It is bad when you get to the point of timing the church shopping to hit several the same morning. The 10am the 10:30 and the 11:00... all at different churches. My advice is to spend some time in prayer and know that you will not find the church you were at.

I appreciate these observations. Shopping for community. Fascinating.

I have had to do the same, and in a mobile society, it continues to be necessary. And yet, I have watched the incoming (including myself) increasingly seek out the "wish dream" of Bonhoeffers Life Together, and find stumbling little communities all questing to draw the right congregants.

Our gifts, our tithes, our passions - all are a part of what each congregation would like to draw, which is a fascinating contrast to the other post on the two non-Christian university students entering the Church.

I came to a church community when we relocated for study purposes that was seeking my friendship, personality bumps and all. Without style and glitz, and with noticeable absences of the some key components to the list in this post, this contemporary denominational community drew us like a magnet.

It has made all the difference for our family. We share life together. Though it may lack in some amenities (we live in the poorest province, in the poorest county, in Canada), after 3 years I would place it up and against any mega, mainline, or other faith community in the world (and I've taught and led worship in hundreds) for its gift of simple friendship.

Yes, mission. Yes, pay scales. Yes, website. Yes, Yes, Yes.

Greater than all of these, is finding a community that is loving, and is accepting you into that breathing, inclusive circle.

7. Nondenominational evangelical churches highly value Scripture. This covers a multitude of other shortcomings.

I was wondering when something of a spiritual nature would be mentioned. Thank you for finally saying it. Not a single other thing on your list has any eternal significance. Just a thought; not one of the original apostles (Paul excepted and he had to walk away from his) had an M. Div.

I found the list very insightful. They are just observations from a person who is looking for a church home.

I don't know how Melody can say that "Not a single other thing on your list has any eternal significance." Is there nothing spiritual about accountability, missional focus, theological and historical integrity, and care for the poor and hurting? Is a church's use of Scripture the only thing to be considered "spiritual"? I don't think so.

I have worked and served on staff in both types of churches. I find his observations to fairly accurate and fair. Good thoughts.

Good stuff, Andy. A couple of thoughts:

9. Mainline churches have better accountability structures.

Can you give more information about the structures you are familiar with? My experience with structures in the mainline I was in is that they were often just bureaucracy--a lot of dotting i's and crossing t's. When there was accountability, my experience was that it was often about the least-spiritual aspects of church life. And, of course, for all of its structures, the RC Church did almost nothing to prevent the abuse disaster now playing itself out. How do you see the ML structures as better?

1. Nondenominational evangelical churches

Especially in #1 & 2 of your nondenom list, it sounds much more like you are describing a seeker-friendly sub-category (the newer "community" churches) than the group of nondenoms as a whole. Many of the latter are quite comfortable with "more spirit/Bible and less thought" (my phrase) or separatism as an over-arching value, than they are concerned with leadership or welcoming irreligious folks.

I concur with many of your thoughts. I often find it is hard to choose a church when you approach it purely intellectually, which is hard for someone as yourself (or for me) to do since you are grounded in the Christian intellectual community via Duke. I have struggled much with leaving the non-denominational church I call home because I don't think they fall short of pretty much every mainline point, and that is what I want out of a church. Yet, I feel that the Spirit tells me to stay there and start the seeds of liturgy, of appreciation for the arts, of beauty and wonder and grace that are stifled in the multi-technological extravaganza that is displayed every Sunday morning. Having a community I am infatuated with would be ideal, but I am in a community I can serve in, and that is what is truly important.

The Charlotte area is predominantly mainline as well, even the megachurches are affiliated with a denomination. I agree with all of your statements. For me, there are few other issues I am dealing with/thinking about:

First, the liturgical services keep me engaged. I have to stand, kneel, respond to the priest, and speak some really thoughtful theology. It's great for someone like me with a short attention span. Sometimes I feel like nondenominational/megachurches are feeding me a product that I am supposed to sit and consume. This is my greatest frustration with the "Sunday morning show." I have seen many Taylor students that expect a quality product from church services, especially Taylor chapels. While working as Randy's intern, I often heard students complain to me about chapel as if I was a customer service representative. I believe there are some other issues at work here, chiefly a culture that values consumerism and self gratification and also the highly individualistic nature of postmodernity.

