Mark 13:24-37

This passage is used in the Narrative Lectionary (along with Mark 13:1-8)
It is also for Revised Common Lectionary for Advent 1, Year B, most recently Dec 3, 2023

Summary:  Check your 2nd coming baggage at the ticket counter and preach the text!

For those preaching on those during Advent:  This passage is a great passage for a culture swamped with Christmas chores.  Our focus should not be on to-do lists that come and go, but on Jesus Christ and his Word!

Otherwise:  I also think you can play around with the word authority and derive the mission of the church from Mark's Gospel:  While we await the coming of Christ in an age of idolatry masked as piety, we are to pray and teach prayer; cast out unclean spirits and heal people; we are to spread the Good News of repentance and forgiveness.

Key words:
γρηγορειτε ("watch out". 13:34, 35 and 37)  This word comes into English as "Gregory".  To note:  in the very next chapter the disciples will not be able to stay awake...

θλιψις ("suffering", "distress" or "tribulation";  13:24 and also 13:19)  This is hard word to translate.  "Suffering" has all sorts of baggage, both in the Bible and in our culture.  "Tribulation" can mean a particular thing to certain people.  As Wikipedia helpfully summaries:

In the futurist view of Christian eschatology, the Tribulation is a relatively short period of time where anyone who chose not to follow God before the Rapture and was left behind (according to Pre-Tribulation doctrine, not Mid- or Post-Tribulation teaching) will experience worldwide hardships, disasters, famine, war, pain, and suffering, which will wipe out more than 75% of all life on the earth before the Second Coming takes place.

I would translate it "distress" here.  But I want to focus on why.  Normally I believe in "canonical" translation, that is, help people see connections within the larger context of Scripture.  However, suffering and tribulation are such buzzwords that they distract from the immediate point of Jesus:  There will be an age of false messiahs and prophets who will claim to be saviors.  The great distress is living in an age where people turn away from the true worship to idolatry, the worst kind, where people call it Jesus but it is not.

Power:  There are three different words in this passage that relate to power.
αι δυναμεις (25):  When this word (coming directly into English as "dynamite") is in the plural, it means miracles or deeds of power.  In this case, it is translated "the powers," a logical translation, but strange use of the word!

δυναμεως (26):  Here the word is an adverb meaning powerfully

εξουσιαν (34):  Here the word means authority.  The man in the passage has conferred authority on his people.  It is worth noting that in spite of the fact that the end is coming, Jesus has still given us authority to do works.  In chapter 6 of Mark's Gospel, Jesus gives his disciples authority.  In that case, they were called to cast out unclean spirits, heal, evangelize and preach repentance.  In chapter 11 you might also argue that Jesus gives his disciples authority to pray, to teach and to forgive.  If you put these together, you come up with the mission of the church in Mark's Gospel:
While we await the coming of Christ in an age of idolatry masked as piety, we are to pray and teach prayer; cast out unclean spirits and heal people; we are to spread the Good News of repentance and forgiveness.

Grammar note one:  Why learning future participles is a waste of time
The construction of 13.25 is so odd.  The word for 'fall' here (from pimp-oo; πιμπω) is a present tense participle used with the a "to be" verb in the future tense. This construction (instead of a future participle) is a good lesson of why you should not waste any time learning future participles. They are so rare and even Greek speakers avoided them with other constructions, using the familiar English construction of:  "They will be falling"

Grammar note two:  Strong future denials
In 13.31 the promise of Jesus that his Words will never pass away is a ου μη construction, ie, a STRONG future denial. Also interesting is that this word (parercho-mai; παρερχομαι) appears in 2 Cor 5:17, Behold, Everything has passed away.  This could effectively be translated, "no way, never gonna happen."

Matthew 25:31-46

This passage occurs on Christ the King Sunday, Year A, most recently November 26, 2023.
 
Summary
Much like the beatitudes, it is hard to preach this text without steering off the cliff of works righteousness.  A few thoughts.  First, a goat and sheep are born that way; the sheep did not become sheep by their actions; neither for the goats.  They are declared righteous, but the text never declares them righteous because of their action.  It simply says they are righteous.  They did X, Y and Z good things.  Lutherans believe the righteous do good things.  Second, the sheep are not endeavoring to save their hides but they are simply helping people.  The goats were perfectly willing to help Jesus to help themselves, but they weren't interested if it didn't get them points.  The whole freedom in faith righteousness is that we no longer have to work about our own reputation (glory) or status before God but instead can worry about our neighbor.  The goats never got that far.  Lastly, for Matthew glory is found in judgment.  For Lutherans we believe that judgment comes on the cross, which points toward the cross being the center of glory.  Even if this seems stretching it the basic point of this text is a theology of the cross:  Jesus's glory is revealed, yet still somewhat hidden, in the brokenness of the world.

