The Narrow Path Ministries

I'm still noodling over something that was said in a sermon this past Sunday. The pastor said that often he is criticized for "feel good" sermons and not getting into the "meat". Yet he said the Gospel was GOOD news and and you can't preach a Gospel "feel like crap" sermon. He said that we've got it backwards. The "meat" is what Christ focused on; love, joy, forgiveness, a new life, and so forth. What we often consider "meat" is all too often the denominational differences and divisive issues. All this focus on dunking versus sprinkling, drinking versus abstinence, Calvinism versus Armenianism, and all that stuff shouldn't be our focus. It wasn't Christ's focus. His focus was loving others and changing lives. Made me go hmmmmmm.....

I'm not questioning that such topics are not important. They are. My thoughts are that most Christians that heard a sermon on predestination this past Sunday morning probably thought they were getting more "meat" and would look down at a sermon at a "seeker friendly" church on Christ's love for the woman at the well being how we should treat our neighbors as being "milk". When I think back over the "meaty" topics as I used to think of them, they are usually from the epistles. The "milk" topics were usually from the Gospels. They are both there for a reason and important, but should the "deeper" teachings of Paul take a priority over the more basic teaching of Christ to the point that we, as mature Christians, look down on those as "milk"?

Another thought....are we, as mature Christians, often more interested in "meat" like a full understanding of justification because Christ's "milk" teachings require more change in our lives? Is it more "milk" and less "meat" if it is intellectual understanding that changes versus a conviction of sin? OUCH! When I had that thought, it hurt! I'm just wondering how much of that "itching ears" is sermons that result in increased knowledge and not changed hearts. Christ's sermons had a purpose of changed hearts. It produced fruit in the form of actions. Look at the Pharisees though. What kind of sermons do you think they listened to? Think it was in huge mega-synagogs? Probably not. Think it was a focus on love and kindness? Probably not.

How many of us go home from our small, "mature", meat-filled church with a sense of better understanding and look down on the big churches as shallow and tickling itchy ears when it may very well be that the big church drawing the big crowd is there because lives are being changed by what is taught? Look at the references to the large crowds in the Bible. Are we told of huge crowds listening to Paul teach on grace versus works? No. The large crowds that we are told about were listening to Christ teach on love and forgiveness. If it wasn't Christ doing that teaching to 5,000 men on a hill side, but some dude called George to 5,000 men in a sanctuary, how many of those in Paul's audience would be critical of George as teaching "milk" and the crowds being there because their ears were getting scratched?

At the end of the day, isn't our goal to be more Christ-like? Yet we've substituted that for being more understanding. We leave our church no more Christ-like than when we walked in, but more understanding of what He did and how. And we see that as a good thing. Should we?
D.

I think your pastor needs to apply Balance in his teachings.

PAULESPINO wrote:I think your pastor needs to apply Balance in his teachings.

Who said he doesn't? Everything in the Bible is profitable for study. That isn't the point. The point is that we think of the heavy theological topics as where the meat is at. Those don't change lives though. "Meat" is nutritious. It's how we grow. Yet how am I becoming more Christ-like if I spend 12 weeks studying Eschatology, as much as I love the topic, instead of 12 weeks studying something more life-changing? Understanding everything is great. I love Apologetics. But understanding alone doesn't produce fruit.
D.

In my opinion, meat is something to chew on. It can be rare to well done. It covers all aspects of thought concerning any spiritual subject with the one true God as the root for all discussion. It can go left or right or down the center. It may start with an untruth but must be concluded with the only truth as led by the Spirit of God.
The Gospel is different from meaty discussions. It is meant to be simple and straight forward. It is clearly defined in the Bible and anything apart from it is heresy. It has its own power for salvation and by its definition is the Good News meaning it is delivered by one and received by another. It is not debatable but instead must be accepted or rejected.

i think of it like this:

"milk" sermons: Joel Osteen (and the like)
"meat" sermons: AW Tozer (and the like)

This is not to say that Tozer doesnt preach the simple gospel. but he preaches it with an edge-- a challenge, and a depth. i have listened to Joel several times (out of curiousity) and i honestly cannot imagine being challenged at anything more than the most superficial of levels.

TK

TK wrote:"milk" sermons: Joel Osteen (and the like)
"meat" sermons: AW Tozer (and the like)

How many Tozer fans would call Billy Graham's simple sermons as "milk"? Here is one quote I found online: "Scripture does not tell us to bring unbelievers into the congregation. I find that when churches are concentrating on unbelievers, no meat is being fed to the believers and so there is a growing lack of biblical knowledge." This is the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. The most Christian thing most people do it go to church, yet we are not to bring unbelievers there because we need to focus on growing in knowledge? Whatever happened to growing in Christ and becoming more like Him? When did our primary goal of growing in knowledge overshadow our goal of growing to be more Christ-like and seeing that as "proper" Christianity?
D.

DJ-

i think you misunderstand. i certainly don't consider billy graham's sermons "milk." they are straightforward and simple, yes. but he spoke the truth, unashamedly, and he challenged people to repent.

i guess what makes a sermon "milk" or "meat," in my view, is how the topic is presented. For example, John the Baptist preached a rather straightforward and simple message, but it certainly couldnt be considered "milk." far from it, because he demanded much from his listeners, or better yet, was plain in stating what God demanded.

Preachers like Tozer dont always preach "deep" messages, but there is never any silliness about them. even simple messages can strike deep, when delivered by an anointed speaker, e.g. peter's sermon on the day of pentecost.

the problem with many "seeker friendly" churches is that they sugarcoat the truth so as not to scare people away. if this persists, how indeed will people be challenged to grow in their faith? i hate to pick on Joel Osteen, but he's an easy target. i cant imagine how his messages would prod a new christian toward any significant spiritual growth. ( i admit, however, that i have no idea about his church's discipleship programs, if any.). i am talking about the sermons they show on TV.

TK

Jesus commanded that we make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey everything he commanded. So the goal of the church is to make disciples who obey Jesus. I think demoninational doctrines are too often taught from the pulpit when the words of Jesus would be more appropriate. The lordship of Christ should always be stressed to the church. Personally, I feel the church service should edify the believers to help the poor and needy, develop character, encourage one another in the faith and pray for the gospel to reach every creature. Doing so, however, might cause boredom to sweep the pews. It seems we have cultural A.D.D.

From what I can find meat is spiritual matters that only mature Christians can understand. Its supposed help them continue to grow and to help teach others. I’m not sure today’s American churches are geared to teach meat from the pulpit. Probably better suited for small group studies.

1Co 3:1-3 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Heb 5:11-14 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillfull in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Murf, et al,

And the next three verses inform us of what the milk (ABCs) of the faith are:

Hebrews 6:1-3 (New King James Version)
1. Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2. of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3. And this we will do if God permits.

Sermons on baptism are as basic as it gets.

I can not conceive of the idea that Paul's epistles are deeper than the teaching of Jesus! Seems impossible to me. The Sermon on the Mount and the parables are about as deep as you can go. Eschatology is meat?