to church?

Let me clear my throat a bit first. I don’t claim to have the correct answer. I’m mostly just helping you to understand how I think about this sort of question. This is not a complete exploration of the question. These are just rough notes, which I have written deliberately quickly.

We can understand the choice of a denomination based on the study of a series of questions. The problem, however, is that if you haven’t studied the Bible much or been to church, you won’t know how to answer those questions. So I will give you a very (very) rough idea of what the questions are and what goes into answering them.

The first and perhaps most basic question is whether you believe that God includes and is limited to the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. If you do not believe this, then basically, all bets are off, and this post will not be of much help to you. (You might end up being a Unitarian, a Mormon, a New Ager, etc.) People who actively reject the Trinity quickly discover that they have religious beliefs unmoored to God’s revelation in the form of Scripture. This is because the doctrine of the Trinity simply sums up what Scripture says about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you reject the Trinity, you will end up disagreeing with the Bible; the Bible will not be your standard of truth; and your religion will be unmoored. Thus, for what it’s worth, if you reject the Trinity, neither I nor the vast body of Christian theology would call you a Christian.

The next question is whether the Bible is the standard of truth in matters of God. If you are skeptically inclined, as I am, this will be very hard for you to swallow without actually reading it. (Well, get busy.) Most people, however, are not skeptics. They will find themselves (sometimes to their own surprise) with a real, living connection to the spiritual author of the Bible, and they will come to believe that the Bible is indeed an essential standard of truth regarding God.

Others, however, either because they remain skeptical or because they place whatever is reported as being the results of mainstream science (just for example—there are other standards as well) ahead of the Bible, will ultimately find themselves “arguing with” the Bible. Such become what we call “liberal Christians.” These have their own denominations or find themselves in the liberal wings of larger denominations (such as Roman Catholicism). I suppose that whether they are Christian at all really depends on just far astray they have gone from God’s own truth.

My notion, which is the common one of traditionalists, is that the Lord would not allow his truth to depend upon fallible human writers, science, or socio-political fads. If he sought to communicate with us, he would do so in a way that, when properly interpreted, would be both perfectly coherent and defensible (as I think theology is) and indeed incapable of being in error. If you worship a perfect God whose communications to us would indeed be ultimately rational (however mysterious they may seem at first), then find a church that takes the Bible as the standard of truth in matters of God.

Now, the most fundamental question that actual Christians disagree over is whether Sacred Tradition, that is, the traditions developed over the centuries by the Church are also (i.e., in addition to Scripture) a standard of truth in matters of God. This is the question that separates Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, on the one hand, from Protestantism, on the other hand. This is not an easy question for many to deal with—even many theologians—and it is risky to reduce it to any simple matter of doctrine or character.

So, let’s put it this way. Some come to believe, for whatever reason, that either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is “the original church” in some sense that other branches of the Church are not. So, they are the genuine “bearers of the tradition.” There are also some people who are simply nervous about the very idea that there might not be some human authority who may be consulted for answers. The idea of people disagreeing about the meaning of the Bible fills them with fear or anger. They love the idea, moreover, of an ancient tradition, one that presents itself as going back to the very original root of the Church—never mind that many of their traditions are actually innovations. Nevertheless, those who love tradition and the dignity of elaborate rites will feel drawn to become Catholic or Orthodox.

Some (especially theology types) claim that they come to one of these traditions by careful study of the original documents of the Church (such as the ante-Nicene Fathers, the writings of Augustine, and the Ecumenical Councils). They say they are convinced that Orthodox or Catholic doctrine represents that of the original Church. The problem is that many Protestant scholars also read these documents and come to the exact opposite conclusion, namely, that after the first few centuries, the Church began to innovate in ways that were said to be rooted in the teachings of the Apostles (Jesus’ first, hand-picked disciples), but about which there is significant evidence they were not. Anyway, I will not litigate that question any more here. See these three documents for more.

Traditional Protestantism can be understood as the branch of the Church that, after centuries of infighting and speculative innovations in doctrine and practice, decided to return to the sole standard of the Bible: sola scriptura. This is not because the Bible (described as, say, a publishing tradition) was designated by God as the standard, but because the word of God was so designated—and because the Bible is the only thing that we can rely upon as the word of God. Thus, sola scriptura Protestants come from a position of skepticism about mere human traditions, and the elevation of God’s confirmed word decidedly above them.

