It’s no secret that the religious landscape in the West—especially in the United States—is shifting. Young Christians are leaving Evangelical churches in large numbers, and many of them aren’t becoming atheists or agnostics. Instead, they’re moving backward, so to speak—turning toward ancient traditions like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They’re not just searching for a new worship style or a change of pace; they’re seeking depth, stability, and rootedness.
They’re asking questions that many modern churches aren’t prepared to answer: Where did this come from? Why do we do it this way? What did the earliest Christians actually believe?
A 2019 study from Lifeway Research found that 66% of young adults who regularly attended Protestant services in high school stopped attending church for at least a year between the ages of 18 and 22. Many cited feeling disconnected, disillusioned, or disappointed by what they saw as shallow or performative church experiences. Similarly, research from Barna Group has shown that young Christians often leave because they feel the church is overprotective, out of touch, or hostile to honest questions. Meanwhile, other studies report that Gen Z churchgoers in the UK now identify as Catholic more than twice as often as Anglican. In the U.S., young people are increasingly drawn to more orthodox, liturgical expressions of faith. These trends suggest that the hunger isn’t for less Christianity but a deeper, more historical one.
But this raises an important question: is “older” always better? Just because a tradition is ancient doesn’t necessarily mean it’s biblical. And just because a church looks modern doesn’t automatically mean it lacks depth. Somewhere in the middle of this conversation sits a group of Christians that often gets overlooked—the Churches of Christ. We don’t often get included in debates between the ancient and the contemporary, the liturgical and the casual. But maybe we should. The goal of the Churches of Christ has never been to be old or new but simply faithful—to return to the church as it was in the beginning.
This series will explore why the Churches of Christ may be uniquely positioned to offer what many believers are looking for: a biblically grounded, historically informed, and spiritually vibrant expression of Christian faith. We’ll compare and contrast the doctrines we practice with those of Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions—not to criticize, but to clarify. And we’ll also look inward, asking where our traditions may have drifted from the biblical pattern we claim to uphold. Because if we truly want to restore the church of the New Testament, we must constantly measure ourselves not by history or popularity but by the Word of God.
Why the Search for Ancient Faith?
As young people leave Evangelical churches, many aren’t abandoning faith altogether—they’re seeking something more grounded. The rise of ancient church traditions like Catholicism and Orthodoxy among younger generations isn’t just about aesthetics or architecture. It’s about a craving for depth, history, and spiritual stability in a world—and a church culture—that often feels shallow and fractured.
One major factor is the reaction against performance-driven worship. In many evangelical settings, Sunday services resemble concerts, motivational self-help events, or TED talks more than sacred assemblies. Lights, fog machines, and sermon series branded like TED Talks have left some wondering where the awe and reverence went. These trends may draw crowds, but they don’t always form disciples. As a result, many are turning to liturgical traditions, drawn by practices that feel ancient, intentional, and unchanging.
Another major reason is the desire for rootedness. In a culture obsessed with innovation and novelty, ancient churches offer something profoundly countercultural—stability. Catholicism and Orthodoxy carry centuries (even millennia) of theology, ritual, and identity. That sense of permanence can feel like a spiritual anchor for young adults who’ve grown up in rapidly shifting social landscapes. A 2023 report in The Times (UK) found that among Gen Z churchgoers, Catholics outnumber Anglicans more than 2 to 1—a dramatic shift that reflects this yearning for something old and enduring. Similarly, America Magazine noted that in the U.S., many young Catholics are increasingly drawn toward traditional liturgy, monastic rhythms, and high-church theology.
And then there’s the matter of doctrinal confusion. Evangelicalism today lacks any real theological center. Walk into ten different churches, and you may hear ten different answers on core issues like salvation, baptism, and the Holy Spirit. This can be disorienting for believers seeking clarity. In contrast, ancient churches present a unified structure of teaching supported by historical creeds and magisterial authority. Even if one doesn’t fully agree with their conclusions, the consistency alone is compelling to those who’ve grown weary of doctrinal chaos.
But while the hunger for ancient Christianity is understandable—even commendable—we must still ask: Are these traditions biblical? Does their historical rootedness mean they’ve remained faithful to the Word of God? Or have centuries of theological development added layers of tradition that obscure the simplicity of the gospel?
The Dilemma: History vs. Scripture
The growing fascination with ancient Christianity presents a legitimate question: Does historicity automatically make something true? For many, the assumption is that historical continuity equals doctrinal authenticity. If a church can trace its lineage back to the third or fourth century—or even earlier—it must be the true expression of Christianity, right?
But this line of thinking misses something critical: history is not the same as authority. Age alone does not guarantee faithfulness. Even in the New Testament, the early church faced corruption, heresy, and error within a single generation. Paul warned of wolves coming in among the flock (Acts 20:29), false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13), and entire churches drifting from the gospel (Galatians 1:6–9). In other words, error doesn’t take centuries to develop—it can arise quickly, and it did.
This is why Scripture must be the ultimate standard, not just antiquity. Traditions—even ancient ones—must be tested against the Word of God. The creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon, for example, were developed to combat heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism. They helped define essential Christian doctrine in an era when most believers didn’t have access to the Bible. For that, they deserve our respect. But even the most well-intentioned creed is still a man-made document. It may summarize biblical truths, but it is not the Bible. As helpful as these early statements were, their authority is only valid insofar as they align with the Word of God.