Second, are the political debates occurring within mainline denominations. I appreciate being a part of a denomination that house people of varying ideologies, but am concerned that the debates (currently over the ordination of homosexuals) can distract the church from its missional purpose. However, I am encouraged by attempts and reconciliation between conservatives and liberals within the Episcopal Church. Gethsemane Episcopal in Marion sent me to Los Angeles in June to participate in a seminar on reconciliation. I hope to be doing some more work in this area soon. These kinds of debates were not happening in the church I grew up in.

I do miss the preaching of the nondenominational churches I've attended, but am finding that well-led small groups and reading good books goes a long way towards satisfying my appetite for both an intellectual and spiritual study of Scripture.

Thanks for what I would call balanced observations. As with most things, both sides have good points and areas that need improvement. We can learn from one another and appreciate one another without rancor and hostility.

I certainly am not against theological education; I have plenty of my own. However, I am frequently surprised by the degree to which people place priority on theological education; as if it is the key to "effective ministry".

The author of this post expressed his chagrin that a mega-church of 100 staff would only have one person on board with an MDiv.

But what about asking how many of those people were mature believers who reflected the character of Christ?

Western obsessions with head knowledge; and specifically head knowledge regarding a particular subset of Christian theology based on Mondernistic assumptions about reality, are, at best, perplexing... at worst, a case of seriously missing the forest for the trees.

This is a prime example where Eastern Orthodoxy is appealing- because it places emphasis on the spiritual practices and devotion that lead to Christlikeness, as opposed to the head knowledge of a sub-set of one particular theological perspective.

Just think of Jesus and his disciples: not a one had an MDiv. Who'd want to go to that church?

Ah, but Jesus, John the Baptist, the Desert Fathers: these people spent time in the desert, training their bodies and minds to grow in devotion to God.

Maybe you might want to consider spending five years doing that. You might not get another plaque for your wall when you're done; but just maybe you'd be that much more in tune with the life that Christ came to invite us into.

Now doesn't that sound like worthwhile theological education?

Now my comments on What you Appreciate about Nondenominational Churches:

RE: #1.

This is generally true of the mainline mega-churches as well (which, of course, are for the most part evangelical).

RE: #2.

Ditto for mainline mega-churches (also evangelical)

RE: #3.

This would likely be true of the mainline megas, also.

RE: #4.

Alas, this is true! I grin and bear it and hope for a new Reformation with a cultural renewal. When people point out (whether it is true or not, I dunno) that some of Martin Luther’s hymns were set to tunes that were sung in the taverns, I always note that they had a higher level of clientele in the taverns then than they do nowadays. They also seemed to have had more gifted musicians.

RE: #5.

Talking about continuing outdated traditions, I met with a pastor last Saturday. They have a 11-2:30 am service on SATURDAYS at their church (as well as 3 services on Sunday). Why? When they were started, they had to rent space from an existing congregation and had to meet on Saturdays, because the church was otherwise engaged on Sunday. They have been in their own building for the past 20 years…..

RE: #6.

Also true of most of the megachurches along the mainline.

RE: #7.

Ditto for the large, evangelical churches among the mainlines (with the possible exception of the Crystal Cathedral). On the other hand, the celebration of Scripture in the independent evangelicals and especially Charismatic/Pentecostal circles can be more lip-service than reality.

Andy,

As a student who has grown up in a mainline church and then ministered in a nondenominational church, I've found that both do some things extremely well.

I loved my home church's commitment to its members and the dedication that people demonstrated to one another. I did not love my home church's lack of understanding of youth (especially while i was one) and their seemingly lack of concern for helping others find Christ.

The church I am currently serving in goes a long way towards making scripture understandable to those who are very unexperienced or new to their faith. However, while our "up front" stuff is great, this causes a real lack of real relationship to be built. Sure small groups and friendships do happen, but all under the guise of program.

~Interesting post Andy. It's good to hear from you and I trust that God is providing you in His usual abundent-yet-on-His-time fashion.~

Adam

Very thoughtful and balanced as many folks have said. Ending with the Scripture was a nice touch.

My wife and I chose the church we currently go to because the children's program values Bible teaching. I love that.

Reading this list made me wonder why more churches (and even denominations!) don't work together more often. It seems like such an obvious thing to do.

I found it amusing that one commentator would hold up the Eastern Orthodox as being the opposite of Western head knowledge. The Orthodox Priest most certainly has the equivalent of an M.Div and many years of intellectual (as well as human and spiritual)formation. The Orthodox liturgy is largely a recitation of Chalcedonian confessional theology and it fits with a nice, intellectually worked out ecclessiology. Please do not posit the E.O as being in anyway anti-intellectual.

