I'm sure that organised religion has its merits, no matter the denomination.
Having gone through the anglican experience as a child/young adult, I was fortunate enough to meet a number of people whose carriage and demeanour was a satisfying reflection of their personal relationship with their creator. Having said that, it occured to me over time that their, and my own, relationship with the creator was not dependant upon ritualistic discipline, no matter how grand the architecture nor how splendid the rituals, but moreso one of gratitude for the opportunity to be and experience. The evidence of God's wonder surrounds us daily.
Some may disagree, but there is no harm in the repetitive nature of the rituals. They are a desired constant reminder to some, much like, and please excuse the analogy, repetitive public service announcements or advertising, through various media. Also, some people are not inclined to study of the various scriptures and prefer a weekly dose of readings and explanations.
Formal or informal, if you believe that worship can only occur in one spot and/or you enjoy the social interaction of being with like minded people and can willingly combine your talents for the greater good of the community, then that's a good thing surely?
I'm not sure that I can reconcile the concept of icons with the teachings pertaining to graven images but I understand that is a reflection of a time when the general population had a higher degree of illiteracy and needed to see statues/images to help understand the concept. It's relevance now may be up for question.
Right now, I thank God for my ability to read, reason, engage in abstract thought, type, breath, see, etc.

tRAKKA,

Do you not see a problem with leaving interpretation to a third party? Some say that Church is more about "indwelling" in worship, rather than the exchange of information. One is not encouraged to critique the Minister, Priest or Pastor, as would be the case in other forms of teacher-learner relationships.

Priesthood is an occupation and an religion an industry, which preceded the Christ era by four thousand years, establishing several[then] New World Religions. Moreover, even then the content and rite was formulaic; creation story, divine visitations, priests, sacrafices and altars. Christianity is not differentiated in many, many areas: Hence, would it not a good idea to indepedently appraise Christian claims, against the "broader" non-theistic historical record one's self

Yeah its confusing. When one goes into any place of religious worship what they are after is as important to them as the knowledge of god the place imparts...extremes of range
i.joining a worship because of its large and influential and organized congregation for self benefit
ii.congregation where its society formed by its members is as important as its help to spiritual development
iii.one walks in because they have a sense of gods existence and their connection but want education to develop this spiritual relationship ie the highest of drive a human can have...

I think we all know of examples of each of the above and where we belong...

Problem for religious groups is that they got involved in politics, ie control of society, which is nothing about god but power and authority which reflected in their method of practice...hence now lot of them are being rejected leaving a lot of lost souls...keep searching and one day all the pieces will fall into place and you will see...then existing day to day will change to becoming a part of the whole which is god and where each of us belong in this harmonious body...

Sam

tRAKKA,
Thank you for that post and Oliver and sam said - they are all interesting and in some ways complementary of the same view. My jury is out on the issue of a universal intellect or diety but I agree with all of your views on organised religion.

Its the blatant manipulation of religious belief for political or idealogical adavantage that disturbs me. It is a pheneomena of our times and it is making inroads on our political system by challenging the seperation of church and state. When I hear our leaders applying deterministic concepts of good and evil in international realtionships; taking the christian moral highground on complex issues of human rights etc - where will it stop? Then I hear, the christian lobby attacking the Muslim community for wanting the same political power with our politicians playing both off againts each other for political expediency.

I think its time to send them all back to their pastoral fields with firm parameters requiring them to leave their religious baggage at the door, if they wish to get involved in secular governance.

Netab,
" its time to send them all back ... requiring them to leave their religious baggage at the door, if they wish to get involved in secular governance".

Equally, one should leave irrelevant political agitation at the door if one wishes to enter a discussion on a paper concerned solely with the merits or not of traditional vs. post-modern Christian liturgy. The Christian lobby is certainly not the only political lobby that tries to influence "secular governance", and you have every right to criticise any one of them. But what has this got to do with the topic of Sells' paper?

George,

"Liturgy has an important psychological stimulant dependent on the cultural background of the worshippers."

True. It has a very positive side for worshippers requiring community and affirmation.

Liturgy [the theology behind it] has also been mixed-in with power politics, the Great Schicism, for instance.

Only recently, I read that for catechumen waiting two to three years before Baptism, that the Bread was not the Body:

There were baptised Christians and a special group of catechumen apprentices. At the meal [c.250] the catechumen "was supppossed to receive 'bread of exorism', which is distinct from the baptised Christian's bread. There was "no place [for catechuman] at the Lord's table when baptised Christians met and prayed mindfully for their host" [Robin Lane Fox]. If accurately reported, over the centuries, it seems an entire sacrament has been dropped. Also, if caught sinning, becoming a mere "hearer" of instruction, as a catechumen regarded, as a demotion.

In the first and second centuries, liturgy seemingly was neither upper class, slave or underclass. Peachers went to small property owners not to slave mines or to palaces. The early target market tended to literate but having limited social mobility. Not sure, if this is how the churches and Hollywood portray the situation