Church and Kingdom

When Jesus blessed Simon Peter for his confident confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God –Matthew 16:16, He brought together two overarching New Testament themes: the church and the kingdom—…I will build my church … And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven… –Matthew 16:18-19. Ever since, Christ’s followers have deliberated, with varying opinions, on the meaning and the nature of the kingdom, and its relation to the church.

Jesus began His preaching by declaring that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (see Matthew 4:17). Throughout the Gospels, the kingdom was the unifying theme of His teaching. In fact, Scripture only records two occasions when Christ mentioned the church. The church, on the other hand, is more prominent in the Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation. Why this difference? Is there some conflict or incompatible tension between what Jesus taught and emphasized, and that of the apostles?

Recent years seem to have brought an increased interest and reference to the kingdom within Evangelical circles as well as conservative Anabaptist circles. Many are using terms such as working for the kingdom, building up the kingdom, growing the kingdom, kingdom service, kingdom finances, and even funding the kingdom. Kingdom Theology has been offered as a course of study, and the expression Kingdom Christian has been coined to demarcate a particular kind of Christian—one who believes and practices Jesus’ teachings. Among many conservative Anabaptist people, kingdom terminology has practically drowned out the language expressed by Eliza Hewitt who wrote, “For Christ and the Church let our voices ring.”

Among the various factors which have nurtured this renewed kingdom emphasis among some Anabaptists, two stand out. Both of these concerns reflect the influence of Christians from without the conservative Anabaptist tradition, yet who profess to be Bible-believing and born-again.

1. The first is that some people seem to be more concerned about being Biblical than about being Christ-like. We, conservative Anabaptists, can stand on the Bible to formulate all the right doctrines and positions while our lives fall short in reflecting the character and values of Jesus Christ our Lord, the One with whom we claim to be united in a living relationship.
2. The second matter involves a fixation on the act of getting saved to the neglect of living a saved life; that is, a life of obedient discipleship, particularly to the very teachings of Jesus who we are to follow. While most conservative Anabaptists profess to practice Christ’s teachings, we are not immune to a careless discipleship.

There are individuals within conservative Anabaptism that address these concerns somewhat in the following manner. They say that while Evangelicals believe in the person and work of Christ, they tend to focus on Paul. For all practical purposes, they (Evangelicals) are more concerned about correct Bible interpretations, theological systems, and assenting to correct beliefs than they are with obedient Christian living, particularly regarding the hard teachings of Christ. In contrast, these Anabaptists claim that the kingdom of God, which Jesus inaugurated and was the theme of His teaching, should set the norm for understanding and living the Christian life. Consequently, for them, the Gospels (and the kingdom) then become primary in interpreting the rest of the New Testament.

What do we make of this? While sweeping generalizations don’t do justice to the exceptions and the qualifiers, the concerns are valid, and this critique regarding our Evangelical friends does hold some measure of truth. These things have their roots in the thinking of Augustine (354-430), in the imbalanced Reformation emphasis regarding justification by faith, and in the work of John Calvin. But what about the antidote of focusing mostly on Christ and the kingdom? Certainly, Christ is central to interpreting, not only the New Testament, but actually the entire Bible. And there is value in holding forth those teachings of Christ, which are so often brushed aside, yet are required of any church that would be worthy of His name. However, I would like to offer three points of caution or critique about taking this antidote unreservedly.

Do the Gospels dominate the rest of Scripture?

First, I believe it’s a mistake to assume that the Gospels (the life and teachings of Jesus) should dominate and control the interpretation of the New Testament scriptures. Rather, the New Testament, as it moves through the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles, and lastly the Revelation, contains a divinely inspired progression of fuller revelation and doctrinal explanation. This is seen when we consider the words of Jesus regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come –John 16:12-13. Those New Testament books following the Gospels are the anticipated fulfillment of these words. They bring the teachings and work of Christ to full development and understanding.

Christ’s ministry and teaching about the kingdom laid the groundwork, then His death and resurrection placed the foundation on which He would build His church. The Scriptures which follow the Gospels give us greater comprehension about the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross and its relation and effect on us that comes through faith and obedience. It also develops the whole doctrine of the church. So, the entire New Testament fits together in beautiful harmony. Both the Gospels and the Epistles need to be interpreted in reference to each other. The teachings of Christ do not take precedence over the Epistles, rather the Epistles help interpret the Gospels—they give us a more complete understanding and practical application to the principles Christ gave His Disciples.

Does Theology Militate Against Discipleship?

Secondly, we should be careful to not set correct interpretation and correct practice against one another. To say it another way, we should not pit theology against discipleship. To whatever degree some Evangelicals may overemphasize theology at the expense of discipleship, it should not prejudice us into making a whipping boy out of theology. Theology is the study of God and the things of God. We are forming a personal theology when we study God’s Word and compare Scripture with Scripture in our efforts to come to a unified and harmonious understanding of its various parts.

Every Christian has a theology, whether he can express it well or not. Our theology (or doctrinal understanding, if you want to say it that way) is our belief system and the soil out of which our behavior grows. Some theologies are very elementary, others reflect a lifetime of study, most are incomplete, some are inconsistent, others are dogmatic or laced with philosophy, and some are dreadfully wrong. Hopefully, all of us have a growing, and increasingly accurate understanding of God and His Word. This is quite necessary since our theology, which is the sum of our beliefs about God and our understanding of His Word and the Christian life, is what affects our discipleship—our daily walk with God. A good theology undergirds discipleship. A poor theology undermines discipleship.

Are “Kingdom” and “Church” Interchangeable?

Finally, we should think correctly about the kingdom in relation to the church. What is the relationship of the kingdom to the church? The kingdom is not, as contemporary usage would almost have us think, a generic version of, or a substitute word for, the church. Rather, the kingdom has to do with the reign or rule of God. It is both a present reality, having been inaugurated in the person and mission of Jesus, and a future expectation which God will bring to completion at the end of time. The church, while not the kingdom, is composed of those who are in the kingdom; those who, through the work of Christ, have submitted to the rule of God.

While we struggle for the precise word to express the relationship of the kingdom to the church, as a holy, loving, and obedient community of believers, the church is the earthly manifestation of God’s rule—His kingdom. Christ did not say “I will build my kingdom”; rather He said, “I will build my church.” Likewise, Paul did not build kingdom halls; He started churches. It is possible for us to have an idealistic and romantic view of the kingdom that gets separated from the hard work of living on earth with our fellow believers in a local church body. We can elevate the kingdom and diminish the church. We can get enthusiastic about the concept of the kingdom, the teachings of the kingdom, the growth of the kingdom, and conferences about the kingdom, and yet be cynical, critical, and sorry members of our local church.

Do you want to work for the kingdom (see Colossians 4:11)? Then commit yourself wholeheartedly to Christ and His church. That starts with your local church. Love and serve your church. Accept responsibility in it. Be accountable and loyal to your local church. Work for the good and growth of the church—your local church, and beyond.

Timothy Dwight wrote:^*

What he was saying about the precise relationship of the kingdom to the church may be different from what I conceive it to be. However, what I would like for us to appreciate is that when he thought of the kingdom, he thought of the church. And so should we! Are his words yours, as he writes on?

^* See page 32 for the entire song.