Thinking Out Loud

June 14, 2011

Choosing a Church in a Vacuum

Here’s how this works:  You have to write a comment based on the very limited information you have.  There are no prizes. 

  1. You are just married, no kids, and have moved to a rather small-ish town with very limited church choices within the type of church you’re familiar with; in fact, there is only real possibility according to the information you were given before you moved.
  2. You make contact with someone to get the address and time only to discover that this particular church has had some kind of split with half the congregation staying and half going to a new location.
  3. The person you’re talking with is very helpful and informative, but doesn’t attend either and really can’t offer you a thing as to why the church split and what the particular issues were.
  4. You have to choose between the two; picking something else or staying home isn’t an option in this particular scenario.

So which one do you choose and why?

There is actually a good reason to choose one over the other.  But it might be a different choice for different people.

I’ll be back on Thursday — after Wednesday’s Link List — with what my choice would be and why I would make it.


  1. My gut reaction is to go with the church that stayed and didn’t move to a new location. My reasoning is that I would be very suspicious of why the other group left, was there no effort made for reconciliation if there were obvious differences between the two camps? However, it really is hard to answer not knowing all the details, maybe they left due to theological differences, if so, can they really be faulted?

    Comment by ilcapitanoinquisitore — June 14, 2011 @ 10:39 am

  2. Being Anglican, the church that moved onward would probably have been the group that was more orthodox. Liberals [or revisionists – for revising what Scripture says to allow non-biblical moral standards of behaviours] would stay. Only those keen for Jesus would move on.

    At any rate, moving into a neighbourhood means setting down roots, but not willynilly. We have time, and visitng the whole range of churches for a coule of three weeks each would give a good few months of exploring the nature of the Church i the town. That overview can be very valuable.

    Comment by Brian — June 14, 2011 @ 10:50 am

  3. i would be inclined to favor the group that “stayed the course.” if there are issues within a fellowship, leaving (especially en masse) is a last resort. if they had stayed and prayed, the lord would have made the necessary changes (in the situation or in their hearts).

    Comment by randy morgan — June 14, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

  4. Which church lets you join in the work?

    Comment by Brian — June 15, 2011 @ 8:54 am

  5. Since the reason for the split is unknown the decision can only be resolved through much prayer and by visiting BOTH groups.
    The group that stayed could have become liberal in its thinking and social in its outlook – or the same could be said of the group that left, departing from the true basics.
    I would not join either without first obtaining their statement of belief and the importance given to evangelism, discipleship and missions.

    Comment by meetingintheclouds — June 15, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

  6. There have been some interesting comments here. I’ve already written the other half of this item, so all I can say is, stay tuned! I look forward to your comments on that one!

    Comment by paulthinkingoutloud — June 15, 2011 @ 6:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Your Response (Value-Added Comments Only)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: