I’ve written up some of my research on pre-Constantinian worship in a series of posts beginning at http://pursiful.com/?p=76. What you have may be an early draft of that material.

You ask, “Did God create rituals, or people invented them in search for security other than God?” I would say, “God created humans as incarnated beings who only thrive when soul, mind, and body are vitally engaged.” That means humans will always find outward, tangible, visible ways to express what matters most to them. Some humans forget that the forms are only pointers to deeper values; others remember, and let the values judge the forms. Anthropologically, I’m at a loss to think of a single human culture that has not developed rituals of some kind through which to symbolize and enact their shared values. It’s no shame to say that Christians do the same, and that God can be in the process.

Strictly from the standpoint of the book of Hebrews, I think the author envisioned the Christian experience as one of ongoing liminality that does not end until the eschaton. But once again, humans being what they are, I don’t know how we can perpetuate this continuous sense of liminality without regularly scheduled liminal periods—be they weekly liturgies, prayer retreats, Lenten fasts, or whatever. As I wrote above, we’ll always have rituals, so let’s just make sure we choose them well!

But then the question arises about the role of intellect. It is assumed – without questioning – that analytical intellect prevents the divine reality from being communicated. I dare question this assumed trade-off. Just like rituals may gain more of a place than they should, the same way intellect can become too central. But God created intellect in us, but did he create rituals in us? Or did rituals come after the Fall, so to speak. It is typical emphasis in pentecostal circles and more generally church settings- or manipulative power structures – to deemphasize intellect and thinking. It is interesting how Baer talks about the infallibility of the Pope or the inerrancy of the Word as other ways of ‘surpassing the intellect’ in order to experience the presence and power of the Spirit. Then he asks if the intellectual price might be too high in these cases. Charismatics often throw away intellect and with it the Word too in any real sense. They experience the ‘Presence’, but sometimes the fruit of that Presence are not very convincing to me – to put it mildly.

I am tempted to merge all these Baer categories into one – as equally potentially harmful, or alternatively equally helpful. Speaking in toungues is however quite different from liturgical services. The latter are usually much more dominating in church services than the glossolalia in charismatic circles. But comparing the whole ‘charismatic arsenal’ to the liturgical arsenal might be somewhat more equally balanced comparison. So, I am thinking if there might be 2 equally heavy evils, namely:
1) the full-blown charismatic ‘experience the Spirit of God’ arsenal with all its ‘spirit liturgy’ which denies intellect and doesnt care much for people in their earthly existence, justice issues etc. (compare 1 Cor)
2) the liturgical experience which does the same (denies gifts of the spirit and intellect) and holds God captive in the temples.

Both try to put experience of the Spirit in some narrow box that is separate from our lives. Your justification for rituals sees this separation as a positive – somehow fundamentally human thing. I am wondering if Jesus might have tried to turn the ‘rituals’ more into every day experiences, by e.g. the communion meal. Every time you eat and drink – type of thing.

If rituals help the Spirit to gain more ‘full-time’ access into our daily lives then I suppose they would be good, but if they separate Spirit into the outer space- experience box, and keep Him/Her there, they are comparable to witchcraft whereby rituals or spiritual gifts become tools of manipulation.

Did God create rituals, or people invented them in search for security other than God? The fact that all humans in all times have rituals, is not any better a justification than saying that in all times women have been subordinated so that must have been God’s purpose for genders.

Liminality (?) thing is a good sounding argument, but isnt there some time issue. Rites of transition, like weddings, are one-time events while the Christian liminality is ever continuing thing (ideally!?). If rituals are good in weddings, does it follow that they are good every Sunday? Why not then make the whole life a ritual? Then when does the Christian live, use her intellect, and make a difference in this world? Isnt this the very problem of Christian church – separation of the holy sphere from the non-holy? The main tools of this separation: charismatic experiences and ‘superior spirituality’, liturgical ritual centeredness, clergy (=ritual experts) centeredness etc?