Within a period of about twenty years, the great figures of Luther (Lutheranism), Calvin and Zwingli (Presbyterianism and Reformed denominations), Cranmer (Anglicanism), and Menno Simons (Mennonites and Brethren) all declared that they and their congregations would worship in a way more strictly limited to what was contained in the Bible.

But if we travel the Protestant route, we are faced with a whole series of questions that are—as we may charitably, if not entirely correctly, say—left open by honest differences in Bible interpretation. I will go through these more quickly:

• Are Baptism and Communion efficacious in themselves, if done correctly and with faith? Yes: Lutherans and some Anglicans. No: pretty much all the rest.
• Are infants guilty of Adam’s sin, and can and should we baptize them to wash them of that sin? Yes: Lutherans. Yes to infant baptism, but perhaps not for that specific rationale: Anglicans and Presbyterians. No: Baptists, especially, but many of the others as well.
• Must our corporate worship of God be done according to established, regularized models that guarantee that all necessary elements are present (i.e., liturgies)? Yes: Lutherans, Anglicans, some Presbyterians and Methodists. No: Baptists and “evangelical” Bible churches and others.
• Are we at all responsible for our own salvation, or does God select us for salvation without any contribution from us? No, we are not responsible at all: Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist, other Reformed denominations. Yes, our faith is our own, even if God inspires us with it: the rest, and perhaps especially Methodists.

How would this help you choose a church? Well, I don’t expect it to help much. I’m just sharing some of the main questions on which the denominations differ. I think the thing to do is give you a list of the modern inheritors of what are, in my opinion, the more solid Protestant traditions, and what sorts of people are attracted to them.

ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) and “continuing Anglican” denominations. Anglicans are often more intellectual sorts; they love a very sound liturgy, against which no Christian can have any objection. They are happy that their basic confession and traditions permit a wide variety of theological views, but they will not compromise on essentials. The ACNA (unlike the Church of England and its American cousin, the Episcopal Church) is at once deeply traditional but also a “big tent.” (“Continuing Anglicans” in most cases are a sort of Catholic-Protestant hybrid: “Anglo-Catholics.”)

Baptist (various, just not the liberal American Baptist Church). Baptists want a relatively simple service: long sermons and good singing. And they feel very strongly about “believer’s baptism,” so: no baptizing babies here. Baptist tradition is very broad, so it is hard to make generalizations, but many services are not challenging, appealing to plain folks. Still, conservative Baptists take the Bible very, very seriously (not to say the others don’t) and encourage each other to satisfy the moral demands of the Christian life.

EFCA (Evangelical Free Church of America). While this is an offshoot of what were originally Scandinavian Lutherans, it is now rather similar to Baptists, but with fewer requirements. Like traditional Anglicanism, while it is a “big tent” denomination, they have remained strict on fundamentals.

LCMS (Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod) and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod). Basically, if you weren’t born into these, what will draw you will be the liturgy, the sober tone, and—if you are theologically inclined—your strong commitment to a Protestant approach to what is called “sacramentalism.” They take their theology seriously, but it is their theology, i.e., they have a rather specific or idiosyncratic approach. It is a strong tradition that certainly has its appeal.

Mennonite/Brethren (various—but again, only the conservative branches). I don’t know as much about these, but I’ll share a bit. They’re not all Amish: those are only one branch. But, like the Amish, this family cares very much about the simplicity and peace (they are pacifists) of Christian life. Most of the people might not dive as deeply into theology as Anglicans, Lutherans, or Presbyterians, but they take their Christian walk as seriously as any, or more so: they aim to be “full-time Christians.”

PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) and OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church). These, along with Reformed Baptists, make up some of the most prolific writers and speakers on the internet today. They are followers of Calvin and his inheritors, and they take predestinationism very seriously; thus, they believe that God is sovereign, not just the ruler of the universe, but the designer or architect. God “brings everything to pass by his sovereign will”—well, that’s the sort of thing modern-day Calvinists say. In other respects they are not very different from Anglicans or Lutherans. They are one of the original Protestant denominational families, so they have a deep bench of philosophers and theologians.

There are also independent “Bible churches” and the like that are, basically, conservative Baptist or Presbyterian in orientation, but not associated with any particular denomination or congregationalist association. Many of these can be very solid, but let’s just say there are good reasons people come together in denominations and associations.

