Why are church services usually boring?

[Der/die AtheistIn]

If you don't find them boring, you have the right to have your own opinion. Most christian churches tend to have boring services. Why? I understand they were made thousands of years ago, when the population was mostly illiterate and have very little if any scientific knowledge and very little entertainment. I also understand that prejudice and herd mentality were a lot stronger. But wasn't this kind of service boring even for their standards? Not that I hate the boring part that much, it makes it at least for some people - including me - unappealing to resort to their childish superstitious practices and beliefs. Even if I didn't want to accept the fact that death is eternal, even if I wanted to fool myself to get happiness, I would've at least chosen a more interesting option. 
Why are the priests talking so monotone? Religion bases itself on feelings.
Again, I don't wish to change it, I just wonder why this is the case.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Have you ever watched a film that you thought was absolutely great?  If you watch the same film 10 000 times, it's going to seem a little same-y.

Boru

[Athene]

Well, I'd say it's because you're an atheist and not invested in the content, but even when I was a believer I'd frequently find myself bored out of my skull in church.
I took to people-watching.

A great way to pass the time, btw. Very entertaining.

Anyway, if you go to church often enough the messages eventually become quite redundant; whether you believe or not.

[arewethereyet]

When I was a kid the masses were still in Latin. The priest would speak for a while (the homily) and someone else would read something from the Bible - those small parts were in English. I tended to look around at the art in the church though it had to done discretely as I needed to look like I was paying attention to the speaker. I wonder if it's why the Catholic mass has all that 'sit, stand, kneel' stuff...something to keep those trapped for an hour listening to a priest drone on in a sing-songy (usually terrible) voice from falling asleep and staying that way for the entire service.

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends on the church.  Services have a tendency to stratify as tradition, which resists change with more force than society or individual people.  The most boring service you've ever been to might have been the height of excitement for some person in some past time.

[no one]

Well, god is not easily amused, so they don't bother anything entertaining.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The priests and preachers are just as bored as anybody else. https://clergyproject.org/about-the-clergy-project/

[Fake Messiah]

Because they are based on ideas and stories that excited people thousands of years ago and people change. What they used to think really happened (like ww flood, parting of the sea, angels...) is today seen as a fairytale and that's why some people enrich their ancient texts with new elements like aliens, other dimensions, stargate...

But also I remember watching on TV conversation with a very old Franciscan monk and priest who said how he grew up in a very backward village where they didn't have radios, newspapers, books and when they went to mass they would listen with the silent awe as priest talked because he was one of their sources of information.
Needless to say that most of the people today are more informed than the priest they listen to, so he really doesn't have anything to tell them.

[brewer]

There is never enough cow bell.

[Abaddon_ire]

Have you ever watched a film that you thought was absolutely great?  If you watch the same film 10 000 times, it's going to seem a little same-y.

Boru

This is very true. This very night, my eldest finally watched Terminator followed by T2. While the 1984 soundtrack and effects were totally lame, T2 made up for that. It was fascinating to watch the consequences of time travel unfold in his head. It kind of refreshed the movies for me too.

Churches have not this option. Their message remains the same from the cradle to the grave. Any change means they were wrong and that must be avoided at all cost. Thus the ceremonies cannot change except at the cost of much angst.

I can recall the dregs of resistance to getting rid of the Latin mass. I can recall the resistance to introduce the folk singers for hymns, that was comedy gold. The clergy went with it reluctantly in order to appeal to the "youth". The old guard rejected it as pandering and the "youth" voted with their feet. The whole exercise was misguided. The die-hards thought it had no place in church, the target "youth" thought it was passe, and the usual excluded middle found it utterly saccharine and cringeworthy.

As usual, the church glommed onto a fact of the 60s and tried to make it fit the 80s. 

And that is the church problem of any denomination or creed. Remain true to your actual creed and be boring, or make a half arsed attempt at relevance to a zeitgeist of decades past as though nothing happened for twenty years. 

I do not understand why they never grok this.Putting crap in place that is twenty years out of date will not make you magically trendy, or appeal to any "youth".

So why pick on christianity for this? Well, they are the single biggest bunch of crackpots. Second in rank is islam, but they have not moved in centuries, so that would be picking the low hanging fruit.