Ohio,
I'm completely with you on music. I really do have my preference. But I can't always get what I want. (And there's a song in there somewhere
)
The problem I have with so much of the rest is that what is right and what is wrong so often looks the same. There is always leadership. Sometimes they do right and sometimes they do wrong.
And it is arguable that getting anal about accompaniment as a doctrinal position seems really "out there."
But when you say something like "[w]hat does bother me even more are the teachings by church forefathers that regulate us today . . ." I see different possibilities. The example you give is grounds for suspicion.
But what about those teachings by church forefathers like Paul? I know that we will quickly differentiate his writings as scripture. And that is very true. But how we read and understand scripture is both static and in flux. And Paul isn't here guiding us beyond what was written.
We surely will be discovering that we got things wrong. And when we do, we should change. That means that someone should always be looking at what has been decided, even long ago. That is more the issue than discovering that your teaching is really old. Old may be as good as it gets. Or it may just be a reasonable position until a better one comes along. (Or it just may be bad dogma.) Just being old does not invalidate. Neither does being new recommend or invalidate.
And while average Joes like you and me can read what we do and opine as we do, I honestly then ask those whose knowledge is much above ours to consider (and not simply reject out of hand) our thoughts and give us a reason to remain static or change. There truly is safety in a slow progress. That is difficult to accept in this fast-paced world, but you can't Google the answer to theological questions. Especially those that are questioning the status quo. It takes a careful and reasoned approach.