"Three Keys to Greatness in the Kingdom of God" by Andrew Kurtz | CGS 2024

Lesson Transcript

Well, good afternoon, everyone. So to get started here, I am going to tell a story. I'm not a great storyteller, but I'll tell one anyway. So the title is "Concepts of Leadership: Three Keys to Greatness in the Kingdom of God." So when I was young, my friends and I played a game in which we chose a person to stand at the head of a line, and the rest of us would stand in file behind him or her.

The point of this game was for the leader to engage in increasingly bizarre and ridiculous gymnastics, which were designed to eliminate his followers one by one. Winning the game was a game of survival of the fittest. In this game, the leader was considered great if he had no one left to follow him. This game, of course, was called Follow the Leader. In another game, we chose an individual to ascend an elevated surface.

And this elevated surface could be a low rooftop, could be a picnic table, could be a gravel, soil, or mulch pile. Or on the farm where I grew up, it could have been a silage pile, a haystack, or even barnyard matter. The point of this game was for the one on the top of the pile to ward off the advances of an approaching party seeking to take his place. If the approaching party overthrew the incumbent party, the newcomer was now king of the hill.

Winning the game was to be the last man standing uncontested on the top of the hill. It was a game of survival of the fittest. So it may be fine for children to play childish games of determining dominance. Establishing a social pecking order seems to be inherently important to children. But adults, too, seem to have this proclivity towards determining social rank. And so in life, from a social perspective, we place others, or we may be placed by others, at the head of the line or at the top of the pile.

And we can be placed there by our own choice as a volunteer. We can be democratically chosen. We can be ordained, commissioned, appointed, or elected. We can become a parent. We could be born first, as in an older sibling, or maybe older to nieces and nephews. We could be the coolest head in an emergency. We could be the most influential in our peer group, or we could be the most competent in our field. In the definition of leadership by the modern leadership guru, John C.

Maxwell, he says that a leader is someone who has a follower. So there are very few people in the world that do not have anyone that follows them or looks up to them in some way. So in this way, most people are a leader. There are, of course, varying degrees of responsibility in these relationships. Being a good example to your younger siblings is important, but it carries less responsibility than that of being a parent. Filling these positions could be lifelong. They could be term-bound.

There could be a voluntary timeline. It could be for as long as the need exists. It could be as long as those who have chosen you to fill a need permit you to continue to fill that need. It could be until someone exceeds your influence. It could be until you are replaced, or in some way, you may be superseded.

But the question that we want to consider this morning is this: when we find ourselves at the front of the line or the top of the pile from a social perspective, leading a charge, the head of an organization, a parent, a church leader, a teacher, a team leader, a business leader, a community organizer, whatever the organization might be, the question is this: how should we function in this capacity? What frame of mind should we be in, and from whom do we take our example?

Are the childish games of determining dominance instructive for us in any way? I hope that we can answer that with a resounding no. In 1 Corinthians 13:11, the Apostle Paul says that, "When I was a child, as fake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things." Childish games and mindsets must be put away from us when we mature. Jesus says that we must become child-like but not childish.

But sadly, childish games of dominance often bleed into adult concepts of leadership. These questions of dominance and greatness have been going on for centuries. In one form or another, the question that's being asked is this: who is the greatest? In Luke 9, it's recorded that an argument arose among Jesus' disciples as to which of them was to be the greatest.

And Matthew 18:1 says, "At that time, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?'" Matthew and Mark record the story of James and John, and in Matthew's record, their mother, coming to Jesus and asking him for a place of prominence in the kingdom of God. Thankfully, Jesus takes this opportunity to teach them something about greatness in the kingdom of God. I'm going to read Matthew 18:1 to 4. And in my title, I mentioned that there's three keys to greatness.

I'm going to mention three. I'm going to spend the majority of the time on the second one. But here's the first one. "At that time, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, 'Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'" So I'm not going to elaborate very far on these verses, but don't miss the point. The prerequisite for greatness in the kingdom of God is humility. Humility is the first key to greatness in the kingdom of God. So now we're going to read the story of the sons of Zebedee asking for a position of greatness in the kingdom of God.

Going to read it in Matthew and Mark, and then also going to read it in Luke's account because Luke adds an interesting detail that can be overlooked in the other accounts. But it is a little bit of reading, so bear with me as I read through these passages. But I just want you to kind of get the weight of what Jesus is talking about here. "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons. And kneeling before him, she asked him for something.

And he said to her, 'What do you want?' She said to him, 'Say that these two sons of mine are to sit one at your right hand and one at your left in your kingdom.' Jesus answered, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?' And they said, 'We are able.' He said to them, 'You will drink my cup. But to sit at my right hand and on my left is not mine to grant.

But it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.'" And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. "But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you.