Simpler summary: simul iustus et peccator.  Tell them they are goats.  But tell them they are also sheep for whom the Good Shepherd died, the king of glory over sin, death and the devil.

Key words:
δοξα ("glory"; 25.31)  It is interesting to note that in the Gospel of Matthew the word δοξα is connected with Jesus second coming and judgment (see 16:27; 19:28; 24:30).  Perhaps it is worth reflecting on -- what is so glorious about judging?  Perhaps it is the purification of the people?  Of creation?  While we obsess over the potentially painful and violent cleansing, it seems that for Jesus this is the means, not the end.  Jesus cleanses the temple; in Matthew's Gospel he restores it to a place of healing.  This is a reminder that there is not a linear path to healing; that it will take judgment and "birth pains." (Matthew 24:8)

εθνος ("gentiles" or "nations"; 25.32). When used in the plural it normally means "gentiles" ie, non-Jews.  Jesus will finally tell us to go to all the nations.  This also forces a different take on Jesus words -- perhaps this is about the judgment of peoples, not simply individuals.  But yet, a close look at the Greek reveals that what is judged is not the nations, but individuals...(see note below).

κληρονομήσατε (from "κληρονομεω" meaning "inherit"; 25.34)  This word can mean receive, but it really involves inherit.  An inheritance means two things:  First, that someone died.  Second, that there is a gift.  The kingdom given to us is a gift in Jesus Christ and his death.

ο ποιμην ο βασιλευς (the shepherd; the king; 25:32; 25:34) It is interesting here that Jesus declares himself to be a shepherd-king!  I wonder if this is the ancient way of understanding servant-leadership.

ξενος ("stranger"; 25.35) The phrase, 'I was a stranger and you welcomed me' actually has the word: "xenos" as in xenophobia.  Furthermore, the verb is "synagagete," from which we get synagogue.  To translate a different way: "I was an outsider and you gathered me to worship." "Synag-oo" as a verb does not mean invite to church, but the word underneath means gather.  I think Jesus is implying something stronger than simply welcoming strangers but more like:  ushering in freaks. 

εμοι εποισητε ("You did to me", 25:40)  Jesus begins his teaching ministry with the beatitudes, a declaration that God doesn't operate like the world.  Here Jesus ends his teaching ministry by affirming that indeed, God doesn't operate like the world.  Jesus, as God, doesn't simply bless the weak and infirm from afar, but stands with us.  This helps us see what is truly happening in the cross, where God stands with the weak, with the condemned, with the one suffering, with the sinner.

It is interesting that the word δοξα can mean "reputation" or even "honor."  What is the honor of God?  To be with those whom the world has forgotten.  What is God's reputation?  To be with those whom the world doesn't care about.

κολασι(ς) (translated as "punishment", 25:46)  A quick look in almost Greek dictionary reveals this word has many shades of meaning and a fascinating entomology.  There is a sense here of pruning David Bentley Hart, in his translation of the New Testament, offers the following footnote that helpfully summarizes what the Lexicons offer:  

"The word κολασις originally meant 'pruning' or 'docking' or 'obviating the growth' of trees or other plants, and then came to mean 'confinement', 'being held in check', 'punishment' or 'chastisement' chiefly in connection with correction.  Classically, the word is distinguished (by Aristotle, for instance) from τιμωρια which means retributive punishment only.  Whether such a distinction holds here is difficult to say, since by late antiquity κολασις seems to have been used by many to describe punishment of any kind.  But the only other use of the noun in the New Testament is in 1 John 4:18, where it refers not to retributive punishment, but to the the suffering experienced by someone who is subject to fear because not yet perfected in charity.  The verbal form (κολαζω) appears twice: in Acts 4:21, where is clearly references only to disciplinary punishment, and in 2 Peter 2:9 in reference to fallen angles and unrighteous men, where it probably means 'being held in check' or 'penned in' [until the day of judgment].

Another interesting reference to ancient Greek is found in the TDNT (Kittel):  Who discusses Plato's view that, "Punishment brings blessing by freeing from a false frame of soul."

Ζωη ("zoo", meaning "life", here used in conjunction with "everlasting"; 25:46)  The theme of "life" and "everlasting life" is not nearly as developed in Matthew's Gospel as it is in John's Gospel, but it is present.  What is more common is the language about the Kingdom of God.  My sense is that Kingdom of (Heaven) in Matthew's Gospel = Life in John's Gospel.

