Choosing a church and theology

[nomad]

I've been looking for a church and thinking about what kind of things I look for in a church. And I realized that I could be happy at just about any church that worships God, even if I don't like their music or agree with everything they believe in.

So I have two questions, one light, one heavy: What do you look for when you are looking for a church, and why?

And second... for those who say theology is very important when you look for a church, why? I've been trying to think of reasons why I should be picky about a church wrt theology, and as long as they have enough common basics I know we worship the same God, i don't see anything practical that it affects. There are some practical aspects, such as how important the church sees evangelism vs. charity for instance, but these aren't usually the things people mean when they say theology. Perhaps I should just be looking at some parts of theology?

As far as agreeing with the pastor for instance... well, if I already agree with him on everything, it's obvious it's not him I'm learning from isn't it? I'll only learn from him where I don't agree. And if the pastor is truly a shepherd and not just a teacher, and exemplifies the fruits of the spirit, I'll be more likely to consider what he has to say. So that seems more important too.

For teaching others? Well, I've heard pastors say over and over again that they are teaching good sermons but their congregation isn't doing them to know that this seems common for many people :) It's only a part of a large and complicated mosaic of sources for belief. Churches sometimes kick out their pastors as well. And many pastors don't always even believe the entire statement of belief of the church, and this isn't limited to liturgical churches... one AG pastor I knew was amillenial, contrary to the AG statement of faith, and he was definitely very influential in my Christian education at that point (not saying anything about millenialism or anything, not even stating my own view, merely that he didn't toe the line with the AG statement of faith, which only has 16 statements!)

What am I missing? What kinds of theology can lead to what kinds of practical failures, or that should keep me from a church? This is a variation on age old themes probably, but I was curious. And I'm looking for a church right now... the church we are at now is a lot different from what I'm used to, but seems the best in the area for my family.

[hopelessromance]

I've been looking for a church and thinking about what kind of things I look for in a church. And I realized that I could be happy at just about any church that worships God, even if I don't like their music or agree with everything they believe in.

So I have two questions, one light, one heavy: What do you look for when you are looking for a church, and why?

And second... for those who say theology is very important when you look for a church, why? I've been trying to think of reasons why I should be picky about a church wrt theology, and as long as they have enough common basics I know we worship the same God, i don't see anything practical that it affects. There are some practical aspects, such as how important the church sees evangelism vs. charity for instance, but these aren't usually the things people mean when they say theology. Perhaps I should just be looking at some parts of theology?

As far as agreeing with the pastor for instance... well, if I already agree with him on everything, it's obvious it's not him I'm learning from isn't it? I'll only learn from him where I don't agree. And if the pastor is truly a shepherd and not just a teacher, and exemplifies the fruits of the spirit, I'll be more likely to consider what he has to say. So that seems more important too.

For teaching others? Well, I've heard pastors say over and over again that they are teaching good sermons but their congregation isn't doing them to know that this seems common for many people :) It's only a part of a large and complicated mosaic of sources for belief. Churches sometimes kick out their pastors as well. And many pastors don't always even believe the entire statement of belief of the church, and this isn't limited to liturgical churches... one AG pastor I knew was amillenial, contrary to the AG statement of faith, and he was definitely very influential in my Christian education at that point (not saying anything about millenialism or anything, not even stating my own view, merely that he didn't toe the line with the AG statement of faith, which only has 16 statements!)

What am I missing? What kinds of theology can lead to what kinds of practical failures, or that should keep me from a church? This is a variation on age old themes probably, but I was curious. And I'm looking for a church right now... the church we are at now is a lot different from what I'm used to, but seems the best in the area for my family.

Hello Nomad.
That's a very good question. It really depends on you.
So I'll some questions. It's the main thing I notice as a difference between churches.
Do you like to learn?
Or do you prefer things to be laid out and similar?
Myself, I love to learn. I think that's why I lost my faith. I grew up Catholic and didn't learn because the servies I found were to planned. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just not for me.
So after a few years of non-belief I rediscovered my faith and went church scouting. Much like yourself. I've settled on a Pentecostal Church called 'Desert Stream'. However I attend a Baptist church whenever I spend the night in my hometown(which is about everyother week). At Desert Stream the pastor does a good job at explaining things. He takes a message or a theological idea and he puts it into terms that the audience can understand. For istance, he tried explaining the Holy Spirit through Ohm's Law once(see my post about it in the Christianity section... err.. Maybe Philosophy. Its Labeled Ohm's Law lol). He is currently on a big lesson, spanning likely 10- 20 services about the imprtance of the gifts of the spirit in our lives. He's able to project the thouhts in a way that elders and youth can both unerstand.
So if you prefer to learn about the scriptures and have them broken down and explained I would recomend maybe Pentocostal or Baptsist. If you would prefer to have everything systematic and non-changing the Catholic is likely a better choice.
Good question Nomad.

