Do I choose an old or new church?

How do I discern what church to join?

Many words are being written, and the occasional clickbait headline, to debate whether a revival is blowing across the land. The answer (as I’ve been saying for the last few years) is, no. As much as we pray and long for spiritual revival in Melbourne and across Australia, we are not witnessing revival. And yet, I do think there has been a nudge, a gentle opening of the curtains.

Evidence of this nudge is suggested by increased Bible sales and some churches indicating growth in Sunday attendance. There is anecdotal evidence of a slight turn from religious indifference (and animosity) toward curiosity. Dare I suggest, that even among Australia’s major newspapers, their tune toward Christianity has changed a little.

One of the quandaries facing young Aussies as they contemplate visiting a church and investigating Christianity is this: should I go for new or for old?

To paraphrase Superman, what is the real punk rock?

Tradition or innovation?

Classic or Contemporary?

Melbourne’s fashion is famously black. Is the new black, old classic black or black 2.0?

The dilemma is real enough. Should I try out a church that looks and feel old, or a church that is current and on trend?

Is contemporary the way to go or is tradition? Behind these questions is a desire to figure out what is authentic Christianity. Which tradition delivers a genuine Christian experience?

I have sympathy for 18 year olds who suppose older equates with a more authentic experience. I dig the past! At uni I studied music history and ancient history. I’ve performed more than a few choral works in years gone by and I still favour Bach and Mozart over Bieber and Miley Cyrus.

There is something ancient about the Christian faith (ontologically as much as anything). Christians shouldn’t ignore history, and yet not everything older than Hillsong is good. Not every tradition is as old as some make them out to be. Anyone who knows church history will agree that Baptist expressions of church are older than some teaching in the Roman Catholic Church!

A taste for the old and for the new

There are evangelical churches across Melbourne who are seeing growth, including seeing people converting from other religions and from no religion.

Over Easter this year, Melbourne’s Catholic Archdiocese recorded its highest number of new members in many years. I suspect much of this can be explained through immigration (where for example there is a high number of Roman Catholics among Sri Lankan, Filipino, and South American migrants. But that’s not the total picture.

Among Generation Z, there are non Churched women and men (mostly men from what I have witnessed) who are connecting with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches.

The first time I caught wind of this changing atmosphere was an article written by Stephen Mcalpine in 2017. He noted a mood swing,

Liturgy is making a comeback among many in the the younger evangelical crowd. Yet it’s worth pointing out that most of these youngsters (and older folk too) who think they are moving from non-liturgy to liturgy as a kind of ‘adding to” in their Christian church experience, need first to realise that something entirely different is happening.

For to move from nothing to something has a spark and energy about it that is palpable. You can feel the zing if you have nothing liturgical about you at all, no religious framework that you can draw experience from, and then one week you become a Christian and find yourself in a church that has a set liturgy. Simply put, it’s exhilarating.

In 2024, The ABC took note of the changing mood,

“The irony of rejecting Pope Francis’ modernising reforms, which are intended to broaden the appeal of the church, wasn’t lost on these young Catholics. “I suppose from the outside looking in, it wouldn’t make much sense,” 27-year-old Catholic convert Zachary Dennis said of his preference for Latin.”But once I had resolved to become Catholic, this to me was the only logical choice and I’m assuming those around me would also agree.”

In 2025 Madeleine Kearns, this is in the US wrote a piece, on How Catholicism Got Cool:

“Earlier this year, The Pillar reported a surge in the numbers of aspiring Catholics registering to join the church at Easter. The Diocese of Lansing in Michigan reported a 30 percent spike from the previous year, 633 converts, which is the highest they’ve seen in over a decade. Father Ryan Kaup, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Catholic center, baptized 20 students alone—“the highest we’ve ever had”—and gave rites of initiation to an additional 50 who were coming into the church from other Christian denominations. And now, of course, we have an American pope, Leo XIV, who church leaders hope will turbocharge the country’s Catholic boom. America is not alone. The Catholic boom is also happening in France—which saw a 45 percent increase in the number of adult baptisms this year—and in England—where, due to a surge in Mass attendance, Catholics are on track to outnumber Anglicans for the first time since the Church of England was born.”

So what’s going on?

