One deciding factor would be moving to a new state :)

I thought bible study would be your "home church"
Do you not like it anymore?

The main draws for me are the people and the focus.  If the people are genuine, if they have the attitude, as April would put it, that "We're all Bozo's on this bus," that's a must.  If some think they've arrived or that we should expect to behave perfectly in this lifetime I'll avoid them.

I want to be with people who want to grow ever closer to our Father and Forgiver to the point of doing whatever it takes.  If they love the Bible for the description it gives us of our Rescuer/Redeemer, and the wisdom and guidance I'll be all about them.

If they believe you can hear from Him directly and speak through his people as we pray for one another, too, I'm there.

If they insist on imposing a mediator between me and God I'm outta there!

If they insist on the current church structure I won't be supporting it.

Tell us what you end up choosing as your vitals when you decide.

Why not or what is it lacking? Are you talking about Sunday Mornings?

I know a great church...um...in kansas city...I guess that doesn't really help

I do agree that John's Bible Study is not a church. That is not an insult to it at all! it simply is not designed to fill all the functions that the new testiment lays out for a church, nor does it attempt to call people to the positions mandated for the church. (example: it is not set up to recieve and distribute the tithes and offerings of the church body, and they do not call deacons) this is not a problem. I do not believe there is anything wrong with John's Bible study. I myself benifited a lot from it. It was a major element in White Film comming to Christ! It is an awesome effort to glorify God and grow in his word carried on by members of various churches.

As to how to find a home church, the standards I personally use are:
1. Prayer. Trust the Spirit.
2. Teaching and Practice. (Is doctrine Biblical? Are they commited to worship? Evangelism?)
3. Opertunity for Service. (What can I do to serve this church? How can I be a part of it and not just sit in it's pews?)

That's my process anyway. I will be praying that God gives you wisdom in this.

@Luke

I probably disagree to certain extent. I think a smaller size group of people is more in line with the biblical model. Once you get past a certain amount of people in one group, i.e. getting too large, this is the point where you should become two groups.In this way, you can have the personal intimacy that a small church group setting provides. You could implement a system of tithes and offerings into a small group and use them as needed, as guided by the holy spirit. I would say this ideal size would probably be around 6-8 people. You can always join together with other groups and corporately worship together, or join together for corporate prayer.
So how is this different than modern day? Sunday morning church America falls short of the biblical model. There are plenty of reasons for this. First is bureaucracy. There is plenty of infighting when you have a larger group. One person says the church should go this direction and another wants to go the other direction. Most of the time they wind up going neither direction and there is a church split anyway. The small church group would be successful b/c everyone would be on the same page. If not, you were probably not meant to be in that group, maybe for a season or maybe just never. The second is doctrine, and I'm not talking about the bible. I'm talking about church doctrine. There are specific things that denominations do that stifles the work of God. Methodists have a rule where the pastor can only stay at a particular church for 7 years before he/she needs to leave to go to another church. I've personally been a part of this wreak havoc on a growing congregation. Wow this is getting long, so I'll finish by saying is I believe that a small group is more in the biblical model than the larger group. I'm not forsaking the gathering or anything, so don't worry. I could probably go on about this for a long time so I'm done :)

@inthemaybehour - 

I was talking about John's bible study. I didn't know there was a sunday morning group

@HackMeisterJ - In my church, we have separated the two: LIFE groups, which is a group of 8-10 people or 4-5 couples, that do life together.  At that level, you can have intimacy without things getting out of hand.  Then we have big church.  Which we all know what that is.

@inthemaybehour - I finally got fed up with looking for churches in Tallahassee that were similar to my church back home.  So I quit looking and drive an hour back home for church.  There were a few factors that turned me away from the churches I visited in Tallahassee.

I left the Southwood church because it seemed boring and like it was going nowhere.  I guess they've picked things up: moved locations and changed names.  But I don't know any past that.  So energy is a big part for me.  Also, the worship is key.  Slow, quiet songs have there place in most every service, but I find I worship best when the music is loud and the guitar is whining.  No choir or cheesy brass section.  Lastly, and of high importance, is how the preacher gets his sermon across.  I don't want someone who's going to say, "This morning we're going to look at the book of Job" and then happen to bring up how to rely on God when things fall apart.  I'm looking for a service that says, "We're going to learn how to rely on God when life is crap.  Let's look at Job as an example."  It doesn't seem like much of a difference, but to me, those two styles are opposites.  And I prefer the latter.  Also, I wanted a place I can really plug in to, with a younger age group and possibly get into the music scene or acting.

