I've been following for several years now websites that have to do with ecclesiology, namely with the differences between the traditional/institutional church model and the house/simple/organic church model. Supporters of each idea have their own warnings about the other and their own bible proof texts, etc., and argue for their own way of "doing church." I appreciate the dialog, monologue and exchange. Even the flames and sarcasm.
But even though I do see the house/simple/organic folks' ideas and arguments in the bible and I don't see the traditional/institutional folks' ideas and arguments in the bible, I don't see the ultimate argument as one of institutional vs. organic. What I do believe is foremost is whether a church accomplishes what churches are supposed to do. For example, the "one-anothers" of the bible. Even though I see one-anothers being employed in the church assembly (i.e. 1 Cor. 11-14 and Heb. 10), they certainly aren't limited to when the church assembles together. And even though I don't see passivity in listening to sermons during a "worship service" without any one-anothers during the assembly in the pages of the bible, I would rather attend a traditional/institutional church that has the one-anothers right in all other areas of church than attend a house/simple/organic church that doesn't.