I really like the re-interpretation of 'church' in this group of Christians.

Addendum 2 Sept 11:19am:

Tim has commented that he doesn't like the re-interpretation of 'church', and gives the example of a meeting that he attended which lacked teaching, order and any semblence of reverence. I post my reply here in order to clarify what I am getting
at:

Tim: Yep. Know what you mean. I and others once left a service in the Coromandel part-way through, for precisely the reasons you mention. As 'worship', it was offensive to us.

My point is, though, that the people I linked to have constructed a completely different type of meeting precisely because they have (in my view) correctly understood what it means to be church. I find this an excellent antidote to our usual emphasis, which is that 'church' consists in the meeting on Sunday morning.

I don't want you to think I care nothing for the Sunday meeting. I want you to think that I care for the connection between our lives as church and what we do on Sundays. The former should shape the latter, and the latter should reflect the emphasis of the former. What do our meetings show we care about?

We have both experienced an uncomfortable meeting that had the vague semblance of a traditional structure (all gathered in a hall, something going on 'up the front'), but absolutely nothing to show that this was a ceremony of respect and awe at, as you say, meeting our Saviour. So, in fact, it came across disrespectfully and irreverently. I do not support that.