But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.'" Reading Mark's account now. "And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, 'Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.'" Did I ask Jesus for a blank check?

"He said to them, 'What do you want me to do for you?' And they said to him, 'Grant us to sit one at your right hand and one at your left in your glory.' Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?' And they said to him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink, you will drink. And with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized.

But to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant. But it is for those for whom it has been prepared.'" And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. "And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you.

But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.'" I find it interesting that both Matthew and Mark record that the other disciples became upset with James and John for seeking this place of prominence. It begs the question, why?

While the text does not explicitly say why, it is reasonable to guess that they, too, had the same question: who will be the greatest? And perhaps they were vying for that exact thing. Let's read now in Luke 22. It says that a dispute also rose among them as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. "And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you.

Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, the one who reclines at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.'" So let's think carefully about what Jesus was saying here in this passage in Luke 22. So the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship. So among the Gentiles, the kings are exercising lordship. So you have kings, and you have subjects.

Kings exercise lordship over their subjects. This is position-based authority. The equation works something like this: because I have a position, do as I say or bear the consequences. But Jesus calls this type of lordship Gentile. Luke adds an interesting line, and it is this: he says there that those in authority over them are called benefactors. So benefactors provide benefits. The one receiving the benefits are called beneficiaries.

Jesus references here another type of authority structure, which is the benefactor-beneficiary relationship. This relationship exchanges certain benefits for the right to rule. The equation works something like this: because I serve you, obey me or lose the benefits. But Jesus calls this Gentile.

In Matthew, Jesus says, "It shall not be so among you." In Mark, Jesus says, "But not so among you." And in Luke, Jesus says, "But not so with you." So if Jesus gives examples of what Gentile-style leadership is and then says that it shall not be so among you, it begs the question, then what shall be so? What shall be in the place of Gentile-style lordship? And what replaces the benefactor-beneficiary relationship?

For years, I held the perspective that people in authority do rule and must rule with authoritarian lordship. I observed it. I participated in it. People around me seemed to vie for the opportunity to wield it. But reading the words of Jesus reading these words of Jesus gave me a sort of cognitive dissonance between the words of Jesus and what I observed in the relationships around me.

"The princes of the Gentiles exercise lordship, but not so among you." I wrestled deeply with this concept for a long time, and in many ways, I continue to wrestle with the concept. But the question is, Jesus, what are you communicating? What is it that you want us to understand? And modern leadership mantras have attempted to answer this question. The answer that's often given is servant leadership. And if properly understood, the answer is correct. But frankly, I find that answer to often be inadequate.

Much of what I have heard called servant leadership is merely the benefactor-beneficiary relationship. I serve you, therefore obey or lose the benefits. But Jesus calls us Gentile and says, "Not so among you." So I must repeat that servant leadership is a good thing. In many cases, it's a good thing. It can be a good thing, and in many cases, it is a good thing. But I'm just pointing out that if not properly understood, servant leadership can be just as Gentile as authoritarian-style Gentile lordship.

So what shall be? What is Jesus communicating? So think carefully about what Jesus said here. Jesus asks a rhetorical question. He says, "For who is the greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves?" Jesus answers his own question with an answer that everyone knows and expects. Is it not the one that reclines at the table? The one being served at the table is considered greater than the one serving. But notice where Jesus places himself on this value structure.

Jesus says, "I am among you as the one who serves." So what is Jesus communicating? Jesus seems to be inferring that he values those that he is serving as more important to the cause than he himself is to the cause. He elevated the men that he was leading to a greater status than that of his own. He valued them so much that he poured himself into their lives. The purpose, of course, was that they would go out and pour into the lives of others.

But first, they would need to value the ones that they pour into as greater and more necessary to the cause than they themselves were in the same way that Jesus did. And this cycle is to be repeated over and over in the lives of Jesus' followers. So let's review. Gentile-style lordship exercises authoritarian lordship. Do as I say or else. Benefactor-beneficiary relationship is also Gentile. I give you certain benefits in exchange for the right to rule.

But Jesus demonstrated a relationship where the leader values others. The equation looks more like this: I value you. Therefore, I serve you. And I believe that all organizations, churches, businesses, family structures, or any other social structure can be categorized in one of these three options. It can be authoritarian lordship, benefactor-beneficiary, or greater value assigned to those being served. See, Gentile-style lordship is familiar to us. It's the dictator's of the world.

It's the police stopping you on the highway. He might be nice, but if you act up, he has a valid call to get you under control. It's Pharaoh commanding the Hebrew babies to be thrown into the Nile. It's Herod commanding the death of the babies under two years old. Lordship-type rulers frequently appeal to their position as the basis of their authority. Lordship-type rulers feel threatened by other people of authority or influence.

