Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care

2011, Vol. 4, No. 1, 43-62

Copyright 2011 by Institute of Spiritual Formation


Biola University, 1939-7909

COLOSSIANS 1:24

AND THE

SUFFERING CHURCH
STEVEN W. SPIVEY

Wayland Baptist University (San Antonio, TX)

Ahstract: The essay begins with an analysis of the major interpretations of Paul's
claim to "complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. " The author argues that, in
the context of Colossians, these afflictions are related to sufferings endured in the
course of completing the apostolic mission. These sufferings, as well as the mission,
are corporate in nature, applying to the church at large. Given tendencies within
American churches to confuse culture with the counter-cultural nature ofthe reign of
God, as well as the effort to ignore or deny its cruciform identity and essence, Paul's
words provide a necessary corrective. Mission and suffering are inherent elements
whenever the church functions as the church. When considered in light ofthe historical marks of the church as "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic," suffering is so enmeshed 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 the
Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. An examination of Colossians l:24ff
suggests the consideration of a possible fifth mark of the authentic Christian church: suffering. This consideration is due in part to exegeting the
meaning of the author's claim that he is "completing what is lacking in
Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, the church."^
This essay intends to trace the interpretation of this passage by representative contemporary scholars and then to suggest how a proper understanding of the text, coupled with other Pauline passages, provides support
for the idea of a fifth mark of the church. The essay will conclude by briefly
exploring how this fifth mark might relate to the traditional four.'
' John H. Leith, Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from
the Bible to the Present, rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1973), 33.
^ Colossians 1:24b. All Scripture is taken from the NRSV unless otherwise
noted.
^ It is not the intent or purpose of this essay to retrace the various arguments for
or against Pauline authorship of Colossians. The focus instead, is ecclesiological in
nature. 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 interpretations


are most commonly made of Colossians 1:24, "I am now rejoicing in my
sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in
Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." These are
that:
1. The sufferings that Paul endures for the sake of the church and to
complete what "is lacking in Christ's afflictions" are intended to
complete the redemption made possible through the death of Christ.
This view argues that the death of Christ was in some way deficient
in providing salvation for humanity.
2. Paul's sufferings are to be understood in the context of a "mystical
union" between Paul and Christ. Such a union also characterizes the
relationship between Paul and the churches, as well as the relationship between Christ and the churches/individual believer.
3. The sufferings, which complete the afflictions of Christ, are understood in light of the "messianic woes" which were expected to accompany the last days. In this view, Paul's sufferings are sometimes
seen as vicarious (but not redemptive), lessening the measure of suffering ro be endured by the churches.
4. The sufferings spoken of in Colossians 1:24 refer to the suffering
Paul endures in the course of completing the apostolic mission. For
the sake of the Colossians these sufferings are intended to edify and
challenge the church to faithfulness in its context. Examples of the
sufferings 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 essay that these mission/ministry related sufferings are not limited to
the apostles or their modern counterparts, but are a normal experience for the church following its Lord and engaging in a countercultural proclamation of salvation and the reign of God.
Taking these interpretations in sequence, it should be noted that interpretations that argue that the sufferings of Christ are in some way deficient have
largely been abandoned.* To interpret Colossians 1:24 in such a way flies in
the face of the chapter's primary argument for the total sufficiency of
Christ's redeeming death (cf. Col. 1:20-23; 2:9-15).
The second significant interpretation of this text is to see Paul writing
in the context of a mystical union of some fashion. Commentators have
'' As Ralph P. Martin as pointed out, this view is usually associated with
Windisch's 1934 work Paul und Christus [Ralph P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon
(New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1973), 69-70]. Yet as
Peter T. O'Brien notes, as early as the work of Staab and Schweizer, the point was
made that the language of "Christ's afflictions" is not used in the New Testament
anywhere else in the sense of Christ's redemptive actions [Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians-Pbilemon (Word Biblical Commentary 44; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1982)].
Jerry L. Sumney has a similar understanding in Colossians: A Commentary (New
Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008).

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church


seen this union as existing between Christ and Paul, while others draw the
connection between Christ and the believers who comprise the church. This
latter connection will have similarities to the fourth interpretation, that of
reading Paul's sufferings in the context of ministry and mission. The concept of a union between Paul and Christ is sometimes understood in the
context of the "in Christ" language seen in the authentically Pauline letters.
In reference to Paul's sufferings, Philippians 3:10 is commonly cited as describing 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 ministry
than a private, personalized spirituality.
Under this heading, one may ask if there is any unique purpose to suffering as Christians. As Douglas John Hall has noted, "To be human is to
suffer. Some of our suffering is integral to our creaturehood; without it we
could not become fully human."^ So in what sense do Paul's sufferings become Christian} What connection is there with Christ, Christ's sufferings,
or the church described as the "body of Christ?" Two suggestions have
been offered: the first interprets Christian suffering as participating in
Christ's suffering as an instrument whereby believers are conformed to the
likeness of Christ. The other suggestion focuses on Christ suffering in and
through the church.
In his interpretation of Colossians, John Calvin argues that the providence of God requires that the conforming of believers to Christ extend to
our 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 become personalized for Paul. He writes:
The death and life to be experienced are Christ's. The tensions, sufferings, death, and life to be experienced Paul sees as the outworking of
Christ's death and risen life. Paul gives a clear hint of this in Romans
6:5. Paul's use there of the perfect tense indicates a past event establishing a state that continues in the present. The believer is and continues to
be 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 of
believers as already off the cross enjoying the risen life. "I am crucified
with Christ;" that is, I have been nailed to the cross with Christ, and am
in 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 of
the 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 Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, ed. and trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 164.
' James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 484.