Part of what we are seeing right now is a cultural detonation from the inside. Our cultural bishops and their minions are pulling apart, tearing down and dissecting everything. Not content with pulling the rug from underneath, they want to strip the flooring and remove anything that provides society with firm foundation and grounded hope. Think about it, we no longer understand what men and women are, and anyone daring to offer definition and articulate difference is bound to get themselves into hot water. Even appreciating what a human being is, seems more slippery than catching a fish.

All our hubris and progressive thinking and God free building materials hasn’t created societies with hope and contentment. We’ve made the opposite. I’m not arguing that the answer to the deconstruction project is to grab all the broken bricks and glue them back together. I don’t think the answer to cultural desecration is to rebuild 1959. The status quo cannot continue; people from all walks of life are asking the question, can we change?

What is emerging, at least in small ways, is a generation of younger people who aren’t buying the scepticism and badmouthing of religion that is so common place in my generation. It’s like 18 year old boys are saying to 50 year men,

‘you keep criticising religion, and Christianity specifically, you say how terrible and unreliable it is, and yet you haven’t given us a better alternative. All you have done is create a world without meaning and without hope, and we don’t want that thank you very much!’

Zoomers are:

Looking for authentic,

Searching for substance,

And hoping for depth.

Not everyone is hoping to find the answer in Jesus Christ. I pray so, but I know that’s not how things work. Nevertheless, there is a gentle tide of Australians looking to the church for answers. And so here comes the quandary: which church? Are they all the same? Does difference matter?

One of the theories that I’ve heard numerous times is that older is better. It’s not usually expressed quite so crassly, but the assumption is, if it feels old and smells musty and sounds pre-pop, chances are that the version of Christianity is authentic and not a cheap rip off product.

For example, I have a Catholic friend who likes to make jabs at the music in many contemporary protestant churches. He has a point.

Gavin Ortlund hits the nail on the head when we explains how some Protestant churches have so pushed against tradition, they run down the seeker sensitive service or the consumer service. Church becomes like like a pop concert where the band sounds like a C Grade version of U2 and where the preacher parades on stage with the latest Melbourne Winter collection 2026, and the latest technology and screens are working their magic; it’s the vibe man.

My teenage daughter made a comment about a church we visited while on holidays. Her insights are informative. She said of this church, (which is a great church in many ways),

‘They’re try hards! The vibe they’re giving off is one of trying to look and sound cool to appeal to a young demographic. To her, the aesthetic communicated commercialism. She found the mood music and trendy outfits unconvincing.’

Obviously not everyone will agree with her, but her perspective resonates with what I hear from a growing number of young people. They want something real, not trendy.

If some contemporary expressions of church pass off a Hoochie Gucci Fiorucci Mama pastiche, does that mean finding the real thing lays at the opposite spectrum, with old and traditional styled church?

No. Yes. Maybe, and no.

Firstly, tradition and contemporary aren’t necessarily different ends of the spectrum, they can represent 2 sides of the same coin. A grand gothic styled building with all the bells, whistles, choir and robes, can be as performance based as the most slick Pentecostal Sunday show. Please hear the qualification, it ‘can be’, but it may not be.

(Photo: Mentone Baptist Church: ugly on the outside, warm and real inside!

Style (or aesthetic) is about communication. Style is a chosen language that communicates our theological convictions and our pastoral intentions. Style is about taking the language of culture in which we live, to communicate God’s truth. Take music as an example. The Bible encourages singing when church is gathered.

Ephesians 5:19-20 says

“speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

If church music is about the people of God adoring God and encouraging one another with the truths of God, that tell us that what happens in the congregation is more important than what is taking place on the stage. The musicians exist to accompany and encourage the church to sing.

If you are a passive participant in the music, it fails the pub test, no matter how excellent the musicianship of the guitar or organ.

If the words are unclear or unintelligible or down wrong heretical, the music again fails the church test.

The Bible doesn’t limit what instruments or style is most authentic or holy. It’s not as though the church choir is optimum, or is it the piano or electric guitar. There is freedom and that freedom is about choosing the language that helps the congregation hear and understand and participate in singing the wondrous story.

In that sense, neither old or new is superior; they are different.

I’m not suggesting that style is inconsequential. How we do church also embodies our theological convictions, and so it’s really important to get that right. This is why learning history and especially, knowing the Bible is really important.

