Well, I just posted a reply to you Daniel and it got lost in cyber space. How 'd you like that? Wow. I had to sign in again for some reason. Anyhoo...

Here's essentially what I said. First, I think that is what Jacobsen is trying to do. Trying to change the way organized Christianity functions or organizes itself---at the very least for himself--in his part of the world and any who think the way he does. He’s not necessarily trying to get rid of all organization. I think he also states that some will continue to go to churches that are more institutional and I don’t get the sense that he berates those believers on any level.  That is he wants to organize corporate gatherings in such a way that relationships are fostered and sustained.  Want to read a good article on related matters?  Right here:  Our Nomadic Existence: How Electronic Culture Shapes Community

Second, I don’t have a problem so much with church order as opposed to church government. Could it be that what you find hard to square with “Paul's emphasis on organization” is your interpretation of Paul on these matters? We’d probably have to delve into what you mean here.

The thing that concerns me the most is the “ahistoricalness” of all of this. Not so much presently ie., no connection with something larger like a denomination ie., AG but rather no seeming connection with the Church of the Ages. Everything is done without reference to its historical moorings.

Either way, I see the church as MORE charismatic than institutional. Yes, in a broad sense its institutional but it is fundamentally a charismatic community. That is, it exists by the grace (charis) of God and is built up by the gifts of grace (charismata) bestowed by the Spirit (that is what I mean by church order). Biblically speaking it is very hard to prove that the church is like a business corporation or university. Rather, it is structured like a human body--on the basis of life. At its most basic level the church is a community, not a hierarchy. An organism not a organization.

Apparently it is on this level that Greg seems to be having a problem: Missional Small Groups

Brandon:  OK.  This is not about misleading or lying or anything like that.  Rather its about participation in the Body of Christ and participating "in Christ."  In other words, unity is found not in assenting to uniform belief but in the very act itself.  You are not simply going through a set of motions.  The meaning will be whatever you have brought to the table but the very act of recieving communion has meaning in itself as well.  So its not as if, as you say, you are "not relating because you are being less than honest."  Historically, as Protestants, we understand there to be two sacraments, so those OUGHT to be the two things that bring us together in unity.  Not in applied meanings but in the acts themselves.  In what ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE in the act. Again, think about communion, for example, as an open table.  Unbelievers are invited.  They may bring a flawed or skewed meaning to the event.  Either way we are PROCLAIMING Christ's death (should this also be seen as the possible limits of Christian identity?). Something is going on there.  Something is actually taking place. 

Tom: But I can't believe that if they're really BEING the church in this way they'll escape the problems and headaches that prompted them to leave the institutional church: hypocrisy, spiritual abuses on the part of leadership, other corruptions, etc., because those same issues will attend to their less formal, non-institutional format.

Well shouldn't that tell you right there that uniformity of belief is not what creates unity or community?  I like what Wyndy Corbin Reuschling says in her book about evangelica ethics but can be applied to the sacraments:

The Limits of Personal Virtue Ethics

Aristotle's theory of virtue ethics is this: The acquisition of specific virtues, or those qualities that make a person good, enables one to achieve a life of happiness, which is the end and substance of the moral life. Virtues are both internal goods and qualities that enable us to realize what makes for a life of well-being and happiness. Aristotle's theory was developed in the context of the ancient Greek city as the polis, which the virtuous citizen was to serve. This context is necessary for understanding salient features of Aristotle's theory, features that share some common affiliation with Christian morality yet also diverge in significant ways.

Aristotle's theory and Christian morality share a belief in the social nature of human beings. Human well-being and flourishing occur in various relationships where life is shared and common goods are realized. For Aristotle these relationships are friendships with people like us. He believed that it was with people "like us"—of the same social rank, class, educational background, and gender—that our virtues would be formed. For Christians the most fundamental relationships, where the moral life is formed, are with the Triune God and the kingdom community of the church. Our relationship with the Triune God is marked by its difference. A fundamental assertion of Christian faith is that the triune God is not like us. What enables this divine relationship to be morally forming is the fact that we need a God who is not like us, whose virtue and moral goodness actually reveal our lack, and whose power makes possible our participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:3-11). It is in light of God's difference from us that we understand our shortcomings and moral failures. The same holds true for the community of the church. The last thing I need is another person "like me." It is in these differences—those between God and us, and in the diversity of God's people—that I am able to see my limitations and the ways they produce moral myopia. I can accept these differences as epistemological gifts that enable me to see what I cannot or will not see on my own.

Those differences are going to include more than just personal morality or virtue.  It seems obvious, from what she is saying that those differences will include doctrinal positions on things.  See what I'm saying?