I don't feel it's fair to be characterizing what I said, which was that the earliest form of Christian communities were, "non-violence, non-patriarchal, non-hierarchical," as a "free-for-all thingy where anything goes." Quite the opposite would be true.
"Non-patriarchal", or men and women being co-equal participants in roles of leadership, as well as in the home does not result in chaos. Women do not have weaker minds than men do. When it comes to brains and using them, there is no difference between the sexes. Patriarchy is a cultural creation imposed upon societies. To have equal rights, does not destroy society, or the home life.
Non-violence, does not result in a "free-for-all thingy where anything goes," either. We do not stay in line because of threats of violence and retribution. If that is the only thing keeping the group alive and together, then it's members have a serious moral deficiency, where when you remove threats of violence, they will act immorally. If Christians only are good people because they are afraid God will destroy them, then they are not good people at all.
Non-hierarchical, also does not result in a "free-for-all thingy where anything goes," either. There are many different types of group leadership styles for different purposes. Some are more effective than others, depending on the needs. Cooperatives are one example of this. They function well, and do not result in chaos without some "head" at the top.
Paul was quite clear that there is neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, women and men were equals and all got equal time being addressed in his authentic letters. Hierarchies violate that order, imposing men over women, owners over slaves, Jews over Greeks, and so forth. That is anti-Pauline.
And yes, that appears in later letters attributed to Paul, but they were not written by, nor in agreement with the original Paul's writings in his authentic letters. Modern scholarship exposes this and that is a consensus opinion regarding Pauline authorship.
As far Jesus setting up a hierarchy, that is not what modern scholarship reveals either. Mark's Gospel is a challenge to the Jerusalem church which wanted to have that hierarchical leadership that "big three" with Peter and James and John as heads. What Mark does is to cast these celebrated leaders of the Jerusalem church as bumbling, falling asleep on the job, not understanding Jesus being rather thick, and so forth. Mark's Jesus was anti-hierarchical. You can read one example of that here:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
~mk. 10:42-45
That's a direct challenge by Mark to the idea that Christian communities needed hierarchical leadership he was writing against. Other examples can be found.
I think we need to be clear that "do your own thing", does not mean you can act in ways which are inconsistent with core teaching of Jesus to Love your neighbor as yourself. If you walk that walk, you are a Christian, a follower of the Christ.
Someone going to a church might be "doing their own thing" there two, like lying, and gossipping, backbiting, judging others, and all those things many church-going folks engage in from day one to the present. If there are no Christians there in the church, then why is not attending it a sin? Wouldn't it be a sin to remain there?
"Doing it on your own," is not quite right. You aren't. You're doing with God, and all the "holy witnesses" to borrow that metaphor. You are hardly alone. When one walks with God, you are with everyone and the world is your Church. Is that person not a Christian who walks that walk alone with God?
Is he of she not maybe better served on that path? What if the community, was just other people who see God, without the formalities of organized gatherings and formal ritual services, but just simply being genuine friends? Isn't that what the whole underlying teaching was about trying to create? Isn't the church the body of the world as seen by God with love and compassion for all?
Fellowship can be beneficial, and perhaps essential for some. That's perfectly fine. There are great benefits to it when it works. But it's not a must for all Christians. Some paths are best walked alone outside communities.
