I recently had a similar discussion with a young adult in our church body. I would start by saying that surely one must see that the theology of the church is priority over the location of the church. In considering what a local church is, our culture has become very transient and commuting 1 hour to work is nothing (even here in the Midwest), but for some reason people want to claim that a church 30 minutes away is no longer local. Grant it, one the one hand it would be great if everyone could live within a few miles of the church building for convenience. It would also be great to have everyone living in the local community where the building is. However, the building is not the church, the body is. Therefore one must think more carefully what it means to have a local church. Can one connect to other members in the body? Some of our members live 30 minutes away, but we have several other families living there as well. That puts them close to others in the body or the church. The word Local seems to be relative based on our commitment and priorities. Most consider the Colts to be our local team, but they play 50 minutes away. Most consider IU or Purdue to be a local school, but they play 90 minutes away. When it comes to commitment to church over 20 minutes seems to make something non-local. Again, I would love to have a solid church body in every town in our country, but it just does not exist. So, will one compromise the most important relationships in this world because of a few miles? It seems to come down to priorities in my mind.

I'm bothered when members at my church who life fairly far away do not come to many church functions (sunday school, evening service, wednesday night services, special events, etc.). It seems that people should make the church a much higher priority.
One family I know moved farther from the man's workplace to be closer to the church. That seems very wise.

My parents have recently left their church out of conviction. (They had worked for years to encourage change in their former church body.) After searching for many months, they have now begun the membership process at a church 45-60 minutes away.

They still hesitate because of the distance, though. It's more difficult to minister throughout the week alongside other members. They've also had a harder time building relationships. I've tried to encourage them to think about moving (both kids are grown).

I am thankful that they have found a faithful church, but my heart hurts that they have to travel so far. In the south where they live there are so many church buildings, but very few churches.

I look forward to encouragement and challenge for them and others.

I'd say that location is important (though not to override theology) if only because it makes it easier to minister to the people in your local community using the resources of the local church body. Admittedly there are larger churches that can effectively minister to a wide area, but most churches don't have that ability and focus on the people around them - meeting their needs and ministering among them. It also makes it easier to help out in the church ministries that are on-site because there's not a 30+ minute drive to get to the campus.

Some large churches, such as Fellowship Church, foster Home Teams (Small Groups, etc) that are set up locally and minister to those people. Other larger churches partner with local churches to help them out. The large church is the exception, though, and not everyone feels comfortable as part of such a large community.

I'd also want to be careful that people didn't use the above as an excuse to join a larger church some distance away and then get lost in the crowd so they didn't actually grow or do anything, but just attend. I will agree that "local" means different things to different people. I think we're called to minister where we are first, but realize that not everyone defines that the same way I might and don't have any major issues with it.

On a related note, I had one person who insisted that he joined his church body (located in Georgia) from his living room (in CA). I never saw any signs of growth or other signs that he might be a believer other than his statements about going to church. Sure, he may get some great teaching out of the televised service, but I find it hard to believe that he's ministering to or being ministered to in any other way just because of that distance. Televised services have their place, but I like those that have a disclaimer indicating that you need to be attending somewhere regularly if possible. (especially when they realize it's a ministry and aren't saying to send your check to some address at the end)

I think location can be very important. For instance, it can be a decent reason to leave a church - to find a church closer for the sake of fellowship, service, evangelism, etc. We have found that being at a distance puts people at a real disadvantage for hospitality, availability, ability to invite friends and neighbors to church, etc. Where you live tends psychologically to be where you center your life and thoughts and relationships.

On the other hand, a lot depends on the culture of said church. There are regional hub churches, like Tenth Pres in Philadelphia, who have communities of members all around the metropolitan area - with elders and small groups that represent 'parishes' of the church in each area. In this case, fellowship, hospitality, outreach, may still be possible.

I heard someone say once that for suburban churches, any more than ten stoplights seems to be the outside limit for people coming to the church.

For those of us in rural parts of the US, local is a relative term. Theology certainly trumps driving time. Biblical body life and Biblical shepherding of those driving long distances demands great effort.

Just looking at the issue from another angle, could it be that when distance becomes a barrier to membership in a healthy church it's time to plant a new church? Is driving over an hour to get to a healthy church the easy way out?

Really good question...and one that our church wrestles with (or at least it pastor does!). Ideally, we would love to have both. In some locations, this is probably more possible than others. And I think that it may be wise to go to the five-mark church that is five minutes away (and work for growth) than to drive to the 8-mark church that is 45 minutes away.

However, we have found that in city (Cincinnati) dominated by Roman Catholicism, and strongly influenced by a handful of successful, but atheological, megachurches (with their train of hopeful would-be imitators)...there just aren't very many truly gospel preaching churches around period...much less ninemarks-esque churches.

In a situation like that, we are glad to have folks come from all over Cincinnati...but every now and then I slip in a little advertisement for the nice homes and streets of this neighborhood...and, more than that, the gospel impact of more of the Community living in the same community (an idea which Piper often emphasizes at BBC).

I think this is perhaps the best solution in a gospel-poor area. Bring them in from whatever highway or hedge they may live in...and then encourage them, for the sake of the Community and the community, to think about moving a little closer.

Here in "the woods" where I live, it is quite a few miles to a gospel-preaching church of any sort. Distance certainly is an issue and can be a hindrance to participation and fellowship. I would agree that sound theology can trump distance.

However, there is another aspect to the whole selection process - leapfrogging one good church for another for the sake of style or programs, or other issue of preference. The Philadelphia Baptist Association addressed that very issue in 1735:

"Whether a person that is a well-wisher to us, and desires to be admitted a member into a church far distant from the place of his abode; whereas a church of the same order is nearer to him than the church that he proposes to join with; whether it be orderly for the distant church to receive such an one?

"Resolved in the negative, there being substantial reasons to the contrary. Such practice is contrary to the intendment, in instituting particular churches."