Learn History

What appears old in some churches may not be any more faithful and true to the historic Church than a church who meets in a factory or in someone’s home.

One of many things I appreciated in my theological studies is how we were encouraged to read primary sources. It wasn’t suffice to read what one person thinks about another person’s writings (a good thing to do), but go back and read the original writings of scholars and theologians for ourselves. And read broadly, across traditions to understand what influential thinkers have said in other Christian traditions and tribes.

Of course, not everyone has the luxury to do that. Maybe we take short cuts and watch a YouTube channel. To be frank, these are often less than helpful. For those who are interested, these two channels offer thoughtful and irenic discussions on church history: Gavin Ortlund and Wes Huff.

History is important, and it helps us understand our culture and world today, including Christianity. As we do that work of learning history, we discover many of the so called ‘traditions’ in churches are only a generation old, or go back to the 19th Century or to the 17th Century. That’s not necessarily wrong and bad. I’m encouraging readers not to assume the ‘vibe. Many liturgies are no more ancient than my left foot! Perhaps this sounds controversial, although it shouldn’t given it’s the historical record, some of the traditions and teachings taught in ‘older’ churches (say in Roman Catholic Churches) were not formalised or even existed until Medieval times or later. In other words, don’t trust the vibe.

Protestants are not late comers

I want to dispel a myth about Protestantism; that is, protestants are late to the party. They’re newcomers who embody a diluted version of Christianity, if not one that’s in error.

The caricature goes something like this: protestants are like the replacement guitarist in a rock group. One of the original members is replaced, but the sound is never as good; the magic is lost.

That malapropism is fairly a common one but it misunderstands the protest and the reformers of the 16th Century. They are not the replacements, the reformation was designed to bring the original band back together again.

The Reformation was a 16th and 17th century movement, but their ideas are far older. Indeed, the movement’s direction was about rediscovering and embracing what had been lost. Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Jean Calvin and others were not changing Christianity, they were calling bishops and cardinals to account for introducing rules and ideas that were ruining the faith and contradicting the very Scriptures that define Christianity.

The refrain was ad fontes. Go back to the original. Go back to the bible.

Martin Luther with whom the Reformation really took off, wasn’t trying to end Rome or start a new church. His famous 95 theses was a call of repentance to the church. Luther’s heart was very much about the church divesting herself of all bad apples and add ons, and return to its Bible roots.

John Calvin’s aim was the same. In his essay ‘On the Necessity of Reforming the Church’, Calvin explains his purpose,

“to aid the Church of Christ…which is now in grievous distress, and in extreme danger’

He describes his concerns for the church as

““All our controversies concerning doctrine relate either to the legitimate worship of God or to the ground of salvation.”

“If the purity of this doctrine is in any degree impaired, the Church has received a deadly wound” and will be brought to the very brink of destruction.”

The Reformers were not aiming to create a new Christianity, they preached to reofmr the churches. Their protest was about correcting teachings and practices that leaked into the church over centuries and which didn’t line up with Scripture and with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Luther and Calvin’s argument is an important one, and the same is argued by Baptists. It is not the case that Protestants are newer (or novel) and that Orthodox is older and Roman Catholicism is the original. The reality is far more complicated historically and theologically.

Baptists for example (along with many denominations) can easily and truly argue that their origins go back to and belong to the Apostolic testimony and to Jesus himself. We can make such a claim because we have the Christian Scriptures, the very words of God which are the authoritative which define Christianity and the Christian Church.

Begin with first principles.

There is common ground between Roman Catholics and Orthodox and Protestant Churches:

Belief in one God who is the Triune God: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Accepting that Jesus Christ died on the cross as the substitute for our sins (although not all accept penal substitution, which is the centrepiece of atonement. That’s a big problem)

Jesus rose physically from the dead.

Moving outside the Bible, all three groups affirm the historical Creeds. Creeds do not posses the same level of authority as the Bible, but they are nonetheless important and clear expressions of basic Christian beliefs.

There are also significant differences. One difference is that while Protestants appreciate tradition (so long as it fits with New Testament), we don’t give tradition the same authority as the Bible (or at least that is how it’s meant to work). That cannot be said of some of other Christian traditions, where other writings and practices are held with similar authority to Scripture.

