Hi to all! I have returned to Narniaweb after a long absence, too long! Everything's so different (looks around). I have been rereading Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Silver Chair, and I am finding Christian themes that I never realized were there when I read them as a child. It is like reading them anew. I noticed one theme in the Narnia series is one that has been affecting my life: Wants.
For the past couple of months, God has helped me reexamine my life and see where I have gone wrong these last 3 years. It all has to do with Wants. I wanted more things, so I overspent. I wanted a better job and a family of my own, so I became depressed about the job I had and took the fact that I was an Aunt and my nieces and nephews loved me for granted. And on and on. Driving to work, I thought about the 10 commandments and how so many of them are driven by wants. It was so neat to find this thread and see the ideas that I couldn't bring into words shared by so many! This is what I finally posted on facebook after my long night reading the thread:
"I believe that WANT, otherwise known as Greed, is the sin that drives all other sins. I want a nice home and car- Covet. I want your husband- Adultery. I want to get out of trouble- Lie. I want to be my own boss and have power and glory- Other Gods. I want what I can't afford- Steal. The seven sins- Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Pride, Envy, even Wrath, are all brought about by Greed for something. Food, sleep, sex, power."

Thanks for posting, Lady A! Glad to see you're back!

For the past couple of months, God has helped me reexamine my life and see where I have gone wrong these last 3 years. It all has to do with Wants. I wanted more things, so I overspent. I wanted a better job and a family of my own, so I became depressed about the job I had and took the fact that I was an Aunt and my nieces and nephews loved me for granted. And on and on.

Sounds familiar. I've been re-examining my life/self the past few months [and years]. I'm also an aunt with nieces and nephews who love me, but I don't see them very often. And I desperately want [there's that word again] a family of my own. Last night, I was obsessed with this want that I confused with a need. And this morning, I realized wanting it more than anything = more than God = idolatry. But I'm learning to be content with what I have, even if a certain want really hurts right now. I'm learning I need to die to my will and desires, to sacrifice what I want [my Isaac] and instead want God--esp. His will and desires for me. The only way to keep anything is to lose it, by giving it to God.

Driving to work, I thought about the 10 commandments and how so many of them are driven by wants. ... "I believe that WANT, otherwise known as Greed, is the sin that drives all other sins. I want a nice home and car- Covet. I want your husband- Adultery. I want to get out of trouble- Lie. I want to be my own boss and have power and glory- Other Gods. I want what I can't afford- Steal. The seven sins- Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Pride, Envy, even Wrath, are all brought about by Greed for something. Food, sleep, sex, power."

Thanks for sharing! I've thought about this a lot too. But I think "want" is not a bad thing. It's human. If you don't want/desire something, are you even alive? We're designed to want! To desire! To be obsessed with something! The problem is, our sinful nature wants everything wrong. When we convert to Jesus, we suddenly want, desire, and are obsessed with HIM. "Blessed are those who HUNGER and THIRST for righteousness, for they shall be filled" [Matthew 5]. The key is desperation. But we must be desperate for/want/desire/be obsessed with [it's all the same ] God and God alone! Sin is wanting everything else BUT God.

(edited)

Because is fine, but I guess I didn't make my point regarding Shadowlander's comment clearer. Not liking something is one thing. Calling it "undeniably evil" is another. No food is evil. We should thank God for everything put before us, whether we like it or not.

This is where a sense of humor comes in.

"Whatsoever you do (or eat), do/eat it heartily as to the Lord..."
The real question is whether or not you should do/eat it at all.

This verse just seemed to fit with the topic.
Romans 14:17 (Amplified Bible)

17[After all] the kingdom of God is not a matter of [getting the] food and drink [one likes], but instead it is righteousness (that state which makes a person acceptable to God) and [heart] peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