The above are not the only viable options, but they are the ones I narrowed my own search to. There are other denominations that are, to a greater or lesser extent, committed to the inerrancy of Scripture. There is the Methodist and holiness family: Global Methodist Church, Free Methodist Church, Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene. Some of these can be very decent, as far as I can tell. There are the various Pentecostal denominations, such as the Assemblies of God. These believe the Holy Spirit continued to would be the sorts who raise their hands and shout during worship and who believe in modern-day prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues. There are also many new “corporate” church networks or “movements” such as Vineyard, Hillsong, Elevation, and others. These have serious problems that I will not go into individually now—but, generally, they extend their teaching and practice well beyond the Bible. But some more staid and orthodox newer denominations (who might well believe in biblical inerrancy) would be Calvary Chapel and Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA).

So, having unloaded all those names, what would I say about these? I suppose the most efficient way would be to list some bad trends, and warn you against denominations and church types that tend to fall into those trends.

Liberal drift has been a broad interdenominational problem for over a century, touching even Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and in my view it has been more consequential than the Reformation itself. “Liberal Christianity” is the tendency of preachers to lose faith in the Bible’s inerrancy and doctrines while still presiding over congregations called “Christian.” Some such people still sincerely love God and Christ, but others have wandered so far from the fundamentals that they can hardly be called Christian at all. This has devastated the “mainline” and many state churches (such as the Church of England), and I cannot tolerate it; those who place political and naturalistic convictions ahead of Scripture are abandoning something essential. This rules out the mainline, leaving denominations often founded as conservative reactions—like the PCA in response to PCUSA (liberal Presbyterians) and the GMC (more conservative) in response to UMC. I ruled out the GMC because of their acceptance of women pastors, while the ACNA still disputes the matter and most dioceses disallow it.

The second trend is “praise-and-worship” services. Traditionally, worship included prayer, hymns, sermons, and Communion, and something like a set liturgy. But in many large contemporary churches, the service is dominated by slickly-produced, emotionally charged music led by a “Worship Director.” At its worst, this becomes worship-tainment: emotionally manipulative, resembling a rock concert, designed to entertain and attract an audience rather than offer contrite praise to God. Worship should not be “feel-good” consumerism, in my opinion, but sacrifice and service; it ought to prick the conscience rather than lulling it. This model is widespread across denominations, but it is most generally found at the corporate megachurches, Baptist churches, and some holiness churches. Liturgical churches in the LCMS and ACNA are more immune to this trend because they are more “by the book” in how they conduct worship.

Closely connected is the rise of corporate church culture. Ambitious young pastors build megachurches and networks that succeed by offering what most churchgoers like while dropping what they do not. Some do preach the Gospel, but many give TED-talk “sermons” heavy on self-help and light on the Bible. Structures are often corporate, with pastors as CEOs and worship leaders as COOs, creating quasi-episcopal hierarchies without accountability. This has led to abuses and shallow teaching. Traditional episcopal and presbyterian polities have their flaws, but they are less prone to this particular danger. It is found mostly at the new church networks and congregationalist associations.

Finally, there is the problem of dumbed-down preaching. Sermons should be substantive and focused on Scripture, not stories or entertainment, but in much of evangelicalism the standard fare is shallow. This reflects a general “scandal of biblical illiteracy,” with many Americans—including pastors—never having read the Bible through. While there are exceptions, Baptist, EFCA, and Mennonite churches struggle here. By contrast, Anglicanism has produced a distinguished intellectual heritage, and ACNA churches often attract theologically serious Christians. Lutheran and Presbyterian sermons are also apt to be more serious.

If you want a quick set of recommended denominations that are most likely to stick to Scripture faithfully and seriously, I would list these:

• ACNA (Anglican Church in North America)
• Baptist (various, just not the liberal American Baptist Church)
• EFCA (Evangelical Free Church of America)
• LCMS (Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod) and WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)
• Mennonite/Brethren (various—but again, only the conservative branches)
• PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) and OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church)
• There are also independent “Bible churches”
• There are other, smaller denominations, and individual churches within other denominations mentioned earlier, which are absolutely fine.

Those, then, are the basics. This is, as I said, just a quick bunch of notes. I hope someone out there will find this useful. You might also find these helpful:

• “Why we are the pure, primitive Church” (gives a sense of why various denominations think of themselves as the “original church”)
• Why the ACNA (why I joined the Anglicans)
• The questions that distinguish the denominations (answer all of these carefully and then you’ll know exactly where you belong)
• The Denominational Distinctives I: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant
• The Denominational Distinctives II: The High Church Distinctives
• The Denominational Distinctives III: Further High Church Distinctives