Grammar:  Unclear antecedents
Like in English, Greek uses pronouns.  Sometimes it is unclear what "it" is referring to.  For example, the Greek says, "throne of glory of his."  Is the throne his or the glory?  Probably doesn't matter in this case, but worth reminding ourselves that Greek does have ambiguities.
In 25.32 the object of the word "divide" is interesting.  Jesus has just finished talking about the εθνος (gentiles), which is a neuter noun.  The pronoun object of the word divide is a masculine plural, suggesting the nations are not what are divided, but the individuals in the nations (masculine plural pronouns can refer to a group that has both men and women).

Matthew 25:14-30

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently November 2023.
 
Summary:
Alas, another Matthew Parable that seems to preach the Law and not the Gospel.  As a person and as a congregational leader, this passage troubles me.  Yet there is a bit of Gospel is we pay close attention here.  The master gives talents to his slaves.  Talents are huge sums of money.  What kind of person gives someone 1 or even 2 or even 5 to 10 million dollars??  What kind of person gives slaves this kind of money?  Sure, this parable may serve as warning not to hide our gifts.  Law, law and more law.  But the good news is this:  God gives us his assets in a way that in unimaginable in the real world of money.  (You might also say that God blesses his slaves' investments in a way unimaginable in this real world of money...)

What was new in 2020:  Focusing on people as the gifts we have been given.

What is new in 2023:  Focusing on how faith means taking risks and facing the fear of making a mistake.

Key words:

ταλαντον ("talent", a measure of gold weight worth roughly a million dollars or 20 years worth of a standard persons wages, 25:15).  While this parable may produce guilt and anxiety in us that we don't do enough, it is worth remembering that anyone who gives away 5 talents to his slaves (not friends, slaves) doesn't value money they way the rest of us do.  5 talents would be 5-10 million dollars; 100 years worth of human labor entrusted!

I think a sermon nugget here is realizing how much is entrusted to even the person with one talent.  Sometimes we compare ourselves to others and then convince ourselves that either we a) don't have responsibility to make an impact in the world or b) we have no capacity to do good.  We hide our talent.  Even when we are not given the "most" we still have more than we need and can work in the Kingdom with our gifts.

τα υπαρχοντα ("possessions", 25:16)  see below for a grammatical explanation of this word.  This word does mean possessions, but it comes from the verb for "to be" an does not simply mean goods, but really the entirety of one's resources and means.  For instance, in Genesis 12:5, Abraham and his family take τα υπαρχοντα of theirs when they are moving countries.  Second Peter 1:8 actually describes personality traits as υπαρχοντα.  This word is probably better translated as "assets."

εκερδησεν ("gain" from κερδαινω, 25:16)  Worth remembering that Paul said that all of his achievements were "dung" in order that he might gain Christ.  Also worth noting is that Jesus, in all three synoptics, warns of "gaining" the world (same word) but losing the soul.  Jesus is not simply teaching financial advice, but conveying a deeper meaning about the Kingdom of God.

εκρυψεν ("hide", κρυπτω, 25:18)  The word here literally means "encrypt."  The sin here is not having enough gifts, but hiding that which we have.  I wonder too if it is worth playing with this word "hide" and how people hide their gifts.

φοβηθεις ("fear", 25:25).  What is the fear of the third servant?  Interestingly, the third servant is not afraid of losing money for his sake (why people typically refuse to share what they have - they fear they will lack) but because he fears he will not do it right.   What fears hold people back from sharing their gifts?  Normally we would preach on the fear of not having enough, but not doing it right might also be a fear worth unpacking with people.   In 2023, I focused my sermon on the need to take risks for the Gospel.  In order to gain in the market, one must invest; living in faith is moving ahead in an uncertain world in which we might make mistakes. This leads to a nice Gospel message - God takes the risk of giving to us, knowing that God always has and always will make things right.

Grammar Review:  I thought substantive participles were easy!
Generally, one of the easiest participles to translate are a group called "substantive."  Basically, the form is 'the word the'+'participle' and it is translated the 'one(s)/thing(s) that do this verb'.  So in verse 14, you have τα υπαρχοντα.  The second word is a verb meaning "to be" so this substantive participle is translated, "the things that are."  In this case, this is an idiom which means something akin to "possessions" or "assets" but at its core, it is a participle made into a 'substance' by the word 'the'.

However, Greek can get pretty fancy with the substantive participle.  They can stick words in between the 'the' and the partciple.  For example, in 25:18
ο δε το εν λαβων means "But the one having one (talent)."  First, it is tricky because you have to figure out that the words το εν refer to "the one talent" but it is especially tricky because you have to realize that ο goes with λαβων and becomes "the one who has."  Lastly, you have to unpack the middle and put it on the end to translate it because in English you cannot have, outside of poetry, "the one one talent having." 