And lordship rulers often possess only positional authority rather than influence or persuasion through humility, value, and service. Benefactor-beneficiary relationships, in many cases, are more congenial than relationships that exercise lordship. And in many ways, there may be similarities between a benefactor-beneficiary relationship and a relationship that values its followers. The difference is in the mindset rather than in the specific structure.

For example, let's consider this question: Is an employer-employee relationship Gentile-style lordship? Is it a benefactor-beneficiary relationship? Or is it a value-based is it value-based in which leadership values their employee and seeks their good? The answer is it can be any of the three. It's not so much the structure of the relationship but more the mindset of those involved.

An employee can be lorded over and, due to accentuating circumstances in his life, may have little to no option but to stay in that position and be lorded over. It can be a purely transactional relationship where money is exchanged for the right to rule with little to no regard for the well-being of the employee. Or it can be a relationship where the employee is highly valued, his good is always regarded, and leadership serves and pours into his life.

So in practicality, let's think a little further about this in three common relationships: work, church, and family. These three relationships are very important to us and very familiar to us. Many of us interact at some level with these relationships every day. And I'm only going to touch very briefly on each one of these three. Really, building out these three concepts could really be a message in and of their own or I'm sorry, each one could be a message in and of itself. So I'm just going to touch very briefly.

But let's think a little bit about work relationships. So a typical organizational structure looks something like this: You might have a CEO, and then you have managers, and then you have employees, and then customers. And typically, the mindset is something like this: We are the greatest, the biggest, the oldest, the most innovative, the highest quality, the only, the original. Employees are lucky to work with us, and customers are fortunate to find and receive to find us and receive our products and services.

All subtle ways or not so subtle ways of saying, "We are the greatest. We're at the top of the value chain, and you're fortunate to be part of our organization." But what if the organizational chart is turned upside down? What if the primary reason that our workplaces existed was to be of service to humanity, making the world a better place for our existence? So you have employees who serve the customers. You have managers that serve employees, and you have a CEO who serves managers.

Money, of course, is involved in the social structure as a medium of exchange. But adding value through service should be our primary mindset, and money is only a secondary measure of how well and where we fit into the value structure. So let's think about the words of Jesus. Who is greater, the customer being served or the employee serving? In Jesus' Luke 22 teaching, you would say, "Is it not the customer?" Employee serving the customer. Who is greater, the employee serving the customer or his manager?

Is it not the employee? Who is greater, the manager serving the employee or the CEO? Is it not the manager? That's the value structure that Jesus was teaching in Luke 22. And in this structure, the CEO does not think in terms of how many people work for him. He thinks in terms of how many people he works for to provide opportunities like a living wage, a safe environment, fulfilling and meaningful work, skill development, and personal development. Okay, let's move to church structures briefly.

So again, organizational charts of churches can look something like this: You may have a pope, you may have a bishop, a minister, a deacon, and then the bottom of the feeder chain are the members. There could be some vague sense of ministry and purpose like, "Our denomination has been faithful for many years, right? We are the greatest. We need to preserve ourselves for future generations. We are the greatest.

We are the largest, the fastest growing, the most recognizable, the name recognition." All of these things can be good, but they can also be subtle ways of saying, "We are the greatest." But what if all churches had a sense of mission where we valued the lost, the hurting, the broken, and the undecipled, where all the saints are engaged in the work and ministry and of making disciples? Leadership is pouring into the saints, equipping them for ministry.

The saints value and serve the lost, the hurting, the broken, and the undecipled, and leadership values, pours into, and serves the saints. That's the picture I get from Ephesians 4:11 to 13.

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and the teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ until we all come until we all attain to the unity of the faith, of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. This is the picture I get from this passage. The saints are ministering to the world, and the giftings have been given to serve the saints and to equip them.

So let's move briefly to thoughts about family. Our thoughts about family are often instructed by concepts of headship order. So we say things like, "God, Christ, men, women, children." And to the extent that that is a biblical picture, I don't wish to undermine it. Headship certainly is a biblical concept. But far too often, this construct has allowed men to be inconsiderate of their wives and children.

Men who live out of this positional authority can easily exhibit the mantra, "Do as I say but not as I do." Headship is an important aspect of leadership. But headship is designed to value and to protect the weakest members of the family structure, not to exploit them. Women and children are to be protected and valued by those who are leading them. Honestly, I think our sisters get this in a way that many men miss. Just observe the way that women pour into the lives of their children.

Godly women are incredible leaders. Even when they have been disempowered by inconsiderate leadership, they have exerted outsized persuasional influence through faithful, loving service. In a patriarchal society, the women can be disenfranchised or disempowered. But just watch how influential our women are. And I'll read that again. Godly women are incredible leaders.