To repeat an earlier point, not everything old is as old as we might think. In learning Church history we discover neither Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy are stagnant institutions. They haven’t remained fixed since time immemorial, but have often changed, not only with new expressions (style), but eben changing beliefs. For example,

Papal authority,

Icon veneration,

Mariology,

Penance,

Purgatory,

And more.

It might surprise some readers to learn that these teachings are not found in the Bible. These and others like them were introduced or made official, sometimes many hundreds of years after the apostolic age. When we include the Second Vatican Council, which took place in the 1960s, further changes to Catholic dogma occurred, including this idea of the anonymous Christian, whereby through Jesus and without faith in Jesus, people in other religions can be mysteriously saved.

The point is a simply but important one, what we sometimes assume is a more genuine expression of Christian Church, may be little more than a product from the 1960s or 1830s, and so on.

That’s not to dismiss everything that took place before the 21st Century. Churches who ignore the past easily unhitch themselves from evangelical and orthodox Christianity. We can learn and gain from documents of old: the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the Westminster Catechism, and recent statements like my own Baptist denomination’s doctrinal basis and The Gospel Coalition’s Foundation Documents. These documents enrich and confirm wonderful Christian truths…and importantly they also defer authority to the first principle: the Bible.

This is why the Reformation principle of ad fontes, remains vital.

What does the Bible teach us?

What is authentic worship of God according to the Scriptures.

How does the Bible define Church?

Logically, historically, and theologically, the Bible is surely the starting place.

One of amazing truths from Scripture, is that anyone can read the Bible. The idea of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ (a New Testament idea), encourages every member to read the Scriptures and to sharpen one another. The priest or pastor isn’t the Holy Spirit’s singular vehicle who alone uncovers hidden mysteries. God’s Spirit is given to every believer.

Diagnostic Questions for Choosing a Church.

The Scriptures show us that Church has a threefold design (cf Col 3:16-17; Eph 5:19-20; 2 Tim 3:16-42): 1. God speaks through his word, 2. we speak to God in prayer and song, and 3. we speak to one another. Indeed, the Bible’s presentation of church gives significant space the horizontal relationships in the church.

Here are some suggested diagnostic questions as you consider what church to join.

Do they read the Bible?

Do they teach from the Bible?

Does the preacher’s message match what the Bible teaches?

Do they teach that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?

Do they believe in heaven and hell?

Do they preach the sufficiency of Jesus’ death on the cross?

Do they practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper in accord with the significance given in Scripture?

Is the church’s sexual ethics in line with the Bible.

Do the people love one another? Jesus tells us ‘the world will know you are my disciples, because you love one another’.

Do they welcome visitors with kindness and grace. Is the church safe for the unbeliever and inquirer?

Young Aussies are right to search for a meaning that has substance and legitimacy. I’m confident to say that Jesus is answer: intellectually, spiritually and relationally. The incredible revelation through Jesus Christ is that God who is beyond us in power and holiness is now made palpable and personal. That’s the real punk rock.

Jesus says,

‘Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.’ (John 4:23-24)

The Apostle Paul wrote,

‘God our Savior who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.’ (1 Timothy 2:4-6a)

By implication, authentic communion with God and experience of his grace and love, is possible in new churches and old churches alike: with guitars and drums or with choir and organ, with jeans or a suit, and in a building made of stone or outside under a gum tree.

Where the faith once for all delivered is taught and believed, there is the true church.

This principle is really important to grasp. Accepting the Apostolic witness isn’t a Roman or Byzantine thing: it’s thoroughly Baptist, Anglican, FIEC, and Presbyterian. Yes, the conversation gets more complicated because denominational names is no guarantee that individual churches adhere to their own traditions and doctrinal particulars.

This simply reinforces my overall thesis: don’t settle for the vibe. Don’t assume new or old is somehow more genuine or closer to the real Jesus. Open a Bible and find a church that does so. Find a church where people’s lives are being transformed by the gospel of Jesus. Stay and explore with the community of believers where sinners are welcomed and hear the good news our troubled city so desparately needs.

If you are looking for a more detailed exploration of what constitutes a church (and a healthy Church), Mark Dever’s Nine Marks of a Healthy Church is a great and accessible resource.