Editorial: Without full public awareness, Matthew 25 could reshape local government quietly

By Brandi Makuski

I’ve become aware of two presentations hosted at local churches in recent months about “Matthew 25” initiatives. The presentations were hosted by the churches, while the talks were given by a local bicycle advocate and possibly a few others.

Technically, the presentations, one of which was held at Frame Presbyterian and the other, Beautiful Savior, were open to the public. But the way they were announced—mainly through limited social media channels—meant that only a narrow group of people even knew they were happening. The broader community—even Mayor Mike Wiza—was left unaware, missing a chance to learn about ideas that could significantly affect the future of local government.

Matthew 25 initiatives are generally inspired by the namesake chapter in the bible calling for care of the poor, the hungry, the sick, and the imprisoned. In civic discussions, the language often translates into promoting expanded roles for local governments in addressing poverty and housing insecurity.

But finding objective, thorough details about the Matthew 25 initiative outside of religious inspiration is tough. Some of the most widely circulated information comes from sources with strong political or ideological leanings. The Presbyterian Church USA leads the way in promoting the Matthew 25 Movement, and showcases principles that combat “climate change, militarism, gender justice, and heteropatriarchy.” Separately, the Matthew 25 Network, a political action committee, advocates for progressive candidates in public office who align with similar social justice causes, although very little information on this group seems to be available, at least online, so it’s not clear if it’s still active.

While the two efforts are philosophically aligned, it’s also not clear if they’re formally connected, adding further confusion for those trying to understand what Matthew 25 might mean in a municipal context.

There appears to be a good-hearted spirit behind the Matthew 25 approach (full disclosure: not everyone is convinced that the Matthew 25 movement is a good thing). But whether one supports or opposes its broader policy objectives is not the point. The real issue is how significant concepts like this are being introduced—quietly, through limited channels—without full public discussion, broad public awareness, or scrutiny by the press or other independent third parties.

While these presentations were technically public, their limited promotion and narrow audience have already created a troubling dynamic. Introducing transformational ideas to small, selectively informed groups without broader public awareness does not reflect a healthy democratic process. To be frank, it reeks of indoctrination—not by force, but by quietly shaping the narrative in spaces where opposing views, or probing questions, are unlikely to emerge. Residents deserve open, honest discussions about what kind of government they want—not carefully curated conversations that unfold behind the scenes.

The issue is particularly important now because the city has announced a months-long process to rewrite and update its zoning ordinances—the first comprehensive zoning overhaul in more than 40 years. The new zoning code will lay the foundation for all future decisions on housing, land use, and development. Ideas introduced now, even informally, have the potential to shape future policies in lasting ways.

We’ve seen before what happens when the public isn’t engaged early. In 2016, the city adopted “Vision Zero,” a safety initiative that few council members could fully explain at the time. Fast forward to 2025, and many residents are frustrated by the road changes it spurred—often without realizing when or how those decisions were made.

The lesson is simple: If residents are not informed and engaged at the beginning, they lose the ability to shape the decisions that will impact their daily lives.

Matthew 25 may offer promising ideas. But any initiative with the potential to reshape the responsibilities of local government must be introduced through formal, transparent, and widely publicized public processes—not through limited social media outreach and quietly scheduled presentations.

Residents must return to following real local news, reading public meeting agendas, and paying attention to what’s happening inside city halls and county boardrooms.

Otherwise, we risk waking up to permanent changes we never had a chance to weigh in on—and by then, it will be too late.