Even when they have been disempowered by inconsiderate leadership, they have exerted outsized persuasional influence through faithful, loving service. But seeing all of this, there's a paradox. Who did the disciples consider to be the greatest? Of course, they considered Jesus to be the greatest, right? But who did Jesus value as greater? His followers. You see, when you value, serve, and pour into the lives of others the way Jesus did, they may consider you great. But you can't focus on that greatness.

In fact, if you do, you have probably already lost it. Your focus must be on those you are called to serve. Philippians 2:3 through 7 says, "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind that each esteem others better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a serpent I'm sorry, the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men." Think just a moment about John the Baptist. John the Baptist was a forerunner to Jesus. Jesus was baptized of him. John's comment was, "He must increase, but I must decrease." But what did Jesus say about John?

Jesus said, "I tell you, among those born of women, none is greater than John." Do you see how John valued Jesus and Jesus valued John? The second key to greatness is to be great. You must value and pour into the lives of those that you serve. Luke 22:28-29, there's a third key. And it follows this teaching of Luke 22. It comes immediately on the heels of the squabble about greatness.

But Jesus says this, "You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father has assigned to me, a kingdom." I think the King James says, "I appoint unto you a kingdom." Another translation says, "Bestow." But Jesus is saying here, "I assign to you, as my Father has assigned to me, a kingdom." The third key is entrustment. Were they ready to receive what Jesus was giving to them? Given the circumstances, a squabble about greatness, you would hardly think so.

And yet, Jesus assigned the kingdom to his followers in the same way his Father assigned the kingdom to him. This is the third key: entrustment. We start with humility. We value and serve and pour into the lives of others, and we entrust them with the very message that we have been entrusted with. Of course, this was not an overnight process. Jesus would still walk with them for some time, but he was preparing them to take his message to the ends of the world.

In spite of their flaws and immaturity, Jesus assigned to them a kingdom. And this unlikely motley crew became incredible agents of change in the world. Of course, there were many other factors such as their own conversion and the coming of the Holy Spirit. But part of this picture was that Jesus entrusted the kingdom to him in the same way to them in the same way his Father had entrusted it to him.

So with this mindset that starts with humility, then values, serves, and entrusts, what is to be said for position and responsibility? Because there are positions. That's how we become a leader. There are responsibilities. There is a need to be faithful to the responsibilities inherent to the position. But we will be completely ineffective as a leader if we rely only on the position to lead.

Implicit in this discussion is the question, is there a time when, in faithfulness to the responsibilities of a position, does authority need to be exercised? Does a child need to be disciplined? Does an employee need to be removed from a job? Or does a person need to be removed from church fellowship? The answer is yes. Faithfulness to God as a parent requires you to discipline the foolishness of a child.

Accountability to the stated goals of a business or an organization require the alignment of the members to the organization. And faithfulness to the faith once delivered to the saints require a careful weighing of whether we are in the faith. And there are times that, to an immature heart, the exercise of authority may feel like Gentile lordship. And you can be sure that, to a rebellious heart, the exercise of authority will be misconstrued as Gentile authoritarian lordship.

But my message today is not about rebellion. The message is this: before we exercise the authority implicit to faithfulness to a position, let's be sure that we are humble, that we value above ourselves the people that we serve, and that we have entrusted them with the opportunity appropriate to their ability. When I think back to multiple scenes in my life, if I had had this framework at the time to evaluate those scenes, I would have said at the time that Gentile-style lordship was at work.

But from a 46-year-old perspective, I'm a little less sure that it was Gentile-style authoritarian lordship at work. But maybe there was more immaturity, worldliness, and rebellion going on in my own life than what there was Gentile-style authoritarian lordship. But see, I'm not called to judge those situations of the past. That's not the question that I need to answer today. Today, the wheels in life have turned. Now, I'm a husband. I'm a father. I'm a business leader.

I'm filling a role of responsibility in church life. And the question that keeps me up at night is not, is there immaturity, worldliness, and rebellion in the lives of those that I serve? Because those things will exist. No, the question that keeps me up at night is this: am I humble? Do I value those around me? Do I love and serve the way that Jesus loved and served? Do I entrust those that I serve with the very things that I have been entrusted with? Does my family see me willing to admit my mistakes?

Do my church brothers sense in any way that I value their input in my life? Do my coworkers feel valued and cared for? These are the questions that leadership and leaders must reflect deeply on. Here is what I know to be true. You won't entrust unless you value, and you won't value unless you have humility. There are many nuanced questions and perhaps even confusion that can arise from a teaching like this.

But if life has placed you at the front of the line or the top of the pile from some social perspective, you can only be considered great if you are humble. If you value those who you serve and you entrust them with the very thing that you have been entrusted with, may God bless you.