Where exactly do we get the idea that we should be building God’s kingdom? We may witness to it, testify to it, plant signs of it or work or build for (the word for introduces a big difference, as Tom Wright points out) it, etc. But it’s God’s kingdom, and consequently God is the one who is “building” it. As in “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.” (It’s a spiritual tonic to say those lines of the prayer with the emphasis just so). The best explanation for this mistaken Christian speech that I can come up with is that we’ve heard it said so often that we unthinkingly repeat it. [...]Reid goes on to note that acts of Christian service should be understood as "signs and anticipations" of God's Kingdom--important actions, but they do not themselves constitute the Kingdom, which is God's alone to bring about.
If the kingdom is the dynamic reign of God, how can we as humans “build” it? Actually, it should come as a relief to realize that you and I aren’t in the business of building God’s kingdom. Almost, well, like good news!
My first reaction was that Reid was being nitpicky, but if you think about it, it's a pretty important distinction: is it our job to bring about God's Kingdom? Does that distinction change the way we go about doing acts of Christian service (and does it change the type of service we should focus on)?
(Besides, his post--like any blog post worth reading--uses the word "pelagianism." Here's Wikipedia's definition for those of us who are a bit rusty on our church history.)