45

46

Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care

W.F. Flemington, sees the "lack" referred to in Colossians 1:24 as a lack in


Paul. The apostle's suffering involved a believer's dying daily to sin to the
point of becoming obedient unto death. This suffering also involves that
which 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 is
suffering with or in Paul, what significance is there for the church?' As will
be discussed later, the significance rests with the purposes of the church in
the world. Paul suffers, and in a sense Christ suffers through Paul in and for
the body of Christ. To suggest that there is a disconnect between a suffering
Christ, a suffering apostle, and a suffering church is to suggest that the
body of Christ imagery and the classic descriptive characteristics of the
church have become meaningless. Yet this connection should not be understood in a classic mystical sense. Paul writes of completing that which is
lacking in the afflictions of Christ. If the classic "mystical union" was in
mind, then how would the sufferings of Paul bring Christ's afflictions to
completion? As Jerry L. Sumney has argued, if one is united with Christ in
this manner, whatever is lacking in Christ's suffering is also missing in the

* Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians (Padeia Commentaries on the


New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 201. He cites: W.E Flemington, "On the Interpretation of Colossians 1:24," in Suffering and Martyrdom in the
New Testament, ed. William Horbury and Brian McNeil (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1981), 84-90.
' L. Ann Jervis offers an adjustment, if not a corrective to the view that Christ's
sufferings had in some way heen inadequate. Responding to A.J.M. Wedderhurn's
view that Colossians 1:24 refers to the sufferings which Christians face by living in a
hostile world, Jervis suggests that he has not considered the possibility that the "ongoing sufferings of Christ through Christ's body, the church, may have a redemptive
significance" [L. Ann Jervis, At the Heart of the Gospel: Suffering in the Earliest
Christian Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 105]. One may ask in what
sense "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 actualized through the life and work of the faithful church? Does the church become, in
effect, the instrument of redemption through its suffering whereby it is identified
with Christ and conformed to his likeness? If this is the case, does faithfulness or
conformity to the likeness of Christ require a suffering church in order to be the redemptive instrument intended? This seems to harmonize with the view of Hall, who
sees suffering as an integral part of spiritual formation. As Hall notes, "One dimension of the suffering of the church, therefore, is its appropriation and internalization
of the pain involved in being identified with the crucified onewhat the reformers
called its 'continuing baptism' into his death. But this side of the suffering of the
church can be badly distorted if it becomes interesting in itself . . . it has too often
been 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 the
part of Christians and churches is their being made newly conscious of the suffering
that lies outside their own persons and communities . . . [W]e never hear of a Jesus
preoccupied with his own pain," (Hall, 154). This lends itself to the idea that suffering, 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 accomplish


what is missing. As Sumney expresses it, "[I]t seems that what is lacking
could not be filled up until the parousia."'" Given that most of Colossians'
use of identification language for the Christ-church relationship occurs in
Colossians 2-3, Sumney suggests that the language of intimacy is a more
accurate descriptive term than "mystical union.""
The third common interpretation of Colossians 1:24 links that which is
lacking in Christ's afflictions to the apocalyptic concept of the "messianic
woes." This is perhaps the majority view, drawing on concepts from apocalyptic and apocryphal literature.'^ The concept of "messianic woes" is based
in the view of history as divided into two ages, the present evil age and the
age to come. The transition from one age to the other was thought to be a
time for great suffering among the people of God, either accompanying or
anticipating the appearance of the Messiah.'^ Ben Witherington III likens
this idea of necessary suffering before the messianic age to the parallel idea
that a predetermined amount of God's wrath is being stored up for a coming
time 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's
Vicarious Suffering in Golossians," Gatholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (October 2006):
667.
" Ibid. 668. Margaret Y. MacDonald has noted that the closeness of the relationship between Ghrist and community lends itself to speak of Ghrist continuing to
suffer as Paul and the church suffers (although issues of time and the nature of the
suffering 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 body
is also identified with the universe, Golossians 1:24 points the reader to the connections between "believers, community, cosmos, and Ghrist," [Margaret Y. MacDonald, Golossians and Ephesians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Sacra Pagina 17; Gollegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2000), 79]. This would seem to support the thesis that
Paul's sufferings as "filling up that which is lacking" should be understood in terms
of 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 Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986), 87-8.
''' Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Gommentary on the Gaptivity Epistles (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), 144-5. This view of some form of "messianic woes" best explaining Golossians 1:24 is also held by Ernest Best, One Body in Ghrist: A Study in the
Relationship 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 and
Philemon: A Gommentary on the Epistles to the Golossians and to Philemon
(Hermeneia Gommentary Series; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1971), 70-2. O'Brien
cites all these on page 78 of his commentary Golossians and Philemon in the WBG series. Peter H. Davids also sees these sufferings borne by the church as mistreatments
Ghrist suffers in his church as a determined but finite amount to be endured before
the consummation of the kingdom [Peter H. Davids, "Golossians, Philemon" in Ephesians, Philippians, Golossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, Philemon, ed. Philip W. Gomfort
(Gornerstone Biblical Gommentary 16; Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008), 264].