Andy, good to see you doing so well.

To the person who wrote:
I found it amusing that one commentator would hold up the Eastern Orthodox as being the opposite of Western head knowledge. The Orthodox Priest most certainly has the equivalent of an M.Div and many years of intellectual (as well as human and spiritual)formation. The Orthodox liturgy is largely a recitation of Chalcedonian confessional theology and it fits with a nice, intellectually worked out ecclessiology. Please do not posit the E.O as being in anyway anti-intellectual.

I think you're missing my point. I'm certainly not arguing for an anti-intellectual position. I am merely suggesting that spiritual development is much more than the accumulation of head knowledge.

Secondly, I am suggesting we should be interested in the actual spiritual maturity (i.e. Christlikeness) of Church leaders; as opposed to the number of theoligical degrees they can hang on their wall.

I find your observations insightful and true. But we must remember that there is not a prefect Church this side of Heaven. We must also keep in mind that the Church, belongs to the Lord Jesus, He has and will continue to be her Shepherd. All of our intellectual and spiritual pursuits will leave us short. First and foremost we must remember that church is a relationship a community of like minded people who share the common confession of faith: Jesus is the Christ, God the Son.
We can have the right goverment, but the wrong people, we can have the right people, but the wrong goverment. We do need Disciples of Christ and then we will have both the right people and right goverment.

6. The ordination process in mainline denominations usually screens out the mentally ill. The ordination process of the denominations takes a few years, includes a battery of psychological tests, and is done in consultation with lots of people who know you. Many pastors of evangelical churches simply decided to plant a church. Whether they have any education or preparation is irrelevant.

Actually, my experience suggests that this may not be a great strength of mainline churches because of the way it is sometimes implemented. I was screened out of training in a mainline denomination because of a "mental illness" (actually, a developmental disorder, Asperger's Disorder). In this denomination, approval by a denominational district ministerial board was a prerequisite to being admitted to academic training. I was screened out by an impersonal board that DIDN'T know me, in spite of the positive recommendation of my pastor (who DID know me), strictly on the basis of a paper record of psychiatric hospitalization six years previously. Because of the decision, I was not permitted to even begin academic training for the ministry in this denomination, and could not build personal relationships with the members of the Board or a "track record" as a ministerial student to counteract my psychiatric record.

In other words, it appears to me that mainline denominations (at least the one I had experience with)treat the selection of their pastoral leadership far too much like an exercise in worldly personnel management. They tend to give the Holy Spirit too little room to do things that are unconventional in giving gifted people to help the Church grow.

I continue to be aware of the Spirit's calling on my life. I have continued to develop and exercise my gifts since I was screened out of leadership by the mainline denomination. I simply have done so without formal training and without the benefit of the denomination's approval of the Spirit's gifts in my life.

It makes sense to shop for the best church, but I think some decide on the basis of the performance aspects of the service or the programming offered -- good preaching, great band, quality children's ministry.

These aren't the things that bring the most fulfillment in a church relationship.

The choice is best based on the people you'll be fellowshipping with.

Juest as water seeks its own level, churches tend to attract like minded people.

Before I chose a church I would want to be sure that the overal tendency of the majority of the people is toward a positive expression of spirituality, generosity, joy, and friendliness.

Great article and my compliments to the author for his courage in writing it as it was always guaranteed to spurn debate. I am however that such a highly educated man would make such generalised statements such as 'Mainline churches have better accountability structures' when anecdotal evidence would surely suggest otherwise. Just look at the numerous mainline churches around the world who have hidden various major abuses from financial to sexual (some might say they are not better at screening out the mentally ill). This aside the main thoughts that rise in me as I read the article are 'where is God in this'. My family has moved several times and each time our goal is to ask, "Lord, show us which community of believers you would have us pursue your kingdom with'. This takes us beyond the 'feels good, sounds good, tastes good (coffee)' scenario which ultimately leads to putting faith in the institution to meet ones needs rather than the ONE above. To me church is such an important part of my life/spiritual journey I need to know I have a call to a place/church/community. This gives me a purpose beyond the pastor and the building so when disappointment comes, and it will, I have something to hold onto to and drive me forward which is beyond the limitations of any institution. Great article though, thanks.

