Thanks everyone for the comments. In my opinion, this concept of leaderless communities is mostly a reaction to abuse and the easiest concept to disprove.

"As I said, there are multiple reasons/facets why some people say that leaders in churches 'aren't that important' or aren't needed, and just one of those reasons is that they fear taking on the responsibility of being a leader, taking initiative, and abandoning their own reputation to be of no reputation: more of Him, less of me."

Jesus challenged James and John whose mother wanted them to sit in places of honor with Him. He asked if they would be willing to be baptized in the fire with Him. Your point about fear of responsibility ties in with that. On the other hand, we have those who assume positions without following Christ into His humiliation, and people who are willing to follow them for the wrong reasons.

It would be so beneficial with we all could embrace a healthy understanding of leadership. We all are called to serve, but it does happen that some are called to serve as leaders and to the humility that is required of them.

One thing I have observed in house church gatherings for over 16 years. Some people who insist on leaderless meetings are in fact dominating personalities themselves. They find ways to control the activities without admitting that they are in fact leading. Intimidation and claiming "the Spirit says," are some of the tools used.

That is why Paul always appointed a recognized body of leaders in every congregation, so that people would not be confused by those not approved. While I agree that leadership can be overemphasized, respect for the mature should not be neglected.