I derive my view of the church from what I see in the New Covenant people of the New Testament. It's as simple as that. Therefore, if my view is minimalist, that means that what we see in the New Testament is also minimalist. But what are we even talking about here?
The term "minimalist" implies that the early church was in the beginning stages, but that maturation was left to come. In other words, what we see in the New Testament is the early form of the church but other changes in form would actually improve upon what we see in the bible. Simply put, it's the concept that later alterations were improvements upon what we read about in our bibles.
I outright reject this idea.
If the early church was minimalist, then we would read in the New Testament about changes in the future that the church should make in order to improve somehow. I'm referring here to alterations in form and structure, not in holiness. However, the New Testament does not even hint that the early believers ought to change what they were doing. They were not minimalist; they were just as they should be.
The charge of early church minimalism is one made by some proponents of today's traditional/institutional church forms. They do this in order to justify their structures and practices that have no biblical basis (for example worship services, large buildings, and salaried clergy).
The minimalist charge fails because it has no evidence to support it. The New Testament does not suggest an early church that is lacking anything. Instead, we see fully functioning church families living as the Spirit leads. Therefore, it is safe to say that the early church was not minimalist. It was as God wanted it.
We do well to follow their model.