I'm seeing a lot of emphasis on the education bit, or lack of. At least from the NT point of view. In the OT, the church leaders -- priests and scribes, had a lot of education. The pharisees and rabbis had much study. This is how you became a leader in the temple. Jesus went to school. Even the disciples learned about the Torah until a certain age.

It all isn't about getting that sheepskin -- our ego walls prove nothing "meaningless! meaningless!" But we shouldn't be opposed to dusting off a new facet, learning something new, or stretching and renewing the mind, M. Div. or none (and I've learned much from both sides of the frame).

One question I have about the whole "body of Christ" church thing... who gets to be the appendix?

I am a minister and just wanted to say that I am frustrated when people look for a church that suits them. We should, in my experience, find the place we are called to serve. I have also found that most Christians have preconceived notions of what other Denominations (Non-Denominations) believe, that are not completely accurate. If we search for a place where our gifts can be used then we will find peace and joy.

Andy, Did you and your wife find a church to attend?

Timothy, I don't think finding a church that "suits" an individual is incompatible with finding one where he can serve. In all likelihood the two go hand in hand, leading to a place where believers can be filled and poured into as well as where they can serve and pour into the Body. It seems to me illogical that the Spirit would call an individual to a place where he finds little enlightenment from the teaching or little connection in the worship simply because he has something to offer the congregation...although I humbly acknowledge that the Spirit's leading is not subject to human logic.

I suggest the writer spend a few years in a mainline church. After he has gone over the same rich liturgy over and over and over again, see how it continues to speak to him. I grew up in the mainline church and could never go back to the dead rituals.

Also, his cmments about leaders having Masters degrees, reflects a typical bias of those with higher education. Education is great but can never replace experience and common sense.

In regards to point 4 under appreciating main line churches: The first church wasn't as concerned with social issues as it was with introducing people to Jesus as Lord and Savior. Peters response when asked what the hearers should do was not care for the poor, empower women and care for the enviornment. It was "Repent!"

I prefer Jesus's walk over anything else.. People get all affixiated over protocol and traditions and buildings and comfort. Jesus walked without posessions to the people. He did not wait for the people to come to Him. He cut to the heart of the matter and LISTENED to their hearts speak to Him. He lead by example. He was patient, kind and used scriptures and parables to teach. He did not stay in ONE place, like a King on his thrown. He was amongst the people sharing opportunities to bring them in a closer walk with Thee.

All this megachurch does.. is lead to emptyness.. and when they feel alone and lost... they will stop coming... and you will never notice it. My friend did soul searchin and shopped for her church. She found that the megachurches did not 'need' her.. nor did they 'miss' her. When she was there, she was treated like a newcomer. She found her nitch in an unorthodox church with a small amount of members.. and they seek others and see the miracles take place! I take the time to listen to people and their needs... and when scripture pops up in my mind... I deliver the message. Ive seen eyes lighten in joy and.. evolve.. it truely IS a miracle of God's Love. I go to a orthodox traditional church... I regularly refer to Bible daily. And... i listen to His Callin... and I can hear it now more than ever before! And thankfully, I have my Christian friends that we converse and regularly share testimonies... and it is a delight to grow with the people..as we go through our stumblin blocks together! Always eager to meet others.. and share our storiess of His Love. I stumbled for years.. cause i had gone to church my whole life.. and yet, the phrases slipped through my mouth without deep thought or acknowledgement... until, I utterly felt alone and lost.. Not sure of what He truely wanted of me. Now, Im alive, awake and ready to Serve!!! Unfortunately, I missed one yesterday. But, its a wake up call for the precious souls that have yet to go! One on One is my favorite. Its more in depth, and to the very point of the matter. Like a sword that pierces the Heart.

Andy, I think the best way to go is with the Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, or Christian and Missionary Alliance. I have found a good balance in these denominations. These younger denominations tend to have good, accountable structures w/ less red tape that allows the Spirit to move and laypeople to minister with some creativity. They typically teach the scriptures well, acknowledge that the Holy Spirit exists, and are very missional. Though I love church history and intellectual pursuit, those are secondary issues to a loving, Spirit-filled community.

Andy,

You wrote: "The ordination process in mainline denominations usually screens out the mentally ill."

