Kids and the Kingdom

It’s wonderful to be a father.

I always suspected as much, but there are some things in life you just have to experience in order to truly understand.

Sure, being a parent is hard work. You learn to die to your wants and to put your spouse and kid(s) ahead of yourself. You sleep less, you work more. But it’s all worth it when you see that smile, hear that laugh, and get that hug when you come home in the evening. It’s a supreme privilege to be a parent–to learn from my daughter and to be able to walk with her as she grows.

I could go on, of course, as every parent could. But what I really want to say today is this: being a father has made me realize that the Christian life is a lot like the birth and growth of a child. Let me explain.

Preparing for Birth

When couples announce the impending arrival of a child, there’s typically quite the celebration. Letting family and friends know the big news is tremendously exciting. Then, you get to figure out a clever way to tell your Facebook friends you’re pregnant. Gender reveal parties are a thing now too, so that’s fun. People throw you showers. Gifts show up in the mail. It’s quite the hullabaloo.

Of course, you and your spouse are also quite busy. There’s a room to be repurposed (and often repainted) and furniture to find. Small people require lots (and lots and lots) of clothing, so you acquire plenty of that. There are diapers, wipes, bottles, burp cloths, baby monitors, noisemakers, and a whole host of other things Babies R’ Us sells that you absolutely need in order for your kid to survive and thrive in the world.

You attend childbirth classes and go to a hospital or two. You visit a plethora of doctors and have a host of appointments (the best ones being where you actually get to see your beloved baby). A due date gets circled on the calendar. Eventually, you pack a birthing bag. One day, the birth pains begin and you drive (a little faster than absolutely necessary, truth be told) to that magic space in which your baby will be brought into the world.

And after all that fervent preparation and all that excitement, then your new life begins.

Life is a Journey

Preparation for your baby can be fun. And the actual day of birth is a wondrous time–a day you’re unlikely to ever forget. But the big day isn’t important for its own sake; it’s important because of what it brings about. The best part of parenthood is actually everything that comes after that day.

It’s taking your newborn home. Introducing them to all the important people in your life. Surviving until they sleep through the night. Helping them eat their first real food (as if baby food is something real). It’s watching them learn to crawl, then stand, then walk. The best part of parenthood isn’t the day your baby is born–it’s those moments when your child begins talking, calling your name when they need you, and growing into their personality.

Of course, parenthood isn’t all fun and games–there are plenty of sleepless nights, days of sickness, messes made, and painful lessons learned. But all of these steps and stages in life are part of the incredible process that is seeing your kid grow into the person that God created them to be.

Life is a journey–it begins with the incredible moment of birth, but it cannot ever be reduced to that moment.

Obsession with the First Part of the Journey?

It’s here that we must turn to the Christian life. Countless Christians throughout the ages have written about how following Jesus as a journey, a process. The author of Hebrews declared, “let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith” (Heb. 12:1-2).

It makes sense to highlight portions of the journey of faith. Starting strong, reaching certain milestones, and finishing well–these are all moments worthy of celebration and remembrance. Sometimes, however, Christians have overemphasized particular moments of the faith journey. Some ancient Christians, for instance, were a bit too zealous in celebrating the end of life, particularly when lives ended in martyrdom.

Writing from my current context, it seems as if contemporary American evangelicals have overemphasized the moment of conversion in the Christian life. Now, conversion is a very important and special moment in one’s faith journey. It’s rightly something to be excited about. Conversion is, in many ways, like the birth of your child–a moment to anticipate, work toward, celebrate, and remember for a long time. But some Christian churches have made the moment of conversion the pinnacle of all of Christian existence.1

If we make conversion the sole emphasis of the Christian life–or, perhaps even worse, the sole driver of the life of the Christian church–we might end up with a lot of births. But we’ll also be left with a lot of baby Christians, feeding on milk rather than meat (Heb. 5:12-14). Focusing on the “birth” moment will also result in a distorted way of life in the here-and-now; rather than looking forward to the next milestone of growth and maturity, we’re constantly looking back, yearning for a time that wasn’t quite as great as we remember it being and missing out of the opportunities available to us today.

A Life of Growth

Rather than focusing so exclusively on the day of birth, our living out the Christian life should look more like the life of a child: a birth followed by tremendous growth.

In the same way that children grow and mature, so also Christians must mature into adult members of the kingdom. When we talk about the Christian life, we must recognize that we’re ultimately talking about much more than birth–we’re talking about the journey of life. It’s instructive that Jesus commands his followers to make disciples–complete with an outline of what that entails (Matt. 28:19-20)–rather than telling them to make converts.

