Courtesy of RLP.


In order to fit in with the previous post’s theme, I thought I would mention something I’ve come across recently that is absolutely ridiculous to me. Following a recent message, a person came up to me and told me all about how he/she couldn’t stand Oprah because she doesn’t practice what she preaches or that she couldn’t care about the poor because she owned three homes in different locales. The same was then said about Al Gore and his use of electricity. My frustration is with this idea that as long as the messenger falls short in some way, the message is no longer valid and is not binding or authoritative for me. If this were utilized in church, nobody would take any sermon to heart and nothing would ever get done. At what point must we forgive the concrete form in which the message takes shape and allow the message to break out of its inevitable inadequate embodiment?

This “Out of Context” quote from the Out of Ur blog popped up in my RSS feeds this morning. I thought it appropriate for sharing here, based on what appear to be some shared beliefs on the state of our churches:

“Few people see Christianity as a shift of allegiance that prompts us to make personal changes in beliefs, habits, and lifestyles. We must continually examine our churches to make sure our message is one that requires transformation.”- Sarah Cunningham

When was the last time your church leadership held a meeting to examine whether or not they were “requiring” transformation? In our numerocentric church cultures, it seems like requiring anything is frowned upon. .