This is where the Churches of Christ take a unique stand. We don’t reject history; we honor and revere those who came before to deliver the faith for us today. However, we also don’t build doctrine based on historical continuity alone. We look to Scripture alone as the foundation for faith and practice. That’s not anti-intellectual or anti-historical—it’s a recognition that only God’s Word is inspired, and God’s Word alone defines what the church is called to be. While creeds can guide and clarify, they should never displace the role of Scripture in shaping the church’s identity and teaching.
Of course, there’s an important caveat here. Ideally, every believer would be able to read, understand, and apply the Bible for themselves. We want to raise up biblically literate disciples who can “test all things; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). But we also have to be honest—that’s not always the reality. Not every Christian has the same level of education, background, or theological maturity. That’s why interpretation must happen in community. The early church studied the apostles’ teaching together, broke bread together, and corrected error together. Left alone, even well-meaning individuals can fall into error. But when we submit to Scripture as a body, we guard against false teaching and cultivate a more faithful witness.
So yes, the appeal of ancient faith is real—and, in many ways, understandable. But the most authentic ancient faith isn’t found in incense, iconography, clerical garb, or church dogmas. It’s found in the living, enduring Word of God. And our call is to return—not just to what’s old—but to what’s true.
The Churches of Christ: A Forgotten Middle Way
The Churches of Christ often go unnoticed as the divide between modern Evangelicalism and ancient church traditions grows more pronounced. We’re not flashy enough to fit the mega-church mold, nor formal or liturgical enough to be classified alongside Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Yet perhaps that’s precisely why our story matters—because we don’t fall neatly into either category. We offer something different: a return to simple, biblical Christianity rooted not in innovation or tradition but in restoration.
Before we move forward, it’s important to clarify where the Churches of Christ actually come from. We trace our roots to the Restoration Movement of the early 19th century—a time when many believers were growing disillusioned with denominationalism, creeds, and church structures that seemed far removed from the New Testament. Leaders like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone didn’t claim to start a new religion, receive divine visions, or launch a prophetic movement. And most crucially, they did not claim that true Christianity had vanished from the earth. They firmly rejected the idea of a total apostasy. Instead, they believed that sincere followers of Christ had always existed, even if scattered and obscured by centuries of human tradition. Their goal wasn’t to create a new religion but to restore the simple practices and teachings of Christianity as revealed in Scripture.
Unfortunately, because this movement emerged in the same era as Joseph Smith’s founding of Mormonism and other fringe sects, it’s sometimes been lumped in with heretical or cult-like groups. But that comparison is historically and theologically inaccurate. Joseph Smith claimed new scripture and priesthood authority and declared that all other churches had become corrupt. The Restoration Movement, by contrast, made no such claims. Its leaders believed that no new revelation was needed—just a return to the revelation God had already given. There is a world of difference between restoring what Christ and the apostles established and inventing an entirely new religion.
The Churches of Christ embody a simple, Scripture-driven plea: to be Christians only, following Jesus without denominational labels, hierarchical clergy, or man-made creeds. This wasn’t about rejecting history for the sake of novelty or clinging to tradition for tradition’s sake. It was—and still is—about submitting to the authority of Scripture alone, trusting that God’s Word is sufficient to guide the faith, worship, and structure of the church.
Our practices reflect that conviction. We gather each Lord’s Day to break bread in remembrance of Christ, sing together without instruments as the early church did, and entrust the care of each congregation to a plurality of elders rather than a single cleric or bishop. These choices aren’t rooted in nostalgia or stubborn tradition but in our desire to follow the New Testament pattern as closely as possible.
This isn’t to suggest we’ve always gotten everything right. We’ll address some of our own shortcomings later in this series, including ways we’ve sometimes turned helpful patterns into rigid rules. However, the foundational idea remains unmoving: unity is possible when Christians return to Scripture as their only rule of faith and practice.
Why This Series?
In a time when many believers are disillusioned with modern church structures and increasingly drawn to ancient traditions, we believe the Churches of Christ have something uniquely valuable to offer—but often go unheard or misunderstood. While Evangelical churches are frequently seen as theologically unstable and increasingly indistinct from pop culture, ancient churches like Catholicism and Orthodoxy appear stable but are weighed down by layers of tradition, institutional hierarchy, and doctrines that have developed far beyond what Scripture intended. Between these extremes, the Churches of Christ quietly present a third option that seeks to be neither modern nor traditional but simply biblical.
This series aims to explore that position with clarity, honesty, and conviction. We’ll walk through some of the core areas where the Churches of Christ differ from both Evangelical and ancient church traditions—doctrine, leadership, worship, and authority. We’ll look at the historical reasons people are drawn to older forms of Christianity and engage those concerns respectfully. But we’ll also challenge the assumption that just because something is old, it must be right—and we’ll make the case that what people are really searching for isn’t tradition or spectacle but truth.
At the same time, this won’t be a one-sided defense. We’ll also take a hard look at ourselves—acknowledging where the Churches of Christ have sometimes turned helpful traditions into rigid tests of fellowship, elevated human interpretations to the level of doctrine, or failed to extend grace in the name of being “right.” Restoration can’t just mean returning to ancient practices—it must also mean returning to the heart of Christ.
Most importantly, this series is an invitation. It’s an invitation to seekers who are tired of church that feels either hollow or oppressive. It’s an invitation to fellow believers within the Churches of Christ to remember what we’re really about. And it’s an invitation to anyone—regardless of background—who wants to build their faith not on shifting trends or centuries of heavy dogma but on the unshakable foundation of God’s Word.
