It is about function more than form

I really appreciated this post by Steve Scott, From the Pew: It's Not So Much About "Institutional" vs. "Organic". It is pretty brief but here is the pivotal second paragraph:

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.

That is right on the mark. As I commented, some forms absolutely make proper functioning easier and likewise some make it much, much harder but I would agree that I am more concerned with how a Body functions than with how it looks.