Noah, etc.

Transferred action to God: Yes, I think you mostly answered your own question -- the motivation and attitude are different when what you're doing belongs to God and not you. But perhaps we can elaborate again and clarify two of the specific questions.

Yes, you can still dedicate something to God if it's the only option. A lot of great servants of God have done what they saw as the only choice, not acted with some bold and free initiative. Noah didn't have some flash of genius to build the ark, it just happened to be his job, and he would've drowned if he hadn't. But while he was doing it to preserve his life and his family's, he was also doing it for God, and God used it to achieve everything else that he ever did for humanity. So we've got the intermediate goal (not drowning) and the final goal (God's work). And while the intermediate goal may have been more accessible to Noah, it wouldn't have even been possible without the final goal -- and (this is important) without Noah's being in line with the final goal at the time, at least as much as he was able. Noah had to trust that God knew what he was doing and be willing to be used by God in order to build the ark before the rain started -- so Noah's submission to the final goal of God's not-yet-realized work was relevant and useful for the intermediate goal of not drowning, and the goal of not drowning also served God's not-yet-realized work. It's not usually going to be that dramatic, but I think the same process can apply to other things we do without much choice but decide to do for God.

And yes, I think we can Christianize every action. Think of the priests in the temple or tabernacle -- they killed animals, made bread, washed themselves, ate, studied, etc. on holy ground and with the goal of worship in sight. They had to do all the stuff people do to take care of themselves and their surroundings, only they did it aware of the presence of God. We could do that too, couldn't we? We should talk more about what a priestly life would look like in our context. Have you ideas about that? Would we do mundane things any differently? Think about them differently? Would we have rituals?

Yes, your categories of obedience and creativity in worship are most excellent. We need to practice and esteem both wherever possible. (I shan't touch the potential tangents and controversies in your examples at the moment, but feel free to bring them up again if you want.)

Yeah, we can talk about integrating the communal aspect back into communion. But we'll have to be careful to keep it out of ineffectual-rant-against-the-establishment territory and include thoughts about what we can do now even though we aren't church leaders. This post is already long, so I'll let you start. What do you think communion is meant to be, and how do you think we could bring in the neglected community aspects into it? (Or throw out whatever thoughts you like on the topic and we'll go from there.)

P.S. I believe Jess would call you a "punk" for tagging your post under "Pulitzer." ;)