So I'm back at my old church, I have a part in the KidStuf play this Saturday, I'm going to start helping with the youth group, and I started a small group with other guys my age.  Should be nice getting back into church again.

My church, Crossroads Christian Fellowship, is moving to a home church paradigm next month. Our church is half the size it was two years ago (mostly because we're sending people out to plant sister churches in different parts of the world), and we can't afford the little rented office building we meet in anymore. I believe branching out into 3 or 4 homegroups is just what our church needs. Right now, it's sweet. There's no gossip and everyone is good friends with each other and love Jesus. We ask God for what we need at prayer on Tuesday night as a whole church and God answers miraculously. However, you could count on one hand the number of people being intentional about praying and reaching out and loving the lost. There is a direct negative correlation in churches all over America between the number of people and total sum of evangelism. This shift to Sunday morning home church (not just Bible Studies) will be really good to help everyone grow and be challenged because it is a more intimate setting with less diffusion of responsibility. God has been talking to everyone in our church about having a deep intimate life in God, loving people, and winning souls (a byproduct of loving people). Everyone has got to work to see things happen. The church my wife and I will be going to next month (after we're married) will probably be meeting in Brew & Bean on Pensacola St. They offered us their building on Sunday mornings.

@intent2persevere - 

That's pretty interesting, I hope it continues to go well for you!

@ Hackmeister - I never mentioned size. I don't think the Bible commends or condemns churches on account of size one way or the other. Of couse, though you said you were disagreeing with me, I actually agree that the small size church has advantages and that if a church grows large enough so as to cause it's members to become distant and the environment to be more like an organization and less like community or family, that the church should plant a new church. I support and practice that model, though I would hesitate to put a specific number cap on how many people exactly should constitute a church, and I would not say that model is Biblically mandated. Think about how many were added to a single church on the day of pentecost without causing a split or making the church any less effective. Often all the Christians in a given city would constitute a single church, gather together in public places as well as daily in each others homes. You see communty though there numbers were large. Other Biblical instances had many small churches in one city. Niether model is itself rebuked nor praised above the other. I see no reason to be dogmatic about such things. (not that I am acusing you of such dogma, I am certainly not! I am simply stating my own position on it)

@king_of_all_losers - 

No there's no number equivalent to where you can "cap" a church. I will say that although pentecost did add a large number of people to the church, I don't believe the argument you present convinces me that that size of church is effective in the intimacy that I described in my previous response. Unless there's something else you have in mind that you didn't mention I don't see how those people cannot come into conflict with each other ( 3000 people, just imagine having 3000 brothers together in one place and how THAT could create conflict, hehe ;)). Moreover, there is plenty of conflict in the first century churches that Paul writes letters towards. I'm really just pointing these things out to be considered, but you can form your own opinions! I can say that Jesus had effective intimacy with 12 others, his own disciples. They shared meals together, prayed together, gathered together, and it worked because you can see how their lives improved from the experience. Sometimes, unfortunately, it doesn't work. And what I mean is that people get hurt by the church. Some people so much so that they do not go to church, forsaking the gathering of believers, which is terrible. But I guess the question to ask, if we really do agree, is whether or not you'd be comfortable if your church is say 12 people at home, or what about 6-8? Or is there a too small.I would think that anything less than four would be, because there are scriptures about the amount of people that are required as a witness. Oh this question goes to everyone, not just you Luke!

Relatedly, we're still searching for churches around here. Maybe I'll post about these experiences!

Obviously one person, or one married couple, is not a church, but realistically speaking I would not say that there is a too small. I went down last Semester to help a pastor plant a church in Iowa in a county where there ae no evangelical churches of any denomination. The church is currently consists of about 5-7 people. It is not too small. They intend to grow, however. Not because they think they need more peope to be a church, but because they want to win more souls for Christ and bring them into the church. I encouraged this. Not because I think they need more numbers to be a good church, but because I think they need to be engaging their community with the Gospel to be a good church.

