Howso? Mostly by undisciplined and unqualified speakers in the churches, and by "boring" elders. One of the church members lamented "having to listen to the same boring elder week after week."
You see, the churches cannot function without 1) real elder leadership and 2) speakers with speaking gifts developed and matured under the oversight of the elders. Otherwise these churches lose their lampstand or testimony to both the saints and to the world.
By contrast the clergy-led churches simply follow a man who, when he leaves for a higher-paying pastorate, is simply replaced like a battery in a radio. They have buildings which are maintained or improved regardless of the spiritual condition of the church. "These (may well) have a name that they live, and are dead."
On the other hand, churches functioning after the New Testament example, such as the early Open Brethren churches, if they lose faithful elder leadership and mature speakers, simply pass into oblivion. Their lampstands are removed. However the saints do not simply disappear, but rather they assemble in other churches in other places and perhaps contribute to a new work of the Lord.
There is nothing sacred about denominations and brick-and-mortar buildings, yet the church as a whole takes these as evidence of the life of the churches! Absurd!
I believe that ecclesiology, or at least discussion of its principles, has become passé in the Open Brethren churches even as it is in the other denominations and also the independent churches. It is all well-settled, and anyone who criticizes "the system" is a rabble-rouser if not an outright heretic. The few Open Brethren I have had a dialogue with have virtually no understanding of original Brethren ecclesiology and apparently no interest in it. They see standing for the faith as "opening up old wounds." Thus they justify the Laodicean complacency so characteristic of the last days of the church age.