48

Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care

Pauline eschatology, which in turn is linked to Paul's view of ministry. He


sees this eschatology as including the idea that Christ's (emphasis mine) sufferings were the eschatological tribulation expected as the forerunner of the
messianic age. Further, that participation in Christ's death was a means for
transitioning between the old age and the new." Such a view seems to present the present (or at least Paul's present) as still being the transitional period between old arid new ages.'* Somewhat paradoxically this suffering
continues even though resurrection is already past. Dunn argues that the letter's reference to "the Christ" allows Paul to use the Jewish image of messianic woes. As used in Colossians, the messianic woes include the suffering
of Paul as a significant element of God's reconciling processes. For Paul personally, such suffering becomes a reminder that the older age, marked by
corruption and mortality, is ending, while the new age of fuller participation
in the power of Christ's resurrection has arrived. According to this view, that
which is "lacking" in the afflictions of Christ can be seen both as something
lacking in Paul (Christ suffering in and through Paul), since Paul has not yet
been 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 possible by Christ's sufferings and death. Paul knows that universal reconciliation
has not yet occurred, so the "decisive sufferings of the Christ are not yet
completed either."''' So seen, the sufferings endured by the apostle do have a
somewhat redemptive element, although not in the salvific sense of the
death/resurrection of Christ. They take on a revelatory component, as do the
sufferings of the church. As Dunn says, the suffering and death of Christ
demonstrates how the creation is structured and reclaimed (cf. 1:15-20). It
is only by identifying with Christ in the way of suffering that Paul and other
servants of the church assist the church to be the body of Christ that reflects
the creation as God intended it to be.'* This author's argument is that this
revelatory suffering occurs not only in the lives of leaders such as Paul, but is
a characteristic element in the life of any (and all) believers. The body of
Christ 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 of
Christ in terms of the apocalyptic messianic woes, the view is not without
difficulties, 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 inaugurated the new age, but the old would continue alongside it until Jesus' second coming. The whole time between resurrection and return was the period of the turning of
eras and so could be characterized by the messianic woes. Such suffering is regarded
as evidence that the sufferers really are God's people." (Wright, 88).
" James D.G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (NIGCT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 115-6. See
also 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


of the church in Colossae. First, as Moule, O'Brien, and Lohse argue, the
Colossian church was primarily a church of Gentile converts.^" Can one assume that the Colossian converts would be so familiar with Jewish apocalypticism that Paul's references to his sufferings would immediately take
their minds to the "messianic woes?" Such might be the case in the churches
composed of both Jew and Gentile converts, but not necessarily in Colossae. This is not to say that Colossae was devoid of Jews, for as J.L. Houlden
points out, a Jewish presence might contribute to the syncretistic tendencies
attacked in Colossians 2.^'
In addition, it is appropriate to ask if the same fascination with the
parousia seen in Thessalonica was present in Colossae at the relatively late
date of the letter's writing. Where is the evidence for any kind of eschatological fervor? It seems that seeing the sufferings of Paul and afflictions of
Christ in terms of messianic woes is, as Sumney suggests, to read into the
text something more than the text can support. Sumney acknowledges that
the references to Paul's sufferings is intended to express the writer's feelings
for the Colossians, but argues, "Interpreters must import into the passage
indeed into the letter as a wholethoughts about the nearness of the parousia [sic]. This letter's use of spatial rather than temporal imagery to speak of
eschatological matters renders the messianic-woes interpretation
unlikely."^-^ Markus Barth adds his voice to this view, arguing, contrary to
Dunn, that the messianic woes interpretation is problematic: "[A] certain
difficulty with this interpretation lies in the fact that in the original concept
we are dealing with suffering before the coming of the Messiah, whereas in
the New Testament application the concern is with suffering after his arrival."-^^ Barth does allow for the possibility that, following Romans
ll:25ff, the parousia might signify a messianic coming for Israel. Yet to apply this to Colossians seems to overlook first the life setting for the letter
and the various ways the name Israel is used in the New Testament. In addition, both Barth and Talbert appear to have difficulty with the concept of a
predetermined amount of sufferings that must be endured before the end.
Barth in particular struggles against the presupposition of God predetermining both events and their sequence. He acknowledges the view that
a measure of suffering occurs before the parousia. "But," he writes, "nowhere 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 substituting 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 Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 34b; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 293.
" Ibid.

