One of the most bizarre turns of phrase to emerge from contemporary liberal churches is the “kin-dom of God.” Kin-dom is intended to remove the patriarchal, hierarchical, and allegedly oppressive connotations of the kingdom, instead emphasizing the communal and egalitarian nature of Christ’s dominion.
Initially fringe academic theology, the term is a favorite of ecclesial liberals, notably featured in United Methodist Bishop Karen Oliveto’s General Conference sermon.
This disfigurement of traditional Christian language is familiar to those observing mainline churches, where “the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer” often replaces the historic Trinity. Much like the pseudo-modalism of the sanitized Trinity, preaching the “kindom” of God sacrifices Christian orthodoxy for a relativistic and deracinated faith, prioritizing a vague sense of inclusiveness over authentic Christianity. If contemporary Christians are irreconcilably uncomfortable with God’s kingdom, there is, perhaps, a more faithful term for Christ’s reign, albeit one progressives are unlikely to accept.
The idea of the kin-dom of God originated with the Catholic modernist theologian Ada Maria Issasi Diaz, who, beyond agitating for women’s ordination and same-sex marriage, sought to expand the scope of liberation theology to include Latinas. Liberation theology, initially intended to Christianize Marxism, faced criticism for ignoring women, homosexuals, and racial minorities.
In 1996, Diaz published Mujerista Theology, a text that remains influential amongst liberation theologians today, arguing against a Bibliocentric worldview and for a framework centered on worldly struggle. In this work, Diaz also introduced the idea of Christ’s kin-dom as an alternative to his kingdom, which she attributes to a Franciscan nun, Georgene Wilson, a self-styled “spirit guide.” This phrase has since gained particular prominence among Christian feminists, who dispute the maleness of kingly imagery and prefer the vague familial connotations of kin. Proponents of this view, much in line with similar discussions regarding homosexuality or sin, will raise that “kingdom” is merely one of many potential translations of the original Greek term, basileia. A quick overview of the history of English Bible translations will reveal they’re not entirely wrong; basileia has been rendered as dominion, commonwealth, or rule. Notably, never as “kin-dom.”
If the language of the kingdom of God is deemed too outdated for modern Christian churches, perhaps a new translation of basileia is appropriate. After all, the idea of a kingdom conjures up images of medieval castles and fantasy novels, not quite the kingdom Christ spoke of. Instead, why not use a more inclusive and historically accurate term to describe Christ’s rule: empire. Empire squares well with the Greek; the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire were called basileiai during Jesus’ life. Koine Greek lacked a distinction between kingdoms and empires, so both translations are fair.
If a kingdom is too stodgy and exclusionary, an empire is, definitionally, inclusive, reconciling multiple peoples and cultures to one political authority. This seems an apt model for Christ’s social kingship, or emperorship, in which there is neither Greek nor Jew. For liberation theologians, who seek to contrast Christ’s rule with contemporary political authorities, the Empire of God contrasts nicely with the Empire of Caesar that Christ taught against. The Empire of God also has no limits, surpassing the parochial connotations of the kingdom. Thus, for contemporary theologians, empire may offer a better alternative to the allegedly dated kingdom and clunky “kin-dom.”
Liberal clerics will, predictably, not be referring to God’s dominion as his empire anytime soon because the issue is not terminology. Substituting kindom for kingdom is not done out of a desire to grow closer to Christ and his Word but to twist the Word to satisfy contemporary mores. In a decade, we may see kindom dismissed as too heteronormative and insufficiently inclusive of diverse family structures, replaced with an even more contrived term. Ultimately, no one will mourn its departure.
Traditional Christians will be vindicated, and ecclesiastical progressives will have moved on, straying further from the language granted to us by our forefathers, just as they have with past trends. Empire or kingdom, our words matter as they bear witness to Christ’s revelation.
Christianity has always been clear: Christ is the master of the universe and the Lord of the kingdom we are called to serve. Kindom, or whatever will inevitably succeed it, describes a fundamentally different Gospel, one where Jesus is a member of a formless community lacking hierarchy, one that dethrones Christ in favor of anthropocentric appeals to “lived experience.” This distinction is not a mere semantic debate but a reflection of a broader struggle between a faith in the ultimate power of Christ and one that seeks to reshape the divine to fit contemporary cultural preferences.
Jonathan Edwards once said that “the seeking of the kingdom of God is the chief business of the Christian life.” It is now up to the Church to decide whether or not we believe him.