The nice thing about such participles is that they allow Greek to build some monster phrases, which ultimately are not that hard to translate.  You just have to identify the participle pieces (in this case the 'the' and the participle), translate them and then go after the middle.

Matthew 25:1-13

This passage occurs during year A in the Revised Common Lectionary season, most recently November 12, 2023.

Summary:  This is a tough passage to preach on!  I am still wrestling with this passage so I offer you some Greek insights that hopefully allow you to build a message!

I would offer, not so much a great point, but a basic exegetical point.  Matthew 25 has three parables.  Each point toward the reality of judgment.  But each successive parable gives us a sense of what is important.  Focus on Christ (1st parable); by using the gifts you have (2nd parable); for the sake of the least (3rd parable).  They need each other in many ways.

Note:  Because this parable involves a group of women (a bit unusual), the endings on words might be a bit unfamiliar!

παρθενοις (plural of Parthenos, "virgin" or "young (unmarried)" woman; 25.1)  In our culture we hear the word virgin with all sorts of other connotations, related to sexual purity, as opposed to unmarried state.  Furthermore, I wonder if translating this as bridesmaids (see NRSV) makes the most sense.   First, there is no ceremony that includes the bridegroom marrying these women.  Second, Jesus doesn't advocate/project/encourage for polygamy anywhere else.  Third, the new testament presents the whole church as the bride collectively, not individually.  Finally, there is an alternate reading, "Bridegroom and bride."  The textual evidence is much stronger for "bridegroom" alone, but significant (western) manuscripts have both included.  In this case, I do not think one should add back in the words; they don't seem in the original.  But I think this textual problem, along with the other problems, suggests this word should be translated at least as maidens, if not bridesmaids, instead of the loaded term virgin. 

μωραι ("mooria" meaning "fool"; 25.2) The word for fool is "mooria"...like moron, or like "foolishness to Greeks."

φρονιμοι ("phronimoi" meaning "wise"; 25.2)  Again, a huge connection here with Paul's letters to the Corinthians.  Furthermore, this word will be turned upside down by Paul in many ways, as he fights against the notion that wisdom/wise thinking was being unmoved (ie, stoic), but instead argues that wisdom is about taking on the Christian character of being moved to suffer for others (Philippians 2).  In this particular story, the wise seem like they are wise in the "stoic" sense rather than the Christian sense.

ηγερθησαν (from εγειρω meaning "arise"; 25.2)  This is from the word stand/raise up that also means resurrected.

εκοσμησαν (from κοσμεω, like cosmos, meaning "trim"; 25:7)  The word for "trimmed" lamps here is actually "adorned" perhaps recalling for you the hymn: Soul adorn yourself in gladness.  To trim the lamp is to adorn the lamp, the light of Christ!; to adorn the soul!

εκλεισθη (from κλειω, meaning "close"; 25.10)  I don't like this image.  It suggests people that want to get into the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven cannot.  A silver lining?  Jesus is the one who opens up the doors (the word for the tomb's entrance is also "door" in Matthew 27:60).  The only one with the power to open the door is Christ, not us with our lamps.

γρηγορειτε (from γρηγορε, like the name Gregory!, meaning "watch out"; 25:13)  This verb is in the present tense, suggesting this is to be an on-going activity.  My sense is that we have lost this sense of watching out for the coming of Christ in our churches today.  If we are to regain this though, we must offer people what the Bible offers them about Christ's return:  both fear and hope.

For those reading this with the Thessalonians text:
25:1 The word 'meet' in Matthew is similar to the word meet that is found in the Thess. text for this week (απαντησις vs. υπαντησις). What a contrast of the meetings -- one of a king in power and the other of bridegroom.

25:5 The words here for 'sleep' are different from those in 1 Thess. (This does not mean one can/should not make a comparison; just pointing it out).  In fact, "sleep" is probably why they chose to include this passage.

Matthew 22:34-46

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently October 2023.
 
Summary:  I suppose one could go to great lengths to parse out the Greek meaning of the words, "heart", καρδια, "soul," ψυχη, and "mind," διανοια.  After discovering that they mean different things in Greek than in English you learn that Jesus wants us to...drum roll...Love God and love our neighbor with everything we've got.  This is probably not much for a sermon, but I find it comforting that Jesus wants us to love God with our minds.  In my formation and candidacy, I often internalized guilty about my intelligence as if somehow, I just needed to be a big ball of emotions to serve God.  One of my professors, Dr. Henrich, pointed out that in this passage, we are called to love God with our mind.  This was an incredible word of Gospel to me.  Intellectual exploration of God's Word is okay too!  Funny how law can be heard as Gospel sometimes...

