you must read Richard Beck's blog, specifically look for his stuff recently written on christian like and love.

edit: oh right, it's called experimental theology.

Entertainment has become a necessity, not a luxury. I say this with increasing certainty, since while engaged in similar discussions with Christians and non Christians alike the following answer is given. "If i had to pay for all the series and music I had, I could never afford it, it's too expensive so what am I supposed to do?"
uhhh... when you can't afford a Ferrari what you do is... not drive a Ferrari, it's not a necessity, entertain yourself in some other way.

What you bring up with the scripture is a far more interesting topic, I'd be interested to see you write an article on how you see the interaction between faith/grace and works.

that's a funny vid!
but what do you suppose the video being satirical about, exactly. North Point is clearly a contemporary church, so I don't think they would be bashing that specifically, and then do it anyway (unless they are hypocrites). So is it holding to order in a sunday communal worship service (sunday services)?
Satire is a form of humor to expose or denounce social vice or folly, so what is the folly here?
Contemporary worship?
Following an order of service?
false hooks to draw people to a manufactured scenario?
something else?

there's an interesting post about politics on the experimental theology blog. I think it's called "politics as demon possession"

Just chatted to a friend today about the way we "do" church, and the idea of tithing. One of the most commonly used scriptures to support tithing is the one about bringing your offering to the storehouse. But, the way we "do" church has changed a little. A storehouse implies a place to keep safe a resource, until it is needed, right? However, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore, does it? Our tithe in the storehouse goes to maintaining the prettiness of the storehouse, and in the end we seem to have a very pretty, but empty store!
I share your mind boggle over this.

Is it not dangerous to assume that the ones sitting in the pews are saved?
We have the operating principle that the church is the organisation attached to the building...
Even if every member of the congregation knows in theory that the church is the people, not the building, that still doesn't seem to be the practice of the individuals. The practice of the majority of individuals in congregation implies that they might have intellectual understanding of this truth, but it is not a reality in their lives.

The other truth is that the congregation is not the church either.
The church is the body of Christ, made up of real regenerate, born again people called by God... Not the group that congregates in the same geographical location every standard unit of time. Every congregation is made up of the truly regenerate, and the ones that are not.
It could, I think, be said for many congregations that the lack of participation in spreading the joyful news of the work of Christ on the cross is due to the fact that much of the congregation has no experience of the work of Christ in their lives. IE, they are not Christians.

I know that it is not accurate to point to someone's life and judge it based on fruit and activity that you expect to see, however, it is accurate to remember (even if only for oneself) that it is by our fruit that we might be identified.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is that if a congregation is made up of mostly pew warmers then the inward focus is 100% necessary, except that it is not "focusing on the saved in the building" but on the unsaved that regularly come to the building. In which case, some "toe stepping" is very much required, which does not happen, not because we are afraid of offending the Christian congregation, but of offending the non Christian attendees. Not many truly regenerate Christians will remain offended at a revelation of God's truth for very long. It's difficult for a Christian delivering that revelation to tread very heavily on the toes on another Christian.

A common complaint among many church hoppers is that their church is not feeding them. They are upset that Sunday sermons are not deep and challenging enough, that they need to be fed, so they are leaving. A mature Christian knows how to feed himself, and if their primary means of sustenance is the 20 - 40 minute talk given once a week, then the church is really in a lot of trouble.
Which fits in nicely with your comment about structure, we have expectations around the service, and have come to make them fit those expectations.

Good Post!
(my hyper verbosity in this comment can be attributed to avoidance of studies, apologies that you are my chosen method of procrastination)

Jesus enters into Jerusalem in Mark 11, and he goes and throws people out of the temple, stepping on the toes of the religious elite, some would say, threatening their power. Subsequent to that, Mark records the teachers of the law questioning Jesus, and challenging his authority... in this sequence of events as laid out by Mark, the Sadducee's are laying yet another trap, or hurdle to test Jesus, so I believe that is the context for this scenario as Mark describes it.
The idea put forward in the comment of being like the angels is that the resurrection will not be an extension of this life, with our rules. I think the response can be seen as Jesus' neat side stepping of the trap, and answering the question on resurrection. Jesus covers that things will be different, not denying or confirming anything in the trap, but answering the doctrinal question. The Sadducee's only held the Pentateuch as authoritative, and Jesus answered them from the very books they held as authoritative to point out their doctrinal error. (Exodus 3:6)

So, in short, I don't think Jesus gives a specific answer as to family and relationships in his reply here, he answers the doctrinal error that the Sadducee's espoused.
You read in the transfiguration on the mountain with the apparent chosen 3 (Peter, James and John) that Elijah and Moses appear and that apparently, the 3 recognize who they are. it could be argued that we don't become anonymous entities in heaven, otherwise how could the 3 recognize the 2 men?
Anyway, that's just a commentary on recognition and remembrance of people in Heaven. The idea is still that Jesus doesn't answer the question of who's wife this hypothetical woman is, he simply answers their root error, avoiding the trap.

being firm about what you believe is good I think. As long as the delivery does not bring division.
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity (love)." - Augustine