The Christian Church cannot be an institution that is just focused on getting people to open up the front door, walk in, and “make a decision.” We must be a Church that is obsessed with getting people to come in off the street and enter the deepest and most holy places that God has prepared for us.

In short, we must be like kids–kids who are growing and going deeper and deeper into the Kingdom.


1 Scot McKnight does a masterful job explaining this reality–as well as the distortion of the Gospel that it brings–in The King Jesus Gospel.

This article originally appeared at Conciliar Post.

Questions about Getting Saved in America

Praying before CrossIn “Getting Saved in America: Conversion Event in a Pluralistic Culture,” Bill Leonard outlines the history of the salvation conversion experience in the American context, more specifically the history of the eastern “evangelical protestant”[1] conversion experience. Tracing the event from its Puritan beginnings in the New World to its current usage among American church people, Leonard writes in such a way as to both describe and problematize the process and actions of the current “conversion experience.” As a result of this article, a number of important questions need to be asked regarding the history of the experience. Continue reading

Jesus and Crossan (Part I)

Around Easter, various theories about the life, death, and (non) resurrection of Jesus tend to find their way onto various media outlets. Sometimes these theories are outlandish and little more than attempts at attention; other times claims about Jesus come from more respectable sources. In today’s and tomorrow’s posts, I examine one of the more respectable voices on the Historical Jesus (though a voice I often disagree with): John Dominic Crossan and his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.
John Dominic Crossan

John Dominic Crossan

In Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, scholar John Dominic Crossan presents his reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Citing the fourfold accounts of the canonical gospels as presenting a problem for the Christian tradition when trying to determine the historical narrative of Jesus’ life,[1] Crossan endeavors to make use of historical-critical methodology in determining the true narrative, words, and actions of the historical Jesus. Considering the cross-cultural anthropology, Greco-Roman and Jewish history, and literary and textual considerations of canonical and non-canonical material,[2] Crossan seeks to find accounts that fits the known historical record, cultural expectations, and presents material unique enough to demonstrate the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Crossan operates with a set of presuppositions that some may find difficult to accept, such as his philosophical naturalism on some points. Overall however, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography presents a narrative of the life of Jesus that, given the materials and criteria used by Crossan, presents a problematic image of the historical Jesus. Continue reading

Reflections on Vatican II

Vatican II (Calnewman.org)The Second Vatican Council (1962-5) stands apart as one of the single most important events of modern Church history, not only because of the number of Christians that the Church at Rome influences, but also because of the magnitude and depth of the canons of the council. While a thorough examination remains outside the parameters of our course, here we examine three of the most interesting and impactful sections of the Vatican II documents, those decrees on Indulgences, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Non-Christian Religions. Through our examination of these sections we will note the interesting connection of the Vatican II statements to the history of the Catholic Church. Continue reading

Book Review: Forgotten Gospel (Bryan)

Forgotten GospelFor nearly two thousand years, the Gospel has stood at the center of the Christian faith. This is especially true for a certain segment of American Evangelical Christianity, which remains committed not only to the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ, but also to the careful definition of the meaning and implications of the term “gospel.” It is this conversation that Matthew Bryan engages in Forgotten Gospel: The Original Message of a Conquering King (Selmer, TN: Greatest Stories Ever Told, 2014). Continue reading

Stride Toward Freedom

“To deprive man of freedom is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to the status of a person.”

MLKDr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands apart in American History as a figure of seminal importance. His contributions to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 60’s were virtually unparalleled, his leadership the vision for many Americans, and his tragic murder the cause for great mourning. While most Americans are familiar with some of Dr. King’s civil rights actions, many are equally unfamiliar with his theological convictions that brought him to the point of leadership in that movement. In this article, we examine some of King’s theological and philosophical perspectives as found in Stride Toward Freedom, his account of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, its influences, actions, and the resulting changes. When writing about Dr. King’s works, one must resist the temptation to simply compile a list of quotes on the various topics covered in his writings. Here we will briefly touch on three subject that run throughout Stride Toward Freedom, namely his concerns with the Active Church, Non-Violence, and his interaction with ideals and sources. Through our engagement with these subjects it becomes clear that for King the ideal of human freedom was such that it should be engaged from numerous perspectives. Continue reading

Luther’s Two Kingdoms: Conclusions

This is the final post in our series on Luther’s Two Kingdoms.