As far as the church after pentecost, Acts seems to speak of this church growth in a postive light. It further reports that they were adding to their number daily, again, without rebuke. Your earlier post said that a small church was more in line with the biblical model. But the model I see, not only here, but throughout scripture, never condemns a church for growing in number, it praises it, SO LONG AS that growth is because the church is winning souls for Christ and bringing them in to learn, grow, and worship together. At the same time, the scripture also praises a small, struggling church that stays strong and endures, even when no one will hear it's message. Church's in the scripture seem to strive to grow in number as well as in depth. Not growth for the sake of growth, or for any other reason than the expansion of the Gospel and therefor the further of praise and worship to our Lord. They also send their members out to plant new churches when it benifits the body and better reaches the lost.

Can there be intimacy in a large goup of people? On man's strength, no, but I do not doubt that the Spirit can do such things (nor am I suggesting that you do. The question is if He does, not if He can.) I would also add that a thorough reading of the Gospels tells us that there was very often conflict even aong Jesus own "small group" with the twelve. (infighting, anger, and debate over who would be greatest) That Jesus patiently had to guide them through. It is also interesting to note that, where Jesus would step aside with the twelve apostles at times, He had many more disciples than that (chose 70 of them on one occasion to send out peaching the gospel), some who were with Him from the beginning (after Judas commited suicide, this was said of Mathias and Justus, who were not apostles, but were disciples from the beginnig, when they were being considered to be Judas replacement) Even Jesus ministry is not a model of a small church. I say all these things not to be anti small church, but to be clear on what the scripture models. It is also very important to disquich between what is a model and what is a mandate. What does the scripture directly tell us must be done, and what does scripture simply show us that the church did? (The Biblical model has no guitars at worship,  but we know that we are not mandated to keep guitars out of church.) I would say thet there is much to draw from the Biblical model, many things that churches today lack. The one I think you are getting at as at least part of your point, Justin, is the church was not just a big group of people that sat and sang tgether on sundays. Here we begin to push the model/mandate boundries as we start to deal with exactly what the church is. The gathered corperately in public places (schools, synagogs, the temple courtyard in Jerusalem) but they also gather daily in each others homes. They were involved in each others lives. That ate together, talked together, worshiped together, they gave all they had to support each other. God blessed this and added to thier number daily. Many churches, I would be so bold as to say most churches today lack this part of what they are meant to be. In doing so, they not only fall short of the Biblical model, but they may be failing at a mandate as well. "By this they will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another"

@king_of_all_losers - 

Right, and I really don't want to begin equivocating between such terms as "model" and "mandate". There's no need. Simply, is there one size of a church you prefer?

Personally, I don't believe that Iowa exists. or, was that Idaho? I need to meet these Iowains or Idahoans for confirmation. Also, a notarized letter via aremail would be acceptable.

Getting back what you said about when I said a small church is more "in line" with the biblical model. This is the problem with posting on xanga because what I was trying to convey here is not in regards to the size of the church, but what happens to the size of the church. I wasn't trying to say the amount of people was out of line. I was trying to say that the larger congregations tend to get out of line with the biblical "model". For instance, one thing I hate that large congregations do that I've seen is bribery. Bring someone to church to win a free xbox type-crap. Another weird phenomenon is how large churches nowadays seem to borrow each others message "series". I remember after I stopped going to southwood, I noticed that another church was doing the same series that we did there a few months before. It was called "weathering the storms of life". SAME EXACT SERIES.I think even the same banner!I thought that was going to be the first and only time I saw this happen but sadly it hasn't been. I don't think you can bring any argument to me about how these type of things are inspired by God. Maybe it's easier to see the faults of the large congregation, which is a shame, but that's just the way it is! I'm not trying to discourage anyone, so hopefully it just stirs us up to do something rather than disagree.

It's kind of a wonderful mystery with the twelve disciples. If you don't agree them as a church then what were they? They were within touch of God. They saw God,woke up with God in the morning,and ate with God. The bridegroom was there! Despite this they are human and their sin obviously caused problems. The infighting was there as you pointed out.