When you get to heaven, please tell this to Martin Luther. He was mentally ill. He spoke about and wrote about his struggle with depression freely and instructed clergy concerning pastoral care of the mentally ill.
bachdevelopment.com/BACH17h.html

Maybe, you will get to meet Rev. Doug Murren. With his bi-polar disorder properly medicated and under good control, Doug built and was pastor of the fastest growing and largest church in his denomination. The congregation was begun in his living room with ten people and grew to an aggregate adherence of approximately 8000 with a Sunday attendance of 4800 people. Like Martin Luther who suffered from depression, Rev. Murren has not keep his mental illness a secret but used it as an opportunity for ministry.

The ordination process normally acts like an internship. The MMPI and other psychological tests given to possible clergy do not pick up on mental illnesses like the various personality disorder nor if someone has bipolar. The problem is not a future clergy having a mental illness, but if they are not following the suggested treatments. Otherwise, you just defrocked Martin Luther.

There are many more evangelical churches than the nondenominational ones. If you are going to compare mainline in general with evangelical, then compare with evangelical in general.

Also, you wrote: "Though evangelical churches are coming around, they have been slower than the mainline regarding racism, care for the poor, empowering women, and care for the environment."

Please read Revivalism and Social Reform by Timothy Smith. The evangelicals were doing things about social problems while mainline churches were mostly writing resolutions about them.

When it comes to the stigma in society concerning people with a mental illness and their families, the mainline churches cannot claim a better record on this is practice than evangelical churches.

From my own experience, people in mainline churches often have a poor knowledge of the Bible, and their denominational beliefs, as well as an even weaker knowledge of Church history. I've found the opposite among many evangelicals.

Andy,

I do hope you'll visit us at All Saints Anglican Church. I daresay we have the mainline and the evangelical.

John

You wrote in response to Andy's comment "The ordination process in mainline denominations usually screens out the mentally ill."

"When you get to heaven, please tell this to Martin Luther. He was mentally ill. He spoke about and wrote about his struggle with depression freely and instructed
clergy concerning pastoral care of the mentally ill".

I enjoyed reading your comments John and learning some new information, however, (unless I've missed something) I didn't take Andy's comments as a personal attack of those with depression or mental health issues, simply a factual statement of how most ML churches handle the ordination process.

And I thought the "struggle" my wife and I were having to find a decent church-home in our area was challenging. Reading all this makes me think casting lots might be the best method. :)

It's a good thing Jesus loves us in spite of our denomination, orthodoxy, methodology, mental health, M.Div. or ability to impress. Maybe we should just "Bless the LORD" and get on with it.

Dear Commenters,

Thanks for your insightful comments. I think I agree with all of them to some extent! My article stated a number of generalizations and you have pointed out that there are many exceptions! Thanks for arguing with each other a bit too! I like blogs for just that reason: you can put out some generalizations and then get feedback on them.

In particular, I think many of you are correct that: (1) we need to keep praying for God's guidance in finding a church; (2) that service and gifting are more important than education;(3)God can certainly use people with mental illnesses as the Bible certainly attests!

I am thankful for the variety of commenters and readers represented here at Out of Ur. Some of you are serving in evangelical churches, others Eastern orthodox, others mainline, others nondenominational, others seeker churches, others Evangelical denominations. That made this conversation particularly rich.

Two other small comments:

(1) I would like to say that the title wasn't mine! The phrase "Church Shopping" . . . makes me squirm! My original title was: "To Denom or not to Denom . . . Picking a Church: Mainline vs. Nondenominational (and what they could each learn from each other)." But I am glad that the Out of Ur editors picked a controversial title to get people's attention. :-)

(2) No, we haven't picked a church yet.

Feel free to keep commenting and I will come back here periodically and see what else I can learn.

Grace and peace,
andy

Andy Rowell
Th.D. Student
Duke Divinity School
Blog: Church Leadership Conversations

Lynn,

I noticed that Ian Johnson also spoke to this subject also on July 29.

I was being factual also with a bit of passion. Some facts that mainline people do not know nor do some evangelical churches. Why highlight mental illness at all? From my perspective that only adds to the stigma which society is improving some in but Churches are largely in the Dark Ages about. Unless you have walked in my shoes, don't talk about 'em

The ordination process is more about overall readiness, giftedness, etc. for the life and work of an ordained minister.

The psychological tests include, but are not limited to just personality/mental health issues. I like the ordination process because it is like an internship in becoming a medical doctor.

I did notice that in Andy's comparisons that he changed from nondenominational evangelical to evangelical.

