Finding a New Church (Part One)

In my last post, I wrote about the difficulties Jill and I have encountered while searching for a new church in Raleigh. At the end of that post, I mentioned that the Lord seems to be leading Jill and me to keep a number of criteria in mind as we continue looking for a new church. I will present those criteria as the fruit of my own research and thought, but I must stress that I have felt guided by the Lord throughout this process. Without further delay, here are the criteria.

In searching for a new church, I think that the first question to ask is whether there are any criteria that one’s new church must meet. In plainer terms, are there any deal breakers? There may be many criteria that one would dearly like one’s church to meet, but are there any criteria that one’s church must meet? For those who are firmly committed to a particular denomination, the answer will be easy – any new church must belong to the denomination in question. But what if one isn’t firmly committed to a particular denomination? And, even if one is so committed, mightn’t there be more criteria that a local congregation must meet? Speaking for myself, I think that it is prudent here to turn to the Reformed tradition. Reformed thinkers tended to recognize two or three marks of a true church. These are the features that are common to all true Christian churches. (If one is reluctant to distinguish between true and false Christian churches, then one can still view these marks as criteria that one’s own church must meet, though I would hasten to say that I think that we must draw a distinction between true and false Christian churches. There may be many true believers at false churches, but some churches plainly do not proclaim Christ in any true sense, and it is dangerous to ignore this.)

So, what are these marks? They are the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments, to which some added church discipline. Again, these are the marks of a true Christian church that were put forward by many thinkers in the Reformed tradition, including Bucer, Calvin, and Beza. While I think that church discipline is important, I believe that it should be handled very delicately, and I do not consider it a mark of a true Christian church. I will set it aside. That leaves the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments. I do think that these are marks of a true church. At the very least, these are deal breakers for me. But how should we think about these marks? Let’s start with preaching of the word.

What should count as true preaching of the word? This is a very difficult question. I think that we should all recognize that true preaching may be quite flat and boring. The sole criterion for true preaching of the word is to be found in its content, not its form. But different Christians will judge the content of preaching differently. A Reformed Christian will certainly find Arminian preaching to be unbiblical, and she may wish to judge it false preaching for that reason. I myself am strongly Reformed in my theological outlook, and I would consider any preaching false that clearly contradicted Scripture, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Arminian preaching is false in the sense relevant here. For, while I am convinced that the Bible teaches that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone, I understand that other Christians – faithful, Bible-loving Christians – do not always think that the evidence is clear on this point. Or, if they do think that the evidence is clear, then they naturally take Scripture to support a different position on salvation, such as Arminianism. What preaching counts as true then? This is a hard question to answer. Certainly it must proclaim the doctrines set forth in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. For example, it must proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity, and it must proclaim the divinity and the humanity of Christ. In addition, the preaching should exhibit and promote a high view of Scripture. It must also teach that we are sinners, that there is no salvation apart from God, that there is no reconciliation with God – no forgiveness of sins – apart from Christ’s death, and also that we must be united with Christ through faith, and that faith is ultimately a gift of the Holy Spirit. I would like to hear a good deal more than this from the pulpit, but these at least are the bare essentials. All Reformed churches should offer such preaching, but one should also be able to hear such preaching at many Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox churches, and also at many Arminian churches; and, I think that all Christians should require at least this much of the preaching they hear. I have a very strong preference to attend a Reformed church, and I am free to demand Reformed preaching from the church that I attend, but Reformed preaching is not a necessary condition of true preaching in the relevant sense, and so it is not a mark of a true church, at least on my view. Still, if I attend a non-Reformed church, its preaching must satisfy the above criteria. That should be enough about preaching.

What about the administration of the sacraments? That is an especially difficult question for me. Like many Reformed Christians, I am strongly inclined to recognize only two sacraments – baptism and the Lord’s supper. Moreover, like many Reformed Christians I strongly believe in infant baptism, and like many (though certainly not all) Reformed Christians I have a high view of the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. Actually, I am open to both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, though I would detach transubstantiation from Catholic doctrine about the nature of the priesthood. At any rate, these are my personal views. I think that any true Christian church must recognize these two sacraments at the very least, but I don’t think that the acceptance of more sacraments by the Catholic Church disqualifies it as a true church. Furthermore, I don’t think that the rejection of infant baptism disqualifies Anabaptist churches as true churches. I think that the Catholic Church is a true church and that many Anabaptist churches are true. I also think that a purely memorialist understanding of the Lord’s supper, which is often attributed (rightly or wrongly I do not know) to Zwingli, is consistent with the requirements of a true church. But I think that a true church must recognize both baptism and the Lord’s supper, and that it must administer them properly, which requires at the very least taking them seriously as means of grace. At the same time, I think that there is a good deal of room for disagreement about the nature of the operation of this grace. I would also insist that a true church must administer the sacraments solemnly and seriously, and that it periodically instruct its members about the importance and function of the sacraments. The Lord’s supper should not casually distributed to anyone in the congregation, and a serious attempt should be made to comply with Paul’s teaching on this sacrament. These remarks may be somewhat vague, but they capture much of my thinking about the sacraments, and I believe that any true church should administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper in the way that I have suggested. Many Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, and Orthodox congregations will meet these standards, and many other churches – including Baptist churches – will meet them as well. However, I have found one church in Raleigh whose celebration of the Lord’s supper did not seem to meet these standards, and this was of great concern to me. I would strongly prefer to attend a church that recognizes infant baptism and holds a high view of the presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord's supper, but neither is a deal breaker for me.

Phew! I finally made it through the three marks of a true Christian church. There is much more that I have to say about finding a new church. I will save the rest for another post.