49

50

Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Gare

suffering in the course of completing his apostolic ministry, but the idea
that Paul endures sufferings so that the Colossians will not have to endure
them is absent. To this we can add Talbert's insights opposing the messianic
woes 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 is
no evidence that Christ's sufferings were intended to complete the
number of sufferings required before the end could come. Nor is there
any hint in Colossians that "Paul" believed the world to have entered
into the period of eschatological suffering. Nowhere does one find the
idea that the measure of suffering predetermined for the church before
the end can be realized through the substitutionary suffering of a particular individual. Finally, the thought of taking on a quota of suffering
to hasten the inauguration of the new age does not fit well in a letter
that contains no mention of an imminent
To Talbert's argument should be added the different terminology used for
the sufferings of Paul and the afflictions of Christ. The language used is not
parallel, but refers to different experiences. As Margaret Y. MacDonald
points out, the term used for Paul's sufferings is thlipsis, which is never used
for Christ's sufferings. She notes that this language is frequently applied to
the hardships of those who proclaim the Gospel, which leads some to believe 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 was
lacking 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 and
Witherington 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 contention
that the use of the double prefix may simply reflect a Hellenistic tendency to prefer
composites, without necessarily changing the meaning. Sumney notes that it is not
until the ninth-century work of Photius of Gonstantinople that an augmented understanding of the word is suggested. Yet even if the augmented reading is correct, there
is still a way of understanding that does not require one to follow Wright and Witherington. Sumney offers this parallel: "While Jesus was present with the disciples, his
sufferings 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 the
sufferings of others were needed to 'replace' that immediate example that Ghrist's
sufferings had provided to those original followers," (Sumney, "I Fill Up What is
Lacking," 676-7).

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church


that is deemed a necessary step in the completion of what is required for the
growth of the church and the completion of Paul's mission.""
The views of Talbert and MacDonald introduce the position that the
sufferings of Paul presented in Colossians 1:24 should be understood as an
inherent part of Christian witness and ministry. There is no need to resort to
mystical union or messianic woe approaches. Paul's sufferings should always
be 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 linkage
can be understood. The first would be to see the sufferings of Paul as a didactic example. With 2 Corinthians 11 in the background, Talbert argues that
Paul is not presenting himself as a model for the reader to follow, primarily
because the Colossians do not appear to be in danger of persecution.^^ Yet
Talbert cites Dio Chrysostom, as well as Paul, as Christian leaders who saw
their struggles and afflictions as beneficial for their "audiences."^* It seems
that Paul's sufferings can be considered didactic in the sense that they provide the Colossians with an example of obedience to the Gospel, or to use
Michael Gorman's imagery, what it means to live a cruciform life and be a
cruciform people.-^' The knowledge of Paul's sufferings, coupled with the
awareness that the apostle endured such things "for the sake of the [b]ody of
Christ" is intended to call the Colossian believers to a similar faithful obedience. Such sufferings also have the effect of strengthening the readers against
temptations to shrink away from faithful obedience, whether the temptation
is related to the reactions of the world toward believers or the demands of
Christian witness or even ordinary discipleship.^" It is most likely true that
Paul'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 the
Pauline letters to designate afflictions in which all believers participate by virtue of
their relationship to Christ. Andrew Lincoln and A.J.M. Wedderburn also note that
this is the view of Eduard Schweizer, Wedderburn arguing that the sufferings of
Christ doesn't refer to Christ's passion, but to the sufferings of those who represent
him in a hostile world. These representatives are not only the apostles, but also those
who comprise the body of Christ and both speak and suffer in his name. The afflictions suffered hy Paul and the Colossians are considered Christ's simply because the
church is Christ's body. He writes, "So Christ must go on suffering as his people suffer, and so sufferings remain for him and were not finished with his crucifixion. But
the apostle endures his sufferings for the church's sake, for as 1:25 asserts, the apostle's divinely ordained role is to serve the church, and that service involves suffering
in 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 Theology
Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 38-9].
" Talhert, 202.
28 Talbert, 198-9.
2' Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) passim.
3" Sumney, "I Fill Up What is Lacking," 678.

51

52

Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care

world, but are those unique to Christian experiences of discipleship and


evangelization." Sumney calls attention to this in his treatment of the
Greco-Roman concept of the "noble death."^^ If Sumney is correct, Paul's
sufferings are didactic not simply in terms of illustrating faithful obedience,
but also in terms of demonstrating the value of the message. Such an understanding would be important in light of the syncretistic teachings referred to
in Colossians 2. A similar "demonstration" is also visible in Galatians and
2 Corinthians, making an image of Paul as the exemplar of faithful suffering
an easy one to create.
Yet the didactic element of Paul's sufferings is not the only component
to be considered. Such sufferings are inherent in the apostle's efforts to execute his missionary commission. Paul does not suffer for suffering's sake. In
Michael Cahill's words:
Sufferings accompany the task of evangelization. Paul is described as a
servant of the [G]ospel (v. 23) and as a servant of Christ's body/the
church (vv. 24-25). As a servant he fills up the word of God; as a servant he fills up the sufferings. The word of God needs to be filled up or
brought to completion or term; this entails the inevitable, and therefore
the necessary or required, amount of toil and sufferings on the part of
preachers such as Paul. As there is yet more preaching of the word to
be done, so there is yet more suffering, i.e. what is lacking, to be undergone. There is a correspondence or parallel between the sufferings and
the preaching . . . As Christ suffered in his mission, so the apostles will
suffer in their turn, and as they are members of the church, his body, so
they suffer as parts of Christ, and Christ suffers in them. In them, members of Christ, the body of Christ suffers what is necessary to complete