It's surprising how many of the themes in Narnia have to do with Greed. In LWW, Edmund wants to be better than this brother and sisters. He wants to be high king and rule with the White Witch. He sells out his family and Narnia "for sweets".
I didn't like the Prince Caspian movie when it first came out because of all the addded scenes. After going back to the series after a very busy few months rededicating my life to God, I "get" the changes made. It actually makes the book fit even better with the others on the theme of Greed. Peter comes back to Narnia and wants to be high king again, the Magnificent. So he tries things his own way, even leading a disastrous castle raid, until he realizes that he needs to work with Caspian and the other Narnians. The White Witch reappearing- some of the Narnian's wanted so bad to win that they would do most anything. Edmund had already went that route once, so his mund was clear and he destroyed the image of her.
In VDT, almost everyone has a Want that leads them astray. Reepicheep wants adventure so bad that he flies headfirst into dangers. Lucy wanted to be beautiful and to listen in on her friends. Edmund and Caspian wanted gold, and Caspian wanted to give up everything to see the world's end. Poor Eustace- oboy he was the very definition of greed until he got de-dragoned!
I'm rereading the Silver Chair now, and I haven't found anything particularly about Wants yet, unless it is not paying attention to the signs because they want food and shelter and to be pampered by the giants...
In the Magician's Nephew, Diggory wanted to ring that bell so bad, he brought a great Evil into brand new Narnia.

Writing all that made me think of a second theme in Narnia, maybe even a more important one:

"

Thanks for sharing! I've thought about this a lot too. But I think "want" is not a bad thing. It's human. If you don't want/desire something, are you even alive? We're designed to want! To desire! To be obsessed with something! The problem is, our sinful nature wants everything wrong. When we convert to Jesus, we suddenly want, desire, and are obsessed with HIM. "Blessed are those who HUNGER and THIRST for righteousness, for they shall be filled" [Matthew 5]. The key is desperation. But we must be desperate for/want/desire/be obsessed with [it's all the same ] God and God alone! Sin is wanting everything else BUT God.

(edited)

Brilliantly put, that is just what I was thinking! Wants themselves are not bad, but when wants become desire and desire becomes Greed, that Want becomes more important than anything else, even God.
I think that theme comes up often in the books- putting other things above God. One of my favorite scenes in the Prince Caspian movie is when Edmund breaks the ice, and the White Witch's image is destroyed, and instead there is the image of Aslan behind her on the wall. The children ask why they couldn't see Aslan, but it was because they weren't looking for him!
Lucy was so stubbornly looking at the spell for beauty that it took Aslan's picture in the book to startle her out of it. She would have destroyed her sister and Narnia itself in her quest for beauty! But true beauty was found in her relationship with Aslan
It took Aslan again to startle Caspian and Edmund out of fighting for gold, and Caspian to not leave everything to see the world's end. Lucy's faith is so wonderful, only she thought of praying on the ship at Dark Island and brought Aslan to them in the form of the albatross.
There's so many examples, in the books and movies alike, where the quest was in peril, nay their very lives, until they turned their eyes upon Aslan and followed him once more. God help me to remember this in my own life!

This is going to rankle some people...while I sincerely wish it wouldn't I know it's unavoidable. While at church the other day I came to a somewhat startling conclusion. I enjoy church but I don't enjoy singing. Well, let's modify that statement a bit. I enjoy singing a small number of hymns and Christmas Carols, but I'm at a loss as to why there have to be so many during the service. Actually...I find it rather distracting...I'm there to get guidance, to hear a message. The songs themselves are messages of sorts, but the pastor could easily pass along the same message in a fraction of the time simply by saying what needs to be said (this might be the root of my aversion to musicals, come to think of it ). And the constant "Please rise", "please be seated", "please rise", "please be seated", ad infinitum, frankly kinda aggravates me a little bit.

*sees townsfolk with torches and pitchforks storming in his general direction*

I rather wish there was a service where one would go in, sing (if one must) an introductory hymn, and then launch right into the sermon. I mean I want to learn...I don't want to sing. And I'd love it if the pastor really got into the nuts and bolts of things too. Take that extra time and really teach us. Don't spend 20 minutes focusing on 3-4 verses...do the whole chapter...show us what we can't see and how to apply it. In fact if the pastor breaks out an overhead projector and maybe even a map or two, I'd love it that much more. Really dig into the details! And then, time provided, we can do a closing hymn, but none of those obscure little ditties out of the back of the hymnal with the hard to follow, incomprehensible melodies and cadences . Singing isn't the only way to worship God...isn't really delving deep into Scripture alongside of other believers just as important? Am I the only one who holds this opinion? Am I some sort of spiritual mutant or something?

*awaits the inevitable flogging*

While I love singing, especially in church as I'm a terrible singer so when the whole congregation is singing too no one knows how awful I am I do agree I find the constant up and down of some services distracting. This might be a leftover from being raised in an Irish Catholic, and by my stepfather, Italian Catholic, family. For a while there I started to think we were playing some sort of musical chairs game every time we went to a service

So I personally love singing in church, but I much prefer to do all the singing in one go (then a closing hymm perhaps).