[bloodrose]

I've been looking for a church and thinking about what kind of things I look for in a church. And I realized that I could be happy at just about any church that worships God, even if I don't like their music or agree with everything they believe in.

Good point, but it's not just about being happy at a church, as I'm sure you know full well.

So I have two questions, one light, one heavy: What do you look for when you are looking for a church, and why?

I look to see that a church ascribes the greatness of God to him, and isn't simply turning Christianity into a "lifestyle choice". It is in the testimony of some people to say something to the effect of "If I'm wrong, and God doesn't exist, then I have lived an honerable life anyway, and this is worthwhile by itself". This is not Christianity at all, Paul himself says "If we are wrong, we are to be most pitied indeed" because our entire being is centered around God. THAT is why I look for correct theology (or, moreso, correct view of how big and central God really is) when considering a Chruch.

And second... for those who say theology is very important when you look for a church, why? I've been trying to think of reasons why I should be picky about a church wrt theology, and as long as they have enough common basics I know we worship the same God, i don't see anything practical that it affects. There are some practical aspects, such as how important the church sees evangelism vs. charity for instance, but these aren't usually the things people mean when they say theology. Perhaps I should just be looking at some parts of theology?

I will give an example. It is the idea of some Christians to suggest that God doesn't ask anything of us that goes against common sense (i.e. to be obedient to him in a way that is dangerous to your life). This stems from a theology that doesn't really acribe complete sovereignty to God, and it does affect the praxis. Less people will become missionaries, because it "is too dangerous, and God wants me to be here witnessing to my nonchristian friends until all of them are saved" etc etc. Do you see how theology beyond the basics affects the work that the Church is doing?

As far as agreeing with the pastor for instance... well, if I already agree with him on everything, it's obvious it's not him I'm learning from isn't it?

I should hope this isn't true, and that you've overlooked something...
What about a topic you have never considered before. You should hold no opinion on it, and when being taught, you are not neccessarily disagreeing with the stance of the Pastor until he proves a point, are you?

I'll only learn from him where I don't agree.

...or when you don't already have an opinion on the subject at hand. There is a LOT to learn when it comes to theology...

And if the pastor is truly a shepherd and not just a teacher, and exemplifies the fruits of the spirit, I'll be more likely to consider what he has to say. So that seems more important too.

You should always consider what they have to say, but be aware, some tend to have an agenda that they want to push...

What am I missing? What kinds of theology can lead to what kinds of practical failures, or that should keep me from a church? This is a variation on age old themes probably, but I was curious. And I'm looking for a church right now... the church we are at now is a lot different from what I'm used to, but seems the best in the area for my family.

There are the kinds of theology paint a very small picture of God, and only make him a kind of "part of Christianity". This doctrine is bordering on blasphemy, or idolatry at best. Since a small God does not exist, then perhaps those that believe he is one are not worshipping the REAL God at all.

I would suggest that Arminianism is one of these doctrines which makes God out to be a little too small (though I have come to realise that there are worse theologies which are even more common, nowadays). To be fair, though, most of the Arminians who post in theo 201 do not appear to make God out as small as your average arminian layperson, so I thank God for those that do not let their theological ideas get in the way of "letting God be God."

Hope this helps

In Christ, Jeff.

[nomad]

So if you prefer to learn about the scriptures and have them broken down and explained I would recomend maybe Pentocostal or Baptsist. If you would prefer to have everything systematic and non-changing the Catholic is likely a better choice.

Interesting. Actually, I was looking for one level behind that. For example, it looks like you consider the teaching to be of importance in choosing a church. For me, right now my primary criterion is community and proximity to my house - i want to be part of a church, not Assembly of God College on the other side of town. Secondary, which is greatly desired but not required, would be frequency of communion - I'd like to do it every week. Teaching is less of an issue, since I do a lot of reading and even took some classes in the AG remote learning seminary.

That's more the level I'm looking for. And - Do you consider systematic and non-changing a benefit, a drawback, or just a personal preference?

[Ryokan]

I too am seeking a Church and theology, nomad. I go to a Catholic and Baptist Church right now, (my families Church and my inlaws Church) but I have been looking into an Episcopal or Orthodox Church ias well. Theology is reason/faith, and sorta affects your denominational choice, in my mind. It affects protestant Church choice,as well, but the particular church is more of a personal taste and locational thing. I don't know where I stand yet. In my defense, I have not returned to the faith for very long, so I don't think I have to know!

[nomad]

I look to see that a church ascribes the greatness of God to him, and isn't simply turning Christianity into a "lifestyle choice".

I agree. I look at how much the church seems to value God. It's hard to put a finger on it, but it's often subconciously discernable.

