In most normal settings, I would counter that a church grows because the pastor has the ability to move people out of their comfort zones. That doesn't exactly sound like setting people at ease. Churches attached to institutions (why does the SDA church have so many institutions) may well grow for other reasons. Landon, if you are speaking of normal settings, what you observe differs from my observations.

I am one of those who wants to feel spiritually fed after a session at church. However in no way do I see this as being simply put at ease. If I leave feeling challenged, and moved out of my comfort zone, then I feel fed. I am ready to face the new week with fresh eyes - hopefully presenting Christ in all my encounters with people around me.

If, however, I am simply put at ease, you can rest assured that I probably used the opportunity to memorise scripture in another language, through an App on my smartphone, rather than let my brain just waste away from another Sabbath sermon.

(He mea hanga na te atua i te timatanga te rangi me te whenua - Gen 1:1 in maori. I have worked out the meaning of the key words, now I need to sort out the grammar)

Thank you for reading and offering your comments; they are very helpful. To some extent, I was utilizing the terminology in a self-construed way to compare sermons that affirm us in how great we are and how much everyone else needs to grow with sermons that are more "prophetic" in the vein of OT prophets who said the change needed to happen in the "religious" people on the inside rather than those without. There tends to be aspects of both in most sermons, but if we were to look at it as a dichotomy, the comparison could be between someone promoting a prosperity gospel over against MLK; self-affirmation vs. stimulating social justice for the other.

I see the miscommunication is on the part of the writing rather than the reading since multiple readers have gotten the same meaning from the text. For that, I apologize.

While I, too, think the meaning of being spiritually fed is the same as having the bread of life broken for us, I agree heartily with you that sermons which make the congregation feel comfortable and superior are not what we need!

@Landon Schnabel:

Landon, could it be that you meant "Spiritual spoon feeding or breaking the bread of life"?

Oops, sorry for the accidental duplication of my comment.

Landon

Not to extenuate the matter but you introduce your theme with the implied shallowness of a church member and also implied his comment was self serving and imputent. Of course there are mega churches staffed by those who would please the ear.

Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John is operative. Recall Jesus took Peter aside and asked Peter three times if Peter loved Him. Peter's reply was always strongly in the affirmative. Jesus would respond: "Feed my lambs." The second time the response was: "Feed My sheep" and the third time: "Feed My Sheep. The response of the church member was in keeping with that idiom not necessarily one seeking entertainment. He was struggling with a indifferent world of work and he needed the strong meat of the Gospel. The assurance that his particular treadmill was not to obviion.

We next see Peter on the day of Pentecost and the conversion of 3000.

If one then turns to the Peter's letters we find this statement in 1 Peter 2:1
"Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that you may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious."

Peter was a slow learner, as the story of the Centurian, and the encounters with Paul testify.

But from a boastful, aggressive, coward. He became a fearless apostle of Grace.

Of course your friend wanted affirmation not critical appraisal.

During World War II, the Lake Union Conference President was about to retire. So he got his "World Tour" limited of course to Central and South America. I was on leave the week he returned and he took the pulpit at the E.M.C. Chapel. His sermon was a stop by stop story of his itinerary. He had prided himself on being a church builder. So the theme was at each stop he heard the sound he loved:
A cement mixer. Hopping from town to town and nation to nation, the sound he heard and loved was the sound of the cement mixer. At that time the hit tune: "Cement Mixer Putsy, Putsy" was popular.

His implied message was that even in war time the Church was growing but gave no compelling reason why or under what conviction. One left with the impression that he was proud of his history as a builder and a traveler even in war time. As I left the balcony, I whispered to a friend: 'Cement Mixer Putsy Putsy!"

Who is to know if your classic church member had endured a similar empty sermon.

The story is told that Graham Maxell once confided in his wife of his concerns over his sermon of the week. His wife replied: "Why worry, you've given that sermon thousands of times."