Comment by Dan on July 16, 2024 at 11:30 am
“Empire” will understandably be found objectionable because of its historical association with colonialism and its many abuses.
However, we cannot allow a contemporary distaste for hierarchies to push out the truth that God is God. Yes, all human hierarchies are stained by sin, but so are all human everythings – including kinship relations. I’m fine with the word “kingdom”, but if one prefers realm or dominion or rule, that’s fine. We just need to not lose the truth of the sovereignty of God.
Comment by Lucy Coppes on July 17, 2024 at 10:29 am
My local church (UCC), recently got a pastor that uses “kin-dom” and is trying to get the congregation to switch to this type of language. The vast majority of my congregation is older and even though they don’t like it, they will tolerate it. It changes Christianity to some type of weird religious humanism that tries to capture the best of both worlds, yet fails miserably. If this becomes ingrained in the congregation, its only a matter of time before my church will diminish into nothingness.
Comment by Chris Shoemaker on July 19, 2024 at 8:09 pm
Our use of “kingdom” does pose some interesting questions. In the USA, how do we visualize and process the idea of kingdom in a country very specifically founded to, well, NOT be a kingdom? I first encountered “kin-dom” in a large, international meeting of United Methodists (not GC). I was with missionary friend who, despite not liking the term either, explained to me that there were countries represented for which the idea of a “king” was a modern image of cruelty, deprivation, and opulent wealth at the expense of all others. My friend explained that the last thing those people would ever want is for Christ to be a “king” as they understood the term.
Comment by Chaplain Al McGowen on July 19, 2024 at 10:09 pm
Why keep using definitions of the so called “Progressives ” by accepting the term “Traditional ” created by secularism to provide moral equivalents for “progressives” to pontificate their sinful theology.
There is nothing progressive about their theology at all. What is being called traditional is actually what was, and what is original.
People following the way of John, Charles Wesley, and others would best be called “Originalist”
If you have use “progressive,” call them “people who self identity as progressives.?” Or call them “So called ‘Progressives'”
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on July 20, 2024 at 1:39 pm
I am not totally against the term “kin-dom”, although I will not use it. I will use “family”, as it is right and proper to speak of the people of God as being a family.
However, I heartily reject the replacement of “kingdom” with “kin-dom”. Those who dislike the words “king” and “kingdom” because of the negative qualities of earthly kings and earthly kingdoms need to realize the significant differences between those kings and kingdoms and the heavenly king and the heavenly kingdom.
Even among Christians who choose “kingdom” and reject “kin-dom” generally lack the understanding they should have of the heavenly kingdom. In the Gospels, the term “the gospel of the kingdom” is used repeatedly. Do we realize that the gospel is good news about a king and a kingdom? I think that in general, we don’t. We rightly focus on it being good news about a savior and salvation, but wrongly omit that it is so much more, including that it is good news about a king and a kingdom. We need to learn from the Lord Jesus Himself and His apostles the fullness of the gospel and convey its fullness.
Comment by Palamas on July 20, 2024 at 7:10 pm
So-called “progressives” (not Christians, mind you, but political academics) once again using “1984” as a manual rather than a warning against the politicization of language.
Comment by MikeB on July 20, 2024 at 9:46 pm
The law of MY spirit shall determine my life. MY god speaks, through myself, only to me.
-Richard Strauss
He was a century ahead of the people replacing the Kingship of Christ with their own words.
Comment by Diane on July 21, 2024 at 3:14 am
Actually, “kin-dom” was said to be a typo that stuck with folks – introduced by an lgbtq theologian around 1991, when I first heard it at a lgbtq retreat. I liked it because it actually brought me to a closer relationship with God. Perhaps it’s because I’m a retired kindergarten teacher, but as an instant word association, “kingdom” immediately brings to mind “fairytale”. I prefer kin-dom.
Comment by David S. on July 21, 2024 at 10:20 am
The PC(USA) at the denominational level is all in on this right now, in order to be at the cool kids table. While I expect Mrs. Diane Moffett, President and Executive Director of the main umbrella organization for the subsidiary agencies to use it, I had a startling encounter earlier this year when a retired, now pulpit supply pastor, a gentleman clearly in his late 60s, maybe early 70s, use not just that, but also referred to God as “she”. My first thought was, he’s become thoroughly emasculated. Then, he droned on and on about his, I will add, sometimes, laudable civil rights activities over the years, while thoroughly denegrating, rather than simply criticizing, the South he grew up in, which was trying extend the twilight days of Jim Crow. It was then that his emasculation made since. If he had no respect for the more laudable aspects of the society in which he grew up, while discernably criticising it’s weaknesses, he would do the same here.
