WHATEVER HAPPENS, CONDUCT yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel 28without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. 29For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, 30since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
2:1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Original Meaning
WITH THE PHRASE “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ,” Paul turns a critical corner in the argument of the letter. His own affairs drop from view to reemerge only briefly at two places in the rest of the letter (2:19–24 and 4:10–14, 18, 22). The Philippians’ circumstances, on the other hand, come to the fore. Paul had opened the previous section of the letter in verse 12 with a reference to his circumstances (or, in a literal rendering of the Greek, “the things about me”). He opens the new section in verse 27 in a similar way but now with a reference to the Philippians’ circumstances (“the things about you,” as the Greek literally says). Just as verse 12 signaled to the Philippians that Paul would give them information about himself, so verse 27 shows that he now intends to devote a section of the letter to them. The command “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” confirms this. It is the first command of a long string of commands that appear throughout the rest of the letter, and it demonstrates that Paul is now turning his full attention to the Philippians’ own “progress … in the faith” (1:25).1
In 1:27–2:18 Paul’s primary concern is with the Philippians’ attitudes toward one another. Two prominent members of the church and valuable coworkers in Paul’s ministry, Euodia and Syntyche, were quarreling with one another (4:2), and their dispute had probably infected the rest of the church (2:14). In the first part of this new section, then, Paul concentrates on encouraging the church to put the interests of others ahead of their own (1:27–2:4), to follow the example of Christ’s humility (2:5–11), and to avoid the error of the disobedient and discontented Israelites during the days of their desert wanderings (2:12–18). Paul does not leave the theme of unity entirely behind after 2:18, but this section devotes more attention to it than any other.
The two paragraphs that make up 1:27–2:4 form the first part of this larger section. Paul’s concern here is to admonish the Philippians to remain steadfast in the midst of persecution from the outside (1:27–30) and then to urge them not to succumb to the destructive forces of disunity that have already arisen within the church (2:1–4).2 The conjunction “therefore” (oun), which does not appear in the NIV, joins the two paragraphs and shows that Paul’s admonition to unity in 2:1–4 is closely connected with his claim that he and the Philippians share a common struggle for the advancement of the gospel (1:30).3 If the Philippians are to make a contribution to that struggle, Paul says in 2:1–4, then they must be “like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose” (2:2).
Standing United Against Opposition from Outside (1:27–30)
In 1:27–30 Paul compares his own struggle against inimical outside forces, just recounted in 1:18b–26, with the Philippians’ struggle against outside opposition, a theme that will reappear in 2:15–16a and 4:4–9. He also introduces the theme of the Philippians’ unity, a concern that reappears in 2:6–18 and 4:2–3. This paragraph, then, allows the themes of the previous section to mingle with the themes of subsequent sections, providing a skillful transition between these two major parts of the letter.
Paul begins with a statement that stands as a topic heading over all of 1:27–2:18: “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (v. 27). Just as he has conducted himself in a way worthy of the gospel of Christ despite opposition both from outside and from within the Christian community, so Paul urges the Philippians to cope with the problems of persecution and dissension in a way consistent with the gospel. The word that the NIV translates “conduct yourselves” (politeuesthe) is unusual and probably carries a deeper significance than is immediately apparent from most English translations. It occurs only twice in the New Testament, once here and once in Acts 23:1. In other ancient Greek literature it sometimes means to “have one’s citizenship” or “home” in a certain city or state, to “rule” or “govern the state,” or simply to “live, conduct oneself, or lead one’s life.”4 Does it merely mean “conduct oneself” in Philippians 1:27, or does it have more political overtones?
Several pieces of evidence show that Paul probably chose the word specifically because of its political nuance. (1) In Acts 23:1 the word apparently bears political overtones. There Paul is addressing the Jewish chief priests and Sanhedrin at the request of a Roman military commander. Roman soldiers had arrested Paul after a riot broke out near the Jerusalem temple over the claim that he was an apostate and had defiled the temple (Acts 21:27–36). “This is the man,” they claimed, “who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place” (21:28). Paul responds to this charge in Acts 23:1. “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty [pepoliteumai] to God in all good conscience to this day.” In light of the political nature of the charge against Paul, he probably chose this word carefully. He claims to have conducted himself properly as a citizen of God’s commonwealth and not to have violated its customs.5
(2) As we have already seen in the introduction to the commentary, the Philippians were conscious of their status as citizens of Rome and proud of it. This word would probably not have been unknown to them as a term for living as a citizen of Philippi should live.
