Maybe the whole church didn’t meet daily – I mean just in the first few chapters you’re looking at hundreds or thousands of believers. But maybe, house to house, a few people or families met to eat together, ‘did life’ together much as some families or streets/neighborhoods do today, maybe more in other cultures than here in the ‘states. I don’t know if everyday or all possessions are necessarily prescribed, but the aspect of relationship demonstrated in the text is radically different from the intimacy and level of involvement in others lives than we experience attending a Sunday service and ‘modern’ communion rites, compared to when we meet in houses and if we took communion as a shared meal as it is described in the New Testament, with similar Old Testament traditions providing precedent.
I think if we met more like that, with focus on relationship than meeting attendance, we may see more effective encouragement, discipleship and much clearer distinction between those who say and those who live and do.
The big difference is that where in the past cultures were largely geographic in nature, now they are very much disconnected from geography. Church memberships are spread out over much larger regions, and you’re unlikely to share a street with another member, if you even live that close. The ‘local’ church and its body are hardly local in their potential to ‘live in eachother’s pockets’ as the early church probably was, especially as they would have banded together in the midst of persecution, left physical families for their new spiritual family and so on. We’re a long way here in the west, from the cultural of the NT church, from the way they seem to have thought and viewed things, nevermind their practices. And I think that is the key – if our hearts saw life through a scriptural lens, truly loved one another and desired others over ourselves and our privacy, comfort and possessions, the practice would follow, because it would be instinctive, natural, and desired.