Comment by MikeB on July 21, 2024 at 11:42 am
Diane,
You and Richard Strauss have much in common, it has drawn you much closer to YOUR god.
Your god is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is indeed King, Lord, and Master. He is not our equal, we are His servants.
You can grow closer to your god, but do not pretend for one moment that your god is anything more than your spirit speaking to yourself about what you hold important.
You will not change your spirit, indeed you reject those things in the Bible that you do not agree with, your own words make this abundantly clear.
You serve yourself and your spirit.
Comment by Theo on July 21, 2024 at 12:24 pm
My last UMC pastor used ‘the Creator, Redeemer and the Sustainer’ in her sermons. I tolerated it and mumbled ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ under my breath. Then she started quoting John 3:16 as ‘For God so loved the world that God gave God’s only begotten child and everyone who believes in that child …’. I knew then that it was time for me to leave the UMC. That was back in 1993.
Comment by Diane on July 22, 2024 at 3:02 pm
Theo, I clearly understand why your pastor did that. It took me forever to figure out the meaning of several familiar hymns because the language is so male-oriented that I could not see through it. I never understood “who serves my Father as a son” (Be Thou My Vision”) – I long thought it was a weird reference to 2/3 of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit trinity. And “who serves my Father as a son” (hymn: In Christ there is no east or west) was also a Trinity puzzler. Men don’t hear how male referents trip up women, male-oriented language caters to men, as if men are superior, privileged and entitled humans. I applaud your pastor and based on my experience, I understand exactly why she changed the language. It disturbed you only because the reading no longer catered solely to those like you with a male identity.
Comment by MikeB on July 22, 2024 at 6:56 pm
Diane,
Again, you serve your own god. The sheer fact is that God uses male pronouns in the Bible, (it seems you only respect incorrect pronouns).
You might disagree with that, but that is what God has passed down via His inspired word. Jesus was born as a male, your overt sexism may hate that, but it is the Christ inspired Word of God.
God did not mean for us to be comfortable, in fact God means for us to give our selves entirely over to His will no matter how uncomfortable we are.
God’s Word against sin makes me uncomfortable every day, but I follow God no matter how much I am embarrassed to fall short, like Paul, I am His servant.
But you have indeed so much pride in your rebellion against God that you refuse to acknowledge HIM as HE declared HIMSELF to be.
You are indeed hateful and spiteful hating the world He has made. Knowing how much you cling to your sins, you continue to dry to drag others to hell with yourself.
Comment by Diane on July 23, 2024 at 1:02 am
Mike B,
Of course the Bible uses a lot of male imagery and pronouns – what would one expect from a deity whose commandments listed women as the property of men, right along with the man’s house and cattle. God is spirit, spirit has no gender. Your gospel isn’t really good news to everyone. It’s one of exclusion and you argue as such.
Comment by MikeB on July 23, 2024 at 7:24 am
Diane, I appreciate you finally coming out of the closet as someone who hates the Bible.
Yes the Bible embodies exclusion, that’s what holy means, set apart.
God is holy, the only way to him is via the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. God is not some cuddly animal, no, He is God, the holy, timeless, pure Creator who cannot lie.
God owes you nothing, nothing you or I have done is good.
It doesn’t matter if you want to bring Him down to your level, He cannot be brought to our level.
Like it or not we are his slaves, we can either be disobedient slaves or willing servants. He is holy, and were He to throw me into hell for my sins, He would be justified, and I would still praise him.
Comment by Diane on July 23, 2024 at 12:24 pm
What a horrible message, Mike B. No wonder people are leaving this religion. You said it yourself – you’re nothing good, never did anything good. Self-deprecating, that’s you.
Comment by MikeB on July 23, 2024 at 6:24 pm
Diane,
You have your own religion, it has no relationship to historical Christianity.
You are indeed not a follower of Christ, your pagan views of God is a spirit are indeed heretical. God is undefinable except by his words. Saying God is spirit is biblical, saying God is a spirit is heretical.
But you knew that, out of your mouth comes evil spirits. Indeed you are a tare who tries to instill doubt, pretending to be a Christian when you make clear your disgust. Your evil spirit cannot abide a holy God, one who you belong to even in your rebellion.
Know that all men die, and after that is the judgement.
You would rather walk into hellfire than beg his forgiveness and admit your sinful life and heart.