(3) In this paragraph, Paul is concerned with the Philippians’ steadfastness amid persecution from their fellow citizens who are not believers and who may feel that participation in a Jewish sect is incompatible with citizenship in Philippi (cf. Acts 16:20–21).6 If the word does have political connotations, then Paul is telling the Philippians to govern their lives according to the gospel rather than according to society’s requirements for being a good citizen of Philippi. Although the temptation may be strong to compromise with “those who oppose” them (v. 28), their first consideration should be loyalty to the standards of God’s commonwealth as they are summarized in the gospel.
If the Philippians are to do this, Paul continues, then they must present a united front against their opposition.7 They should “stand firm” and “contend” for the gospel “in one spirit” and “as one man.” The phrase “one man” is literally “in one soul,” and most translators and commentators have understood the two phrases “one spirit” and “one soul” to be parallel to each other. This means that just as “soul” is a reference to the human soul, so “spirit” is a reference to the human spirit, not to the Holy Spirit. Paul, they believe, is asking the Philippians to be united in spirit and soul.8 Since he uses the precise phrase “in one spirit” elsewhere to mean “in the one Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:18), however, it is likely that in verse 27 the phrase carries at least some allusion to God’s Spirit.9 Paul is probably saying that the Philippians should be united in spirit (because they have all experienced the work of God’s Spirit) and united in soul.
Turning their attention outward, Paul next says that the Philippians should not fear their opponents, and then gives two results of the opposition they are experiencing, both of which should encourage the Philippians to persevere. (1) The Philippians should not fear those who oppose them because this very opposition is a “sign to them” that in the day of Christ (cf. 1:10) their opponents will be destroyed. The NIV’s phrase “sign to them” can be understood to mean that the Philippians’ opponents will somehow perceive their own doom in the courageous faithfulness of their victims (cf. REB; NRSV).10 Paul’s Greek, however, indicates only that the sign is related in some way to the opponents; thus we might translate the relevant phrase, “This is a sign, with respect to them, of destruction.” Paul probably means that the opposition the Philippians have encountered is a sign to any who are able to perceive it, and especially to the Philippian Christians, that God will destroy those who persecute his people. As Paul says in a different context, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple” (1 Cor. 3:17).
(2) Paul says that the Philippians should remain unfrightened by the persecution they are experiencing because it is a sign of their salvation. Again, the NIV (cf. REB, NRSV) can be understood to mean that the fearlessness of the Philippian Christians amid the fires of persecution will show their opponents that the Christians will be saved. But Paul’s Greek probably means instead that the Philippians’ perseverance in the face of persecution serves as a sign to the Philippian believers of their own salvation.11 In verse 28, then, Paul encourages the Philippians to view their perseverance amid persecution as a double-sided token of God’s verdict at the final day: It is a sign of their opponents’ destruction, but of the Philippian believers’ salvation, on that day.12
Paul concludes this thought with the phrase “and that by God,” indicating that both the Philippian believers’ salvation and the assurance of salvation that comes to them through the patient endurance of persecution originate with God.13 In the next phrase (v. 29) he explains the divine origin of their assurance of salvation in greater detail: Their suffering for the faith, he says, is a gift. This startling statement probably has two characteristics of Christian suffering in view, one that Paul has just explained and the other which he will explain later in the letter. (1) Suffering is a gift because, when successfully endured, it confirms the future salvation of the believer (cf. v. 28b). (2) It is a gift because through it we become identified with Christ’s suffering (3:10), a suffering that was redemptive and issued in the resurrection.14
Just as grace abounded in the suffering of Christ (Rom. 5:20–21), so when believers suffer for him, grace abounds as well (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7–12).