I'm the pianist at my church, so I don't sing much at all. (Our organist can play and sing, but I don't have the knack.) Anyway, in spite of my being a musician, I sympathize with Shadowlander and all the others on the forum who get tired of trhe never-ending music in church.
Music is a powerful tool for worship, but, as has already been said, so is preaching.

And music can be misused. I have been to large preaching events where the songleader and speaker collaborated after the message; the speaker pleading incessantly in forlorn tones with all those "who had not done everything they could for God" (that's all of us, right?) that they would come down front and rededicate themselves, and the songleader clobbering everyone with one hundred and twenty verses of "Though none go with me, still I will follow." Hundreds went down, but I'm willing to bet that only a fraction of them felt any real leading to do so. The flooding at the front was due much more to the emotional bullying of the song leader and the preacher. They probably meant well, but they ought to have realized that emotional scare-tactics don't save souls.

The Altar Call is another discussion in itself, isn't it?

Shadowlander- I think my church would be something you'd like. It starts and 9:50 and ends at 11:30; about half an hour/20 minutes is spent singing, about 10-20 minutes for baptisms, dedications, new members, Scripture readings, etc. and then we have a full, hour-long sermon.

I don't mind singing all that much, it's actually my favourite part when we got to chapel at camp, because that's what really prepares me. However, once we went to this church and we a great deal of time singing, and ended with a sermon about the preacher's grandma, or sometimes just a brief sermon on Psalms.
This is going into another topic, but I find it interesting how the churches I've been to like that have the sermon not around Jesus. I mean, of course it's important to look at Psalms. But, instead of just illustrating how David dealt with his temper, why can't we look at God? I really don't mind when people take a passage of the Bible, study it deeply, and make comments: holding a sermon for an Old Testament or New Testament Survey. But, in my opinion, that seems better for a course than a message for a sermon. I might be saying this from an immature-in-that-subject point of view, though. I really appreciate it when a speaker takes a passage from the Bible and emphasizes God's glory and presence in it, rather than just deciphering it closely.

Mm, very good second point, Gladius. That never hit me, but now that you mention it... At some Altar Calls (although they were not quite so...) I've seen, the speaker was in earnest and didn't want to coax people to get up there, but called those who really wanted to in a nicer manner. But, some places, yeah...that's really true.

Singing as a form of worship is a very interesting topic. I'm the kind that does not sing in public for everyone else's sake. (Ever heard of Mumble from Happy Feet?) I used to not like the singing at all and would only sing the ones that I liked. Not only that, I could not understand why someone would jump up and down during a service. I thought it was just emotional hype, which is something we should all be cautious about. But God showed me something when I went to Urbana 06. The singing part of worship is simply that, it is worship. Just like listening to a sermon, just like prayer, just like doing work as unto the Lord, singing is worship.

For me, the singing part of a church service has now become one of my favorite parts. Some people get as much doctrine and teaching out of a song as they do a sermon. Singing is just one vessel we have to get our hearts and mind ready to listen to God. Is it required? No. Do you have to sing in order to hear from God? No. But there is something about the singing that has an effect that no other means of worship has. It has its role and I don't think we should just do one song and go straight to the sermon just because of concerns of it just being an emotional hype. I've heard many speakers and sermons that are more emotional hype than the singing.

Something happened at my church on Sunday that I don't think could have happened if it wasn't for the singing part of the service. We were on our 4th or 5th song when my pastor got a signal from the Holy Spirit. We have begun a time of a prayer for particular groups each Sunday, like an alter call, but not quite. He then called two youth group members to sing the song while the worship team and the rest of the youth group moved through the congregation that stepped forward and prayed for them. While this could have happened through other means, I don't see how it would have had the effect it would have had without the singing.

There are many parts to make a church service successful in reaching out to the body. Singing is one. The sermon is another. But something my church likes to do when it arises is to share a testimony. The singing is an expression of our hearts to God. The sermon is often theory and lecture. Sometimes there is practical means to do it, but not always. The testimony is a declaration of what God did at a particular moment. I think all of these parts are important.