Key words:
διδασκαλε ("Teacher", 22:36)  Thanks be to God Jesus wasn't simply a teacher, but also the savior.  However, let us not dismiss the idea of Jesus as teacher.  The word teacher appears throughout each Gospel a total of 48 times.  What can we learn from Jesus this week?  One might understand Jesus' teaching role as salvific (if we just followed Jesus' teachings, healing and life would follow); but I would like to understand it in more dialectical and unsolved relationship.  Jesus is the world's greatest teacher of human wisdom and law.  Jesus also teaches though that finally the law is not enough to save us.  However, we cannot avoid the teachings of Jesus, including when it comes to ethics.  Also, the great teachers have a passion for their subject and also a passion for their students -- Jesus literally has THE passion for his students, us.

αγαπαω ("Love" 22:37)  One can parse the word love a number of ways.  What is interesting here is that αγαπη, which is often thought to refer to divine love, here refers to neighborly love.  A reminder that in the kingdom of God, love doesn't remain on heaven, but comes to earth.

καρδια ("heart", 22:37)  In Greek, the heart is NOT the center of emotions, but of will.   

ψυχη ("soul", 22:37)  BDAG points to the broad nature of this word.  The soul is, perhaps best said, that which makes flesh alive.  The Bible will use the word ψυχη to mean more than simply "the ghostly blue vapor" of our existence.  Perhaps another way:  our essence?  Hard to nail down...

διανοια ("Thoughts" or mind, 22:37):  As I stated in my summary, I want to point out that Jesus wants us to love God with our mind.  Also interesting is that God admits fulfilling this is impossible.  In Genesis 8:21 God says that all our thoughts (διανοια) are bent on evil.  Eph 2:3 and 4:18 are similar.  Interestingly, in Jeremiah 31:33, God says he will put the law into our minds.  All this points out that not simply our "hearts," but our minds, are also a battle ground for God, a place that needs rebirth.  (In fact, this word is often translated from the Hebrew word that means "heart" because the ancient Jewish thought located thoughts in the heart).

χριστος ("anointed" 22:42).  This is a very common word in the NT.  The reason why I bring it up here is because most of our thoughts about the word "Christ" are not what the listener's in the OT would have heard.  

The word Messiah was a loaded term that encompassed the deepest hopes of ancient Israel for the one through whom God would bring fulfillment of long-standing promises.  The challenge is that people living in Jesus' day understood differently how God would do this (although there was probably less disagreement about the end result).  There was certainly a faction that believed the Messiah would be a military leader who would overthrow Herod.  But this was not universally understood in this way.  Regardless, no one was articulating the idea that the Messiah would be a crucified rebel.

The spiritualization of this role is not  New Testament development.  That Jesus came to "take us to heaven" is a much later development.  All first century Jews, including Paul and Jesus, would have understood the Kingdom of God as heaven breaking into earth, rather than us escaping earth to get to heaven.

Grammatical review:  "Hendiadys"
A Hendiadys is a very fancy way of saying "using two words to mean one thing."  Literally from the Greek:  "One through two."  An example of this might be from Genesis 1:  "Formless and void."  They both essentially mean the same thing.  Put them together and you get:  "A whole lot of nothing." 
In this particular passage, we have a hendiadys typical of the New Testament: 
ο νομος και οι προφηται (22:40)

The law and the prophets.  This is the NT way of referring to the Old Testament.  Sometimes they will include the Psalms, but more often, just these two sections.  So Jesus isn't simply saying, "All of the commands and words of the prophets hang on these two commandments" he is saying, "the whole Bible that you know of depends on this."

Matthew 22:15-22

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently October 2023.

Summary:  One does not find the Greek words for church and state in this passage, even though this passage is used to justify all sorts of behavior and relationships between church and state.  What is mentioned though is the word "εικον" meaning icon, or image.  The tempters of Jesus, forgetting Genesis 1, say that the coin bears the image of Caesar.  They answer the truth, but not the whole truth.  An image of a man is still an image of God.  Money, whether it says, "In God We Trust" or "Caesar" or anything, isn't exempt from God's creation.  It still has to do with humans and how we live in this creation, and thus it still belongs under God's dominion.

Freedom note:  I used this passage in 2017 to launch a Reformation 500 series on the Freedom of a Christian.  I pick this passage because Jesus discusses that even those of us free in Christ still have responsibilities before other people.