^' Marianne Meye Thompson, Golossians and Philemon (The Two Horizons
New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 45-6. She argues
that the sufferings/afflictions here are not those common to all people, but are specific to those Paul faces in the course of bearing witness to Ghrist and the Gospel. He
fills up the full measure of afflictions by participating in the same reality of suffering
as Christ did, and for the same purpose (i.e. the creation and ultimate redemption of
the world). Michael Cahill, in the similar vein disagrees with Dunn's contention that
the sufferings described in Colossians 1 refer to those unavoidable sufferings that believers face [Michael Cahill, "The Neglected Parallelism in Colossians 1:24-25,"
Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 68, no. 1 (April 1992), 144-5]. To this author
this does not rule out sufferings related to faithful obedience to the task of faithful
evangelization. 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 unspoken difficulty is analyzing the church(es) that regularly and characteristically
manage to avoid (through varying methods and reasons) the reality of suffering, like
Paul did, for the sake of the body or for "the other."
^^ Sumney, Golossians, 101. See also Sumney's citation of David Seeley's argument on page 669. Cf. David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology
and Paul's Goncept of Salvation (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church


the mission of preaching the word of God. The suffering is necessary,
not because of some preordained required quota, but because it is the
unavoidable concomitant of the preaching of the word, as Paul himself
had experienced, and of which he reminds us eloquently.^^
While Cahill wants to restrict the suffering-evangelization connection to
apostolic figures like Paul, so that there is a difference between the sufferings of the apostle and the sufferings of the ordinary Christian believer,
such an understanding is contradicted by the body of Christ imagery in the
Pauline literature and by the calling of the entire body of believers to the
task of evangelization. The church does not suffer because the apostles are
part of the body; the church suffers because, when faithful, it is engaged in
the same evangelical work as the original apostles. This reading is noticed
by MacDonald when she argues that, "The [Gjospel is able to penetrate the
world only because Paul suffers (cf. 1:24; 4:3, 10, 18). This may well have
spoken directly to the situation of believers who increasingly experienced
difficulties in their own interaction with the world."''' Where MacDonald
suggests Paul's sufferings may have resonated with the Colossians, I believe
the parallel is stronger, especially if this letter is written post-Paul and the
church slowly finds itself moving out of the apostolic period. The concept
that evangelization is the responsibility of a chosen number within the
church (e.g. church leaders, missionaries) is to miss the thrust of the text
and Paul's example. If we are dealing with a cosmic Christ and a universal
redemption in Colossians, then the responsibility for evangelization (and its
accompanying sufferings) cannot be placed upon only a relatively few members 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 in
need of evangelizing. As Barth and Helmut Blanke comment, such suffering
is always connected to those for whose sake it is endured: "[A]postolic suffering is a social (emphasis mine) suffering."'^
A question to be considered at this point is whether the sufferings referred to in Colossians 1:24 are restricted to Paul as representative of those
sent out by the church or those in positions of ministry responsibility. As
suggested above, the answer is an unqualified "No!" Just as Paul's sufferings are connected to his mission, so the church engaged in representing
Christ and continuing the ministry described in the Gospel will inevitably
face sufferings. This is due not simply to the nature of ministry in a broken
world, but by virtue of the church's identity as the body of Christ. F.F. Bruce
long ago recognized how Colossians 1:24 could be understood in terms of
the "oscillation between individual and corporate personality in Hebrew
thought." Viewing Jesus as the faithful Israelite, and as the Servant of Yahweh 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.

53

54

Journal of Spiritual Formation &c Soul Care

again existing in a corporate sense. He writes, "The servant's identity which


narrowed in scope until concentrated in Christ alone has post-resurrection
broadened out again and become corporate in his people (cf. Paul and
Barnabas' use of Isa. 49:6 in Acts 13:47). The servant's mission of enlightenment to the nations is carried out by the representatives of Christ."'* The
linkage of suffering to the church's engagement in the mission inaugurated
by Jesus is also made by Petr Pokorny, who sees "what is lacking" in terms
of the appropriation of a complete salvation. He writes:
As far as the context is concerned, the specific mandate the church is to
carry out on behalf of Christ is clearly the mission in the full sense of
the 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 already been accomplished, in order that those addressed may stand in
the last judgment. The completion of what is lacking in Christ's afflictions 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 (emphasis
mine), means to lead people to the "knowledge of God's mystery of
Christ" (2:2)."
This corporate witness is not limited to an Old Testament context. Paul, or
the Paul of Colossians, was still a group-oriented person for whom the borderline narcissistic individualism of the modern West would have been foreign. Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey speak to the group orientation of
the 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: Eerdmans, 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 the
suffering of tbe cburcb as involving tbe cburcb's awareness tbat "we are essential to
tbe birtbing of tbe age of liberation," (Jervis, 104-5). William T. Cavanaugh sees tbis
suffering witness (wbicb be terms martyrdom) to be constitutive of tbe cburcb's identity, even if tbe witness emerges out of a concern for love or justice. For him, what is
most crucial is "whether or not tbose witb eyes to see are able to discern tbe body of
Cbrist, 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 visible to tbemselves and to tbe world. They remember Cbrist and become Cbrist's members in tbe Eucbarist, reenacting tbe body of Cbrist, its passion and its conflict witb
tbe forces of (dis)order. Tbe martyrs and all tbe faitbful followers of Cbrist make up
in 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].

