Jesus announced 'the kingdom of heaven is near'.  The kingdom was called good news precisely because it was "news" - it was happening - and not just a wish.  The kingdom was present because Jesus was present. 

So - where's the kingdom?

This is Albert Schweitzer's question (1900).  Schweitzer read the gospels and deduced that Jesus was an apocalyptic figure, a messiah, a savior.  But says Jesus was crushed by the times - he failed. "Where's the kingdom? " 

The more accurate question is this: "What does the kingdom of heaven look like?"  If we go to Matthew's gospel, chapter ten, we find a description of the kingdom of heaven...

• heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons
• freely give, freely receive - no money and few possessions needed - live off others' generosity
• if you are received then your hosts are "in" and if you are not welcomed, then judgment upon them
• you are sheep among wolves; wary as snakes, harmless as doves

Then Jesus explains to his disciples they should expect lots of conflict; you'll be beaten and arrested and brought to trial.  Families will be torn apart.  It gets worse, but have hope: you belong to the Father, you are going out in my name; and that's something. 

Finally, John the Baptist asks, "Are you really the one who is the Messiah, or should we look for someone else?"   John is asking, "Uh, Jesus: exactly what does the kingdom of heaven look like?"  We are in good company when we ask both 'where is the kingdom?' and 'what does it look like?'

In my experience I've run into two basic camps on the kingdom of god/heaven: a) the biblical conservative Evangelical (sometimes Fundamentalists) and b) the liberal modernists (this was when I was around the Episcopal church for years).  Both camps only thought of the kingdom as "a supernatural act of God when history will be broken off and a new heavenly order of existence begun" (G. Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, p15 describing Schweitzer).  The Evangelicals only picture this supernatural act happening at the second coming or rapture and the Christians being swept off the soon-to-be-vaporized planet.  This limited idea of the kingdom only leaves them two main jobs of proclaiming the good news of Jesus - and the expectations of the recipient are only left to Admit, Believe and Confess (the ABCs of becoming a Christian).  Notice these ABCs are only "mental" actions.   There is no change in society or time or history or even the church.  The second main job a new Evangelical Christian is that of morality:  keep moral until Jesus returns.  Proclamation and morality - that's the extent of the present kingdom of god. 

The liberal modernists are no different really in my opinion.  They too look for a supernatural act.  But since they really do not believe or cannot even conceive of a supernatural act of god (or anything supernatural) they are left with only an inward spiritual reality of the kingdom; and when it comes to a practice of the kingdom they can only manage to join the secular humanitarian agenda, the "myth of progress" as N.T. Wright calls it (Surprised By Hope, p81).

If we return to Jesus' description of the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 10 we find the kingdom just doesn't look like what any of us expect - any of us: 1st century Jews, Albert Schweitzer, Evangelicals - everyone it seems.  The kingdom has a "present earthiness" to it. Even though the disciples raise the dead and cure disease, they need a place to stay, food to eat; they are beaten and arrested - perhaps. 

The key here is to look at the one person who is resurrected: Jesus.  Notice Jesus is not a ghost or a spirit.  He is human and touchable.  Matthew ends his gospel with Jesus telling the disciples "get on with the kingdom as we've been doing so already.  You have everything you need."  Mark ends his gospel telling us "the followers were afraid."  You bet you'd be afraid if a man rose from the dead.  Notice the reality and grittiness of the resurrection appearance.  Luke ends with Jesus eating broiled fish (24:42).  Luke wants to make sure his readers understand Jesus was real, and yet he could vanish and reappear.  Actually this can't be that much different than Jesus walking on water, changing water into wine, etc.  Jesus just simply operates with a smarter set of physics, a deeper knowledge of how the universe works.  But the resurrections vindicates his kingdom actions, and as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 his resurrection defeats death - doesn't get any bigger.  My point: both the pre-resurrected Jesus and his kingdom, and his post-resurrection Jesus and his kingdom have both a "super"-natural reality and a common-natural reality to them.  Of course, the resurrected Jesus and kingdom reality are radically redefined - it is a whole new ballgame now (read: 'we don't have to wait until the second coming').

Back to the kingdom question, 'what does it look like?' It looks like a reversal of of the tower of Babel, in Acts 2 when all peoples can understand each others language - "when all the colors run into one."  It looks like Acts 4... "there was no needy person among them."   It looks like St Francis feeding the poor and living with the leprous, becoming vagabonds and calling it church. The kingdom looks like the abolition of slavery, the end child slavery and fighting for the rights of the laborer (trade unions), and women's suffrage.  All of these were accomplished because of Christians.  It looks like the civil rights movement.  Let us not forget that his name is REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr - he was a Christian.  It looks like peaceful protests for the sanctity of life -- all life.  It looks like Chris and Tammi Jehle at The Hope Center in our inner city re-neighboring and re-parenting lost and forgotten children.  It looks like communal discipleship in the persecuted house church in China.  It looks like AIDS clinics in Africa, clean water sources, fistula clinics, cleft palate surgeries... the dismantling of Apartheid, Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Rwanda...  And it looks like declaring the good news of the cross and resurrection of Jesus and forgiveness of sins, the restoration of the human story, the care of god's creation, the return from the exile of brokenness, addiction and sin -- the kingdom has an outward reality.  It looks like praying for sick and dying to be healed. It looks like living on way less so we can redistribute wealth to the poor.

The kingdom looks much like it did in Matthew 10:  followers bring "miracles" and are arrested and beaten.  The kingdom looks like "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17) -- inward.  The kingdom is much more of a present reality than we imagine of express it despite the words of Jesus, the early church's expression of it, and even the cold hard facts of history showing Christians bringing hope, freeing the oppressed and declaring a new world order - that of sacrificial love like Jesus showed us. 

"What does the kingdom of heaven look like?'  People want to ask Jesus, "Where is your kingdom and what does it look like?"  And in response I think Jesus is asking us, the church, "Where is my kingdom and what shall it look like?" 

When Jesus returns (and he returns - we don't go away), I am convinced the world should already look like we are expecting Jesus, the kingdom should already be a reality - mostly.  We shall not construct it out of our own resources, but rather precipitate in the making of his kingdom by the Spirit's activity.  If we don't know what that is, then we have the first work to do: sit at the feet of Jesus until we hear; move out under huge uncertainty and risk; die to self continually; and watch the world change in the name of Jesus (and only in the name of Jesus will it change). 

Now a final thought to my liberal brothers and sisters -- and my Fundamentalist siblings:  So if Jesus did not raise bodily, literally from the dead, then why would anyone write a gospel story stating that he did rise?  And why would those gospel writers say the world has changed if it hadn't?  Why say the kingdom of god is present if it wasn't evidence as so? After all, it would have been easy to say back to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, "I don't see any kingdom of heaven as you report it"  -- if it wasn't there.  Why would you write a story about the world changing if it had NOT CHANGED?  And why would you write this story some 20-50 years after the inauguration of this supposed kingdom IF it wasn't evident in those 20-50 years?  I mean, plenty of time would have elapsed to prove this kingdom had not come about. 

We must rethink and re-imagine what the kingdom of heaven looks like.  We need a more literal picture of the kingdom, more like what Jesus demonstrated, the disciples and the early church demonstrated.  We need to move past the cheap "supernatural" picture of Schweitzer, liberal modernists, and fundamentalists.   Get on with it.  Belief only can mean furthering the kingdom in our life time.  And - it is much bigger and more real than we can ever imagine. 

Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.  -- Ephesians 3:20-21