Paul closes the paragraph with an encouraging equation of his own suffering in the cause of the gospel with the Philippians’ experience with their oppressors. They had seen the hardship Paul endured for the sake of the gospel when he came to Philippi. He and Silas had been stripped, beaten, and jailed for “throwing [Philippi] into an uproar” over the Christian message (Acts 16:19–24). After the arrival of this letter, the Philippians will have heard both from Epaphroditus and from Paul’s own pen (1:12–26) of the hardship that he was presently enduring in prison for the advancement of the gospel.
Now Paul applies the perspective he has adopted on his own suffering to the suffering of the Philippians. Their suffering and his are part of the same struggle to advance the gospel.15 Thus just as Paul was more concerned about the advancement of the gospel than about his own imprisonment (1:12–14), just as he was more concerned that Christ was being preached than that those who preached Christ sometimes opposed Paul (1:18a), and just as he was more concerned that Christ be magnified than that he live or die, so the Philippian Christians should concern themselves with conduct worthy of the gospel in the midst of their own time of testing.
Standing United Against Dissension from Within (2:1–4)
Paul’s next paragraph turns from the problem of withstanding persecution from the outside to healing the wounds of strife within the Philippian church itself. In 1:30 he had described the Philippians’ united stand against their adversaries as participation with him in the great struggle to advance the gospel. He now picks up the theme of unity announced in 1:27b and claims that if the Philippians are to participate successfully with him in this struggle, then they must be unified in mind, love, and soul and must humbly place the interests of their fellow believers above their own. Paul shows the connection between the struggle for the gospel (1:30) and the internal unity of the Philippian church (2:1–4) with the word “therefore” (oun), which begins the new paragraph.16 The word is left untranslated in the NIV. Literally, 2:1 reads,
If, therefore, there is any encouragement in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any compassion and mercy….
The two paragraphs, then, are closely tied together and make the point that internal unity is necessary for holding back the destructive forces that would hinder the progress of the gospel.
Three questions arise from Paul’s opening sentence. (1) Why does Paul express himself in such a highly rhetorical style? (2) In what sense does he use the word “if”? (3) Why does Paul choose precisely these qualities for his list? The first two questions can be answered quickly. Paul uses this rapid series of conditional clauses in order to make a heart-felt appeal to the Philippians. He is their friend as well as their apostle: They are his “joy and crown” (4:1), they fill Paul with joy whenever he remembers them in prayer (1:4), and their unity with one another will only complete the joy he already has on their account (2:2). The rhetoric of his appeal, then, is not intended to be harsh but precisely the opposite. John Chrysostom, who spoke ancient Greek fluently, comments on 2:1, “See how earnestly, how intensely, with how much sympathy he speaks!”17
The word “if” does not mean that the Philippians’ possession of the qualities that Paul lists is hypothetical. The Greek word for “if” used here (ei) can sometimes mean “since.” Because Paul does not doubt that the Philippians have experienced, for example, the “encouragement” and “comfort” of Christ, the word clearly has this meaning here. Paul’s appeal, then, is based both on his friendship with them and on the blessings that belong to them because they belong to Christ.
But why does Paul mention these particular blessings? The answer to this question probably lies both in the immediately preceding paragraph (1:27–30) and in Paul’s appeal in this paragraph to his and the Philippians’ mutual affection (2:2). In 1:27–30 Paul has equated his suffering for the gospel with the Philippians’ suffering and considered both to be part of the great struggle to advance the gospel. Thus he wants them to stand as firmly in the faith as they would if he were present with them (1:27), and he reminds them of the similarity between their suffering for the faith and the trials they know he has endured (1:30). The “encouragement” (paraklesis) they have in Christ, then, is the “comfort” (paraklesis, cf. 2 Cor. 1:3–7) that God gives to both Paul and the Philippians amid their suffering.