Having examined Luther’s major writings and construction concerning the relationship of the Christian to the world, we must now consider the common critique of Luther’s theology, that it does not provide a solid foundation for the Christian engagement of temporal authority. In his major reformation works, Luther placed a great deal of emphasis on the equality of all Christians within the spiritual kingdom, including those who were ordained as temporal rulers. When Luther first writes of resisting tyranny, he does so in a relative passive manner, arguing that disobedience and verbal disunity are proper forms of resistance. Althaus inhabits the common traditional interpretation of Luther, saying that Christ concerns himself with the spiritual kingdom and does not participate in the secular kingdom[78] and that for Luther’s construction, the “secular government existed long before Christ and also exercised power without him. This indicates that secular government and Christ’s kingdom are two distinct entities and that Christ is not directly involved in secular government.”[79] Luther’s doctrine interpreted in this way allows for a great deal of Christian passivity within the realm of the temporal. Such an understanding explains both general German Lutheran passivity to the Third Reich and the modern critique of Lutherans as a ‘conservative’ political movement in Latin America. Were this the only basis or interpretive framework that fit Luther’s thought, it would seem that the strong critique of Luther’s theology as somewhat naïve and generally unconcerned with the world would stick. Continue reading

Luther’s Two Kingdoms: Critique

This post is part of our ongoing series on Luther’s Two Kingdoms.
Martin Luther

Martin Luther

The common critique that Luther separates the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the world in such a manner that does not allow for meaningful Christian interaction within the world often stems from an understanding of Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine as highly dichotomous and Augustinian. Concerning this connection, while Luther’s original concept was based upon Augustine’s dualistic notion of the division of world between God and Satan,[69] he moved beyond his muse, as “he found the idea of the sovereignty of God in secular law as well as in the affairs of state, he was able to show the Christians how he could assume a meaningful responsibility in the human community without contradicting the categorical commands of Jesus.”[70] Althaus argues that the distinction between Luther’s terms of ‘government’ and ‘kingdom’ lessened as dualism decreased and he wanted to say that marriage and property had positive paradisiacal benefits within the secular kingdom.[71] Continue reading

Luther’s Two Kingdoms: Christian Passivity?

This post is part of our ongoing series on Luther’s Two Kingdoms.

Just WarTo this point it seems that using Bornkamm’s understanding of Luther’s doctrine would allow for little passivity from the Christian when their neighbor was confronted with evil. On the breadth of secular authority, Luther’s concern was that temporal authority must not endeavor to control the prescription of laws for the soul, for to do so would encroach upon Christ’s government, which would mislead and destroy souls.[56] Luther speaks against both those leaders of God’s kingdom who have sought to control temporal matters such as land and animals, as well as those rulers of the temporal kingdom who have abandoned their just duties concerning land and property and have rushed into the insanity of attempting to exercise spiritual control over souls.[57] Luther, citing St. Paul, St. Peter, King David, and Christ,[58] argues that temporal authorities only have control over the physical body and outward actions,[59] whereas bishops and leaders of the kingdom of God must live in a manner consistent with Christ’s standards of justice and use their office to serve their fellow Christians.[60] Thus, in the understanding of how far temporal authority may reach, Luther both limits the use of temporal force in the kingdom of Christ, and proceeds to argue for greater temporal power in matters not directly under the control of the kingdom of the world. Continue reading

Luther’s Two Kingdoms: Christ and Authority

This post is part of our ongoing series on Luther’s Two Kingdoms.

BibleThe differentiation between the jurisdictions of Christ and the temporal authority does not limit Christian activity to the spiritual sphere alone, but dictates the manner in which the Christian wields the sword and obeys temporal authority. Turning to the Biblical passages in question, Luther argues that Christ’s words in Matthew 5 should be interpreted to mean that the temporal sword not be used among Christians, that the means of rule of the kingdom of the world should not be allowed to rule the kingdom of Christ. Luther writes that, “For [Christ] is a king over Christians and rules by the Holy Spirit alone, without law. Although he sanctions the sword, he did not make use of it, for it serves no purpose in his kingdom, in which there are none but the upright.”[47] Matthew 5 thus prohibits the use of the temporal sword within the kingdom of Christ, but does not explicitly forbid the Christian to serve and obey those who wield the sword. Because Christians do not simply live on their own, but live in community with their neighbors, who are often not Christians, they must submit to the temporal law, not for their own sake, but for that of their neighbor. Continue reading