"Can there be intimacy in a large goup of people? On man's strength, no, but I do not doubt that the Spirit can do such things" Well this already has an answer, there can and it will. This is it, the culmination of events in the future (see revelation).There will be a large group of people, otherwise you're screwed! But how do we get there from here? What do you think church should do to get there? Is Christianity losing the fight right now? Well in terms of numbers you could compare to Islam, which is growing at a far more expedious rate. In that respect, yes. It's not a race, but it points to something not being right. Because these people are seeking something they aren't finding in modern day christian church.

Before I respond directly, I would like to take time to make something clear to any an all who may be reading these posts. Justin (hackmeisterj) is a dear friend of mine and brother in Christ. I greatly respect him and would want you to take his points as seriosly as mine. I am absolutely certain that he would agree that this is not an argument, but a discussion for the sake of strengthening one another and anyone else who may read this. Take as such.

Now, justin, my point about the twelve was not to say whether thay are a church or not, though there is some indication in Christ's words that the church was something He "will build" (furture tense from when He spoke it to the twelve) I would not contend over such semantics. My point, rather, was assuming for the moment that they were a church, that the twelve were not an isoluted group, but involved in a church larger than just the 13 of them (Christ included). They were disciples of Christ, but they were not the only disiples of Christ. If one is to call them a church, one must say that all those who left there lives to follow, learn from, and minister with Christ were members of this church, as they were together for most of the time, Christ pulling the twelve alone only on certain occasions. That means the seventy Jesus sent out were part of the church, as with all the other diciples. If what Jesus had with His disciples was a church, then the twelve were not the entire congregation, but were called to a special role within the congragation. That is, at least, How I would understand it.

Don't let the fact that some large churches (many large churches in fact) have have taken on questionable crowd building practices influence your view of church size. The thing is that many of those churches began such pratices when they were small churches, and gecame "big" because such methods did in fact draw a crowd. We as the church, however, are to do more than simply draw a crowd. This get's back to what I was saying earlier that church growth in size is Biblical SO LONG AS that growth is becasue the church is actively engaging the culture with the Gospel, winning souls for Christ, and bringing them into the fold so as to, as Christ commanded "teach them to observe all things" as well as worshiping together and ministering to one another. There is a right way and many wrong ways to grow your numbers as a church. I have seen churches do this through both means. Small churches are not free from guilt either, as they have a larger tendancy to become exclusivist. This I have also seen. If you are small becasue you are preaching the Gospel, but no one will heed your word, and yet you keep at it, then you are not only a Biblical church, but I admire your faith and commitment. If you are a small church becasue, though you are winning souls for Christ, you plant a new church every time time you reach a certain general size, again keep at it! This is right! But so many are small because they have ceased to engage the culture at all, but rather have chosen to become a "holy huddle", content with what they are and having no desire to grow.

This now leads into your final question about what the church needs to do, in light of the spread of false religion and the stagnation of Christianity. We need to get back to growing the church, but doing so God's way. When the true Gospel is preached, fully and un-watered down. When we are willing to step outside of our comfort zones instead of trying to woo the world into them, and meet the world where they are with the Gospel truth, if we do this, the church will grow. If we begin to engage the congregations with what the scripture teaches and how they are to live, and not just tickle thier ears to get them and thier friends back next week, the church will begin to grow. When we begin to love one another and sacrifice what we have for one another, sharing in each others lives so that no one among us lacks, we may again, as in Acts 2, add to our numbers daily, and the church will grow. When we begin to pray for revival in the church and in our lives, and then living it instead of waiting to see if it happens, the church will grow. I say these thing not as a prophet, giving some new revelation from God, but because they can be found in scripture, the revelation He has already given us.

Momonsim is the fastest growing religion in the world. Those who call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" are the only religious sect that showed statistical growth in the United States last year, (which means that no Christian denomination reprted growth in this nation in 2007). These shadows of the gospel spread, these counterfiet churches grow, while we put off proclaiming the truth. The question is, what are we who see these things to do. Do we simply talk down the church and do nothing ourselves? Certainly not! Do we try simply to act on our own accord? Do we start new churches? Do we work for a change of focus and a revival within the churches? I believe the Spirit has led me to choose the latter. What are your thoughts? (to Justin, yes, but anyone else reading is free to answer or to disagree with the primise of the questions)

@king_of_all_losers - 

You can talk down the church if you do it the right way. You have to do it tastefully, point to the facts and not opinions, with the goal of changing it for the better. If you are talking down the church as goal of self-promotion, then there's a serious internal issue that needs to be worked on. Alot of times when you hear non-believers vent about church or christianity it's funny because it actually changes you on the inside. About a year ago I went out with a few people and conducted video interviews with people around FSU. They shared their views on the church, mostly gripes, and the goal was to open the eyes of the church to the way outsiders saw their religious practice. To try and stir up people against the "huddle house" that you described. What actually happened with the video I don't know, although I'm thinking about trying to find out because it would be a good view for anyone.

