Do We Have An Obligation to Attend a Neighborhood Church?

Anthony Bradley is quickly becoming one of my favorite bloggers.  Today he is beyond provocative when he seems to suggest that, if we are members of a denomination, we have an obligation to attend the church nearest our home.  Here are a few of the money quotes:

As a rule, I generally attend the church in my denomination that's closest to my house NO MATTER WHAT. Why? Well, I thought that churches exist and are physically located to impact local community (geographically positioned near the building). I don't understand at all how it's possible to justify going to a good church that's NOT in your own neighborhood UNLESS you've sold out to the idol of personal preferences. Other reasons?

This is what privitized faith does: it arrests your passion for local mission.

Don't missionaries live in the communities where they "mission?" Wait, American Christians aren't misisonaries they're mostly church attenders served by various church-oriented programs.

And:

For a denominationally connected person to drive past a denominational church in their neighborhood to find one that best fits their personal preferences is, as some would say, pretty lame and immature. The Romans Catholics are right about the parish model. There is no biblically legitimate justification for choosing a church because you like the music or the preaching is better or the church has the programs you want to meet your needs.

Here are some pushbacks to Anthony's position, and in offering them I am not criticizing his position because I am on board in many ways.  I am just thinking out loud, or I should say thinking through my keyboard, about how I might justify preaching and teaching this to skeptics, as well as making sure for myself that these things are well founded.

1. Theology - a theologically driven person may find that the neighborhood denominational church has differing theological convictions on matters that are of prime importance to said theologically driven person.

2. Mission - most churches aren't missional.  What happens to the missionally minded person who goes to a church that is not missionally minded?  Will said missionally minded person find himself at odds with the leadership of the church, will this be the kind of church that people in the neighborhood will come to.

Those are just a couple of knee jerk reactions and I would hope there are others out there who have some better thoughts and will share them in the comments.  I do encourage you to read all of Anthony's post and pay particular attention to the comments on his post and in particular to the dialogue that he has with my good buddy Dignan.  Dignan drives some distance to his church on Sundays, passing a closer church of the same denomination and Dignan and Anthony have a good discussion on whether or not he should switch churches.

Comments

[Louie Marsh]

Thannks! A very interesting article that fits into what I've been blogging about.

I have a strong hunch it's going to be in tomorrow's post! But then you never know!

Since I'm a small town guy, and we're the only church of our denomonation in town, do I have it made?

Nope! People just go to the kind of church that's most like ours that they like instead of here.

And besides, why should we bypass other denomonations anyway? If you were really serious about being in community it seems to me that you'd have to go to the nearest Gospel preaching church regardless of it's heritage wouldn't you?

[Pastor Lance]

My question would be, “What is a neighborhood?” We use to be a more “settled” people. People lived in the same community for decades. Employees would word for the same company for their entire career. Few people could afford travel by jet airplane. The focus was local, local, local.

Things have changed. My neighborhood isn’t the neighborhood that Mr. Rogers talked about. Technology has changed the boundaries of my neighborhood. My neighborhood is no longer defined by geographical boundaries!

While this has been happening there has also been a HUGE shift in denominational churches. The world-wide Anglican Church condemns the practice of same-gender sexual intercourse yet there is an openly gay pastor at a “neighborhood church” in Seattle. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), of which I am a pastor, has moved to the point that VAST numbers of pastors do not believe that Jesus is the only way to God, rose bodily from the dead or that sex outside the bounds of a marriage of one man and one woman is called a “sin.” The local denominational church has lost the “right” to demand (or even ask) that the denominationally minded attend the closest denominational church. Until the local denominational church returns to its biblical roots people will keep driving by and going to another church—and most likely with Christ’s blessing.

FullCourtPresby.blogspot.com

[Jason]

"As a rule, I generally attend the church in my denomination that's closest to my house NO MATTER WHAT. Why? Well, I thought that churches exist and are physically located to impact local community (geographically positioned near the building)."

You thought? What do you base this thought on? Where in the Bible is the command "Attend the church closest to your home?" It doesn't.

"I don't understand at all how it's possible to justify going to a good church that's NOT in your own neighborhood UNLESS you've sold out to the idol of personal preferences. Other reasons?"

What if my family has been attending a church across town for years, but I moved to be closer to my job? Why would you want to impose these artificial limitations?

For a denominationally connected person to drive past a denominational church in their neighborhood to find one that best fits their personal preferences is, as some would say, pretty lame and immature.

From Wikipedia: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

Just because you might think a person's decision is lame and immature does not mean you know the whole story. Calling names does not support your weak argument.

The Romans Catholics are right about the parish model. There is no biblically legitimate justification for choosing a church because you like the music or the preaching is better or the church has the programs you want to meet your needs.

The Roman Catholic Parish model is one valid way of doing church. But it is not the only valid way. To say so is to assume much more than the biblical data would allow. Paul, for example, would not fit that model well as a missionary constantly on the move.

