More on suffering from Philippians

We continued this week in our study of Philippians. Last week we noted that Paul found hope in the midst of his suffering in prison not by starting with himself and his circumstances but by locating his suffering in the larger story of what God is doing in the world to bring redemption. In quoting from the book of Job when he says that he is confident that his suffering will "result in my deliverance" he is speaking not so much to certainty that he will get out of prison but that he and the gospel will be vindicated. Caesar can invoke the power of the cross and create terror among his subjects but Jesus' death on the Roman cross breaks its power, along with every force of evil and the power of our sin. The resurrection is God's proof that Jesus' atoning death is vindicated in the face of those who mock God's demonstration of power in Christ's humble and loving spending of himself into sacrificial death.

In the portion of Philippians following on this, through to the end of chapter one, Paul continues to talk about suffering but he switches his focus to the sufferings that the Philippian church is entering into. Because he identifies their suffering with his suffering and the sufferings of Christ he is talking specifically about the suffering that one undergoes when one is opposed or abused for one's confession of faith that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.

Philippi was a Roman colony and there was a great deal of civic pride associated with that status. The advantages to being a Roman citizen were immense in the empire and it was expected that citizens would give at least tacit support to the cult of the emperor. Caesar worship had a strong presence in Philippi and Caesar was hailed to be savior and lord, the great benefactor of the pax Romana, the peace of the empire (a peace that was kept through oppression and totalitarian rule). For Christians to refuse to confess Caesar as savior and lord (soter and kyrios) and to attach these titles to Jesus Christ was, of course, political dynamite and would raise the ire of the state and many of its citizens: the state for obvious reasons but the fellow citizens of the Philippian Christians would have reason to oppose their Christian neighbors because of the fear of guilt by association and because of the expectation that a crackdown on the entire colony might be Rome's response if Christians grew in number.

In the face of this nascent persecution Paul says to the church, "in no way be intimidated". The Greek phrase he uses that is translated by that phrase uses a word that was commonly used to talk about horses being spooked. So, Paul is saying to the church, don't be spooked or scared - stay on your mission, for you have been given the privilege to suffer for Christ as well as to believe in him. Their suffering for Jesus was a sharing in his mission; their demonstration of the gospel in word and deed is what has brought on the opposition they are feeling just as Jesus was opposed for his message of the coming of God's kingdom. The worship of idols, of power, and of self do not go away quietly and when the circumstances are right the power of evil that is at work in idolatry will seek to kill or at least abuse those who embody Jesus in the midst of this broken world. Paul's main point here is that there is no surprise in this persecution, for it is an aspect of fulfilling the mission of Jesus. But, how should the church respond to this persecution?

Paul gives us a clue in his admonition that they conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel. In this phrase the word that the NRSV translates, "conduct", is from a Greek word which can be translated something like, "civic duty". It is from the same word group that we inherit the word politics in English. Paul only uses it here and one or two other places in the New Testament. Since Paul often talked about the life of the Christian using a word which is translated, "walk", one takes note that he uses the word for political, or civic, life here. Why does he use this word? Commentators are divided with some emphasizing that his use of the word is simply to challenge the Philippian Christians to demonstrate in their Christian community what a true polis, political society, should be. Others, however, argue that Paul's use of this political metaphor is for the purpose of encouraging the Philippian Christians to NOT disengage from their socio-political setting in the face of their persecution but rather to continue their living out the gospel in and through the social/political community in which they live. To engage in a manner worthy of the gospel means, among other things, to refuse to allow opposition to define the identity or mission of the church. The Christians at Philippi are to continue defining their mission according their identity with Christ and his mission to bring the love of God in word and deed to those consumed by their sin; those in need of salvation; those opposing the church. Fred Craddock's words are helpful: "They cannot assume that outside opposition in and of itself will create internal unity. Even if it did it would be a unity defined by the opposition. Therefore the church must struggle together for the 'faith of the gospel'. If they cease to act and simply react, then it is no longer the gospel but the culture that gives the church its identity." Or, as Miroslav Volf puts it: "Only those who refuse to be defined by their enemies can bless them".

Questions for discussion:
1. I suggested in my remarks leading into communion that occasions when we experience suffering and opposition often produce in us a reaction that takes us away from the gospel. In Paul's remarks to the church in our passage this Sunday he is talking about a unique suffering because of one's beliefs. Yet, there are some transferable concepts that work well for us when experience suffering and opposition in our lives. Here is a question: if it does - how does suffering distract you from believing and applying the gospel in your life circumstances? Paul was concerned with unity around the mission of the gospel in the face of the Philippians' opposition. Do you struggle with remaining on mission as a Christian and being united to your Christian family and loved ones when you suffer? If suffering always drives you to unity with your Christian family is it a unity defined by the opposition or is it a unity shaped by the mission of the gospel - what is the difference between the two?

2. In an important essay, "Soft Difference", Miroslav Volf explores the relationship between the Christian community and the non-Christian social world into which it has burst, as the first-fruits of the coming kingdom of God. I am going to include a lengthy quote form this essay in order to ask a discussion question based on it:

"The question of how to live in a non-Christian environment, then, does not translate simply into the question of whether one adopts or rejects the social practices of the environment. This is the question outsiders ask, who have the luxury of observing a culture from a vantage point that is external to that culture. Christians do not have such a vantage point since they have experienced a new birth as inhabitants of a particular culture. Hence they are in an important sense insiders. As those who are a part of the environment from which they have diverted by having been born again and whose difference is therefore internal to that environment, Christians ask, 'Which beliefs and practices of the culture that is ours must we reject now that our self has been reconstituted by new birth? Which can we retain? What must we reshape to reflect better the values of God's new creation?'" - Volf

Now, here is my question: Do we think prayerfully, earnestly and imaginatively about when to work to retain, when to work to reshape, and when to reject? Can you give some examples of how to flesh this out in circumstances with which you are familiar?