Key words: 
παγις ("hunter's trap", used as a verb, 22.15) The word for ensnare comes from the root for trap. What a cruel image of the pharisees trying with metal jaws, to trap Jesus. 

Interestingly, by possessing a coin with the image of Caesar on them, one could argue the Jewish leaders here are already worshiping an idol.  This is especially true given the cult of the Emperor and the fact he was viewed as a god.  They were carrying around images of a foreign god!!  Furthermore, they set up a bogus system whereby you had to trade you Roman money for Jewish money to buy sacrifices.  Thus the temple profited from this exchange.  Jesus traps them as he reveals their sin and their entanglement with the Emperor.  Herod was a puppet king of Rome...but even the Pharisees benefit from the Roman tyranny because so often they are in places of power.   So Jesus is showing that they play in the Emperor's sandbox all the time. They want to trap him and in the end, they lay a trap for themselves.  Hence why they are hypocrites (see below!)

αποστελλω ("send" 22.16).  The literal phrase here is that his enemies "apostled their disciples," a reminder that Jesus is not the only one with apostles and disciples...

υποκριτης ("actor/hypocrite", 22.18) The word for hypocrite means actor, or one who plays a part.  (He answered above the others from stage.)  This is not necessarily a negative word, but in the NT it is used exclusively that way.  Jesus isn't interested in actors, but real people with real sins that need real forgiveness.  (In fact, the sentence before Luther famously asserts 'sin boldly', he says, "God did not die for fictitious sinners.")

εικον (image/icon, 22.20) The word here for "head" or "portrait" here is literally "eikon," (icon!) which means image. So the question is whose image? If it is a human head, the answer could just as easily have been "God." (See Genesis 1!)  As Christians we must always seek to serve the creator behind the created governments of this world...yet while still acknowledging the reality of human government and laws!

τα του θεου (the things of God).  The word 'things' is implied here, for it literally reads, "the(se) of God."  While this is straight-forward Greek grammar that we don't have in English -- where we would need to include the word "things", there is something a bit trickier going on here.  Grammatically, it is worth asking -- what is the connection between "the(se) things" and "God"?  "God" is in the genitive case and this opens up many possibilities.  Do we give God back the things that come from God? The things that belong to God?  The things in this world which are for God?  The grammatical possibilities seem endless, underlying the more theological question:  What belongs to God? 

The best answer it seems, is from the Psalms:

The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it  Psalm 24:1

For 2026 to beef up -- I preached on the word "render" (αποδιδημι).  In the NT, only once we are called to give a rendering to God -- on judgment day.  In the OT, we are called to render a sacrifice of thanksgiving.  Two interesting ways to think about what we actually have to render -- confession of sin and confession of praise!

Translation/Grammar review:  Idioms
"The things of God" is not the only idiomatic construction in this passage!

Some things in a language are simply impossible to translate literally.  This week Jesus is told, "You do not look into the face of people."  This doesn't sound so nice.  It simply means, "You don't look at exterior things."  (Which is a positive assessment).  He is also told he doesn't care about nothing.  Missing from this idiom is the word "opinion."  Jesus doesn't care about the opinions of others, in the sense that he acts free from petty judgments of others.  You could take them literally, and perhaps derive some meaning; that said, with idioms, it is often best to let professional translators do the work...

Innovation is not Transformation

In this post, I am going to focus on the leadership failure I see within churches: the inability to form leaders to be transformers of culture, not simply administrators or innovators.  My sense is that I am describing a phenomenon occurring across industries, in that we prepare people to implement best practices or experiment with the newest trend, but we do not prepare them for the frankly spiritual task of transforming culture to integrate new practices into existing systems.  If you are not involved involved in a church, I welcome your input on how you see this playing itself out in your field (you may be able to skip point #1).  If you are involved in a church, I welcome your pushback on what I am missing.

Point #1:  Most churches are in need of more than simply "a few more young families" but wholesale transformation.

Point #2:  We have prepared leaders to adopt best practices or experiment with the newest trend.  This will not lead to transformation.

Point #3:  Changing culture is linked with reforming best practices and embracing new business models, but requires a different approach and character.

Therefore:  If we want to see the transformation of existing churches, we will need to speak more openly about culture change and design systems to equip and sustain leaders for this kind of change.

Point #1:  Most churches are in need of more than simply "a few more young families" but wholesale transformation.

Subpoint A:  Most churches, even when clamoring for growth, do not want change, or at least, real change.