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church

55

First century Mediterranean persons were strongly group-embedded,


collectivist persons. Since they were group-oriented, they were "socially" minded, as opposed to "psychologically" minded. They were attuned to the values, attitudes, and beliefs of their in-group, with which
they shared a common fate due to generation and geography. Thanks
to their in-group enculturation, they were used to assessing themselves
and others in terms of stereotypes often explained as deriving from
family "history" and the geographical location of their group.^*
MacDonald argues that this group orientation is a key for understanding
Colossians 1:24-2:7. The fact that group-oriented people saw themselves as
subject to outside forces greater than themselves, and were dependent on
group expectations, in MacDonald's view shapes their description of salvation and those who mediate salvation. She writes:
The way the relationship between Paul, Christ, and the church is described in 1:24 may seem strange and even doctrinally flawed to modern readers, but it was a culturally appropriate means of describing
Paul's ultimate dependence on Christ and God (cf. 1:29; cf. Phil. 4:139), and his embeddedness in the community, the church. Ancient Mediterranean people viewed themselves as embedded in others such as
their teachers and patrons. Paul's description of himself . . . is rooted in
such a cultural understanding.^'
Accordingly, it is not inappropriate to see Paul's use of "body" language to
describe his relationship with the churches or their common life in both
ministry and suffering. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the churches
shared a similar view, seeing in Paul's mission and suffering a call to the
same evangelical task and experience.
Yet, is such suffering required of the church? Is it possible that suffering as a consequence of evangelizing ministry is only a possible consequence? If the examples of Christ and Paul coupled with the numerous New
Testament passages which speak of suffering for the sake of the Gospel
mean anything, suffering is not avoidable. In fact, it can be described as
characteristic of the faithful church, and, as this essay suggests, worthy of
consideration as a fifth mark of the authentic church alongside those listed
in the Constantinopolitan Creed. Yet in practice, suffering, at least in a significant portion of the modern world, doesn't seem to characterize the
church's identity or life. As Hall comments.

'* Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of


Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 16-7. Gited by MacDonald, 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 possibilityindeed, the fact that the historic church has so regularly and characteristically managed to avoid suffering ought to set to rest any insistence that Christians always and necessarily suffer. However, whenever
the church has made good its claim to Christ's discipleship, it has at
least known the call to suffer . . . called to suffer not because suffering
is good or beneficial or ultimately rewarding . . . , but beings are already suffering, because "the whole creation groans." . . . [T]he suffering of the church is not the goal but the consequence of faith.''"

Such a link between faithful discipleship and the call to suffering for the
sake of Christ and a broken world may serve as a reminder that the evangelical 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 discipleshipsuffering-kingdom should remind the contemporary churches of the West
that the final expression of the eschaton has not arrived. The church is still
living under the sign of the cross, acting out of a theology of the cross. In a
creation in which much remains to be reconciled, a triumphal theology of
glory is still a thing of the future. A church that seeks to define itself in
terms of such a theology of glory is a church that seeks to escape its own
mission and its cruciform identity; in essence it is a church abandoning or
rejecting its most basic identity. Like its surrounding culture, the North
American expression of the church is too often individualized and narcissistic, unlike the church depicted by William T. Cavanaugh. For him, a cruciform church embodies the promise of the kingdom in the present, and as
cruciform prevents the promise from becoming discredited or marginalized.
Yet, as he writes, "It does so not by conquering bodies but by making a sacrifice of its own body." In this sense the church is called to "make up what
is lacking in Christ's afflictions" (Col. 1:24). The church is the continuation
of the presence of Christ in the world, hut the church is most properly the
church 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 the
church. Yet he sees the modern error resting in the tendency to turn our understanding of suffering inward, treating it as something subject. He rejects
the popular view of "bearing the cross" in terms of the mundane difficulties
which are a normal part of living. Hall goes on to stress that there is more
in the New Testament about the suffering of the church than any other ecclesiological 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 continent [North America] to find even one Christian congregation that could
immediately identify with this statement [suffering as a mark of the
church], except among African American congregations here and there, or
" Hall, 152.
'" Cavanaugh, 232.

