And then I read this...

'This passage should be very familiar to anyone who's ever been a part of redefining church. Often it has been used a blueprint for the ‘ideal church’. The argument goes something like this: “Acts 2 is virgin church, unblemished by 2000 years of schism. It is church at its most zealous, most Spirit-filled, most connected and unified. If only church could be like it was during those times…” and so on. For the last 20 centuries the church has struggled to recapture the simplicity and synergy of this genesis.

But what if Luke never intended to set a standard for ideal church? He probably would shudder at the attempts made to reproduce this short account. So why do we continue to try? Why are we convinced that if only our churches could grasp the ‘principles’ outlined in Acts 2 all of our problems would be solved and we’d uncover some sort of ecclesial-utopia?...

Into this Ephesian and Gospel context (“take on an entirely new way of life - a God-fashioned life,”) the words of Acts 2 emerge in a completely different light. I want to suggest, to make an argument perhaps, that what was described in those few verses had nothing to do with a model for ideal church or much to do with church as we know it at all. Instead, I think Luke was reporting to his friend Theophilus how the Holy Spirit was teaching the first community of disciples a new way of life. He was not describing once-for-all activities for the institution of church, but speaking of people discovering life together as the renewed people of God.' 

(http://whatischurch.com/old_site/this_way_of_life.htm)

...and it makes me look at Acts again in a whole new light!