The “comfort of love” (2:1, lit. trans.) is probably not the comfort of Christ’s love, as the NIV understands the phrase (the translators have added “his”), but the mutual affection that Paul and the Philippians have for one another and to which Paul appeals when he urges his readers to make his joy complete (2:2). The “fellowship with the Spirit” is the fellowship Paul and the Philippians experience because the Spirit who helps believers in their weaknesses (Rom. 8:26) indwells them both. “Tenderness and compassion,” likewise, probably refer to the affection that Paul feels for the Philippians and that the Philippians feel for him. Thus, Paul urges his readers to act on the relationship they have with one another because of what the Lord has done for them all.18
Paul describes this action as making his joy complete through cultivating a single mind. He then shows the Philippians how they can accomplish this unity of purpose with a list of brief clauses. Literally translated, Paul’s list looks like this:
having the same love
[being] united in soul
thinking one thing
[doing] nothing from selfish ambition
[doing] nothing from empty conceit
but
considering others better than yourselves
each one not looking out for his own interests
but
each one also [looking out for] the interests of others
Two clear interests emerge from this list: that the Philippians be united, and that they achieve this unity through promoting the interests of others rather than their own interests. The term “selfish ambition” (eritheia) sums up the attitude Paul wants the Philippians to avoid. In literature prior to the New Testament, the term appears only in Aristotle’s Politica, where, in the course of discussing the various causes of political revolutions, the philosopher identifies one cause as the greedy grasp for public office through unjust means.19 No trace of this connection with politics appears in the New Testament’s use of the term, but the notion of a greedy attempt to gain the upper hand through underhanded tactics is clearly present. Paul had seen this quality at work in his own situation (1:17), and he urges the Philippians in this passage not to let it take hold in theirs. Instead, he hopes that their relationships with one another will demonstrate a “humility” that promotes the good of others even at personal expense (2:4). This attitude should characterize the believer’s relationship with fellow believers, he will say in the next section, because it is the chief quality of Jesus’ relationship with us.
Bridging Contexts
AS WE INTERPRET this passage for the modern church, we should remember the transitional role that the passage plays in Paul’s argument. It moves from the theme of the gospel’s advancement in Paul’s ministry, despite hardship, to the theme of the Philippians’ unity. The twin themes of suffering and unity should, in turn, occupy our efforts to apply the passage to the contemporary situation.
Suffering for the Gospel. Paul’s comments on suffering in 1:28–29 constitute the most difficult portion of the passage to convey from his world into ours. There are two reasons for this. First, believers in modern Western democracies know little or nothing of the kind of suffering Paul describes in these verses, and so the temptation is strong to make them more generally applicable than they are. Paul’s statement that the Philippians should not be frightened by those who oppose them can too easily within our culture be stretched to cover someone’s opposition to the new church building program, rejection of some fine point of our theology, or disavowal of our favorite Christian teacher. Yet Paul’s language meant nothing of the kind; it was rather intended to encourage people who stood as a tiny island of commitment to the gospel amid a raging sea of pagan antagonism. The suffering of which Paul speaks is suffering for “the gospel faith” (v. 27, REB), not suffering in general, and certainly not opposition to some personal agenda.
Does this mean that we should shelve Paul’s advice and hope that we never need to consult it? A clear-headed interpretation points in another direction. Although we may not be able to obey directly the command to contend “as one man for the faith of the gospel” amid intense societal persecution, we can stand together with our brothers and sisters across the globe who suffer for the faith in circumstances similar to those of the Philippians. Paul stood united with the suffering Philippians across the miles, and the Philippians did the same for Paul. The contemporary church in the West, then, should follow their example and unite itself in practical ways with its suffering brothers and sisters in other cultures.
In addition to this, the principles in this passage are relevant both to the occasional direct opposition that Christians experience for their convictions even in the free West and to the more subtle ways in which modern, technologically sophisticated societies deny the reality of God. Although oppression of Christians is not officially sanctioned in our culture, Christian convictions are not infrequently ridiculed in the workplace or subtly berated as “unprogressive” in academic circles and in the news and entertainment media. The intense materialism of modern culture, moreover, trivializes the spiritual realm and puts subtle pressures on believers to view their answers to life’s most profound questions as unimportant and slightly backward. This can lead believers, even in places where religious freedom is respected, to feelings of isolation and depression. When this happens, it is no less important for them to heed Paul’s advice not to be frightened by the forces ranged against them.