Spivey: Golossians 1:24 and the Suffering Ghurch

57

perhaps among small churches comprised of indigenous peoples, or perhaps


in certain gay and lesbian communitiesin short, among minorities, who
may 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 consider a theology of the cross, beyond efforts to explain the significance
(usually salvific in some form; cf. atonement theories that focus on the cross
event) of Christ's crucifixion? Hall notes Jrgen Moltmann's comment in
The Crucified God regarding this theology of the cross, saying "There is a
good deal of support in the tradition for the theology of the cross, but it
was never much loved."'" Hall asks the necessary question:
Why was this theological tradition "never much loved"? [sic] . . . [F]or
a triumphant religion such as Western Christianity has been (and still,
for the most part, wishes to be), serious contemplation of such a tradition would involve a transvaluation of values so radical that the prospect of actually embodying them is discouraged from the outset. [As
for the U.S. and Canada] . . . conventional Christianity needs to experience a greater failure than has yet befallen it before it is ready to discard the accumulated assumptions, beliefs, and practices of sixteen
centuries of establishment and explore seriously such a radical alternative as is signaled by this tradition.'*''
Hall points us to the neglected truth that, regardless of where one stands on
the socio-political-economic-cultural continuum, a theology of the cross
that 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 God
can never be identified with any human culture. These always carry what
Hall termed a "transvaluation of values" that warns against baptizing our
contexts, our beliefs, our truths as the Christian way closest to the purposes
of the Creator-Redeemer God. Accordingly, suffering in the course of evangelization and faithful obedience will always mark the authentic ecclesia.''^
"2 Hall, 138-9.
'^ Jrgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: the Gross of Ghrist as the Foundation
and Griticism of Ghristian Theology, trans. R.A. Wilson and John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1974). Gited in Hall, 14-15.
"" Ibid.
'' In their commentary on Golossians, Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia G. Keesmat argue that the church's identification as the body of Ghrist in a hostile world means
that affliction will always be the church's experience. Giting Paul's own experiences
as a member of the body engaged in spreading the story of Jesus, Walsh and Keesmat
link Paul's sufferings to oppression from an empire (and by extension the cultures
and systems of the world) threatened by this story. This "sufferings as oppressions"
understanding applies whether one speaks of states such as Egypt and Babylon oppressing 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 contemporary church with the claim that the "earliest and most prominent
manner of discerning the true church and distinguishing it from false claims
to Christian identity was to observe the nature and extent of the suffering
experienced by a community of faith."''* Such an approach lifts theory and
doctrine out of the realm of speculation, so that a Christian ecclesia that
preaches the cross without also being an ecclesia crucis is contradicting its
fundamental identity, and well deserves the accusation of hypocrisy.
The claim that Christian community is, of necessity and nature, a suffering community is not restricted to localized, individual communities, as
if the community suffers in isolation or independently. While the church is
expressed in diverse forms throughout the world, it remains, in the creedal
understanding, "one church." The belief that this unity consists in institutional or organizational terms has been de facto discredited. Such a statement is not intended to dismiss or discredit past or current ecumenical efforts, but to acknowledge that the foundational unity of the church must be
found in other ways. Paul's "body" imagery, whether in letters considered
Pauline or deuteron-Pauline, becomes a likely starting point. When Paul responds to the Corinthian divisions and misunderstandings about spiritual
gifts, he utilizes the image of church as the body of Christ as a corrective
image. Even as he writes of the body's unity and diversity, he writes not of
institutional organizations but in terms of a common life and functions. Diversity is linked to the different tasks of the church, both inside and outside
the community. Gifts are given in order for the community to fulfill its
role(s). As Paul writes of the special need to take care of the "less presentable" parts of the body (Col. 12:22-24), the language is in terms of mutual
care and support. When we add to this Paul's call for mutual ministry in
Galatians 6, it is not difficult to understand the unity of the church as a
unity defined in terms of mutual care, mutual support, and the apostolic
mission to the world. It is not unreasonable to see mutual suffering as part
of this unity (Col. 12:25-26). Such suffering, regardless of its cause, expresses both the community's internal unity as well as its unity with its crucified Head, who continues to suffer until the mission of evangelization and
reconciliation is complete. Body imagery then can be seen as both suffering
imagery and mission imagery. As Walsh and Keesmat remind the reader:
For Paul the church is one body. It may have various local manifestationsin Colossae, Laodicea, Cape Town, Auckland, Santiago, Belize
City, Caledoniabut the church is not plural, it is one. Now this
church participates in its Savior's redemption of the world by sharing
and Micah, and repeated in the corporate economic failures of the early twenty-first
century), and is unavoidably the church's experience as well, [Brian J. Walsh and
Sylvia C. Keesmat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004) 228-9].
''' Hall, 140.

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and tbe Suffering Cburcb

59

in his sufferings, through radical identification with the "body" of a


crucified Lord. As Christ did battle with the "principalities and powers" at the cross, so also the church continues to bear the fury of those
powers 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 placing
the Colossian Christians in a long storyline that stretches from the suffering of God in the Old Testament through the suffering of the Messiah to the suffering of the Christian community in the present.'"
If we are to understand the unity of the church in these termsall suffering
when one suffers, bearing one another's burdens (which in turn fulfills the
law of Christ)then this unity should also be seen as transcending the artificial boundaries which demonstrate that the body of Christ is still divided,
still far from fulfilling its task of incarnating the crucified Christ and proclaiming his redemptive story.
Such an understanding of the church's unity as a fellowship of suffering, both with Christ and fellow believers (cf. Phil. 3:10) also provides insights into the relationship between suffering and the other classic marks of
the church. The sense of the church's holiness should be understood foundationally in the original sense of being "set apart." This is not to deny the
moral-ethical component attached to the word, but to understand suffering
and holiness as linked to the evangelical mission of bearing witness. When
Paul refers to holiness in the letters, it appears that this idea of believers being set apart into a unique relationship and purpose is at the root of Paul's
thinking. This gives the claim of a "holy church" a functional definition.
Just as Paul and Barnabas were set apart for a particular assignment, so the
church 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 Christ
and what the Gospel refer to as the "kingdom of God." It is not without
significance that when this assignment is mentioned in the Gospel and Acts,
suffering is usually included as an expected element that will be faced in the
course 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; Acts
9:15-6; 14:21-2). In the spirit of Soren Kierkegaard's definition of purity of
heart, even the understanding of holiness in terms of purity may be included
in this sense of the church set apart for the sake of its mission to the as yet
unreconciled world.
Suffering for the sake of the mission and the body of Christ is also a
part of the church's description as "catholic" (or universal in some translations of the creed). A connection is made here between the local congregation 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 functional
connections within the body must be recognized. While the expressions of
Walsh and Keesmat, 229.
Ibid.