Most churches, especially those within mainline denominations, are experiencing decline.  We could reveal this using all sorts of metrics.  Typically when you ask people within these congregations how they can move forward, the answer is something like:

• We need more X:  young families, kids in Sunday School, money in the bank
• We need cooler Y:  a praise band, screens in worship, less formal vestments
• We need social change Z:  Prayer back in school, no sports on Sundays, Wednesday night church time 

To put it in terms of a business, the people within declining congregations typically look for change in one of three ways

• We want customers who used to like to return to us
• We want to employ practices of firms whose skill set is entirely different than ours
• We want society to bring back the time when consumption of our products was supported.

Perhaps I am framing this too uncharitably or setting up an unfair strawman!  I admit I've thought and said most of these things over the years.  Furthermore, wanting a praise band or less formal worship style may be helpful in some contexts.  Many congregations would be helped significantly by cosmetic and incremental changes.  Lastly, at least some such comments acknowledges that some sort of internal change is necessary.  Yet I have almost never heard a congregation say: "In order to stop this decades long trend of decline, the way we've done things must fundamentally change, which will require our hearts to be transformed by God's Word and encounter with our neighbor."

Subpoint B:  In the Bible the church grew because it underwent a transformation grounded in prayer and study of the word.

In the book of Acts, the church grows rapidly.  It did not have great marketing techniques.  It did not have a culturally sophisticated worship style.  It enjoyed no cultural advantages.  Yet somehow, this group of Galilean peasants launches a movement that transforms the entire Roman Empire.  Obviously the Spirit leads the transformation; let's take a closer look at what happens:

• A group of fairly inward looking, yet very pious Jews living in Jerusalem (Acts 1) spend time in prayer waiting for the Holy Spirit.  They are overcome by fear and joy at the cross and resurrection.
• The Holy Spirit comes and blows them out of their comfort zone and they are transformed into an open faith community that welcomes Jews from all over the world (Acts 2).  
• They spend time listening to God, each other and the neighbor (Acts 2). 
• They preach and embrace the reality of rigorous discipleship as preached earlier by Jesus (Acts 2-5)
• As the community grows, they must address internal growing pains (Acts 6) and external social pressure (Acts 8).  
• Finally, they are led to preach and find Jesus outside of their city (Acts 9 and 10).
• This culminates in official "doctrine" of the church codifying a new way of engaging the outsider (Acts 15) in a way that forever orients the community toward the broader world and paves the way for incredible expansion.

I realize that one could summarize the first half of the book of Acts differently, but it is fair to say that the growth of the church happens as a result of the insiders undergoing a change of their hearts to embrace new people, new practices and new policies.  We cannot expect congregations (or firms or non-profits) to grow, after years of decline, without undergoing such a similar transformation of their hearts. 

Point #2:  We have prepared leaders to adopt best practices or experiment with the newest trend.  This will not lead to transformation.

Subpoint #A:  The American church grooms its leaders into one of two types.  My sense is that there is something similar within the business world that happens.

We tend to foster future congregational leaders to have a chaplain and/or innovator mentality.

- Chaplains:  People who are excellent at providing care within their settings.  Many of these people also have strong skills in administration and equipping of others for the care-giving task.  When it comes to leadership, these people can be very wise at setting up processes to ensure broad participation.  They also tend to be people who can get "into the weeds" and are willing patiently to address concerns people have.  They can study best practices at other churches and will implement once they perceive that the kinks have been worked out.

- Innovators:  People who have no time for shifting deck chairs on what they perceive as the sinking Titanic called the church of the Western hemisphere.  They want to seed new ministries that will help reach out to the ever-growing number of people who have tuned out or are turned off to formal religious expression in the USA.  They likely have a love-hate relationship with the churches and denominations they are in and lots of other leaders are bit jealous, terrified and yet hopeful for them.  Denominations often shine a spotlight on the ministries of innovators because they show great promise in their infancy and hope that others can adopt what works from these inventors.  When it comes to leadership, they thrive in "adaptive" leadership, that is, situations in which they are willing to experiment, fail and try again.  

For those familiar with the terms technical and adaptative change, I am arguing that we produce pastors who are ready to implement technical change and/or adaptive change.  Technical change is a change in which the problem and solution can be identified and implemented beforehand.  Adaptive change is a chance in which the problem and solution can only be discovered by trial and error.  For example, a technical change might be moving a choir rehearsal from Wednesday night to Sunday afternoon to acknowledge that the aging choir does not like night driving.  An adaptive change might be experimenting with models of integrating youth into adult ensembles after years of separate youth choirs.  The adaptive change likely requires a number of iterations to get it right.  The technical change likely works, if it is well communicated and those effected are on board.  Adaptive change, even when well communicated and with the supportive of stake holders might not work.

Subpoint #2:  This will not lead to transformation.