I think the unexpected result was that think we changed as people, even though our goal was to change others on that day. These people were dead on about the problems they saw in the church. The difference is that they weren't interested in anything other than venting, and there's a time and place for that. Especially when you're frustrated with finding a good new church, as it seems many of us are seeking at this point.

I think the fact that there is so much to consider goes to show how difficult building a church can be. Or, how difficult it can be to choose a church. Do you choose a church that fits what YOU are seeking or do you join a church that will challenge you to break yourself of your own image and put on the image of God? Most often it's the former, where we look for something we can handle or something we expect. But if there's a challenge, then it has the capacity to help elevate us out of complacency and further in our work and walk with Christ. Let's say the ceiling is "higher". Alot of the problem is that there is so much going on that is "typical" of a church. I bet as far as us church-goers, we can name over a handful of things that take place any given week. The "system" as I'll refer to it. This can lull you to sleep, i.e. the "Homer Simpson" effect. If you expect a church to say, "we want you to leave today changed" then it's likely not to work! Does the church change us from the inside, really? But a better question would be to ask this over time... I'm saying all of this because to bring about "revival" you cannot have the status quo. The revival cannot end, it has to be permanent! And you can see what I'm talking about in my own posts, with the worship pastor and the revival pastor that are bringing about disgrace to their congregations. Now these people have to decide whether the revival is real, or if the revival was fake. It's a legitimate question to them.

What do Mormons have that to offer that Christianity doesn't have? I think it's the allegience, that really compels people to seek this out. To feel like you being a part of something. Kind of like a brotherhood. Compare that to the infighting and disfunction seen in modern christianity and it would a appear a more viable option. I was changed by the Holy Spirit, and this change is irreversible. But the counterfeit cults and cultures can be changed. The real God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob can change them! And most of what you described here is exactly it, so I won't retype.

I think we understand each other on the disciples, I was mearly stating the significance in living life w/ God.

I'm glad that you're continuing on your path through school, Luke. I know that you aren't satisfied and that God's calling in that is clear. I continue to pray for you, because you're a dear friend and brother just as you said. I'm glad we got the opportunity to discuss this because hopefully things are said to sharpen one another. I still remember a similar conversation we had at Whataburger in Tallahassee very late at night. Although there is no Whataburger and a considerable distance between us, I'm glad our hope continues to be in Him and the passion to reach out continues!

I enjoyed reading that discussion very much. I wanted to reply so many times but I found this gold mine too late! Burried in one of SB's older posts! I got to know you two a lot through that and especially liked the answers Luke gave in his last post.

Momonism- LOL that would be a great religion/cult to laugh about if it didn't grow too big or last too long or cause too much damage. I know what you meant though.

"Winning Souls for Christ" I have a feeling you use that term, Luke, just because it's been around for so long and not because you actually think of it literally like that. It may just be my mind that gets a feeling of a game being played when I hear that phrase, but I usually find myself questioning phrases, what they really mean and what people actually mean when they say them. I'd rather not be one to Win a Soul for Christ. I want to be one to be obedient and introduce them to Jesus and perhaps share with them what I've learned from Him. 'course "Win Souls" is a lot easier to say.

@HackMeisterJ - "You can talk down the church if you do it the right way."

I don't know what you guys mean by talk down the church but I think a better way of saying it would be "correct the church" or admonish, or lift up, encourage, challenge, prophesy to...
Otherwise it sounds like one is saying talk down TO the church in which case one would be placing one's self above the church and creating an idol of themselves. I think this has been the case for some who have been in the lime light in the church. There are some, though, that have not been prideful but who have been placed on a pedestal by their listeners. And some others make sure that their listeners know not to look to them but to Jesus, and they are rarely in the limelight.