60

Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Gare

the church's task may differ from locality to locality, suffering in one locality means that the entire church is suffering. This is illustrated in part by
Paul's words to the Colossians about suffering on their behalf, even though
Paul had had no part in their founding nor had visited them in Colossae. It
is representative of the contemporary church's failure to recognize this universal unity that ignorance of suffering in one portion of the body by the remainder of the body is more often the rule than the exception. Such ignorance extends not only to the fact of suffering (save in very vague terms) but
also to the mutual impact that the suffering has on the rest of the body. The
church in North America has the additional responsibility of considering
whether its actions (or inaction) contribute to causing or alleviating the suffering of fellow believers engaged in mission and ministry, and, by extension those unreconciled individuals, communities, and cultures the suffering church is seeking to reconcile.
The possibility of the church's actions exacerbating the suffering of
those both inside and outside the church, whether from ignorance or a reluctance (or even refusal) to incarnate a cruciform life and mentality, is
compounded in instances where the church appears not to suffer at all. It is
not difficult to apply John's description of the Laodiceans as believers who
did not recognize their true condition to churches not experiencing suffering. This is not to encourage individual believers or Christian communities
to seek opportunities to suffer out of a masochistic sense of "oughtness." It
is to ask, in the language of the Sermon on the Mount, if the saltiness or
light of the community has devolved to the point where the community is
no longer engaged in its divine assignments or is indistinguishable from its
larger environment. Has the church, particularly in its expression in the
United States, been so successful in avoiding pain, so successful in securing
cultural power and respectability, that it is no longer demonstrating the
catholicity in suffering essential to its identity?
Finally, the idea of suffering as a fifth mark of the church also applies
to the fourth classic markapostolicity. This fourth mark is, I believe best
understood in these terms:
1. The church's message and self-understanding is derived from the
preaching and teaching of the leaders of the church's first generation
of leaders.
2. Along with the example of Christ, the experiences and priorities of
that first generation inform the contemporary church's priorities
and serve to interpret its experiences and relationships.
3. In the original sense of apostello, the church is always being "sent
forth" into the world in the name of its Head and for the sake of
both the world and the Gospels.
If we define apostolicity in such terms, then the mission to the world outside the church and the discipling of those entering the body become paramount. The church comes to realize, in Emil Brunner's apt phrase, that the

Spivey: Colossians 1:24 and the Suffering Church

61

church exists by mission as a fire exists by burning.'" If we allow the experiences of the first generation to interpret our calling and experiences, then
the reality of suffering for the sake of Christ, the body and the world cannot
be avoided. It is such suffering that marks the church as Christ's church, as
cruciform people being conformed to Christ's image. This in turn brings the
church back to Colossians 1:24. Like Paul, the church itself suffers for the
sake of Christ and the body, and continues to do so until the mission to
the 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 the
church's mission for the work of spiritual formation may be obvious to
some. Yet some final, summarizing words of application may be in order.
Both in terms of individual and corporate formation, Paul re-emphasizes
here that the life of the disciple is not simply social or privatistic, hut vocational. An underlying question for efforts toward spiritual formation is that
of purpose and rationale: Why does the individual or church cooperate
with the Spirit in the sanctifying work of heing conformed to the image and
likeness of Christ? In other words, why concern ourselves with the formation of healthy souls? On one level, the rationale sees formation as an act of
obedience 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 humanity. Paul's words thus serve as a corrective for individualistic or egocentric
approaches to formation and soul care. He reminds us that for a disciple or
congregation to be inwardly focused is to forget or abandon both our true
identity and calling in the world.
Further, this text corrects an easy triumphalism, which too often infects
contemporary American churches. The missional task, the reason for the
church'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 mean
exporting American versions of the faith, which often confuses American
values and cultures with those exemplified by Paul as he followed Christ.
Instead, the authentic church incarnates the reality of the kingdom, which
is not only unlike any earthly structure, but also reveals the actual condition of a fallen creation and the sole solvent of the Gospel. Colossians
makes explicit the cruciform nature of both the task and the spiritual formation, which occurs both before and during the missional work. This
task, assigned both to individual believers and to the church, will inevitably
involve suffering. This reality of missional suffering is not unique to Paul's
thought, but may be found in the Gospel and Catholic letters as well. Such
suffering may or may not include persecution, but does include the daily
struggle in which believers are fellow-laborers with God. The lesson in formation, 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

62

Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Gare

experience. The present mission is carried out in the light (and under the
shadows) of the cross. For believers, churches, and other agencies concerned with spiritual formation, to recognize the value of classic disciplines
(e.g. prayer, fasting, study, service, confession, and worship) for forming
healthy souls, without also acknowledging the role of suffering in both formation and the church's vocation, is to engage in mission ill-equipped and
half-prepared. It is to deny who and what Christ's church has been redeemed to be and to do.
Author: Steven W. Spivey. Title: Adjunct Instructor. Affiliation: Wayland Baptist University (San Antonio, TX). Highest Degree: Ph.D., Baylor University. Areas
of 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.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi