Don't Feed My Sheep
The other day I saw a video of a prominent pastor with a huge church preaching about preaching. Maybe you've seen the same video. He's mocking Christians who complain that they're not being fed by the Sunday sermon in their church. The pastor in question climbs up in a high chair and imitates a baby screaming for food. The point: mature people feed themselves. It's only infants who need to be fed by someone else. You see an echo of this in the Reveal report from Willow Creek. If you keep up with blogs from around the mega-church world, you'll see that this is a pretty common way of thinking.
A few thoughts:
1. Never, under any circumstance, should you climb into a high chair and imitate a baby during your sermon. No one wants to see a grown man doing this... seriously, it's disturbing in a way that I haven't fully been able to shake.
2. Usually the pastors making these points accuse the "complainers" of being lazy. "Go home and do the work of feeding yourself!", they seem to be saying. But could it be that there is a laziness on the part of pastors? After all, learning languages is hard work. Careful study requires discipline. So called "deep" sermons require us to do a lot of work that isn't a ton of fun. IMHO it would be much easier (or at least more fun) to crank out a topical message full of humor and props. Anyway, we need to watch that we're not the lazy ones.
3. I'm not sure why there's such a divorce between what happens at home and what happens at church. It seems like people should feed themselves at home and be fed at church. The church should be teaching the Bible, teaching people how to read their Bibles, reading the Bible in their services, and showing people from the Bible that they should be reading the Bible at home. This is seems like a no-brainer, a win-win.
4. It strikes me that the whole question is very Western and modern. We can't define "mature Christian" as "one who reads their Bible at home". What about societies without widespread literacy? Are the believers there less mature because they are taught the Scriptures instead of reading them themselves?
5. I was reading the Bible at home the other day and I noticed that Jesus seemed to think pastors should feed the sheep. Paul seemed to think that Timothy should teach sound doctrine. Yes, the Bereans are a model of the way we should reflect on Scripture, but they are reacting to a "deep" sermon by the apostle Paul! They weren't merely "feeding themselves", they were making sure the meal they were being fed by Paul wasn't poisonous.
It seems to me that pastors are shepherds: if there's malnutrition in the flock it may or may not be our fault, but it is most definitely our problem.
Michael,
Thank you for the post. I agree with your assessment that pastors and churches are the primary and God-appointed means of feeding the flock. There should be, without a doubt, full spiritual tummies as people exit the church doors - equipped and encouraged to reach the lost for Christ and defeat indwelling sin in their lives.
I have a question though. I have encountered many fellow reformed brothers and sisters who have recieved a steady diet of what they refer to as "deep preaching." They seem to be very upset that they cant find this deep preaching at any other church, and some families I know don't even attend a church because they cannot locate this kind of deep preaching.
While I think deep preaching that feeds the soul is necessary and I, with you, mourn the lack of it today in America, I am a bit confounded as I work with these brethren.
In probing their experience as to what "deep preaching" is I can only find two primary threads that constitute what makes preaching deep to them.
The two threads are characterized by teaching systematic theology from the pulpit and scritinizing the text to the point where it takes a year to get through one chapter (and this is best done for them as a running commentary).
I could empathize more if there was a lack of emphasis on and application of and meditation on the Gospel and its various implications in the scripture. Rather, what is wanted in order to feel fed is a sort of seminary class.
I am all for "deep preaching" but I think there is a kind of deep among us Reformed folk that is not truly deep, but only bears a surface kind of depth adorned with key phrases, terms, and concepts that give the appearance of depth without the substance of the Gospel.
Finally, to my question. How can we help people understand and articulate what makes a sermon deep, and what is the substantive reality that makes a sermon food for the soul? Furthermore, how can we serve our brothers and sisters who think they are looking for depth when in reality they are pursuing the illusion of depth - maybe complexity but not depth. That's it, they want complexity, they want to be intellectually stretched, as opposed to spiritually fed and they would equate the experience of intellectual stretching with the experience of spiritual feeding.
I hope this makes sense.
Posted by: Luke | Feb 13, 2008 4:23:34 PM
I can't believe you didn't include the link to that video! I would have loved to see a grown man climb into a high chair on stage!
Posted by: Pastor Aarn | Feb 13, 2008 5:25:26 PM
I think your characterization of the argument as "only infants need to be fed by someone else" is needlessly antagonistic. The point is closer to "infants and adults need to be fed differently".
You seem to be setting up "read for themselves" and "learn through hearing sermons" as a dichotomy, in order to knock down this line of thinking. That's a false dichotomy, and I don't think anyone is saying that *only* reading scripture makes you a mature believer, and more than anyone would say that *only* hearing sermons makes you a mature believer. There is a middle ground here that everyone seems to be retreating from.
I'm struggling with the purpose of sermons and monologue teaching right now, so bear with me as I ask some questions and comment on your points.
Point 1. Agreed. Completely agreed. *shudder*
Point 2. If people don't tithe, is the church supposed to do it for them? If people won't study and seek the word outside of Church, we should hire someone to do it for them and feed it to them? Now, I'm not saying that there's no place for sermons, but a pastor can and should be saying "look people, you need to be doing this for yourselves outside of the service, there's only so much I can do on a Sunday morning".
Point 3. Absolutely agreed. But nothing you said there has anything to do with sermons. "Teaching" doesn't necessarily equal "sermon".