Less people will become missionaries, because it "is too dangerous, and God wants me to be here witnessing to my nonchristian friends until all of them are saved" etc etc. Do you see how theology beyond the basics affects the work that the Church is doing?

Actually, when I first learned about calvinism, one of the criticisms was that _calvinism_, or predestination specifically, was bad because, since everyone who would be saved was already chosen, there was no point in making a special effort to be a missionary - God already would make sure there was a way there. But this is exactly why I started the thread - I haven't seen much correlation with points of doctrine such as these and actual behavior. I know of both Presbyterian and Assemblies of God missionaries, and the tremendously missionary Roman Catholic Church considered both Pelagius and Calvin to be heretics, and St. Augustine appears to have not been able to make up his mind.

But let the debate not turn there. You gave an example, and that is _exactly_ what I am looking for. I might not agree with all of them, but I am looking for example where a particular doctrine directly hinders or helps a Christian to do some action they are prescribed or proscribed by God. So thank you.

I should hope this isn't true, and that you've overlooked something...
What about a topic you have never considered before. You should hold no opinion on it, and when being taught, you are not neccessarily disagreeing with the stance of the Pastor until he proves a point, are you?

Hmm, i dunno. I've been a Christian a long time, and if I haven't heard about it by now, it's hard to think it could really be that important to my walk. But then again, the most important christian writing I've read in the last 5 years was John Cassian's 'On the Eight Vices'. But then again, I've been a member of several different kinds of churches, and I've even spent some time in seminary (the AG remote learning seminary). Maybe i'm a special case. In any case, when I want to learn about something, I tend to pick up a book. You just can't really address something like Calvinism in a half-hour sermon.

You should always consider what they have to say, but be aware, some tend to have an agenda that they want to push...

And this is true too. If we are all going to be suspicious of what the pastor says anyways, why do we really care what he says all that much?

Thanks though, this helped some. I'll try to think of some other examples to stoke the pot a little.

[James Peter]

Well, I'd argue that Theology is important because what we believe really does shape our actions even if we don't realise it. Take soteriology as an example - it really should effect every single aspect of the church's function and purpose. Afterall how we think people 'get saved' will (or at least should) effect all of our interaction with those outside the community and our stance on what is 'required' of us once we are 'saved' will effect how we interact with other members of the community (Mr X isn't tithing...obviously he is backsliding/obviously he was never really saved at all etc etc).

Of course that doesn't mean that every member of the church should have the same stance on every issue (if they did then it would mean nobody was capable of thinking for themselves which would be...bad) but to say that the theology of the leadership team doesn't have a huge impact on how the church is run and acts is not true.

Of course orthopraxy is ten times as important as orthodoxy and a community that isn't open and loving should set alarm bells ringing. Perhaps the mark of a mature community of the faithful is that different theologies are present and rather than merely sweeping them under the rug there is open and sincere debate combined with loving acceptance as brothers...

[St Catherine]

I think what should be a primary factor when someone is trying to 'find a Church' is whether or not the Church teaches the Truth or not.

It is very sad to hear people say 'it doesn't matter where you go to Church'. This is a very universalist position.

Consider that Christ did not come to establish 10,000 plus denominations. He came to establish a Church, the Bible talks about a Church, a visible Church..we weren't left orphans to blow about in the wind. Most of the denominations that are here now are 200 years old or less. Where did they get their authority to define Scripture? Where did their pastors get their authority for ordination? Do they follow the teachings and beliefs of the early Christian Church?


These are all very important questions.


SC

[James Peter]

Well...strictly speaking there are at least 3 distinct, visibles churches in the NT:

(1) Jerusalem, Antioch and their affiliated churches

(2) Paul's network of churches (which come into existance after Paul's schism at Antioch)

(3) The Johaninne Communities (which are almost certainly independent from both of the above groups but whose origins are speculative).

So... "one, visible church" is a bit of a simplification. And the root of the rift between (1) and (2) was entirely theological...

[nomad]

So, you believe that a church that is not Roman Catholic, but still teaches the truth, would be OK? Such as, for instance, the Orthodox or parts of the Anglican church? Maybe even others.

James, both you and bloodrose mentioned soteriology or something similar. I will add that to my list. Note that this is not really intended to start a debate per se - I'm not trying to prove that theology doesn't matter - just figure out which parts of theology actually affect action. I will add these to my list. It seems that such a claim should be somewhat testable - i.e. if the Baptists, for instance, are more or less evangelical than say, a Presbyterian church, then we should be able to look at their conversion rates, how many missionaries each has sent out by century, how many churches support missions trips in that denomination, etc. I'm sure someone has already done all this before, so I just need to find it now. It makes sense that soteriology, for instance, should directly affect evangelism, but I'm not sure it's that direct.

