In Daniel 2, Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s vision and tells him that the kingdom of God is represented in his dream as a stone not cut by human hands.

So if there is some exegetical case to be made that the Bible never speaks of “building the kingdom,” I’m all for letting the Bible teach us how to speak.

But I get the impression that there is a theological or even soteriological criticism being made here. To speak of “building the kingdom” is to claim a place for human works or efforts that denies the exclusive power and work of God.

I remain open to a full exegetical study of how the Bible speaks of human work and the kingdom, but I do think the “theological litmus test” objection is sub-Biblical.

1. If Paul’s own afflictions can fill up what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions, then how can it be a problem to speak of the efforts of redeemed humans to build the kingdom?

So Paul says,

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Colossians 1.24).

And we say, “You need to be careful to not think that your own efforts, forgiven by God in Christ and given by the Spirit though they may be, have anything to do with building the kingdom of God.” That makes sense?

2. If it is theologically OK to speak of building the church, how can it be theologically problematic to speak of building the kingdom?

Again, Paul says,

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple (from 1 Corinthian 3).

So God’s efforts are primary (“but God gave the growth” etc) but none of this means that Paul can’t call himself a “skilled master builder” who “laid a foundation.” Each one, he says “builds on the foundation” and does so by “work” [!] that “will become manifest” in judgment. We even get paid “wages” [!!] for our “labor.”

And yet we act like this is the key to Protestant discernment!

Fearing where I might go, I will end this post without describing the intellectual milieu of Protestant scholarship in popular Evangelical preaching and publishing as found in the Reformed tradition, that allows for this sort of thing. May God remember my labors for his kingdom!