In contemporary liberal churches, a peculiar linguistic shift has emerged: the adoption of the term “kin-dom of God” in place of the traditional “kingdom of God.” This alteration aims to eliminate perceived patriarchal and hierarchical undertones associated with “kingdom,” opting instead for a communal and egalitarian depiction of Christ’s dominion.
Initially confined to academic theology on the fringes, “kin-dom” has found favor among ecclesial liberals, prominently featured in sermons such as those delivered by United Methodist Bishop Karen Oliveto during the General Conference.
This departure from traditional Christian language is evident across mainline churches, where phrases like “the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sustainer” have supplanted the historic Trinity. Similar to the sanitized reinterpretation of the Trinity, advocating for the “kin-dom” of God sacrifices orthodox Christian doctrine for a relativistic and depersonalized faith, prioritizing inclusivity over theological fidelity. For those uncomfortable with the concept of God’s kingdom, proponents suggest an alternative term for Christ’s reign, although acceptance among progressives remains doubtful.
The concept of the “kin-dom” of God traces its roots to Ada Maria Issasi Diaz, a Catholic modernist theologian known for advocating women’s ordination and same-sex marriage, alongside expanding liberation theology to include Latinas. Diaz’s influential 1996 work, Mujerista Theology, challenges a Biblicentric worldview in favor of a framework centered on societal struggle. Here, Diaz introduces the notion of Christ’s “kin-dom” as an alternative to his kingdom, a term attributed to Franciscan nun Georgene Wilson.
This phrase has gained traction among Christian feminists who critique the male-centric imagery of kingship in favor of the familial connotations of “kin.” Advocates argue, akin to debates on issues like homosexuality and sin, that “kingdom” is merely one translation of the Greek term basileia, which historically also encompasses dominion, commonwealth, or rule, but notably never “kin-dom.”
If the term “kingdom of God” is deemed archaic, an alternative translation of basileia might be appropriate. The term “empire,” aligning well with its Greek origins (both the Roman and Persian empires were termed basileiai during Jesus’ time), presents itself as a more inclusive and historically resonant descriptor of Christ’s rule. An empire, by definition, reconciles diverse cultures and peoples under one authority, contrasting with the parochial implications of a kingdom.
Despite these considerations, liberal clerics are unlikely to adopt “empire” to describe God’s dominion, underscoring that the issue isn’t merely linguistic. Critics argue that substituting “kin-dom” for “kingdom” reflects a desire to conform scripture to contemporary norms rather than seeking closer alignment with Christ’s teachings.
Jonathan Edwards asserted that “the seeking of the kingdom of God is the chief business of the Christian life.” As theological debates unfold, the Church faces a critical decision: whether to uphold traditional interpretations or embrace evolving cultural sensitivities, reflecting broader tensions between reverence for Christ’s authority and adaptations to modern perspectives.