dude, tons of things to respond to! kelly: i love that you have significant memories of neo. i do too. one of which is the night we did confessional stuff and the guys were 'done' in 15 minutes while the girls never quite got 'done.' why do women grasp the gospel so much easier than men--in general? rjr: thanks for the MC questions. i'll consider. is it better, do you think, to do this at a distance, or is meeting still the best option? i would really like lisa or someone else perhaps to be a part of things.... rabbit trail 2 continued--> don't jump ahead: are house churches/small churches/groups/kinships different, or under different rules or ways of being the Body of Christ because of their numerical size? is there something inate about the smaller group that makes it more or less likely to go down the path to heresy? is there something about a large church that makes it more or less likely to go toward heresy? (I bring up heresy because of your comment "There are too many problems here for the model to be held to any sense of accountability".) In Titus, both Timothy letters, and both Corinthian letters, Paul emphasizes right following of the gospel versus wrong following. He does address general leaders (overseers/bishops and deacons) but never brings up the term "pastor", "minister", or "reverend". Nor does Paul ever say the size of the group these people should lead. We've seen enormous churches, even whole denominations, led astray by charismatic leaders at many different points in history and culture (Jimmy Swaggart and the PTL people in the 1980s, Joseph Smith with the Mormons in the 1800s, the Pope/antiPope controversy in the 1300s, Montanus with the duality heresy in the 3rd century AD). The point is, I'm not sure that the size of the group automatically makes it easier or harder for people to be led astray. But, I'm certain that if Rich Nathan got up in front of the congregation and started crowing like a rooster (an actual "Manifestation of the Holy Spirit" practiced at the Toronto Airport Fellowship--formerly a Vineyard) some would leave the church, some would confront him about it, and some would unconditionally submit to his example, suddenly having "crowing manifestations" themselves. See, the more people a leader is in charge of, the more likely people will ascribe authority and power and influence to that person. Billy Graham is much more influential than Rich Nathan, but that doesn't mean that Billy Graham is more or less godly. As far as "separatist movement[s] that had good intentions but strayed way out into the wilderness", I'm not sure that size is a good defense against straying. In fact, on an individual level, it seems much more possible that despite a leader's following of the Lord the congregation can go off and believe whatever nonsense it wants to. In a smaller group where people are interdependent and inter-accountable--involved in the day to day of each other's lives instead of simply listening to a "teaching" and walking away from it--it's more likely that conflict will arise ("iron sharpening iron") and people will have to go to Jesus seeking truth. All that being said, home church networks seek to go beyond the more limited approach of individual churches--even megachurches--by reaching out with a variety of expressions of Christianity in a geographical region (like a city). If there was a church of 10 people for every 500 people in the city of columbus, that would be at least 2,000 churches including 20,000 Christians of different ethnicities and worship styles--much larger than any single church, but all Christians united. I'm not sure how the leadership works in that instance. I'm planning on going to a bit of a conference on it this weekend, so maybe I can come back and say something different then....