Paul does not expressly say how we should avoid “being frightened,” but he probably means that the courage and joy that God supplies to Christians should sustain them even when they know that the people in power over them and the prevailing ideologies do not agree with what they think and do. Paul had experienced the fear and depression that come to the believer who suffers because of obedience to God. He had been afraid in Corinth when his preaching met opposition, and God had responded with the encouraging words, “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9–10). He had come near despair in Ephesus because of his suffering, and the Lord had comforted him in some unknown, and perhaps less dramatic, way (2 Cor. 1:3–11). If Paul wrote Philippians from this Ephesian imprisonment, perhaps Philippians 1:28 is an example of how God’s compassion and comfort amid intense suffering overflowed from Paul to others who were experiencing trouble (2 Cor. 1:4). God had comforted him in his time of trial, and the Philippians should not be afraid since God will help them also.
Within our own context it is helpful to observe that Paul, in agreement with the rest of the New Testament and the early Christian apologists, does not suggest that the Philippians engage in an aggressive offensive against their persecutors. Paul suggests instead that they maintain their composure and await the day when God will destroy those who oppose the gospel. “Do not take revenge, my friends,” he says elsewhere, “but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19; cf. Matt. 5:43–45). In the meantime, according to the rest of the New Testament, believers are to respond to opposition only with kindness and exemplary behavior (Rom. 12:20–21; cf. 1 Peter 4:19), so that their opponents may be shamed into silence (Titus 2:8) and even won to the faith (1 Peter 2:12, 21–23; 3:1, 16).
The early Christian apologists, eager to persuade the Roman emperor that a policy of Christian persecution was unjust, picked up this theme. They never tired of pointing out to their detractors the exemplary lives of Christians and their unwillingness, out of love, to retaliate against those who wronged them. In the late second century, for example, the Christian philosopher Athenagoras pleaded with the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Aurelius Commodus to stop their policy of persecuting Christians. Both emperors encouraged the study of philosophy within their realm, and Athenagoras made the most of this in his plea. At one point he asked the emperors to consider whether any philosophers of their acquaintance, despite their good educations and quick minds, “have so purified their own hearts as to love their enemies instead of hating them; instead of upbraiding those who first insult them (which is certainly more usual), to bless them; and to pray for those who plot against them.” Then, in a memorable passage, he described the demeanor of the persecuted Christians:
With us, on the contrary, you will find unlettered people, tradesmen and old women, who though unable to express in words the advantages of our teaching, demonstrate by acts the value of their principles. For they do not rehearse speeches, but evidence good deeds. When struck, they do not strike back; when robbed, they do not sue; to those who ask, they give, and they love their neighbors as themselves.20
Both within the New Testament and among early Christian writings outside the canon, Christians who are persecuted echo the words of Jesus in their perspective on persecution:
Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles…. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:39–45).
Christians who suffer for the gospel today should take an equally restrained, loving, and courageous approach.
Second, Paul’s claim that suffering is a gift can easily be misunderstood to mean that suffering itself is good. A historically tragic misinterpretation of Paul’s discussion of suffering here and elsewhere in his letters has led some Christians to seek suffering or to inflict it upon themselves, under the impression that suffering itself somehow purifies them of sin or is for other reasons pleasing to God. It has led others to speak of the value of suffering to those in pain in a glib way that only increases the hurt. It has sometimes caused those who suffer to view God as a cruel tyrant, one who gives gifts that nobody wants.
When Paul speaks of suffering as a gift, however, he does not mean that God is its author. The Philippian pagans of Philippi who persecuted their newly converted neighbors were sinning, and God is not the author of sin. These pagan persecutors, out of their own fallen will, chose to make the fledgling church in their midst suffer. The suffering was their fault, not God’s, and God justly held them responsible for it. But Paul can describe this suffering as a gift from God because God in his sovereignty used this suffering to serve his own good purposes. In the words of Joseph to his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20). In some mysterious way, unfathomable for finite and fallen human minds, Joseph’s brothers did evil, but that evil did not lie outside the sovereign rule of God—God “intended” it in order to bring good results.21
What are these good results? As we have already seen in our discussion of this passage’s original meaning, suffering for Christ can have two positive effects: It gives assurance of salvation, and it identifies the believer with the suffering of Christ. In this passage Paul dwells on the assurance of future salvation that comes to the believer who suffers for the faith.
