Colossians 1.24 and the Suffering Church - Spivey.pdf

Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care Copyright 2011 by Institute of Spiritual Formation2011, Vol. 4, No. 1, 43-62 Biola University, 1939-7909

COLOSSIANS 1:24 AND THE

SUFFERING CHURCH

STEVEN W. SPIVEYWayland Baptist University (San Antonio, TX)

Ahstract: The essay begins with an analysis of the major interpretations of Paul'sclaim to "complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. " The author argues that, inthe context of Colossians, these afflictions are related to sufferings endured in thecourse of completing the apostolic mission. These sufferings, as well as the mission,are corporate in nature, applying to the church at large. Given tendencies withinAmerican churches to confuse culture with the counter-cultural nature ofthe reign ofGod, as well as the effort to ignore or deny its cruciform identity and essence, Paul'swords provide a necessary corrective. Mission and suffering are inherent elementswhenever the church functions as the church. When considered in light ofthe histor-ical marks of the church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic," suffering is so en-meshed with these marks as to constitute a fifth mark ofthe authentic church.

The Constantinopolitan Creed states a belief in "one, holy, catholic,and apostolic church."' A similar description of the church is offered in theVatican II document Lumen Gentium. An examination of Colossians l:24ffsuggests the consideration of a possible fifth mark of the authentic Chris-tian church: suffering. This consideration is due in part to exegeting themeaning of the author's claim that he is "completing what is lacking inChrist's afflictions for the sake of his body, the church."^

This essay intends to trace the interpretation of this passage by repre-sentative contemporary scholars and then to suggest how a proper under-standing of the text, coupled with other Pauline passages, provides supportfor the idea of a fifth mark of the church. The essay will conclude by brieflyexploring how this fifth mark might relate to the traditional four.'

' John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine fromthe Bible to the Present, rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1973), 33.

^ Colossians 1:24b. All Scripture is taken from the NRSV unless otherwisenoted.

^ It is not the intent or purpose of this essay to retrace the various arguments foror against Pauline authorship of Colossians. The focus instead, is ecclesiological innature. For convenience sake the writer of the letter will be referred to as Paul.

43

44 Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care

A survey of commentaries and articles reveals that four interpretationsare most commonly made of Colossians 1:24, "I am now rejoicing in mysufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking inChrist's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." These arethat:

1. The sufferings that Paul endures for the sake of the church and tocomplete what "is lacking in Christ's afflictions" are intended tocomplete the redemption made possible through the death of Christ.This view argues that the death of Christ was in some way deficientin providing salvation for humanity.

2. Paul's sufferings are to be understood in the context of a "mysticalunion" between Paul and Christ. Such a union also characterizes therelationship between Paul and the churches, as well as the relation-ship between Christ and the churches/individual believer.

3. The sufferings, which complete the afflictions of Christ, are under-stood in light of the "messianic woes" which were expected to ac-company the last days. In this view, Paul's sufferings are sometimesseen as vicarious (but not redemptive), lessening the measure of suf-fering ro be endured by the churches.

4. The sufferings spoken of in Colossians 1:24 refer to the sufferingPaul endures in the course of completing the apostolic mission. Forthe sake of the Colossians these sufferings are intended to edify andchallenge the church to faithfulness in its context. Examples of thesufferings alluded to here are listed in the sarcastic response to the"super apostles" in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29. It is the view of this es-say that these mission/ministry related sufferings are not limited tothe apostles or their modern counterparts, but are a normal experi-ence for the church following its Lord and engaging in a counter-cultural proclamation of salvation and the reign of God.

Taking these interpretations in sequence, it should be noted that interpreta-tions that argue that the sufferings of Christ are in some way deficient havelargely been abandoned.•* To interpret Colossians 1:24 in such a way flies inthe face of the chapter's primary argument for the total sufficiency ofChrist's redeeming death (cf. Col. 1:20-23; 2:9-15).

The second significant interpretation of this text is to see Paul writingin the context of a mystical union of some fashion. Commentators have

'' As Ralph P. Martin as pointed out, this view is usually associated withWindisch's 1934 work Paul und Christus [Ralph P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon(New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1973), 69-70]. Yet asPeter T. O'Brien notes, as early as the work of Staab and Schweizer, the point wasmade that the language of "Christ's afflictions" is not used in the New Testamentanywhere else in the sense of Christ's redemptive actions [Peter T. O'Brien, Colos-sians-Pbilemon (Word Biblical Commentary 44; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1982)].Jerry L. Sumney has a similar understanding in Colossians: A Commentary (NewTestament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008).

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church 45

seen this union as existing between Christ and Paul, while others draw theconnection between Christ and the believers who comprise the church. Thislatter connection will have similarities to the fourth interpretation, that ofreading Paul's sufferings in the context of ministry and mission. The con-cept of a union between Paul and Christ is sometimes understood in thecontext of the "in Christ" language seen in the authentically Pauline letters.In reference to Paul's sufferings, Philippians 3:10 is commonly cited as de-scribing some special intimacy between Paul and the Lord in what is termed"the fellowship of his sufferings." As the fourth interpretation will suggest,this fellowship may have more to do with the tasks of mission and ministrythan a private, personalized spirituality.

Under this heading, one may ask if there is any unique purpose to suf-fering as Christians. As Douglas John Hall has noted, "To be human is tosuffer. Some of our suffering is integral to our creaturehood; without it wecould not become fully human."^ So in what sense do Paul's sufferings be-come Christian} What connection is there with Christ, Christ's sufferings,or the church described as the "body of Christ?" Two suggestions havebeen offered: the first interprets Christian suffering as participating inChrist's suffering as an instrument whereby believers are conformed to thelikeness of Christ. The other suggestion focuses on Christ suffering in andthrough the church.

In his interpretation of Colossians, John Calvin argues that the provi-dence of God requires that the conforming of believers to Christ extend toour also enduring the cross.^ It should be made clear that this suffering/death is Christ's. As James D. G. Dunn has noted, Christ's sufferings be-come personalized for Paul. He writes:

The death and life to be experienced are Christ's. The tensions, suffer-ings, death, and life to be experienced Paul sees as the outworking ofChrist's death and risen life. Paul gives a clear hint of this in Romans6:5. Paul's use there of the perfect tense indicates a past event establish-ing a state that continues in the present. The believer is and continues tobe fused to the very likeness of Christ's death (cf. Gal. 2:19 and 6:14).Paul didn't see crucifixion with Christ as a once-for-all past event or ofbelievers as already off the cross enjoying the risen life. "I am crucifiedwith Christ;" that is, I have been nailed to the cross with Christ, and amin that state still; I am still hanging with Christ on that crossJ

Charles H. Talbert also recognizes this idea of Paul's sufferings as part ofthe process of being conformed to the likeness of Christ. Talbert, following

' Douglas John Hall, The Cross in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 154.

