oversimplifying church service style

I won't delve too deeply into a discussion about style in church services. First, service style doesn't interest me since I'm more attracted to ideas than the "ideas' adornments", and second, I tend to appreciate strengths (and weaknesses) of each style, which makes me pretty useless in arguments.

However, apart from arguments between styles, one joint error is oversimplifying the styles' distinctive values. This is related to what I wrote before about Christians sometimes oversimplifying the role of tradition.

• A service element - whether object, song, ritual, liturgy, sermon - shouldn't be judged as unsympathetic/sacred/"mysterious"/heavenly merely because it is old and ponderous and cerebral. For instance, although such pomp emphasizes divine majesty and carefully-written doctrinal statements (i.e. accurate perceptions of God, self, and the relationship between), when people barely pay attention due to boredom and monotony then these elements are doing more harm than good as people feel detached from the proceedings and by extension God! (Have I mentioned that my personal preferences exclude self-important rote chanting?)
• A service element shouldn't be judged as relevant/frank/welcoming/earthy merely because it is novel (or "current") and exciting and visceral. For instance, selecting a song because it is contemporary and popular, especially when the song doesn't contain anything identifiably Christian, shouldn't be at the expense of checking the song's worth in reorienting people to God (whatever that means). Unless an element satisfies that purpose, its relatability amounts to nothing. And celebration/fun whose connection to spiritual matters is nonexistent is a frivolous waste of the precious time allocated to services.