To be clear, I believe we need congregations to engage in adaptive leadership.  We need innovation as the existing model isn't working.  However, innovation is not transformation.  I argue that successful innovation requires transformation.  To put it another way, adaptive change requires cultural change.  For example, let's say that we start having youth work with adult choirs  This starts changing the whole way a congregation things about youth no longer as a silo (the dominant way of thinking for nearly two generations).  What kind of possibilities or push-back does this produce?  In order for youth to sing with adults, this is not simply going to require some changes in scheduling, but a change in heart of how people in the congregation relate across generations.  It might also require the congregation to break down barriers it had around style of music to find something that works for all ages.

Another example:  We started worshipping outside during COVID.  This blossomed into a favorite part of our congregation's life.  Now we have people from the neighborhood who will not join the main group of people for worship, but will sit outside of their apartments and listen from a distance.  We have been very slow as a congregation to embrace or reach out to them.  Why is this?  We innovated by adding outside worship.  Yet our culture still says the people that matter are the people whose butts are in front of the pastor on a Sunday morning.  What culture shift will be required by us to view those worshipping from a distance as part of us?

Point #3:  Changing culture is linked with reforming best practices and embracing new business models, but requires a different approach and character.

Culture change is not something that just happens.  It actually requires

• Time in prayer and study, listening to God, each other and the broader world
• Identification of culture change that is desired by leadership
• Implementation of technical change to support that culture change
• Openness to adaptive change that this makes possible 
• Leadership to hold strong when resistance is encountered

Going back to the example of the outside worship, we have generally a culture that is open to others entering into our space, but likely expects them to come into our space.  It will require leadership to recognize this as a challenge and lean in.  However, it will also require technical change - we need to, for example, knock on their doors the week before summer worship starts, invite them and then make bulletins available to them.  But it may also lead into adaptive change.  What happens when some of those folks start coming to worship and bring their hearts, concerns and stories of faith?  It will also come with a pushback - "Why are we printing bulletins for people that don't pay in" or other such possible comments.  (Frankly, I don't believe my congregation would say that, but I wanted to give an example of this). 

However, it should be noted, that if we hadn't gone through a huge culture shift - worship does not need to happen in our sanctuary - which was built on lots of technical changes - how to make worship outside work - we wouldn't be in a position to engage in adaptive change around engaging the stranger who does not come into our circle or our building.  We needed the confidence of the successful move outside to begin the experimentation with our neighbors in this apartment complex.

Here is my summary of these three types of change

	Types of Change
	Technical	Cultural	Adaptive
Changes	Processes	Values	Clients
Addresses	How	Why	For Whom
Builds on		Technical Change	Cultural Change
Who must be consulted	Existing end-users	Whole community; Stakeholders	Audience outside/on-margins of system
Takes	1-3 meetings to decide	5+ years to accomplish	3-5 years to prepare
Communication stops	Once new process accepted	Once new value accepted	Once new community accepted
To find solutions	Ask "end-users"; Examine best practices in industry	Align practices with values	Try stuff that builds on your existing skill set
To succeed	Follow transparent process and communicate	Ensure leadership is linked to endure pushback	Develop capacity for failure
Stance toward mistakes	Eliminate them	Forgive People	Embrace them
Leaders must be...	Thoughtful	Enduring	Innovative
	Attending	Listening	Dreaming

Therefore:  If we want to see the transformation of existing churches, we will need to speak more openly about culture change and design systems to equip and sustain leaders for this kind of change.

To put this all together, I was educated in how to be a chaplain and how to be an innovator.  But I was not equipped for the long-hard, gut-wrenching practice of changing culture.  This really is a spiritual task because it does not simply involve failing, but it involves interacting with people whom you love with whom you find yourself in disagreements.  More painfully, the disagreement may seem about technical change, but underneath, it is about culture change, and typically masking a great deal of grief about culture and loss of identity within a community.

If we are serious about revitalizing congregations (and this is actually an if), then I think we will need to equip ministers far-differently, preparing them to lead transformations of cultures within congregations so that they can eventually guide congregations in the messy process of figuring out how they can be the church for the next generation in a very different world than the one these congregation arose out of.

Lastly, I realize that any congregation who is in decline has heroic expectations on their pastor.  (This was a glaring and intentional omission under point #1!)  Congregations  (and companies!) clamor for a leader this younger and yet more experienced, more caring yet more bold, deep and inspiring, and of course a traditionalist innovator.  Impossible, right!  I wonder though, how many say out loud, "We want a pastor who will change our hearts to embrace others outside the community who are different than us!"  If you ever find a congregation that says this, take the call right away.