On to the bulk. The first question is, again, where does Christ say the Kingdom is/should be? This question may not seem to bear any relevance to its purpose, but the location of any goal is, in reality, of vital importance. In football (i.e. soccer), the goal is on the opposite end of the field, and the purpose is to get the ball into the net. Where you are on the field will affect your strategy and how you play, but the ultimate purpose remains unchanged. In business, the goal is to get customers to come to you and buy your products, hopefully establishing a lasting relationship so that they return often.

These are imperfect examples, but I think they can illustrate the different views of the Kingdom. Is the Kingdom (like the net in football) far off, something that is removed from us, or is it (like the business looking for customers) with us already, looking to spread its influence? Ultimately, these views will affect our actions. For the most part, I believe the American denominations (and growing up Southern Baptist, I can certainly speak for them) see the Kingdom as a yet future reality, be it an earthly, material kingdom where Jesus is king on a physical throne, or Heaven, where people go when they die to be with God. It wasn't until recently that I found an affect explanation of why that is a wrong view.

Brian McLaren brings this point out marvelously; when Jesus prayed the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), he says, "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (Matt. 6:10) God's will and kingdom are not things that are removed from us, but are supposed to manifest themselves on earth. We not footballers working towards the goal, we are businessmen (not the best analogy :D) who already have a business. Paul makes this very clear when he tell the Corinthians that the Body of Christ (i.e. the Church) is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:27: "...We are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.'" (2 Cor 6:16) If the Church is in fact the temple of God, then God is with us now, thus the Kingdom is here now. Let that soak in for a moment. The Kingdom of Heaven is here with us now!

Consider how incredible a thought that is, how encouraging and empowering! We are the Kingdom! And considering what I said earlier, if the Kingdom is the Church, then it is not a political, material Kingdom based on physical force, but a spiritual, communal Kingdom based on love and relationship. The Church made its biggest mistake in the 4th century, when Constantine made Christianity into the official religion of the Roman empire. From that point on, Christians began equating the Kingdom with Rome, something Jesus never intended! There are two indications of this: first, when the 5,000 that Jesus fed came to make him king, he fled (John 6:14-15); second, Jesus called himself "The Son of God" (cf. John 5:25), a title reserved for Caesar since the time of Augustus (see In Search of Paul). Anyone calling himself "The Son of God" was essentially challenging the authority of Caesar, and would have been put to death immediately. Oddly enough, Pilate says of Jesus, "I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 18:38) This can only mean that Jesus claim to be "The Son of God" had absolutely no political bent. I think it's safe to say that the Kingdom does not, either.

Now that there is some "clarity" as to the nature and location of the Kingdom, what is its message? Since this note is already insanely long, I won't be able to make a detailed argument (see my note "Focus" for that), but I do have one thing to say. In Matthew 25, we find Jesus discussing the Throne of Judgment, and he says to those on his right that "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink..." (Matt 25:35) To this the righteous respond, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?" (Matt 25:37) Jesus replies, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." (Matt. 25:40) We are called to show kindness to "the least of these," but does that mean just the poor? I believe that the poor will appreciate it the most, but are not all in need of God's love? Are we not all impoverished in that way? Consider it.

Once we understand the "where" of the Kingdom and the "what" of its message, we begin to discover what it will take to advance it. I believe there are two verses that illustrate what is necessary better than any other combination: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have..." (I Peter 3:15); and, "...Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2:17) We should understand both of these verses, because they are two sides of the same coin. In his first epistle, Peter encourages his readers to be prepared to give an apologia, a reasoned answer for the faith that they have in Christ. This means understanding why we believe what we believe. There must be a basic understanding of the historical evidence for Christ's life, death, and resurrection. We are obviously not all going to be apologists, but we should certainly have a fundamental grasp, as well as be able to point people to someone who can answer questions we can't. That is why being connected with other members in the Body is so important; each has a gift that makes up for what another can't accomplish.

But apologetics are not the only thing that we can rely on. Without action, our faith is impractical and useless. Christians have always argued over what James meant when he said, "Faith without works is dead," and if he meant that we are justified by works rather than faith alone. Frankly, I think we've focused on the wrong thing. James says just before, "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" (James 2:15-16) I watched a talk given by Richard Dawkins, and at the end, someone attempted to compare the Trinity to quantum physics, since both are difficult to understand. Dawkins responded that quantum physics has practical implications, and is therefore worth pursuing, while the Trinity (an article of faith) does not. Sadly, most Christians in America would probably try to attack him on his views of the Trinity's usefulness, instead of going out and showing how their faith does, in fact, have practical implications. James is telling us that it doesn't matter how much faith you have, or what you know theologically; if you don't act, no one will care! Or worse, they will see you as a menace who perpetuates suffering by preaching against it, but doing nothing about it!