Anyways, my problem is that I know a lot, but do not do a lot. This I consider a problem. Most churches are focused on helping me know more. Perhaps I do not really believe what I think I believe, perhaps it is just me own rebellion or laziness or whatever, in fact I know it is. Maybe it is just a personal problem. But clearly, learning more is not what I need. And I doubt I'm alone. I'm not sure where I'm really going with this thread, more just curiosity than anything, and seeing what other people think about this.

[spiritmech]

There's really only one question that really sent me searching for a new church: who has the Body and Blood of Christ?

sm

[St Catherine]

Well...strictly speaking there are at least 3 distinct, visibles churches in the NT:

(1) Jerusalem, Antioch and their affiliated churches

(2) Paul's network of churches (which come into existance after Paul's schism at Antioch)

(3) The Johaninne Communities (which are almost certainly independent from both of the above groups but whose origins are speculative).

So... "one, visible church" is a bit of a simplification. And the root of the rift between (1) and (2) was entirely theological...

Hi JP,

Ok what are you talking about with 'Paul's schism'?

However I think you are misunderstanding these 'Churches' (and if you are using them in the context you are...there are alot more than 3...Rome, Athens, Malta, Corinth etc etc).

These aren't separate Churches ...these are all united Churches, under THE Church....today you'd refer to them as dioceses.


SC

[James Peter]

I'm talking about the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem-Antioch Fellowship following the incident at Antioch where Paul confronts Peter (and mentioned in Galatians). It really was a defining feature in Paul's life and 'career'. From shortly before Galatians (a year or two at most) until his visit to Jerusalem (where he was arrested) Paul was 'out of communion' (to use the later terminology) with Jerusalem. That period of course covers all of his letters...

'Paul, Jerusalem and Antioch' by N. Taylor suggests a pretty good reconstruction of what went on although there are cheaper books available with look at the issue too. The 'Antioch Incident' is one of the most important events in early christianity.

So no, not all the churches were united for all the period of the NT (although Paul stressed the importance of unity and did all he could to restore it, even going to Jerusalem and being arrested (and eventually martyred) to try and win reconciliation between his churches and the Jerusalem church).

As far as the Johaninne Churches are concerned all the evidence suggests that they were pretty much isolated and independent from the church in Palestine and Jerusalem. Three churches, as distinct as Methodists, Baptists and Anglicans are today... (Although much smaller obviously, the Church in Corinth was probably fairly typical of the 'gentile churches' and numbered a mere 50 people at the time Paul wrote to them)

[St Catherine]

I'm talking about the rift between Paul and the Jerusalem-Antioch Fellowship following the incident at Antioch where Paul confronts Peter (and mentioned in Galatians). It really was a defining feature in Paul's life and 'career'. From shortly before Galatians (a year or two at most) until his visit to Jerusalem (where he was arrested) Paul was 'out of communion' (to use the later terminology) with Jerusalem. That period of course covers all of his letters...

How do you figure there is a rift between Paul and Peter? Paul out of communion?? What exactly are you basing this opinion on?

Paul, Jerusalem and Antioch' by N. Taylor suggests a pretty good reconstruction of what went on although there are cheaper books available with look at the issue too. The 'Antioch Incident' is one of the most important events in early christianity.

And who is N. Taylor and why do you believe what he says?

So no, not all the churches were united for all the period of the NT (although Paul stressed the importance of unity and did all he could to restore it, even going to Jerusalem and being arrested (and eventually martyred) to try and win reconciliation between his churches and the Jerusalem church).

What leads to you to this conclusion? N. Taylor?

As far as the Johaninne Churches are concerned all the evidence suggests that they were pretty much isolated and independent from the church in Palestine and Jerusalem. Three churches, as distinct as Methodists, Baptists and Anglicans are today... (Although much smaller obviously, the Church in Corinth was probably fairly typical of the 'gentile churches' and numbered a mere 50 people at the time Paul wrote to them)

I really don't know what you are basing this on....what evidence do you use to support this? Have you studied the early Church?


SC

[James Peter]

Yes I have, quite extensively and academically. N. Taylor wrote his PhD thesis (which was later elaborated into the work I cited) at Durham under James Dunn (quite a respected and well known contemporary pauline scholar).

What are my conclusions based on? Analysis of the evidence (which consists chiefly of NT texts, especially Galatians) for the most part. I don't find all of Taylor's arguments entirely convincing but in any historical reconstruction there will always be room for disagreement. Off the top of my head I can't think of any pauline specialist who would deny that a split occured at Antioch though, the questions are about exactly what caused it and how long it lasted. I can provide you with some reading material if you want but I don't have time to reproduce a PhD-length thesis at the moment, I have enough of my own work to produce...