Paul’s claim that the opposition the Philippians experience serves as a double-sided token indicates one aspect of the gift-character of suffering for Christ. Such suffering provides clarity about who stands with God and who does not. It is unlikely that anyone whose commitment to the gospel is inauthentic will be willing to endure the fiery trials of physical discomfort and emotional pain that persecution brings. In such a crisis, inquirers who have been walking the border between commitment to and rejection of the gospel must finally make a decision, and those who have professed loyalty to the church for ulterior motives finally decide that their deception no longer pays. Those who remain, as a result, have the assurance that their commitment is real. And this, as Paul says elsewhere, is cause for rejoicing:
We … rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us (Rom. 5:3b–5).
In other words, the testing of the believer’s mettle in the fires of persecution produces assurance of salvation and reduces the visible church to something more like its true, invisible number. The confidence and fellowship that result are gifts from the God so powerful that he can even make evil do his bidding.
Unity Within the Church. Paul’s advice to the Philippians about Christian unity is more directly and universally applicable to the modern church. Although it is connected specifically with the suffering of the church in 1:27, in 2:1–4 it takes on an independent significance that any church can readily appropriate. In both passages Paul refers to the role of the Spirit in this unity. The Philippians are to stand firm in the Spirit (1:27), and their unity with one another should flow in part from their own experience of the fellowship that the Spirit effects (2:1). The unity Paul hopes the Philippians will experience, then, originates with God’s Spirit.
This does not mean, however, that the Philippians are to adopt a passive posture, waiting on the Spirit to impel them forward into the practical deeds of love that produce unity. The Philippians are commanded to be “like-minded,” to have “the same love,” and to unite in “spirit and purpose” (2:2). They are to avoid “selfish ambition” and are to “look … to the interests of others” (2:3). Thus, on the one hand the Philippians’ unity appears to flow from the Spirit; on the other it seems to come from the hard work of the Philippians themselves.
The same tension will appear later in 2:12–13, where Paul tells his readers to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose,” and in Ephesians 2:8–10, where he emphasizes the gracious character of salvation and then says that God has created believers “to do good works, which God prepared in advance for [them] to do” (Eph. 2:10). It is probably as impossible to understand precisely how these paradoxical truths fit together as it is to understand how God’s intention can somehow stand behind the evil of the Philippians’ suffering. The two-sided nature of the paradox shows, however, that God both holds us responsible for the unity he commands and refuses to give us any credit for achieving it. At first this seems unfair, until we understand how thoroughly tainted with sin we are as fallen creatures and that if we are ever to obey God, he must give us both the will and the ability to do it. That he does this is cause for rejoicing in his mercy, not for complaint against his sense of fairness.22
But how, exactly, is the church today supposed to obey Paul’s command to be “like-minded” and to be “one in spirit and purpose,” or, to follow the Greek more literally, “think the same thing, having the same love, united in soul, thinking one thing” (2:2)? Does this mean that Paul supports some rigid set of detailed norms to which everyone must conform, in thought as well as in deed? In order to understand Paul’s intention it is necessary to look at the context in which the crucial phrases “think the same thing” and “thinking one thing” appear. As the literal translation shows, two defining terms are sandwiched between these phrases: Paul wants the Philippians to think the same thing by having a mutual affection for one another and by being soulmates. In the next two verses (2:3–4) he explains that this means subordinating our own interests to those of others.
Paul does not, therefore, imagine that the church is a group of automatons, walking in lockstep with one another. Instead, he sees it as a group of individuals who, despite their differences, are willing to show love for one another through putting the well-being of others first. This will always mean speaking the truth and acting on the truth, but doing so in love. It will also mean having the humility to admit when we have spoken or acted amiss and then to mend our ways. As each believer lovingly looks out for the interests of fellow believers, all will move forward toward the “attitude … of Christ Jesus” (2:5) and will begin to approximate what Paul means when he speaks of “thinking one thing.”23
Contemporary Significance
SINCE EARLIEST TIMES the church of Jesus Christ has struggled with precisely what its relationship should be to the broader social order. During its first three centuries the church faced hostility from people in political power, and the emphasis lay on the depth of corruption within the social order. The authorities had crucified Jesus, outlawed the preaching of the gospel, executed James, imprisoned Peter and Paul, confiscated Christian property, and demanded that Christians worship them.24 Later, matters went from bad to worse as the official regime fed Christians to the lions, burned them at the stake, and destroyed their Scriptures.25 Supposedly their nontraditional notions about an unseen God and a crucified Lord threatened the order of the empire.26 In such a situation the New Testament writers and early Christian fathers wisely stressed the alien status of the believer within the world. Christians were citizens of a different, eternal commonwealth. They were neither Jews nor Greeks but a third race, and this world was not their home.27
When official persecution subsided in the early fourth century, however, the way was open for the development of different approaches to the social structures within which the church had to live. Sometimes the governing authorities were viewed as divinely appointed keepers of the social order who occasionally needed to hear the advice of the church (as in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions), sometimes as the guardians of the kingdom of this world whose affairs were wholly separate from those of the church (as in the Lutheran tradition), and sometimes as sinful authorities over sinful social structures both of which the church was called upon to reclaim for the God of all creation (as in the Calvinist tradition).28
Many believers today are heirs to one of these three traditions and are perhaps predisposed to view the biblical evidence in the light of their own heritage. In the complicated network of alliances and tensions between the church and the social order at the turn of the third millennium, however, it is important not only to appreciate the traditions of the past but to look again at the biblical evidence in order to gain direction for our own time and culture. Philippians 1:27–30 offers some help.
It is now widely recognized that in the last half of the twentieth century, Christian notions have been increasingly excluded from debates over public policy, especially domestic policy, and this development parallels during the same period the gradual marginalizing of Christian theology in the halls of academic power. A small piece of evidence that illustrates the point is the history of the term “fundamentalist” in the academic and popular press. This word was used in the first part of the twentieth century to describe Christians bent on resisting the accommodation of traditional Christian teaching to the spirit of the age.29 But in the closing decades of the century it has been used repeatedly in the news media and in academic circles to refer both to conservative Christians and to grenade-wielding Islamic terrorists, despite few clear reasons for associating the two other than that both are interested in purifying their religion of modernist incursions and both promote a conservative public policy.30 As a result, the term has become so forbidding that groups who in the 1920s would have happily used it of themselves now desperately attempt to dissociate themselves from it. Once used as a self-designation, the word has been transformed into a virtual slur, and in the process a large number of Christians have been marginalized.31
At first all of this may seem irrelevant to Christians who do not consider themselves fundamentalists and agree to a large extent with the wary attitude of the secular press and the academy toward the fundamentalist movement. The critical point, however, is that many non-Christians within these secular institutions fail to make the fine distinctions between Christian groups that Christians usually understand instinctively. To many, fundamentalist Christians demonstrate the social and political tendencies of Christianity generally, and the fundamentalists only provide an excellent illustration, in their view, of why Christians cannot do good scholarship and should not be involved in politics unless they somehow sequester their religious thinking from their scientific and political thinking.32
Although this is a far cry from the intense level of persecution that the Christians at Philippi endured, Philippians 1:27–30 nevertheless provides perspective for marginalized believers in Western democracies. Since these verses stress the citizenship of the believer in the kingdom of God, the eschatological perspective of awaiting the time when God will separate believers from their persecutors, and the courage that believers should show in the face of persecution, it seems unlikely that Paul would approve of a Christian “anti-defamation league” or a “Christian Democratic Party” designed especially to protect Christian interests and to fight back against detractors. As Karl Barth says in commenting on this passage, “Christians do not strive ‘against’ anybody (nor for anybody either!), but for the faith.”33 The Christian way is to refuse retaliation and to live such exemplary lives that our persecutors not only become ashamed of their conduct but want to become believers themselves.34