* John Galvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippi-ans, Colossians, and Thessalonians, ed. and trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1948), 164.

' James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1998), 484.

46 Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care

W.F. Flemington, sees the "lack" referred to in Colossians 1:24 as a lack inPaul. The apostle's suffering involved a believer's dying daily to sin to thepoint of becoming obedient unto death. This suffering also involves thatwhich was part of the apostle's mission.* This is the nature of the "union"between Paul and Christ.

Yet what connection does this have to the body of Christ? If Christ issuffering with or in Paul, what significance is there for the church?' As willbe discussed later, the significance rests with the purposes of the church inthe world. Paul suffers, and in a sense Christ suffers through Paul in and forthe body of Christ. To suggest that there is a disconnect between a sufferingChrist, a suffering apostle, and a suffering church is to suggest that thebody of Christ imagery and the classic descriptive characteristics of thechurch have become meaningless. Yet this connection should not be under-stood in a classic mystical sense. Paul writes of completing that which islacking in the afflictions of Christ. If the classic "mystical union" was inmind, then how would the sufferings of Paul bring Christ's afflictions tocompletion? As Jerry L. Sumney has argued, if one is united with Christ inthis manner, whatever is lacking in Christ's suffering is also missing in the

* Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Padeia Commentaries on theNew Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 201. He cites: W.E Fleming-ton, "On the Interpretation of Colossians 1:24," in Suffering and Martyrdom in theNew Testament, ed. William Horbury and Brian McNeil (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1981), 84-90.

' L. Ann Jervis offers an adjustment, if not a corrective to the view that Christ'ssufferings had in some way heen inadequate. Responding to A.J.M. Wedderhurn'sview that Colossians 1:24 refers to the sufferings which Christians face by living in ahostile world, Jervis suggests that he has not considered the possibility that the "on-going sufferings of Christ through Christ's body, the church, may have a redemptivesignificance" [L. Ann Jervis, At the Heart of the Gospel: Suffering in the EarliestChristian Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 105]. One may ask in whatsense "redemptive" is being used. Does Jervis refer to redemption in the sense of"salvific" or in the sense that the benefits of Christ's death are proclaimed and actu-alized through the life and work of the faithful church? Does the church become, ineffect, the instrument of redemption through its suffering whereby it is identifiedwith Christ and conformed to his likeness? If this is the case, does faithfulness orconformity to the likeness of Christ require a suffering church in order to be the re-demptive instrument intended? This seems to harmonize with the view of Hall, whosees suffering as an integral part of spiritual formation. As Hall notes, "One dimen-sion of the suffering of the church, therefore, is its appropriation and internalizationof the pain involved in being identified with the crucified one—what the reformerscalled its 'continuing baptism' into his death. But this side of the suffering of thechurch can be badly distorted if it becomes interesting in itself . . . it has too oftenbeen marred by introversion and subjectivization: 'See how I suffer, life is a cross,'etc. The necessary corrective to this kind of melancholy self-preoccupation on thepart of Christians and churches is their being made newly conscious of the sufferingthat lies outside their own persons and communities . . . [W]e never hear of a Jesuspreoccupied with his own pain," (Hall, 154). This lends itself to the idea that suffer-ing, while not something to be sought, will be characteristic of a missional church.

Spivey: Golossians 1:24 and the Suffering Ghurch 47

person united with Christ. Accordingly, Paul's sufferings cannot accomplishwhat is missing. As Sumney expresses it, "[I]t seems that what is lackingcould not be filled up until the parousia."'" Given that most of Colossians'use of identification language for the Christ-church relationship occurs inColossians 2-3, Sumney suggests that the language of intimacy is a moreaccurate descriptive term than "mystical union.""

The third common interpretation of Colossians 1:24 links that which islacking in Christ's afflictions to the apocalyptic concept of the "messianicwoes." This is perhaps the majority view, drawing on concepts from apoca-lyptic and apocryphal literature.'^ The concept of "messianic woes" is basedin the view of history as divided into two ages, the present evil age and theage to come. The transition from one age to the other was thought to be atime for great suffering among the people of God, either accompanying oranticipating the appearance of the Messiah.'^ Ben Witherington III likensthis idea of necessary suffering before the messianic age to the parallel ideathat a predetermined amount of God's wrath is being stored up for a comingtime of judgment.''' Dunn appears to see this as a natural extension of

'" Jerry L. Sumney, "I Fill Up What Is Lacking in the Afflictions of Ghrist: Paul'sVicarious Suffering in Golossians," Gatholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (October 2006):667.

" Ibid. 668. Margaret Y. MacDonald has noted that the closeness of the rela-tionship between Ghrist and community lends itself to speak of Ghrist continuing tosuffer as Paul and the church suffers (although issues of time and the nature of thesuffering are not fully resolved). She points out that the language of "filling up"should be seen alongside the spatial language used in Golossians. Since Ghrist's bodyis also identified with the universe, Golossians 1:24 points the reader to the connec-tions between "believers, community, cosmos, and Ghrist," [Margaret Y. MacDon-ald, Golossians and Ephesians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Sacra Pagina 17; Gol-legeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 79]. This would seem to support the thesis thatPaul's sufferings as "filling up that which is lacking" should be understood in termsof the church's mission to and within the world.

'2 For example, Daniel 12:1; 4 Ezra 4:36f; 1 Enoch 41:1-4; and 2 Baruch 30:2.'̂ N.T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Golossians and to Philemon: an In-

troduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1986), 87-8.

''' Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Eph-esians: A Socio-Rhetorical Gommentary on the Gaptivity Epistles (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2007), 144-5. This view of some form of "messianic woes" best explain-ing Golossians 1:24 is also held by Ernest Best, One Body in Ghrist: A Study in theRelationship of the Ghurch to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London:S.P.G.K., 1955), 136; Moule, 76; Martin, 70; and Eduard Lohse, Golossians andPhilemon: A Gommentary on the Epistles to the Golossians and to Philemon(Hermeneia Gommentary Series; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1971), 70-2. O'Briencites all these on page 78 of his commentary Golossians and Philemon in the WBG se-ries. Peter H. Davids also sees these sufferings borne by the church as mistreatmentsGhrist suffers in his church as a determined but finite amount to be endured beforethe consummation of the kingdom [Peter H. Davids, "Golossians, Philemon" in Eph-esians, Philippians, Golossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Philemon, ed. Philip W. Gomfort(Gornerstone Biblical Gommentary 16; Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008), 264].


Pauline eschatology, which in turn is linked to Paul's view of ministry. Hesees this eschatology as including the idea that Christ's (emphasis mine) suf-ferings were the eschatological tribulation expected as the forerunner of themessianic age. Further, that participation in Christ's death was a means fortransitioning between the old age and the new." Such a view seems to pre-sent the present (or at least Paul's present) as still being the transitional pe-riod between old arid new ages.'* Somewhat paradoxically this sufferingcontinues even though resurrection is already past. Dunn argues that the let-ter's reference to "the Christ" allows Paul to use the Jewish image of mes-sianic woes. As used in Colossians, the messianic woes include the sufferingof Paul as a significant element of God's reconciling processes. For Paul per-sonally, such suffering becomes a reminder that the older age, marked bycorruption and mortality, is ending, while the new age of fuller participationin the power of Christ's resurrection has arrived. According to this view, thatwhich is "lacking" in the afflictions of Christ can be seen both as somethinglacking in Paul (Christ suffering in and through Paul), since Paul has not yetbeen fully conformed to the likeness of Christ's death. Further, Paul sees this"lack" in cosmic terms as well. There is a cosmic reconciliation made possi-ble by Christ's sufferings and death. Paul knows that universal reconciliationhas not yet occurred, so the "decisive sufferings of the Christ are not yetcompleted either."''' So seen, the sufferings endured by the apostle do have asomewhat redemptive element, although not in the salvific sense of thedeath/resurrection of Christ. They take on a revelatory component, as do thesufferings of the church. As Dunn says, the suffering and death of Christdemonstrates how the creation is structured and reclaimed (cf. 1:15-20). Itis only by identifying with Christ in the way of suffering that Paul and otherservants of the church assist the church to be the body of Christ that reflectsthe creation as God intended it to be.'* This author's argument is that thisrevelatory suffering occurs not only in the lives of leaders such as Paul, but isa characteristic element in the life of any (and all) believers. The body ofChrist is always (within history) a suffering body. As N.T. Wright notes,"That which is true of Christ is true also of his people.""

As enticing as interpreting the sufferings of Paul and the afflictions ofChrist in terms of the apocalyptic messianic woes, the view is not withoutdifficulties, many of which concern the use of the concept in the life-setting

'5 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 114-5." This is also suggested by Wright, who writes, "Jesus' resurrection had inaugu-

rated the new age, but the old would continue alongside it until Jesus' second com-ing. The whole time between resurrection and return was the period of the turning oferas and so could be characterized by the messianic woes. Such suffering is regardedas evidence that the sufferers really are God's people." (Wright, 88).

" James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Com-mentary on the Greek Text, (NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 115-6. Seealso Dunn, The Theology ofthe Apostle Paul, 496 and Lohse, 70-1.

" Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, 117." Wright, 87-8.

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Cburcb 49

of the church in Colossae. First, as Moule, O'Brien, and Lohse argue, theColossian church was primarily a church of Gentile converts.^" Can one as-sume that the Colossian converts would be so familiar with Jewish apoca-lypticism that Paul's references to his sufferings would immediately taketheir minds to the "messianic woes?" Such might be the case in the churchescomposed of both Jew and Gentile converts, but not necessarily in Colos-sae. This is not to say that Colossae was devoid of Jews, for as J.L. Houldenpoints out, a Jewish presence might contribute to the syncretistic tendenciesattacked in Colossians 2.^'

In addition, it is appropriate to ask if the same fascination with theparousia seen in Thessalonica was present in Colossae at the relatively latedate of the letter's writing. Where is the evidence for any kind of eschato-logical fervor? It seems that seeing the sufferings of Paul and afflictions ofChrist in terms of messianic woes is, as Sumney suggests, to read into thetext something more than the text can support. Sumney acknowledges thatthe references to Paul's sufferings is intended to express the writer's feelingsfor the Colossians, but argues, "Interpreters must import into the passage—indeed into the letter as a whole—thoughts about the nearness of the parou-sia [sic]. This letter's use of spatial rather than temporal imagery to speak ofeschatological matters renders the messianic-woes interpretationunlikely."^-^ Markus Barth adds his voice to this view, arguing, contrary toDunn, that the messianic woes interpretation is problematic: "[A] certaindifficulty with this interpretation lies in the fact that in the original conceptwe are dealing with suffering before the coming of the Messiah, whereas inthe New Testament application the concern is with suffering after his ar-rival."-^^ Barth does allow for the possibility that, following Romansll:25ff, the parousia might signify a messianic coming for Israel. Yet to ap-ply this to Colossians seems to overlook first the life setting for the letterand the various ways the name Israel is used in the New Testament. In addi-tion, both Barth and Talbert appear to have difficulty with the concept of apredetermined amount of sufferings that must be endured before the end.Barth in particular struggles against the presupposition of God predeter-mining both events and their sequence. He acknowledges the view thata measure of suffering occurs before the parousia. "But," he writes, "no-where do we find the idea of a measure of suffering until the parousia [sic]which is predetermined for the church and which can be realized by substi-tuting the suffering of an individual."^'' One may be able to speak of Paul

2° Moule, 29-30; O'Brien, xxviii; Lohse, 2-4.'̂ J.L. Houlden, Paul's Letters from Prison: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon,

and Ephesians (Westminster Pelican Commentaries; Westminster: Pelican, 1977),121.

" Sumney, "I Fill Up What is Lacking," 668." Markus Bartb and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation witb In-

troduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 34b; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 293." Ibid.

