"Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken."--Hebrews 12:28
Brief thoughts on "building the Kingdom," as it has appeared in a few headlines.
First: "The Kingdom" is not synonymous with where you go after you die.
If you read the New Testament, you'll see that Jesus is saying the Kingdom is "at hand." You'll see that the Kingdom is "good news for the poor." You'll see the term "Kingdom" is in the New Testament more than the term "gospel."
In short, the Kingdom is when those who choose to follow Jesus live their lives under the rule and reign of Jesus right now. They are not waiting for death. They are embracing the surprising and countercultural Way here and now.
Love of enemies, peacemaking, forgiveness, etc.
The way we sometimes shorthand it at my church:
The gospel is the message; the Kingdom is the reality.
The gospel is the message of Jesus' Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Impartation of the Spirit.
The Kingdom is choosing to live in light of that glorious message.
When Christians talk about "building the Kingdom," they mean that they want as many people as possible to embrace the Jesus Way of living. This isn't political, at least not in the traditional partisan way of thinking. This is about seeing Jesus' vision of reality coming to be.
E. Stanley Jones's book, "The Unshakable Kingdom and the Unchanging Person," helped me on this front a great deal. Highly recommended. In it, he describes what it means to live under the Way of Jesus in a world that often values the exact opposite of what he teaches.
Building the Kingdom, however, isn't something we believe can be completed this side of Heaven. It is simply an acknowledgement that we are to live in this Way and to encourage others to do the same (by faith in Jesus).
Instead, we believe that one day Jesus will complete the Kingdom when he returns and sets all things right. Therefore, the Kingdom is "now, but not yet." We live it now, as best we can, but know that it is not yet completed.
We describe it as "living Heaven now," akin to Jesus praying, "on earth as it is in Heaven." Hence, a motto at my church is, "In Houston as it is in Heaven."
Christians hear the gospel message: Jesus is God's Son; he has come to show us how to live; he has died for our sins; he has been resurrected to give us hope of eternal life; he has given us his Spirit to live with power now--and we have believed this to be true.
Then, in light of that message, we live the Kingdom: Jesus' Way of life found in the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but not exclusively there. We believe we could not live it by our own power, but we need the Spirit of Jesus to help us.
Consequently, Christians (should--not all do) work to "carry the Kingdom" into any number of domains in this world in order to make it more like Heaven: medicine, business, art, agriculture, politics, etc.
The goal is to our job as best we can and to do it in a Kingdom way.
So, when you hear someone talking about "building the Kingdom," they usually mean to live the Way of Jesus in their specific place in the world. Hope this helps Christians and non-Christians alike better understand the teaching of "the Kingdom."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 SBC Insider Baseball Tweet Thread Alert. 🚨 I made this somewhat cheeky tweet in hopes to demonstrate what I perceive to be hermeneutical inconsistencies and some confusion re: the proposed Law Amendment. I saw a few questions in response, so wanted to follow up and clarify.
First, my original tweet. I was attempting to point out how many of those who want to read the role of females in the NT church as “crystal clear” will simultaneously ignore other seemingly “crystal clear” commands or apply a cultural hermeneutic to them. For example…
Romans 16:16 says, “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” This is common in some church cultures, but not in the United States, because it doesn’t translate into our culture. We usually shake hands or hug. But I don’t see lots of folks leading a “holy kiss” movement in the SBC.
I don’t talk a ton about my health on the socials, but I’m texting with a longtime friend who is up against it right now in the battle with cancer, and I wanted to share a couple of quick things.
For the uninitiated: I have heart failure and should’ve died in 2003. 🧵Thread:
For all my passion about living the Kingdom here and now, my source of hope is that one day the dead in Christ will rise and Jesus will bring about the death of death. Some days it's the only thing that keeps me going.
If you’re disease-ridden:
We hope in the Resurrection.
When this life feels like too much, I go to the following places in my Bible:
Two days ago news broke of an amicus brief filed in which the SBC, SBTS, and Lifeway were all third parties. The suit attempts to prevent the statute of limitations being lifted in cases of sexual abuse. I waited a beat before speaking to ascertain facts and await explanation.
As best I can tell, the EC acted unilaterally w/o trustee approval. The trustees were voted on by messengers and messengers have consistently and nearly unanimously voted in favor of sexual abuse reforms since @RobertDownen_’s @HoustonChron story in 2019. houstonchronicle.com/news/investiga…
The EC opposing this lawsuit unilaterally without consulting trustees is bad on a number of levels. I understand EC leadership must make decisions w/o trustee approval from time to time, but this topic has been at the forefront of discussion and reeks of self-preservation.
He told me about a church planter in his city who destroyed his church through a series of character issues (not moral failings, to be clear) and then was immediately hired by a megachurch in his city.
He said: “Is he an amazing speaker? Yeah. Will the church grow? Probably.”
He continued: “But I’m worried about who will be hurt as a result. And I’m worried that no one will care.”
This is one conversation with one friend. Anecdotal and all that jazz.
At the same time, he hit on some things I’ve been thinking about.
When I was trained as a pastor, there was little talk about emotional health and character. I think it was assumed.
At the same time, I saw “seminary smugness” come over many of us.
🧵 I’ve been waiting for @Saddleback to release an explanation of their position before saying much regarding the recent dust up on whether or not they are in friendly cooperation with the SBC. Bottom line: I’ll vote for their reinstatement. Here’s why:
1. Saddleback’s position may not be “hard” complementarianism, but it falls within what many other churches in the SBC do in practice: an all-male elder board gives ministry oversight to the work of the church. Stacie operating as @BethMooreLPM used to say: “under authority.”
2. Unless I am mistaken, the SBC has not regularly disfellowshipped churches who have women with the word “pastor” in their job titles, *unless* that person serves as the senior/lead pastor. Andy is clearly the lead pastor.