I for one was always glad to hear it again and again. It was always on either the theme: How God Won His Case or Save to Save. Or the sermons of Paul Heubach: a classic was "He Stubbled and Fell"

Christ was preached rather than a self justifying tale of church leadership.

I couldn't eat cement. I could and did dine on the Bread of Life served by Pasters who fed their lambs and sheep.

One goes to the seminary to learn Hebrew and Greek so as to get as close as possible to the Word of God. The task of the one blessed with such insight is to present Christ in fullnss of Grace and Love.

Tom Z

Well, it seems like I've agitated some people...

Was it in the way I intended? Maybe not.

Most of the concern seems to be over the phrase "spiritual feeding." Yes, feeding can be a good thing and that is what the bread of life is all about. Anonymous7, I think you're right: "Spiritual spoon feeding" does express what I'm getting at. In the title I'm not talking about the biblical meaning of "feeding" (which would be included in the bread of life), but the Christian jargon we use.

I'll include a text here for those who wish I had included more in my short article:
2 Timothy 3:2-5 KJV
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

This text is not talking about people outside of religion; these are people who have the form of godliness, but deny the power of God. And we cannot just escape this and say that every religious group other than ours is like this, but we are not selfish and broken like everyone else. We too can fall into caring more about self and being affirmed in who we are than loving others as God commanded. I'm normally a fan of exploring fewer texts more fully to make sure we are getting the intended meaning than proof-texting with large numbers of texts which may or not really support what I'm saying, but on this commandment to love the other I'm going to proof-text a bit. See Leviticus 19:8, Micah 6:8, Matthew 7:12 , 19:19, 22:34-40 , Mark 12:28-34 , Luke 10:25-28 , John 13:34-35, 15:12, Romans 13:8-10 and Galatians 5:13-15.

By the jargony use of being "spiritually fed," I'm seeking to express the idea of how we often use religion to tell ourselves (and others) how great we are, patting each other on the back, while we are white-washed tombs (Matthew 23:27) who care for ourselves more than others. If we do not feel good about ourselves after an encounter with power (through preaching in word, action or otherwise), we may not feel comfortable, but it is just what we need. If for you, being "spiritually fed" means to have an encounter with Divine power before which you shudder with humility and desire to help the hurting and oppressed, then I hope you are being spiritually fed.

Thanks for the reading suggestions Tom. I think we may have some similar reading tastes.

I am aware of these authors and own (and have read) some of their works, including, but not limited to, "The Cross of Christ" by Stott and Heppenstall's "The Man Who is God."

For many people, sermons are a waste of time. In large churches, I suggest multiple church services for adults beginning and ending at various times within the 9:30-1:00 time slot. Short lectures on demand, video screening, discussion groups, prayer circles, silent worship sessions, musical programs, and book club meetings should be scheduled. The church should employ a librarian whose services include local library access along with technical instruction. Members should be encouraged to avail themselves of in-house technical training geared to increase computer and E-tablet skills. A lunch and snack court should also be provided.

For small churches, members should be encouraged to provide input regarding worship time activities in brainstorming sessions. Ongoing planning should take into account the needs of individual members, and pro forma services should be avoided.

Children should be continually consulted as to how they would like to spend their worship time, and young adults should be hired to teach and supervise their activities. A generous budget should be allocated to fund this program.

I am confident that church members are competent to provide for themselves all the Bread of Life and Spiritual Feeding they require.

Landon

As a follow up, I suggest a candid analysis of two cable TV preachers. John Haggie and Doug Bachelor. Is thee a fundamental difference in their style or intent?

You might contrast exhortative and expository preaching and the place for each.

As a conclusion you might offer an analysis of what happened to the Crsytal Cathedral.

The most burning question remains: What security and/or what opportunity for witnessing does one obtain by being "churched"

Edgar Guest comes to mind. "Id rather see a sermon that hear one anyday"

Tom Z