50 Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Gare

suffering in the course of completing his apostolic ministry, but the ideathat Paul endures sufferings so that the Colossians will not have to endurethem is absent. To this we can add Talbert's insights opposing the messianicwoes interpretation:

There are several problems, however, with this option. For example,the limit that God has set on the final sufferings is a time limit (e.g.Mark 13:20; cf. 2 Bar. 26-30), not a numerical limit. Moreover, there isno evidence that Christ's sufferings were intended to complete thenumber of sufferings required before the end could come. Nor is thereany hint in Colossians that "Paul" believed the world to have enteredinto the period of eschatological suffering. Nowhere does one find theidea that the measure of suffering predetermined for the church beforethe end can be realized through the substitutionary suffering of a par-ticular individual. Finally, the thought of taking on a quota of sufferingto hasten the inauguration of the new age does not fit well in a letterthat contains no mention of an imminent

To Talbert's argument should be added the different terminology used forthe sufferings of Paul and the afflictions of Christ. The language used is notparallel, but refers to different experiences. As Margaret Y. MacDonaldpoints out, the term used for Paul's sufferings is thlipsis, which is never usedfor Christ's sufferings. She notes that this language is frequently applied tothe hardships of those who proclaim the Gospel, which leads some to be-lieve the afflictions are Paul's and not Christ's. The "afflictions of Christ"become in effect a metaphor, (similarly, MacDonald argues to the phrase"the circumcision of Christ" in Col. 2:11). She argues, "Filling up what waslacking in Christ's afflictions would be a means of expressing the suffering

" Talbert, 201. Talbert's view is in contrast to the position taken by Wright andWitherington who argue that the language of the text (specifically antanpleroo)points to Paul suffering, not only on behalf of the Golossians, but also instead of it(Wright, 90; Witherington, 145). Yet Sumney cites Barth and Blanke's contentionthat the use of the double prefix may simply reflect a Hellenistic tendency to prefercomposites, without necessarily changing the meaning. Sumney notes that it is notuntil the ninth-century work of Photius of Gonstantinople that an augmented under-standing of the word is suggested. Yet even if the augmented reading is correct, thereis still a way of understanding that does not require one to follow Wright and With-erington. Sumney offers this parallel: "While Jesus was present with the disciples, hissufferings could serve as both the immediate example for them and as expiation.Once he was absent and seen as the risen Ghrist, the expiation was complete but thesufferings of others were needed to 'replace' that immediate example that Ghrist'ssufferings had provided to those original followers," (Sumney, "I Fill Up What isLacking," 676-7).


that is deemed a necessary step in the completion of what is required for thegrowth of the church and the completion of Paul's mission.""

The views of Talbert and MacDonald introduce the position that thesufferings of Paul presented in Colossians 1:24 should be understood as aninherent part of Christian witness and ministry. There is no need to resort tomystical union or messianic woe approaches. Paul's sufferings should alwaysbe understood as an integral component of being a disciple/servant of Christ,whether engaged in ministry to the world or to the body of Christ. As such,there are at least two ways in which this suffering-mission/ministry linkagecan be understood. The first would be to see the sufferings of Paul as a didac-tic example. With 2 Corinthians 11 in the background, Talbert argues thatPaul is not presenting himself as a model for the reader to follow, primarilybecause the Colossians do not appear to be in danger of persecution.^^ YetTalbert cites Dio Chrysostom, as well as Paul, as Christian leaders who sawtheir struggles and afflictions as beneficial for their "audiences."^* It seemsthat Paul's sufferings can be considered didactic in the sense that they pro-vide the Colossians with an example of obedience to the Gospel, or to useMichael Gorman's imagery, what it means to live a cruciform life and be acruciform people.- '̂ The knowledge of Paul's sufferings, coupled with theawareness that the apostle endured such things "for the sake of the [b]ody ofChrist" is intended to call the Colossian believers to a similar faithful obedi-ence. Such sufferings also have the effect of strengthening the readers againsttemptations to shrink away from faithful obedience, whether the temptationis related to the reactions of the world toward believers or the demands ofChristian witness or even ordinary discipleship.^" It is most likely true thatPaul's sufferings here are not related to the problems of living in a broken

" MacDonald, 79. O'Brien, 75-6, also points out that this term is used in thePauline letters to designate afflictions in which all believers participate by virtue oftheir relationship to Christ. Andrew Lincoln and A.J.M. Wedderburn also note thatthis is the view of Eduard Schweizer, Wedderburn arguing that the sufferings ofChrist doesn't refer to Christ's passion, but to the sufferings of those who representhim in a hostile world. These representatives are not only the apostles, but also thosewho comprise the body of Christ and both speak and suffer in his name. The afflic-tions suffered hy Paul and the Colossians are considered Christ's simply because thechurch is Christ's body. He writes, "So Christ must go on suffering as his people suf-fer, and so sufferings remain for him and were not finished with his crucifixion. Butthe apostle endures his sufferings for the church's sake, for as 1:25 asserts, the apos-tle's divinely ordained role is to serve the church, and that service involves sufferingin order to bring into being and build up the church," [Andrew T. Lincoln and A.J.M.Wedderhurn, The Theology of the Later Pauline Letters (New Testament TheologySeries; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 38-9].

" Talhert, 202.28 Talbert, 198-9.2' Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduc-

tion to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) passim.3" Sumney, "I Fill Up What is Lacking," 678.


world, but are those unique to Christian experiences of discipleship andevangelization." Sumney calls attention to this in his treatment of theGreco-Roman concept of the "noble death."^^ If Sumney is correct, Paul'ssufferings are didactic not simply in terms of illustrating faithful obedience,but also in terms of demonstrating the value of the message. Such an under-standing would be important in light of the syncretistic teachings referred toin Colossians 2. A similar "demonstration" is also visible in Galatians and2 Corinthians, making an image of Paul as the exemplar of faithful sufferingan easy one to create.