OKAY, clearly you are making a valid point about elevating personal preferences in regard to music or preaching over dedication to the local body. BUT the way you choose to argue your point is filled with holes, and ironically, your own personal opinions and rules about which church to attend. It is never as simple as "you should go to the church closest to you." There is much more to choosing a church than that - as JB has already indicated.

[pgepps]

What makes a community? Is it earthly geography, or the socioeconomic stratification of the modern urb?

And what's up with the insistence on denominations?

In the same way as I try to "buy local," I also tend to think it is preferable to serve in the nearest church. As the Lord and His Apostles clearly did not give any such command, though, it would be Pharisaical for me to turn my preference into a rule and attempt to bind the conscience of others with my preference, rather than Scripture.

Having a different preference from others doesn't mean one has escaped the preference mill.

Cheers,
PGE

[Steve]

I don't think one can take such a black & white view on church locale. If one is committed to a particular denomination or doctrinal makeup, and the one that's closest has a people/personality/style makeup that's radically counter to one's own personality or background, they have every right to choose an alternative a few miles further down the road that offers a better match. No two churches, even within a denomination, are alike, and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose one over another, when such an option exists. This shouldn't be viewed with a negative stigma of "church shopping." Perhaps the closer church lacks vision, or consists of folks who have no desire or concern for your presence or absence. Or, if a church consists only of stay-at-home moms who can't even relate to a woman with a professional career, is it fair to make her go to a church there just because it's the closest, even though the alternative is full of working professional women?

-Steve

[Brendt]

I read the post and the comments, as well. Anthony makes some good points, but they are so overwhelmed by gross over-generalizations and a seeming general air of arrogance and condecension, that they're totally lost.

Perhaps I missed something, since I'm not a member of a PCA church and I try to avoid too much contact with TRs. But his response to your comment seemed to pretty much equate putting ANY emphasis on good/bad theology with "worshipping the idol of personal preference".

[Jeremy Pierce]

Jason, that's not what an ad hominem argument is. An ad hominem is when you say someone's argument is bad because the person has a bad trait that you don't like. Someone's argument must be wrong because the person is a convicted felon, etc. What you don't like about this argument is that it's oversimplifying things, but that has absolutely nothing to do with being ad hominem, which just isn't true of this argument.

I should note that Anthony does qualify this by saying you should go to the closest congregation in your denomination. Of course, that would mean that if I wanted to go to a PCA church (which I wouldn't), I'd have to drive an hour and a half. If I wanted to go to an Orthodox Presbyterian church (which I'd be even less inclined to do) it would be even farther. I think he's allowing too much. People should, in general, seek the closest Bible-believing churches that agree with their most fundamental convictions on matters like philosophy of ministry, missions, children's education, and so on. Then if there's a selection that are close enough, personal matters can enter. For some people there may be no church that fits all the criteria, and the nearest best one has to suffice. For others, there are oodles of choices that are sufficient, and the closest may be best, or some of the closest may all be fine. It's more complicated than he allows, but I think those resisting him are missing the important point he's making because he isn't stating his view carefully enough, and that's a shame.

[pgepps]

Jeremy, the point is that both his criticism and his prescription miss the target.

His criticism is aimed at a "culture of preference" which, by erecting his own preference as the gold standard, he only exacerbates.

His prescription is to erect a rule based, not on any of the myriad Biblical or ministry considerations that might vary in their application in particular locations, but on externals--extreme externals, like geography.

It is the wrong reason, and the wrong response.

I say that given that I agree with the direction of the preference, and that I agree that the "church shopping" mentality is bad. This just isn't the answer.

Cheers,
PGE

[Tina]

There haven't been any new posts here since June so maybe no one will read this, but in case. I can see a great benefit to community where people live together and worship/pray together. In many areas, however, there are three or four churches of the same denomination within ten miles of each other.
Why should a person go to the one that is three blocks instead of four if the church that is four blocks helps them grow closer to Christ better.
In scripture people followed Jesus, they went to where they could find Him to learn what He had to teach. Sometimes a person has difficulty finding Jesus in a certain church building. God created us all differently and He gave us the ability to understand things in different ways too. God leads us where He wants us. Maybe it is not "the idol of personal preference", but rather the hand of God that calls us to a certain church building. Maybe I have a good income and a certain church needs that kind of support. Maybe I have a gift with teaching and a certain church needs that help.
Jesus tells us not too judge. Do you think it is better for a person to stop going to church all together because they are uncomfotable in a certain congregation or to drive one more block. Some people are further along their path to Christ while some need more nurturing. Maybe one church has a school and the family wants their children educated with prayer and morals but can't afford the non parishoner tuition. There are countless reasons a person may go to a certain church.
As long as the church is teaching the truth I don't see why a person shouldn't go where they have the greatest success in becoming more Christ like.
You never know when the "bashing" you do of the way a person seeks Christ will chase them away from a church altogether. We should always, always give our opinions in a loving charitable manner. If you feel stongly about your belief you must voice your opinion, but if you are a christian you should act like one especailly when trying to convince others to follow your advice on christian matters.