1. IMO, Christians are PEOPLE. Thus, the "gathering" "assembly" "communion" "community" "household" "family" of such is also PEOPLE. This means, the church is PEOPLE. Not any denomination, cult, sect or other physical, institutional, legal/political/economic entity.
2. To say the church is a "family" "oikos" "Body" "communion" "community" does NOT indicate that ONE of several thousand earthly, physical, geopolitical, economic legal entities MUST be THE church - and all the rest are not; much less that ONE denomination is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from truthfulness, all power, lord-it-over-others-as-the-gentiles-do entity.
3. To insist that Christians must be a geopolitical/legal/economic institution seems as silly to me as saying that a family must be so. No. Christians are PEOPLE. Christians form one FAMILY - not one denomination.
4. The Family of God, IMO, is all believers - past and present, spread out over all the centuries and continents. It's their having the gift of faith in Christ as Savior that makes them His family. What congregation they may or may not officially be registered at (if any), and the denomination that congregation is legally a part of (if any) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. Doesn't make congregations or denominations "bad" per se, it just doesn't mean THEY are the church rather than believers.
5. This is NOT to say that Christians are forbidden from associating together. Indeed, already in the NT, they did. And we see in Acts, that such associations (as Christians congregated) often took on institutional forms. These we technically in theology call "congregations" (although the Bible uses the word "churches" for these; the word "church" in the Bible having two different definitions). However, the INSTITUTION is not Christians, the believers congregating together as a congregation are members of the church. There WERE congregations already in the First Century; there is ZERO evidnece that there was any denomination until the 4th Century (we'll let the OOC, EOC and RCC engage in the baseless, egotistical, power-grabbing FIGHT over which one that was; in all probablility, it was none of them but the proto to all denominations, including them).
6. My study of the RCC, the early LDS and of several groups most would regard as "cults" revealed the all have the same ecclesology - and it's entirely to serve its own egotistical,.power-grabbing epistemology and ambition. Each claims that GOD founded IT (that specific institution) and THUS (in what is actually very ILLOGICAL and unbiblical) IT itself exclusively is all-powerful, infallible (in official matters, at least), unaccountable, exempt from truthfulness, when IT itself exclusively speaks GOD is speaking (and GOD must agree with it or GOD would be wrong). The ecclesiology (the Church is an IT - and I'M IT) exists entirely to give ITSELF divine, unmitigated, unaccountable POWER over all others; POWER to designate self as infallible, POWER to appoint self as the sole individual interpreter of Scripture and the "tradition" of it itself, POWER to be the sole "authority" and "authentic" ONE, POWER to insist that when SELF speaks - GOD is speaking. If a denomination will insist that error can exist, that accountability is important - but then EXEMPT SELF EXCLUSIVELY from either - it itself must make it itself "special." The RCC, early LDS and all cults do that in identical ways. With the identical same purpose and function. And yes, it's all baseless. Egotistical. Divisive. Power-grabbing. All about lording it over others as the Gentiles do. All about "who is the greatest."
PS I'm back...