Yet the didactic element of Paul's sufferings is not the only componentto be considered. Such sufferings are inherent in the apostle's efforts to exe-cute his missionary commission. Paul does not suffer for suffering's sake. InMichael Cahill's words:

Sufferings accompany the task of evangelization. Paul is described as aservant of the [G]ospel (v. 23) and as a servant of Christ's body/thechurch (vv. 24-25). As a servant he fills up the word of God; as a ser-vant he fills up the sufferings. The word of God needs to be filled up orbrought to completion or term; this entails the inevitable, and thereforethe necessary or required, amount of toil and sufferings on the part ofpreachers such as Paul. As there is yet more preaching of the word tobe done, so there is yet more suffering, i.e. what is lacking, to be under-gone. There is a correspondence or parallel between the sufferings andthe preaching . . . As Christ suffered in his mission, so the apostles willsuffer in their turn, and as they are members of the church, his body, sothey suffer as parts of Christ, and Christ suffers in them. In them, mem-bers of Christ, the body of Christ suffers what is necessary to complete

'̂ Marianne Meye Thompson, Golossians and Philemon (The Two HorizonsNew Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 45-6. She arguesthat the sufferings/afflictions here are not those common to all people, but are spe-cific to those Paul faces in the course of bearing witness to Ghrist and the Gospel. Hefills up the full measure of afflictions by participating in the same reality of sufferingas Christ did, and for the same purpose (i.e. the creation and ultimate redemption ofthe world). Michael Cahill, in the similar vein disagrees with Dunn's contention thatthe sufferings described in Colossians 1 refer to those unavoidable sufferings that be-lievers face [Michael Cahill, "The Neglected Parallelism in Colossians 1:24-25,"Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 68, no. 1 (April 1992), 144-5]. To this authorthis does not rule out sufferings related to faithful obedience to the task of faithfulevangelization. If there is (as I believe) a link between suffering and evangelization,then a church engaged in evangelization will always be a suffering church. The un-spoken difficulty is analyzing the church(es) that regularly and characteristicallymanage to avoid (through varying methods and reasons) the reality of suffering, likePaul did, for the sake of the body or for "the other."

^̂ Sumney, Golossians, 101. See also Sumney's citation of David Seeley's argu-ment on page 669. Cf. David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrologyand Paul's Goncept of Salvation (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).


the mission of preaching the word of God. The suffering is necessary,not because of some preordained required quota, but because it is theunavoidable concomitant of the preaching of the word, as Paul himselfhad experienced, and of which he reminds us eloquently.^^

While Cahill wants to restrict the suffering-evangelization connection toapostolic figures like Paul, so that there is a difference between the suffer-ings of the apostle and the sufferings of the ordinary Christian believer,such an understanding is contradicted by the body of Christ imagery in thePauline literature and by the calling of the entire body of believers to thetask of evangelization. The church does not suffer because the apostles arepart of the body; the church suffers because, when faithful, it is engaged inthe same evangelical work as the original apostles. This reading is noticedby MacDonald when she argues that, "The [Gjospel is able to penetrate theworld only because Paul suffers (cf. 1:24; 4:3, 10, 18). This may well havespoken directly to the situation of believers who increasingly experienceddifficulties in their own interaction with the world."''' Where MacDonaldsuggests Paul's sufferings may have resonated with the Colossians, I believethe parallel is stronger, especially if this letter is written post-Paul and thechurch slowly finds itself moving out of the apostolic period. The conceptthat evangelization is the responsibility of a chosen number within thechurch (e.g. church leaders, missionaries) is to miss the thrust of the textand Paul's example. If we are dealing with a cosmic Christ and a universalredemption in Colossians, then the responsibility for evangelization (and itsaccompanying sufferings) cannot be placed upon only a relatively few mem-bers of the body of believers. Such sufferings will always be for the sake of"the other," whether that "other" is already a part of the body or still inneed of evangelizing. As Barth and Helmut Blanke comment, such sufferingis always connected to those for whose sake it is endured: "[A]postolic suf-fering is a social (emphasis mine) suffering."'^

A question to be considered at this point is whether the sufferings re-ferred to in Colossians 1:24 are restricted to Paul as representative of thosesent out by the church or those in positions of ministry responsibility. Assuggested above, the answer is an unqualified "No!" Just as Paul's suffer-ings are connected to his mission, so the church engaged in representingChrist and continuing the ministry described in the Gospel will inevitablyface sufferings. This is due not simply to the nature of ministry in a brokenworld, but by virtue of the church's identity as the body of Christ. F.F. Brucelong ago recognized how Colossians 1:24 could be understood in terms ofthe "oscillation between individual and corporate personality in Hebrewthought." Viewing Jesus as the faithful Israelite, and as the Servant of Yah-weh seen in Isaiah's servant songs, Bruce identifies the Servant as once

Michael Cahill, "The Neglected Parallelism in Colossians 1:24-25," 143.MacDonald, 91.Barth and Blanke, 253.


again existing in a corporate sense. He writes, "The servant's identity whichnarrowed in scope until concentrated in Christ alone has post-resurrectionbroadened out again and become corporate in his people (cf. Paul andBarnabas' use of Isa. 49:6 in Acts 13:47). The servant's mission of enlight-enment to the nations is carried out by the representatives of Christ."'* Thelinkage of suffering to the church's engagement in the mission inauguratedby Jesus is also made by Petr Pokorny, who sees "what is lacking" in termsof the appropriation of a complete salvation. He writes:

As far as the context is concerned, the specific mandate the church is tocarry out on behalf of Christ is clearly the mission in the full sense ofthe term. The eschatological goal which constitutes the boundary of"completing" is to "present [to God] every person mature in Christ,"that is, to bring about the appropriation of the redemption that has al-ready been accomplished, in order that those addressed may stand inthe last judgment. The completion of what is lacking in Christ's afflic-tions is essentially synonymous with making known the word of God(1:25). In other words, the apostle's struggle linked with suffering,which is to become the struggle of the church as a whole (emphasismine), means to lead people to the "knowledge of God's mystery ofChrist" (2:2)."

This corporate witness is not limited to an Old Testament context. Paul, orthe Paul of Colossians, was still a group-oriented person for whom the bor-derline narcissistic individualism of the modern West would have been for-eign. Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey speak to the group orientation ofthe first-century world, noting:

^' F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to tbe Colossians to Pbilemon and to tbe Epbesians(Tbe New International Commentary on tbe New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1984), 82-3.