Most and particularly older evangelical churches do have an ordination process that is not just start your own church. The older evangelical churches include the Lutheran Missouri Synod, AME, AMEZ, CME, Assembly of God, Church of the Nazarene, Evangelical Free Church of America, Evangelical Methodist, Free Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, The Salvation Army, The Wesleyan Church and more whose names I do not know.)

There are some evangelical seminaries,like Asbury Theological Seminary, who require the MMPI for its applicants. The last I heard, Duke did not require the MMPI to screen its Divinity School applicants.

My own experience in the church is rather broad. Baptized a Roman Catholic with some influence from both that denomination and my mother's Presbyterian Church, I spent my high school and college years in non-denominational then evangelical places. When I entered seminary, I found that I was really more at home with methodism than either of my parent's or step-parent's (Lutheran/Episcopal) denominations.

I'm no longer a pastor having become disabled in 2003 after starting as a pastor in 1983. I learned an important lesson from other clergy during my first years. We all have common problems no matter what denomination or non-denomination, Pentecostal, Holiness, or Charismatic. So, take your pick. You will find that church people are church people and beneath the surface are about the same.

I also remember what a pastor's widow told me "over the years you will meat some of the most gifted and some of the most messed up people (speaking of clergy). That is true of clergy and church members.

John

I am amazed at the blatant anti-intellectual comments from some of those posting comments. As believers we are given a mind that is being renewed. The scriptures encourage christians to develop their minds. Knowledge is NOT unscriptural. This is part of a modern gnosticism that falsley divides the world into spiritual and unspiritual activities. Evangelicals (I am one) are famous for downplaying the value of formal education. That is nothing but sheer laziness. The disciples spent three years in intensive training with the master. To refer to them as uneducated (and therefore more spiritual) is just silly.

Brent,

You are correct that knowledge is not unscriptural. The Bible calls us to love God with all our heart and with all our mind. We don't turn our brains off when we become Christians.

Historically speaking revival and renewal movements in America tend to display an anti-intellectual outlook. Often this is in reaction to heavy intellectualizing of Bible truth devoid of one's heart. One goal of the Methodist movement was to join together two which have been separated for so long: i.e. vital piety and sound knowledge.

I would say to you brother that scripture contradicts all of your points. In the scheme of things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Body of Christ, none of that matters. You don't shop for churches, you look for people who exemplify Christ's nature(Gal 5) in the earth and that happens through fellowship (Acts 2). It's about connecting to the ekklesia in an area and not forsaking that fellowship (Heb 10:25). Pray, seek, connect and disciple.

I don't mean to be critical but I find some of these observations of the writer rather shallow. I appreciate both mainline/nondenom churches but to compare largely from an earthly standard (better websites??, get real) is quite trivial. Surely there are more spiritual dimensions to benchmark both groups.

The list is very well thought out. As someone who has been a pastor in both nondenominational and denominational churches (PCA), I would say that the list is fairly accurate. By the way all of you people saying that this author is not being "spiritual enough," please list your ideas of spiritual observations and activities.

When reading this article, I was reminded to my journey in finding churches. More importantly, it allowed me the opportunity to look at my Church now and see where we stand in this list.
We get into a mindset, usually postmodern, that if people want to come to our Church, fine, but we aren't going to cater to each and every whim of society just to be popular. The other spectrum is that we need to go out and reach anyone and everyone; postmodern.
The problem with lists is that it groups Churches into an either or situation. I agree with many of the statements, but I would suggest that there are a few comments that are so general that they really take liberties with the labels being used.
The first issue, I don't know what "Mainline" is? Are we talking "denominational" churches? If that is the case, I think that we have taken the list for "mainline" and really substituted the idea of a premodern mentality to is. Non-denominational sure looks like a postmodern mentality. The reality is that the difference between denominational and non-denominational is the organizational and authority foundation.
A list that people would use to "shop" for a church, completely depends entirely on the individual. I think that from a Church there are certain things that you must identify:
1. What is your doctrine?
What are you willing to hold to no matter what; "fight to the death over". What are opinions and really open for interpretation?
2. What is your mission?
What is the purpose for your Church. For us evangelize and edify.
3. Who are you called to minister to?
What are your target groups? What does your community need from your Church?
4. What does your Church need to do to make that happen?
Evaluate your programs, areas of ministry, missions. Do they all fit into your vision.

I believe that one key factor that Churches cannot forget; we are called to serve Jesus Christ. This means that the truth should not be watered down. Too many people look at what a Church can do for them, instead they should look for a Church where they can serve. People need to feel wanted and people want to feel needed.