So, should singing be reduced to one or two songs and go straight into a sermon, just to give more time to the preacher? I see some cases for that, but we must remember that there are many parts of the body of Christ. Some people learn better through different means. I understand, Shadowlander, that you learn better from an in depth study of the Scripture than you do via songs. But the reverse is true for other people. It's not good to just develop one part of the body and not the others.

Now that being said, sermons at a church service still need to cover to a wide audience. The Word needs to be preached and going into details is nice. But I see a place where those details really belong: the Small Group Bible Study. Are you plugged in to a church Bible Study? It is hard to discuss the details, the locations, the historical background, etc in detail during a 45 min/1 hr sermon. Not that it can't be done or that the effort should not be made. The general congregation needs to know this stuff too. But if you want to hear about a whole chapter, you simply cannot do that and get the details in the same sermon. There just isn't the time. There is too much to cover. But Small Groups can do that. For example, I lead the Bible Study for my Intervarsity Chapter last week. I covered 1 Samuel 16 and 17, on the anointing of David and the showdown with Goliath. I can easily get multiple sermons on several parts of each chapter, but I've never studied the two of them in the same go. God showed me several new things in the preparations for it. Plus, the Small Group allows for the attendees to have a voice in what they think the passage says. A church sermon can't do that, because nothing would get done.

I see where you are going, Shadowlander, and I understand your heart. Doing 6 or 7 songs simply because it is routine is not good. Worship must be sincere, not because it is just what you do on Sundays. I think that is what you are addressing. And unfortunately, many churches do thier songs of worship as routine, not as sincere worship. If that is what you have experienced, I'm sorry for you. But just like worship can go routine, so can the sermon. So let's be careful about what we criticize in a church service and how. There are a lot of things wrong with it. Not being authentic (not refering to song selection, but the heart), being routine, and over emphasizing on some parts when others are needed are all areas that can be improved. But would making a sermon 20 minutes longer really make it better? I don't think so. It might just put other people to sleep faster. The issue is not the time, but the Word. God can speak just as much in five minutes as he can an hour. I'm not trying to knock what you are suggesting, but trying to help you see what effects what you are requesting will have on the body.

FFJ, I certainly see the point of what you're suggesting here. And like you said this kind of thing seems to be shared among many churches, no matter what the denomination. Lots of hymns, announcements, the offering, occasionally communion, sermon, more hymns, etc, and usually in the same order. It's the one thing that almost all churches I've been to (across a wide variety of denominations) share in common; the "standard Sunday service". I'm not totally opposed to singing in church but as it stands sometimes I get the impression that it's used as a "space filler" of sorts. Would that there were different types of churches where one such as myself could go where the singing would be present but kept at a minimum while the sermon or message would be maximized as a result. I also agree with you that the sermon can also turn into "filler" itself. But one could also counter that if you have a gifted orator with the proper training they can really bring things to life.

I don't know that there was singing going on when Christ was giving sermons (I don't recall reading any verses that specifically say this), but I do know that His sermons were long and that the crowds were glued to Him while they were being given. Likewise, when reading about the early churches in the Epistles one can find plenty on church organization but I don't remember anything specifically listing singing as being required in a worship service, and so I have to posit that this might be more tradition than Scriptural. And I'm fine with that, truly I am. I just don't want the sermon to get the short end of the stick because one more song has to be squeezed in to fill out the running time for the service. Which basically leads back to my starting point...I want more message, not more singing. Maybe I'm just a weirdo or something...

And I'm fine with that, truly I am. I just don't want the sermon to get the short end of the stick because one more song has to be squeezed in to fill out the running time for the service. Which basically leads back to my starting point...I want more message, not more singing. Maybe I'm just a weirdo or something...

I don't have much time to say anything, but here are a few brief thoughts. Personally, I also would prefer less singing (I'm not that good at singing). However, I would rather that be less hymns than less liturgy. My church cut out all the singing parts of the liturgy and left in the hymns. Some hymns are fine. My church has a tendency to reduce the number of scripture readings in order to accommodate "salt talks," extra music, baptisms, etc. The service must not last more than an hour. If the sermon is good, I wouldn't mind them being longer but one of my pastors quite often gives poor sermons (I shared an example early on in this thread). The sermons in my church last for about 10-15 minutes. On Christmas morning one day the pastor I mentioned gave a twenty minute sermon on the history of Bethlehem and it was boring. It was not what I was looking for on Christmas. I think some texts can stand for themselves and really don't need a sermon (Easter, Christmas, Palm / Passion Sunday). I also don't like when the service becomes a show where a small group of people to most of the singing and everyone is left to listen.
I'm surprised you mentioned it was only a possibility that you are a weirdo. I would have thought that you would have been told that by people before. No offense meant.