^' Petr Pokorny, Colossians: A Commentary, trans. Siegfried S. Scbatzmann(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 99. A similar points is made by Jervis, wbo sees thesuffering of tbe cburcb as involving tbe cburcb's awareness tbat "we are essential totbe birtbing of tbe age of liberation," (Jervis, 104-5). William T. Cavanaugh sees tbissuffering witness (wbicb be terms martyrdom) to be constitutive of tbe cburcb's iden-tity, even if tbe witness emerges out of a concern for love or justice. For him, what ismost crucial is "whether or not tbose witb eyes to see are able to discern tbe body ofCbrist, crucified and glorified, in tbe body broken by tbe violence of tbe world . . .[M]artyrdom calls into being a people, tbe people of God, and makes tbeir lives visi-ble to tbemselves and to tbe world. They remember Cbrist and become Cbrist's mem-bers in tbe Eucbarist, reenacting tbe body of Cbrist, its passion and its conflict witbtbe forces of (dis)order. Tbe martyrs and all tbe faitbful followers of Cbrist make upin tbeir own bodies what is lacking in tbe suffering of Cbrist for tbe sake of bis body,tbe cburcb (Col. 1:24)," [William T. Cavanaugb, Torture and Eucharist: Theology,Politics, and tbe Body of Christ (Maiden: Blackwell 1998), 64-5].


First century Mediterranean persons were strongly group-embedded,collectivist persons. Since they were group-oriented, they were "so-cially" minded, as opposed to "psychologically" minded. They were at-tuned to the values, attitudes, and beliefs of their in-group, with whichthey shared a common fate due to generation and geography. Thanksto their in-group enculturation, they were used to assessing themselvesand others in terms of stereotypes often explained as deriving fromfamily "history" and the geographical location of their group.^*

MacDonald argues that this group orientation is a key for understandingColossians 1:24-2:7. The fact that group-oriented people saw themselves assubject to outside forces greater than themselves, and were dependent ongroup expectations, in MacDonald's view shapes their description of salva-tion and those who mediate salvation. She writes:

The way the relationship between Paul, Christ, and the church is de-scribed in 1:24 may seem strange and even doctrinally flawed to mod-ern readers, but it was a culturally appropriate means of describingPaul's ultimate dependence on Christ and God (cf. 1:29; cf. Phil. 4:13-9), and his embeddedness in the community, the church. Ancient Med-iterranean people viewed themselves as embedded in others such astheir teachers and patrons. Paul's description of himself . . . is rooted insuch a cultural understanding.^'

Accordingly, it is not inappropriate to see Paul's use of "body" language todescribe his relationship with the churches or their common life in bothministry and suffering. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the churchesshared a similar view, seeing in Paul's mission and suffering a call to thesame evangelical task and experience.

Yet, is such suffering required of the church? Is it possible that suffer-ing as a consequence of evangelizing ministry is only a possible conse-quence? If the examples of Christ and Paul coupled with the numerous NewTestament passages which speak of suffering for the sake of the Gospelmean anything, suffering is not avoidable. In fact, it can be described ascharacteristic of the faithful church, and, as this essay suggests, worthy ofconsideration as a fifth mark of the authentic church alongside those listedin the Constantinopolitan Creed. Yet in practice, suffering, at least in a sig-nificant portion of the modern world, doesn't seem to characterize thechurch's identity or life. As Hall comments.

'* Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology ofAncient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 16-7. Gited by Mac-Donald, 94-5.

" MacDonald, 94-5.

56 Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care

The church does not have to suffer, as if there was no other possibil-ity—indeed, the fact that the historic church has so regularly and char-acteristically managed to avoid suffering ought to set to rest any insis-tence that Christians always and necessarily suffer. However, wheneverthe church has made good its claim to Christ's discipleship, it has atleast known the call to suffer . . . called to suffer not because sufferingis good or beneficial or ultimately rewarding . . . , but beings are al-ready suffering, because "the whole creation groans." . . . [T]he suffer-ing of the church is not the goal but the consequence of faith.''"

Such a link between faithful discipleship and the call to suffering for thesake of Christ and a broken world may serve as a reminder that the evangel-ical mission Paul gave himself to, and which is part of the church's identity,is inextricably tied to the nature of the kingdom of God. This discipleship-suffering-kingdom should remind the contemporary churches of the Westthat the final expression of the eschaton has not arrived. The church is stillliving under the sign of the cross, acting out of a theology of the cross. In acreation in which much remains to be reconciled, a triumphal theology ofglory is still a thing of the future. A church that seeks to define itself interms of such a theology of glory is a church that seeks to escape its ownmission and its cruciform identity; in essence it is a church abandoning orrejecting its most basic identity. Like its surrounding culture, the NorthAmerican expression of the church is too often individualized and narcissis-tic, unlike the church depicted by William T. Cavanaugh. For him, a cruci-form church embodies the promise of the kingdom in the present, and ascruciform prevents the promise from becoming discredited or marginalized.Yet, as he writes, "It does so not by conquering bodies but by making a sac-rifice of its own body." In this sense the church is called to "make up whatis lacking in Christ's afflictions" (Col. 1:24). The church is the continuationof the presence of Christ in the world, hut the church is most properly thechurch when it exists as a gift and sustenance for others."'"

Hall underscores the necessity of the church as an "ecclesia crucis."Such an understanding would (and should) see suffering as a mark of thechurch. Yet he sees the modern error resting in the tendency to turn our un-derstanding of suffering inward, treating it as something subject. He rejectsthe popular view of "bearing the cross" in terms of the mundane difficultieswhich are a normal part of living. Hall goes on to stress that there is morein the New Testament about the suffering of the church than any other ec-clesiological theme (e.g. Mark 8:34; Rom. 5:1-5; 2 Cor. 4:5-11; 1 Pet.4:12-17). Yet, he correctly notes that, "It would be difficult on this conti-nent [North America] to find even one Christian congregation that couldimmediately identify with this statement [suffering as a mark of thechurch], except among African American congregations here and there, or

"ö Hall, 152.'" Cavanaugh, 232.

