Chuba Yimchunger
Mission Compound, YBBA, Shamator
Introduction: Across many Naga churches today, a familiar compliment circulates: “The message was good, but the messenger is bad.” This statement is often offered after a powerful sermon delivered by a preacher whose personal life appears inconsistent with his proclamation. In recent times, such remarks have been frequently heard among churchgoers and discussed by Naga believers. While intend is appreciation for the sermon but expression raises an honest and important theological question: Can a crooked messenger truly produce a good message? Furthermore, is it theologically sound to say, “Ignore the messenger but receive the message”? Such questions inevitably lead to deeper reflections: If leaders are chosen by God, why does their life sometimes contradict their preaching? The tension continues to trouble many within the church.
i. The Tension Between Proclamation and Practice
This tension is not new. Throughout church history, believers have wrestled with leaders whose preaching inspired many but whose lives contradicted their words. The common advice, “ignore the messenger and receive the message”, may appear attractive, yet it oversimplifies the complexity of moral witness. Christian preaching assumes a close relationship between word and life. The preacher is not merely a transmitter of information but a witness whose life embodies the message.
When the messenger contradicts the message, the credibility of proclamation is weakened. Many theologians argue that the gospel is not only spoken but lived. Thus, the separation of message from messenger becomes problematic. If integrity is absent, the sermon risks becoming rhetorical performance rather than spiritual testimony. Christianity emphasizes transformation; therefore, a preacher who consistently fails to live the message raises serious questions about authenticity and accountability.
ii. Imperfect Yet Chosen
Scripture itself presents a complicated picture. The Bible records that Solomon was known for wisdom, yet his personal life reflected confusion and divided loyalty, particularly in his relationships and marriages. King David is described as a man after God’s own heart, yet his moral failures, including adultery and abuse of power are deeply troubling. These examples demonstrate that God has used flawed individuals; however, their failures serve as warnings, not models. The biblical narrative does not celebrate their inconsistencies; rather, it exposes them to caution future generations.
The prophetic tradition repeatedly calls leaders to integrity. Jesus Himself criticizes religious teachers who “say but do not do,” highlighting hypocrisy as a serious spiritual danger. The concern is not merely moral failure, but the widening gap between preaching and living.
Another important theological dimension concerns the origin of leadership. The Bible affirms that individuals who occupy positions of authority do so under God’s sovereign allowance. Scripture reminds believers that “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1). Leadership within the community of faith is therefore understood as a calling entrusted by God for service and stewardship. However, when leaders fail morally, it may lead believers to question not only the person but also the authority of Scripture. The inconsistency between calling and conduct weakens personal credibility and risks creating confusion regarding divine calling itself. Church members may begin to ask: If this leader is chosen by God, why does his life contradict the message? Such situations blur the distinction between divine calling and human responsibility. While Scripture affirms that leadership may originate under God’s providence, it simultaneously demands accountability, integrity, and faithful witness. When leaders do not live up to their calling, it is not God’s choice that is invalidated; rather, it is the leader’s failure to embody the entrusted responsibility that generates doubt and confusion among believers.
Conclusion
From this reflection, one may conclude that talking is cheap. In many of our Naga churches, we conduct numerous programs, events, and gatherings, yet we often become talkers rather than doers. The challenge before us is not the lack of preaching, but the lack of living out what we preach.
A telling illustration is often shared: when a keynote speaker visited an Arab country for a speaking engagement, an Arab host jokingly remarked, “Mr. Speaker, you may keep your things outside; here we don’t have Christians.” The comment, though humorous, carried a sharp truth, Christianity was not recognized by words alone, but by visible lives. It reminds us that faith must be demonstrated in action, not merely declared in speech. Powerful sermons may inspire, but transformed lives convince. Therefore, the call before us is simple yet demanding: we must not only preach the truth but we must live it.
