In Hebrews 5:12, the author writes, “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” (KJV)
I use the KJV because most modern translations say “solid food” rather than “strong meat.” This is important because it is very customary for us to talk about the “milk” and “meat” of scripture, Truth, etc.
A few months ago I taught a sermon from Hebrews 11. I had a few hearers tell me that I did a really good job. Different ages, sexes, etc. Even the people who gave me good criticism said I did a good job. But I would like to talk about the criticism I received. Basically they said that I “lost the crowd” (if you will). My sermon was much too deep for the listeners because they are still very much on the milk. Of course I object to the whole idea, but I did ask whether or not we should teach “milk” because people are on “milk” instead of giving the meat to chew on. The obvious objection (to my objection) is that you do not go from “milk” to “meat” in one day with a baby, surely you don’t with a babe-in-Christ. And I can understand that objection. But my question is this, where do people get the Meat?
It seems to me like we have setup a system completely built on providing milk. If we are concerned about the “hearers” then we must realize that our “hearers” are both babe’s-in-Christ and elders-in-Christ. But because of the lowest common denominator, we have to force feed milk to meat-eaters.
Someone might say, well they can get their meat in Sunday School (or some other program). But do we not also encourage milk-eaters to attend Sunday School? If they are able to grasp what happens in Sunday School – shouldn’t we also be feeding them the same way during Sunday Sermon?
I wonder if the problem is the very system. Perhaps the majority of the “milk” and “meat” should not come from a one-day-a-week event. What if we actually discipled people and fed them according to their need (on an individual basis). Then it would not matter as much what happened on Sunday morning, but what happened in their daily lives. Even if the Sunday morning message was plump full of meat, the discipleship could handle dealing with any questions/objections/etc.
The way I see, if we are going to live by the milk/meat distinction, we need to always be feeding milk and hope that meat-eaters learn on their own.
I just wanted to share some of my random thoughts about this. What are you thoughts?
I do believe, as you have surmised, that it is a weakness of the system. There are several problems that I see coming into play:
1. A preacher is preaching to people, many of whom he may not actually really know, so he doesn’t know what point they’re really at in their walk. Therefore, the lower denominator is a much safer place to preach.
2. The monologue-style preaching that is considered “feeding” in our churches today means that questions in the minds of the listeners often never get asked, let alone answered.
3. I think the start of Hebrews 6 helps us understand what the author meant when he used the terms “milk” and “meat”. The current system in place has to continue to offer milk because it sees evangelism as taking place in the weekly meeting. You know the whole “bring your unsaved friends to church” mentality.
I have often used the metaphor, with relation to the current institutional church, that it is like someone repeatedly attending the 12th grade, but never graduating from high school.
Lew,
I agree completely that the current teaching system is entirely faulty, but assuming that one were forced to work inside the system couldn’t that person lay meat and milk out on the table? This may be pushing the metaphor too far but it is a possibility. Those who can only consume the milk will and those who can consume the meat will.
Lew,
I have had similar comments from time to time.
Often, the one who commented was unwilling to chew on “meat”, preferring “milk”. A particular incident is a good illustration: A deacon, who was also the church treasurer, approached me after the meeting (I was teaching through 1 Corinthians) and said, “We don’t want that kind of stuff. We want Bible stories.” ‘Nuff said!
By the way. Who decides where “milk” becomes “meat”? Who decides who is able to chew, especially when one is a visiting speaker?
I’ve had some amazing surprises, such as a new convert who devoured teaching and discipling so hungrily that he was, very ably, teaching new converts within two years. The above deacon had spent, at least, fifty years listening to sermons.
Might the distinction between feeding milk or meat have something to do with the amount of denominations, teaching, and worship styles available? I was brought back to Christ in one atmosphere that was a great place for new Christians, but found another church that fed meat as I outgrew the milk. I’m sure the milk church brings far more people to Christ than the meat church does, but wouldn’t you say that both are necessary?
Maybe the system is fine already.
Hey all! Thanks for the comments. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I have been busy trying to get everything squared away for a trip to Maine this weekend. I am currently sitting in the JetBlue airport terminal of JFK airpot in New York.
Steve
Great observations! Although, 12th grade is a little graduated yet… I would say it’s more like the 7th grade… perhaps I’m more cynical than you though ;).
Dan
I entirely think it would be possible to lay both milk and meat out on the table. I doubt that I am or could ever be that good of a teacher.
John
You offer some good questions. I think it might be a little ‘elitist’ to presume that the “rest of the congregation” wouldn’t get it. I probably did lose some people… but most of the time I’m lost too because I’m bored out of my skull. At least I had some older ladies come up to me showing me their notes and telling me what a great job I did.
Prudent Musings
First let me say, welcome! and thanks for taking the time to comment. I think my understanding of the Church is a little different than yours. I do not see it as a good thing or a beneficial thing to force someone from one part of the church to another part of the church because of the teaching atmosphere. Milk and Meat are both very necessary. The key is that disciplers need to recognize when to serve milk and when to serve meat. We can only do that when we actually know the people to whom we are discipling.
I suppose the current brokenness of the church institutions have forced the situation that you have experienced. But I think a better solution would be to fix the brokenness – not add things to fix man-made problems.
Thanks again for commenting, I really appreciate it.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Lew,
This post is fairly difficult to understand. Can you give me the simplified version? If not, I’m not sure I can keep coming to this blog. ;)
-Alan