Spivey: Golossians 1:24 and the Suffering Ghurch 57

perhaps among small churches comprised of indigenous peoples, or perhapsin certain gay and lesbian communities—in short, among minorities, whomay for this reason be more truly Christ's church than the others."''-^

Yet why is this the case? Why, especially among the more conservative,evangelical expressions of the Christian faith, is there such reticence to con-sider a theology of the cross, beyond efforts to explain the significance(usually salvific in some form; cf. atonement theories that focus on the crossevent) of Christ's crucifixion? Hall notes Jürgen Moltmann's comment inThe Crucified God regarding this theology of the cross, saying "There is agood deal of support in the tradition for the theology of the cross, but itwas never much loved."'" Hall asks the necessary question:

Why was this theological tradition "never much loved"? [sic] . . . [F]ora triumphant religion such as Western Christianity has been (and still,for the most part, wishes to be), serious contemplation of such a tradi-tion would involve a transvaluation of values so radical that the pros-pect of actually embodying them is discouraged from the outset. [Asfor the U.S. and Canada] . . . conventional Christianity needs to expe-rience a greater failure than has yet befallen it before it is ready to dis-card the accumulated assumptions, beliefs, and practices of sixteencenturies of establishment and explore seriously such a radical alterna-tive as is signaled by this tradition.'*''

Hall points us to the neglected truth that, regardless of where one stands onthe socio-political-economic-cultural continuum, a theology of the crossthat requires an "ecclesia crucis" will always be a countercultural reality.Granting that theology, liturgy, and practice will always have a particular"local" flavor, we must still acknowledge that the cross and reign of Godcan never be identified with any human culture. These always carry whatHall termed a "transvaluation of values" that warns against baptizing ourcontexts, our beliefs, our truths as the Christian way closest to the purposesof the Creator-Redeemer God. Accordingly, suffering in the course of evan-gelization and faithful obedience will always mark the authentic ecclesia.''^

"2 Hall, 138-9.''̂ Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: the Gross of Ghrist as the Foundation

and Griticism of Ghristian Theology, trans. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (Min-neapolis: Fortress, 1974). Gited in Hall, 14-15.

"" Ibid.'•' In their commentary on Golossians, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia G. Keesmat ar-

gue that the church's identification as the body of Ghrist in a hostile world meansthat affliction will always be the church's experience. Giting Paul's own experiencesas a member of the body engaged in spreading the story of Jesus, Walsh and Keesmatlink Paul's sufferings to oppression from an empire (and by extension the culturesand systems of the world) threatened by this story. This "sufferings as oppressions"understanding applies whether one speaks of states such as Egypt and Babylon op-pressing Israel, or the rich oppressing the poor (as cited by prophets such as Amos

58 Journal of Spiritual Formation 6c Soul Care

Hall, as well as Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmat confront the con-temporary church with the claim that the "earliest and most prominentmanner of discerning the true church and distinguishing it from false claimsto Christian identity was to observe the nature and extent of the sufferingexperienced by a community of faith."''* Such an approach lifts theory anddoctrine out of the realm of speculation, so that a Christian ecclesia thatpreaches the cross without also being an ecclesia crucis is contradicting itsfundamental identity, and well deserves the accusation of hypocrisy.

The claim that Christian community is, of necessity and nature, a suf-fering community is not restricted to localized, individual communities, asif the community suffers in isolation or independently. While the church isexpressed in diverse forms throughout the world, it remains, in the creedalunderstanding, "one church." The belief that this unity consists in institu-tional or organizational terms has been de facto discredited. Such a state-ment is not intended to dismiss or discredit past or current ecumenical ef-forts, but to acknowledge that the foundational unity of the church must befound in other ways. Paul's "body" imagery, whether in letters consideredPauline or deuteron-Pauline, becomes a likely starting point. When Paul re-sponds to the Corinthian divisions and misunderstandings about spiritualgifts, he utilizes the image of church as the body of Christ as a correctiveimage. Even as he writes of the body's unity and diversity, he writes not ofinstitutional organizations but in terms of a common life and functions. Di-versity is linked to the different tasks of the church, both inside and outsidethe community. Gifts are given in order for the community to fulfill itsrole(s). As Paul writes of the special need to take care of the "less presenta-ble" parts of the body (Col. 12:22-24), the language is in terms of mutualcare and support. When we add to this Paul's call for mutual ministry inGalatians 6, it is not difficult to understand the unity of the church as aunity defined in terms of mutual care, mutual support, and the apostolicmission to the world. It is not unreasonable to see mutual suffering as partof this unity (Col. 12:25-26). Such suffering, regardless of its cause, ex-presses both the community's internal unity as well as its unity with its cru-cified Head, who continues to suffer until the mission of evangelization andreconciliation is complete. Body imagery then can be seen as both sufferingimagery and mission imagery. As Walsh and Keesmat remind the reader:

For Paul the church is one body. It may have various local manifesta-tions—in Colossae, Laodicea, Cape Town, Auckland, Santiago, BelizeCity, Caledonia—but the church is not plural, it is one. Now thischurch participates in its Savior's redemption of the world by sharing

and Micah, and repeated in the corporate economic failures of the early twenty-firstcentury), and is unavoidably the church's experience as well, [Brian J. Walsh andSylvia C. Keesmat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers Grove: In-terVarsity, 2004) 228-9].

''' Hall, 140.

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and tbe Suffering Cburcb 59

in his sufferings, through radical identification with the "body" of acrucified Lord. As Christ did battle with the "principalities and pow-ers" at the cross, so also the church continues to bear the fury of thosepowers in anticipation of their final subjugation to Christ at his return.Paul's claim to joy in the midst of this suffering has the effect of placingthe Colossian Christians in a long storyline that stretches from the suf-fering of God in the Old Testament through the suffering of the Mes-siah to the suffering of the Christian community in the present.'"

If we are to understand the unity of the church in these terms—all sufferingwhen one suffers, bearing one another's burdens (which in turn fulfills thelaw of Christ)—then this unity should also be seen as transcending the arti-ficial boundaries which demonstrate that the body of Christ is still divided,still far from fulfilling its task of incarnating the crucified Christ and pro-claiming his redemptive story.

Such an understanding of the church's unity as a fellowship of suffer-ing, both with Christ and fellow believers (cf. Phil. 3:10) also provides in-sights into the relationship between suffering and the other classic marks ofthe church. The sense of the church's holiness should be understood foun-dationally in the original sense of being "set apart." This is not to deny themoral-ethical component attached to the word, but to understand sufferingand holiness as linked to the evangelical mission of bearing witness. WhenPaul refers to holiness in the letters, it appears that this idea of believers be-ing set apart into a unique relationship and purpose is at the root of Paul'sthinking. This gives the claim of a "holy church" a functional definition.Just as Paul and Barnabas were set apart for a particular assignment, so thechurch has been set apart within the world (indeed, even the cosmos itself)as heralds of the good news and as an expression of the nature of Christand what the Gospel refer to as the "kingdom of God." It is not withoutsignificance that when this assignment is mentioned in the Gospel and Acts,suffering is usually included as an expected element that will be faced in thecourse of completing the assignment (e.g. the language of bearing the cross,as well as texts such as Matt.l0:17-20; 24:9-14; John 15:18-21; Acts9:15-6; 14:21-2). In the spirit of Soren Kierkegaard's definition of purity ofheart, even the understanding of holiness in terms of purity may be includedin this sense of the church set apart for the sake of its mission to the as yetunreconciled world.