4. I think you're setting up a strawman. No one is actually saying that reading your own personal bible on your own time in your own house is what makes you a mature Christian. There are many ways to study scripture. Chinese Christians in caves huddled around a single (often partial) copy of the scriptures are maturing in Christ even though only one of them can read. No one is giving them sermons.
I would say that yes, being taught in the form of sermons rather than studying the scripture themselves (in whatever manner that is) would definitely make a less mature Christian.
5. The "feed my sheep" analogy is most clearly made in Ezekiel, and God says many times "I myself will feed my sheep" and "My servant David will feed my sheep". Do you think God will give sermons? Do you think David stood and gave sermons? When Christ uses it, there is zero context to indicate he's saying "Preach sermons to my people." "Feed my sheep" definitely doesn't mean "give sermons". Don't read more into it than is there.
We as a church culture have elevated the sermon to a far higher place than it deserves. It's one method of many for teaching and learning and feeding and maturing.
Posted by: MrPages | Feb 13, 2008 6:26:46 PM
What ever happened to the anointing power of The Holy Spirit? One word can be just as anointed and properly adequate for the moment as 5000 words. Meaning ... it is the anointing that destroys every yoke of bondage. Maybe we wouldn't be hearing all the whining and complaining then. But then again, you don't need a mega 'church' for that or a tiny community 'church' either. You need the presence of The Holy Spirit.
Posted by: C.L. Mareydt | Feb 13, 2008 6:52:39 PM
Oh of course a twenty minute topical sermon loosely based on a few scattered scriptural references is better, right? At least we can beat the Mehodists to the diner that way.
In spite of my sarcastic comment above this was an excellent post and right on--you all keep up The Good Work.
Posted by: Josh | Feb 14, 2008 9:20:06 AM
Surely there's a balance between the 2 extremes that some people seem to be taking in the church today. I think you do a good job of showing that balance, Mike. Yes, it is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves by reading, studying, praying, and meditating on scripture themselves. Most people don't really know how to do this, though. If the church doesn't teach them, they may never know. I think this IS the responsibility of pastors. Not to negate the personal responsibility at all, but actually to enable it.
Posted by: Matthew | Feb 14, 2008 11:15:08 AM
Pastors are given to the church by Christ to equip the saints for the work of ministry to the building up of the body of Christ. If they were not needed, nay necessary, then Christ would not have given them to the church. Yes, some people can feed themselves, but not all can, and many who can are not feed themselves well for a number of reasons.
They are also meant to lead, and lead in word and deed. This is why Paul mentions being an example so many times.
Posted by: Morris Brooks | Feb 15, 2008 1:14:41 AM
George Barna writes, “Most Christians have plentiful exposure to God’s truths and exhortations, but few have actually been pierced by the truth and meaning of their Christian faith.”
He's right.
Your points are well taken, but "I want to go deep" is usually code for something much less spiritual...
I too would love to see the dude get in a high chair...
Posted by: Matt | Feb 15, 2008 10:35:32 AM
Adrian Rogers - www.lwf.org
Posted by: Lynn | Feb 24, 2008 9:49:57 PM
A nail on the head, IMHO
I would put it like this.....When you go out to eat to your favorite restaurant is it because you always see your friends there? Or, is it because you are fed, and the food is GOOD!
Sure, I can fix my own meal at home, three times a day even! lol But, like church, I go out to eat because the meal I get is (or should be) so satisfying I can't wait till I go again.
Posted by: Patrick Wirtz | Jun 3, 2008 12:14:34 PM
A nail on the head, IMHO
I would put it like this.....When you go out to eat at your favorite restaurant is it because you always see your friends there? Or, is it because you are fed, and the food is GOOD!
Sure, I can fix my own meal at home, three times a day even! lol But, like church, I go out to eat because the meal I get is (or should be) so satisfying I can't wait to go again.
Posted by: Patrick Wirtz | Jun 3, 2008 12:18:14 PM
A nail on the head, IMHO
I would put it like this.....When you go out to eat at your favorite restaurant is it because you always see your friends there? Or, is it because you are fed, and the food is GOOD!
Sure, I can fix my own meal at home, three times a day even! lol But, like church, I go out to eat because the meal I get is (or should be) so satisfying I can't wait to go again.
Posted by: Patrick Wirtz | Jun 3, 2008 12:18:42 PM
A nail on the head, IMHO
I would put it like this.....When you go out to eat at your favorite restaurant is it because you always see your friends there? Or, is it because you are fed, and the food is GOOD!
Sure, I can fix my own meal at home, three times a day even! lol But, like church, I go out to eat because the meal I get is (or should be) so satisfying I can't wait to go again.
Posted by: Patrick Wirtz | Jun 3, 2008 12:18:47 PM
A nail on the head, IMHO
I would put it like this.....When you go out to eat at your favorite restaurant is it because you always see your friends there? Or, is it because you are fed, and the food is GOOD!
Sure, I can fix my own meal at home, three times a day even! lol But, like church, I go out to eat because the meal I get is (or should be) so satisfying I can't wait to go again.
Posted by: Patrick Wirtz | Jun 3, 2008 12:18:53 PM
A nail on the head, IMHO
I would put it like this.....When you go out to eat at your favorite restaurant is it because you always see your friends there? Or, is it because you are fed, and the food is GOOD!
Sure, I can fix my own meal at home, three times a day even! lol But, like church, I go out to eat because the meal I get is (or should be) so satisfying I can't wait to go again.
Posted by: Patrick Wirtz | Jun 3, 2008 12:19:01 PM