You know this is true.
Comment by Pastor Mike on July 24, 2024 at 2:18 pm
Diane, we are all sinners. This means you, me, and everyone. We deserve nothing but sin and death. It is only by the sacrifice of Christ hanging and dying on the cross that we can be saved. He took all our sins, washed in His blood, and redeemed us. But, we must all come to Him and accept Him as our Lord and Savior. Diane, I pray one day you will come to know the Lord too.
Comment by Tim Ware on July 27, 2024 at 7:46 pm
The doctrine of original sin, formulated by Augustine almost 400 years after the time of Jesus, claims that because Adam and Eve ate one piece of fruit God told them not to eat, God flew off the handle and completely ruined His entire creation. God then changed human nature to make Adam and Eve, plus all who would come after them, nothing but filthy sinners, rotten to the core, incapable of any good at all. And then, even though God made them 100% rotten through and through, God declared all human beings to be deserving of eternal torments because they are 100% rotten through and through.
And that is supposed to be Christianity?
Comment by MikeB on July 29, 2024 at 12:05 am
Hello Tim!
I do wonder where you get your cheap knockoff theories on Christianity.
I suspect Reddit or some similar generator of Dunning-Kruger followers.
The Doctrine of Original Sin comes from Paul in Romans, just because Augustine wrote about it years later and some theology student with a passion for sin wrote a thesis to be shocking doesn’t mean you aren’t still high on the curve.
Comment by Tim Ware on July 29, 2024 at 12:40 pm
My cheap knockoff theories of Christianity in regard to original sin came from actually reading Augustine.
Comment by MikeB on July 29, 2024 at 7:31 pm
Tim,
I’m shocked you read St Augustine before Romans 5…
I mean it’s… almost unbelievable that you either read Augustine before Romans… or so obliviously read Romans that when you read Augustine that you saw it to be a unique revelation…
Comment by Tim Ware on July 29, 2024 at 11:03 pm
Mike, maybe you should read Augustine yourself, see what he really said, rather than someone’s interpretation of what he said, and see what the Doctrine of Original Sin really contains. Then you might realize that his interpretation, which is what the institutional church in the West adopted, is not the only possible interpretation of Scripture. After all, whether you realize it or not, what you are espousing is actually his interpretation, so maybe you should make yourself familiar with it from the original source. Your arguments would be more persuasive if you made them from a position of actually knowing the background of the particular interpretations you promote.
Comment by MikeB on July 30, 2024 at 7:44 am
Tim,
Let’s not change the conversation and pretend that you didn’t say something that was flat out wrong.
Firstly a number of early church fathers wrote on the topic long before Augustine.
Secondly Augustines very predestination focused interpretation isn’t common across all of Christianity. Lutherans take it verbatim but Catholics see it as heretical when taken too far, Methodists take a less dire approach, evangelicals take a varied approach, and eastern orthodox reject it more or less, which is what you are now alluding to in your revision of your original statement.
Your claims to an institutional church are inane, since the reformation there is no one church.
If you had wanted to make the claim that Augustine’s interpretative reading of Romans 5 is not what you believe to be right that is fine, but you instead went full in on random left wing Christianity is awful. You can back track now that you’ve been on Wikipedia at least once, but you are admitting your original statement was indeed… garbage.
You should also separate original sin from total depravity, one thinks that Adam doomed us to hell, and the other realizes that we as each individuals (depending on the denomination) happen to sin a lot and even when we attempt to do good, our individual desires are not pleasing to God.
That point is heavily backed up by philosophy as it’s hard to define a good non selfish act.
Comment by Tim Ware on July 30, 2024 at 8:04 am
Mike,
I still think you should read these early writers yourself and not rely on cut-out quotes and summaries of what they said, all designed to lead you in a certain direction. You might try reading the Bible like that, too.
Comment by MikeB on July 30, 2024 at 6:35 pm
Tim…
You bounce between Augustine is super important to read, and he is awful and evil.
This does all lead back to your point you refuse to address, you made a very generic accusation about all Christianity.
It’s totally false, Augustine was influential but not divinely inspired. Even beyond theology your claims are in opposition to each other.
You claim all Christianity and then back up to just western, acknowledging that Orthodox rejection of Augustine. You deny Paul as the source, but declare Augustine as the one true creator of original sin as a concept. You also ignore catholic and Adventist thought.
You sound rather like you are so in your own head that you can’t see how your ravings look to others.
Formulate something that makes sense… if you are capable of that…