I stopped attending church some years ago because of the "happy-clappy" nature that did not allow time for quiet reflection. I do not, and never have, gone along with the notion that Christianity is the only true religion. Religion is an accident of birth. I have no doubt that there was an historical figure who is the basis of the Christian faith but the idea that he was the result of a virgin birth or rose from the dead is more than I can personally handle.
That said I find that the Christian faith has produced some magnificient music, art and literature (not least parts of the King James version of the Bible) and many people with no beliefs at all have been able to enjoy those things.
The basic tenets of the Christian faith (and indeed of the Muslim and Bhuddhist faiths) that we should love and care for one another are what matters in the end.
"For him who has faith the last miracle will be greater than the first"(Dag Hammarskjold) and if that means that people learn to live in harmony then I will have seen the greatest miracle of all.

Sells,

Your notion that a Protestant priesthood should be preside over a laity confirms what Michael Polanyi states about Church worship being focused on experiential "indwelling" in crede, rather than the forensic invetsigation of scripture/theology. In terms of religionism it is merely a milder from of the Vicar of Christ concept and runs against the grain of why the Western Protestant churches became devoiced from the Latin church. For example, until recentl decades, the Angligan church would not allow the laity to handle the Eucharist, suggesting something "special" about the Minister, setting the Minister "apart" from the laity.

Moreover, you know as well as I do, the first century churches were either household or small group focused. The concept of a personal salvation was Hellenised (Paul) and Institutionalised (Constantine). This shift from cult to denominationalism is generic recognised in the sociology of the development religions.

Bias is also, problematic. One denomination will be biased over another. One religion will be biased over another. The better could be forensically, examine the varies means/claims to creation [religious/secular] based on objective knowledge.

Lastly, Western priesthood [post-Shamanism] has its roots in Sumer [as I pointed out to you in different thread.]. If Jesus is god, at least to some exent, a pre-existing institution has usurped Jesus' mission to ensure its own survival.

If a god called Jesus died for our sins, full stop. Why is there a need for a Church. Morality and community service and love, do not require belief in gods.

I am sure Jesus (were he not omniscient) would be shocked by the liturgy in Christian churches even a few centuries after his time, and the Christians of that era would be equally shocked by the liturgy in any church today. I think in any religion there is a necessary tension between the bones of fixed tradition and the flesh of living experience. Any tradition is liable to become ossified and in need of a shake-up -- a reformation, a revival, a great awakening, a back-to-basics movement. This is exactly what John the Baptist and Jesus represented to the Judaism of their time.

The difficulty, of course, is separating the genuine prophets and visionaries, like St. Francis of Assisi, from the charlatans and madmen -- the Jim Joneses, the Jimmy Swaggarts, the Jim Bakkers (maybe the name Jim is a tip-off). Also separating true reconnection and renewal from the lure of novelty and titillation.

All that Sells is saying here is simple Christian orthodoxy.

Imagine taking a poem.. written on a piece of paper... cutting it up into many pieces... losing some of the pieces and then sticking together the remaining pieces in any old order. The result would be similar to the travesty of pop-worship.

The liturgy bears some similarities to a play.
It has a sequence that makes sense... one thing leads to another in much the same way that events in a play progress by the logic of the plot.

Happy-Clappy liturgy completely dismembers the liturgy or, in many cases, ignores it to the point where the result cannot be called liturgy at all. It might still be 'worship' of some sort but its not liturgy and sometimes its not Christian.

The Church, particularly the UCA, is entirely to blame for this problem. They dont educate their own people to understand the liturgy and they persist in ordaining ministers who have failed to comprehend its form. The mess that Sells describes is the result and we now have churches full of people who think Christianity is all about getting themselves to heaven. Where that is the case it is difficult to argue that the church is actually Christian.

Sells... if only you could explain this in plain English, rather than in the theologically conventional way that you have, then you might do some good

Interesting piece, Mr Selleck.

(But first, find yourself a new editor: "Unlike Roman Catholic’s", "an invisible clergy in civies", "the UC service I sttended" - not a good look.)

Not being particularly religious myself, it always fascinates me when those who are, argue amongst themselves about who is the more acceptable in the sight of their God.

It is not, of course, an argument confined to Christians. Jews of my acquaintance tend to be of the lightly orthodox persuasion, in that they only occasionally indulge in bacon and eggs for breakfast. But there are other grades of commitment, all the way up to the guys in black wearing hats and sporting beards and ringlets. The streets of London's Hampstead on Sabbath are filled with those who still insist on walking to synagogue, being overtaken by those of a more relaxed devotional disposition, in their Bentleys.

Mr Selleck is clearly on the reactionary side of the Christian equation. He is far too polite to say so, but he probably despises the happy clappies of Hillsong - I wonder if he even considers them to be of the same faith as himself? The Hillsong people themselves probably see Mr Selleck as being a little too earnest - hey, like Jesus was a man, you know, as well as the Son of God.

What it boils down to, is fashion.

In religious fashion terms, Mr Selleck is a suit-and-tie guy - probably complete with stiff collar, a waistcoat, fob watch and a hat. Hillsong is, obviously, the jeans-and-tee-shirt set. Through the ages, pious sobersides who dislike frippery have coexisted with those who believe in the soul-baring properties of music.

Hillsong is simply the 21st century version of Thomas Tallis - who, incidentally, wrote for Catholic rites under Henry VIII, English vernacular services under Edward VI, the reinstated Latin liturgy under Mary and both English and Latin works for Elizabeth I.

It is easy for me, as an outsider, to propose that none of them is, in fact, "right".

I suggest it would be a more difficult task to persuade Mr Selleck of this.

The article’s content may upset some people but I am grateful To Mr Sellick for putting into words what so many of us find to be true.

I too stopped attending church when it dawned on me that the noise and commotion generated by the nauseatingly sentimental ‘happy clappies’ made me feel I had been through a blender?

Instead of the ‘Peace that passeth all understanding’ it became a weekly event that had me asking that I be passed the paracetamol.