Well here is an interesting thought my mom has. Ever seen the movie Spartacus (from 1956)? There was a moment when Spartacus asks one of his men to sing a song. But he didn't sing. He quoted poetry. I think that singing dates back to the Psalms. I do agree that singing in not required or dictated by Scripture, but rather a means of doing what can be done through sermon or Testimony. What singing does is put the Scripture to a rhythmic format that makes it easy to remember. That's what inspired the hymnists. Providing a means to remember Scripture easily.

Now if you want to get a really long and good sermon, check out the Mexican services. If you get one that lasts 1 1/2 hours, you got a rare find. Most of these services go easily 3-4 hours, mostly on sermon. Now my Spanish isn't good enough to really be able to tell whether what is said is sound or not, but I am one that will really get bored in many of these cases. But at the same time, I have also heard a number of sermons that I don't want to end. It's a very tricky balance to figure out.

I also agree that we do need more message in our services. But that message needs to be solid, Biblical meat. At the same time, the preacher needs to be engaging with congregation. I grew up in a good solid, home church. In the 2 1/2 hour service, we had 45 minutes of worship, 15 minutes of break and an 1 1/2 hours for sermon announcements and communion. And even while the sermons were good solid stuff, I couldn't help but fall asleep during them. But to be honest, I wasn't really a fan of sermons until later in life when I moved to where I am now. At the same time, I have heard sermons at youth camps, retreats, and also at my current church that I wish would go on.

And speaking of sermons, I have a message that I am working with my pastor on. I've been preparing a spritual warfare themed message, using fencing as a visual aid, and I actually have enough stuff to last several hours. And that's without mentioning my spiritual warfare encounter with a demon-possessed co-worker that a few of you know about. I want to present this message to the full congregation, but I have to wait for a date. I could easily do this over a three-part weekend series and of course the longer I wait, the more stuff I am coming up with. I will say that 45 minutes is not enough time, but at the same time, any time I speak, I get thirsty quickly, so I don't want to go for more than an hour in one go. I know the preachers of old went on for hours without rest, but my voice isn't trained for that. Just curious, what do you all think about guest speakers for the sermons, even if from within the congregation that's not an officially ordained leader? I think this could be allowed in special occasions, especially if that guest speaker worked with the pastor in advance. (I gave my message to my church's Men's Breakfast Meeting last year, so my pastor has already gotten a preview of the message.) I'm looking forward to seeing how this is going to work out.

I'm surprised you mentioned it was only a possibility that you are a weirdo. I would have thought that you would have been told that by people before.

Heeeey!

On Christmas morning one day the pastor I mentioned gave a twenty minute sermon on the history of Bethlehem and it was boring.

Actually...this kind of appeals to me! Of course the trick is to make it interesting. The most fascinating subject in the world (like the menu at Taco Bell) can be made into a boring snoozefest if it's not presented in the right way. Likewise, one can talk about the history of something boring like tube socks and make it interesting if the same methodology is applied and one has a gifted speaker, so six of one, half a dozen of the other I suppose.

I also agree that we do need more message in our services. But that message needs to be solid, Biblical meat. At the same time, the preacher needs to be engaging with congregation.

That's the real key, methinks. The pastor has to have that "gift" of engaging the congregation, as you put it, and drawing them in to the narrative. We've all seen pastors that did not have this gift and no amount of Vivarin can help keep you awake. In that context extra music would be a Godsend, if for no other reason than to let you move a little bit and shake the lethargy out of one's limbs.

And even while the sermons were good solid stuff, I couldn't help but fall asleep during them. But to be honest, I wasn't really a fan of sermons until later in life when I moved to where I am now. At the same time, I have heard sermons at youth camps, retreats, and also at my current church that I wish would go on.

Most of my formative years at church were accompanied by pastors who simply did not have the requisite gift of either A. public speaking, or B. speaking on interesting topics. I mean there were some that were almost unintentional parodies of Ben Stein's economics class from Ferris Bueller's Day Off. And that's a real shame too, because the Bible is loaded with interesting topics to talk about and to apply to one's life. But because the pastor doesn't know how to speak one may end up going to church more as a duty rather than to go and actually learn something.