On the other hand, precisely because the situation in Western democracies is not exactly parallel to the situation of the first Christians, it does not seem appropriate simply to focus on God’s coming kingdom and neglect the opportunity believers in democratic societies have to show mercy to their neighbors by working for just policies. Since God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and since our neighbors include not only God’s people but others as well, it seems proper to seek ways of upholding God’s vision for public justice by relieving oppression, effecting peace, and alleviating suffering within society. When we do this, we are following the biblical model of leaving the work of retaliation to God, focusing on our citizenship in his kingdom, and living such other-centered lives that those around us want to become citizens of that kingdom as well.35
The same human tendency that urges us to retaliate against our detractors leads us to assert our own interests over those of other believers, to climb the ladder of “selfish-ambition” at the expense of others. This tendency is deeply ingrained in the modern psyche. Americans, for example, are taught from their youth that they are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”36 Much modern social and psychological theory is indebted to the notion that members of the human species, like all other animals, are involved in a relentless quest to dominate others in order to survive.37 So we not only enter the church with the belief that we deserve to be made happy but often with the notion that our pursuit of happiness at the expense of others is inevitable.
Among pastors the temptation is sometimes strong to march upward from a smaller church to a larger one, beating out the competition along the way with little thought for God’s priorities. Among Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries, decisions are also sometimes made on the basis not of what is best for the kingdom of God but what is best for the institution’s survival. Christian organizations have sometimes exaggerated their financial need in order to depict a crisis that will garner greater support and put them a step ahead of the competition, and at other times have overstated their impact on society or the quality of their programs for the same reason.
Against all of this Paul commands, “Each of you should look not to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (2:4). This command stands in the tradition of Jesus’ own teaching that the road to greatness among Christians is service to others, that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:43–44; cf. 9:35; Matt. 20:27; 23:11; Luke 22:26–27).38
How, practically, can we curb the temptation to assert our rights over others? In his superb essay on how Christians should live together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer supplies seven principles for eradicating selfish ambition from Christian communities. Christians, he says, should:
• hold their tongues, refusing to speak uncharitably about a Christian brother;
• cultivate the humility that comes from understanding that they, like Paul, are the greatest of sinners and can only live in God’s sight by his grace;
• listen “long and patiently” so that they will understand their fellow Christian’s need;
• refuse to consider their time and calling so valuable that they cannot be interrupted to help with unexpected needs, no matter how small or menial;
• bear the burden of their brothers and sisters in the Lord, both by preserving their freedom and by forgiving their sinful abuse of that freedom;
• declare God’s word to their fellow believers when they need to hear it;
• understand that Christian authority is characterized by service and does not call attention to the person who performs the service.39
Within the modern Western context, perhaps Bonhoeffer’s final point is the most important. The temptation to follow personalities rather than Christ is strong in the modern church. Today’s Christians can buy the albums of their favorite Christian singer in the same stores that carry the music of popular secular “idols”; they can hear their favorite Christian teachers weekly on the radio, see them daily on television, and even join them for luxurious cruises to Alaska. If we are to put the interests of others ahead of our own, however, we must relinquish our fascination with personalities, including our own, and get busy with the unimpressive tasks of helping our brothers and sisters at their points of need. Bonhoeffer puts it well:
Every personality cult that is concerned with important qualities, outstanding abilities, strengths, and the talents of someone else—even though these may be thoroughly spiritual in nature—is worldly and has no place in the Christian community. Indeed, it poisons that community. The demand one hears so often today for “people of episcopal stature,” for “priestly men,” and for “powerful personalities” springs too often from the spiritually sick need for the admiration of people, for the erection of visible structures of human authority, because the genuine authority of service seems too unimportant.40
Instead of following the latest Christian personality, our gaze should be fixed on Jesus. And this is Paul’s point in Philippians 2:5–11.