Suffering for the sake of the mission and the body of Christ is also apart of the church's description as "catholic" (or universal in some transla-tions of the creed). A connection is made here between the local congrega-tion and the church at large in the world, as noted by Walsh and Keesmat.''*For the church to be one united, catholic body, the organic and functionalconnections within the body must be recognized. While the expressions of

Walsh and Keesmat, 229.Ibid.


the church's task may differ from locality to locality, suffering in one local-ity means that the entire church is suffering. This is illustrated in part byPaul's words to the Colossians about suffering on their behalf, even thoughPaul had had no part in their founding nor had visited them in Colossae. Itis representative of the contemporary church's failure to recognize this uni-versal unity that ignorance of suffering in one portion of the body by the re-mainder of the body is more often the rule than the exception. Such igno-rance extends not only to the fact of suffering (save in very vague terms) butalso to the mutual impact that the suffering has on the rest of the body. Thechurch in North America has the additional responsibility of consideringwhether its actions (or inaction) contribute to causing or alleviating the suf-fering of fellow believers engaged in mission and ministry, and, by exten-sion those unreconciled individuals, communities, and cultures the suffer-ing church is seeking to reconcile.

The possibility of the church's actions exacerbating the suffering ofthose both inside and outside the church, whether from ignorance or a re-luctance (or even refusal) to incarnate a cruciform life and mentality, iscompounded in instances where the church appears not to suffer at all. It isnot difficult to apply John's description of the Laodiceans as believers whodid not recognize their true condition to churches not experiencing suffer-ing. This is not to encourage individual believers or Christian communitiesto seek opportunities to suffer out of a masochistic sense of "oughtness." Itis to ask, in the language of the Sermon on the Mount, if the saltiness orlight of the community has devolved to the point where the community isno longer engaged in its divine assignments or is indistinguishable from itslarger environment. Has the church, particularly in its expression in theUnited States, been so successful in avoiding pain, so successful in securingcultural power and respectability, that it is no longer demonstrating thecatholicity in suffering essential to its identity?

Finally, the idea of suffering as a fifth mark of the church also appliesto the fourth classic mark—apostolicity. This fourth mark is, I believe bestunderstood in these terms:

1. The church's message and self-understanding is derived from thepreaching and teaching of the leaders of the church's first generationof leaders.

2. Along with the example of Christ, the experiences and priorities ofthat first generation inform the contemporary church's prioritiesand serve to interpret its experiences and relationships.

3. In the original sense of apostello, the church is always being "sentforth" into the world in the name of its Head and for the sake ofboth the world and the Gospels.

If we define apostolicity in such terms, then the mission to the world out-side the church and the discipling of those entering the body become para-mount. The church comes to realize, in Emil Brunner's apt phrase, that the


church exists by mission as a fire exists by burning.'" If we allow the expe-riences of the first generation to interpret our calling and experiences, thenthe reality of suffering for the sake of Christ, the body and the world cannotbe avoided. It is such suffering that marks the church as Christ's church, ascruciform people being conformed to Christ's image. This in turn brings thechurch back to Colossians 1:24. Like Paul, the church itself suffers for thesake of Christ and the body, and continues to do so until the mission tothe cosmos is completed, or in Paul's words to the Corinthians, until God is"all in all."^''

The implications of Paul's understanding of suffering in relation to thechurch's mission for the work of spiritual formation may be obvious tosome. Yet some final, summarizing words of application may be in order.Both in terms of individual and corporate formation, Paul re-emphasizeshere that the life of the disciple is not simply social or privatistic, hut voca-tional. An underlying question for efforts toward spiritual formation is thatof purpose and rationale: Why does the individual or church cooperatewith the Spirit in the sanctifying work of heing conformed to the image andlikeness of Christ? In other words, why concern ourselves with the forma-tion of healthy souls? On one level, the rationale sees formation as an act ofobedience for the glory of God. Yet on another, the rationale is missional:the advance of the kingdom of God into the lives and structures of human-ity. Paul's words thus serve as a corrective for individualistic or egocentricapproaches to formation and soul care. He reminds us that for a disciple orcongregation to be inwardly focused is to forget or abandon both our trueidentity and calling in the world.

Further, this text corrects an easy triumphalism, which too often infectscontemporary American churches. The missional task, the reason for thechurch's presence in the world as salt and light, is not yet complete. Instead,this is a task, which must he resumed, even accelerated. This does not meanexporting American versions of the faith, which often confuses Americanvalues and cultures with those exemplified by Paul as he followed Christ.Instead, the authentic church incarnates the reality of the kingdom, whichis not only unlike any earthly structure, but also reveals the actual condi-tion of a fallen creation and the sole solvent of the Gospel. Colossiansmakes explicit the cruciform nature of both the task and the spiritual for-mation, which occurs both before and during the missional work. Thistask, assigned both to individual believers and to the church, will inevitablyinvolve suffering. This reality of missional suffering is not unique to Paul'sthought, but may be found in the Gospel and Catholic letters as well. Suchsuffering may or may not include persecution, but does include the dailystruggle in which believers are fellow-laborers with God. The lesson in for-mation, which is to be learned and re-learned, is that glory remains a future

"' Emil Brunner, The Word and the World (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,1931), 108

^° 1 Corinthians 15:28


experience. The present mission is carried out in the light (and under theshadows) of the cross. For believers, churches, and other agencies con-cerned with spiritual formation, to recognize the value of classic disciplines(e.g. prayer, fasting, study, service, confession, and worship) for forminghealthy souls, without also acknowledging the role of suffering in both for-mation and the church's vocation, is to engage in mission ill-equipped andhalf-prepared. It is to deny who and what Christ's church has been re-deemed to be and to do.

Author: Steven W. Spivey. Title: Adjunct Instructor. Affiliation: Wayland Bap-tist University (San Antonio, TX). Highest Degree: Ph.D., Baylor University. Areasof interest/specialization: New Testament, systematics, and historical theology.

Copyright of Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care is the property of BIOLA University and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Colossians 1.24 and the Suffering Church - Spivey.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Colossians 1.24 and the Suffering Church - Spivey.pdf