A Reflection on Philippians 1:21-30

(Click on the title to hear JJ's sermon)

The lectionary from last week asked us to consider two seemingly unrelated paragraphs from the first chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Philippians as one unified section in the letter.

In the first paragraph, vv. 21-26, Paul reflects about his current circumstance in prison – “for to me, living is Christ and dieing is gain.”

What does Paul mean that for him, living is Christ? Does Paul envision it to mean the mystical union between Christ and the Christian that he often talks about, ala Galatians 2:20? In other words, is the implication that the entire identity of the Christian is subsumed into the life of Christ, so that as we go about our lives it is not we who work, play, socialize, etc., but rather Christ within us – we take on the identity of Christ? Or does the phrase mean that the ministry of Christ and his mission to spread the gospel and reconcile all peoples back to God became the sole object of his devotion, to the exclusion of everything else?

Regardless of how you understand Paul when he says that for him living is Christ, the one thing that I can say for certain that living for me has not always been about or in Christ. Rather, living for me has been primarily for JJ. I have been too busy with my agenda, my desires, my wants, my needs that at the end of the day, there is precious little left to give to Jesus. “I will live for Jesus tomorrow,” I vow, only to have tomorrow turn out just like today.

But Paul also says that dieing is gain. How should we read this in light of Paul’s other comments about the end of time and the bodily resurrection? Are we to assume that there is a place where the Spirit goes upon death to wait and be with Christ, only to return and participate in the bodily resurrection? Or does Paul mean that his martyrdom would give him special privileges so that he can skip the bodily resurrection and go straight to God, as early Catholic theology thought? Or does Paul mean that since God is in control of the space/time continuum, he can work it so that death, for each individual, is the time of the resurrection for that individual? Or does he simply mean that death is gain because it is a cessation of all of the suffering that he has had to endure as an apostle?

Everyone has their own opinion about what Paul means, but here is the real truth…I have no idea. Any speculation about the implications of this passage relative to the experience of life after death is just that – speculation. I really wish Paul were answering the question that I want him to answer, which is what specifically and in great detail happens when we die. However, it is going to have to be enough for us to know that Paul considers dieing to be far better than living, regardless of the exact details of death.

But what is really interesting to me about this paragraph is that Paul’s angst about his situation gives the clear impression that he has a choice whether he will continue to live or to die – “I don’t know which to choose,” says Paul. “My desire is death. Death is advantageous to me, it is to my benefit. Death is my best option.” On the other hand, living is to the gain, benefit, advantage of the Philippian church. Does Paul really have a choice, does he really have control over whether he lives or dies? And is that really the issue here? Let’s table that one for a moment.

In the second half of the passage, Paul encourages the Philippians to “live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel…” What doe you suppose Paul means to live a life worth of the gospel?

I think he answers this question in the clause which follows “so that” in verse 27. In other words, a worthy walk is one in which the people of God walk together in like-mindedness. They live together in one spirit. We live together in one faith, in one gospel, sharing the same love. It can be said that we walk worthy of the gospel when we are united in Christ. It is a foundational principle of the gospel call that disparate and diverse people are called out of the various lives into one glorious kingdom of Heaven, inaugurated by a savior who had room in his kingdom for all people. The gospel unites people. It breaks down the barriers between people; and if there are divisions, ill-will, bad feelings, backbiting and such like among us then we dishonor the gospel.

So what do these two seemingly unrelated paragraphs have to do with each other, and why is the lectionary asking us to consider them together?

Paul’s overarching concern for the church, as he stipulated in the thanksgiving earlier in chapter 1, is that the church be pure, holy, and blameless, and that they walk together in unity; and there is no way that the church can be pure, holy, and blameless when its members are acting impure, unholy, and trying to assign blame. Furthermore, such behaviors lead to division within the church; such behaviors threaten the stability of the church, dishonor the gospel, and threaten the success of the gospel. Therefore, Paul uses his own story to demonstrate to the Philippians what it looks like to look out for the interests of others ahead of your own. Paul says that even though dieing is to my benefit, advantage, and gain, I choose to stay in this life because it is what you need me to do. It is exactly what the Christ hymn of Philippians 2 is all about. This is what it means to die to self, take up the cross, and follow Christ. Paul’s story provides the Philippians with a model of love determining action on which to pattern their own lives.

In other words, if the church is going to have a walk worthy of the gospel, if the church is going to be unified, like-minded, sharing the same spirit and love, then its members are going to have to make it a priority to set personal gain aside and intentionally pursue congregational unity.

This is tough, isn’t it? In a society that values the rights of the individual over the needs and rights of the group, this is especially hard. We just don’t have this kind of group think encoded in our DNA. We are taught from the beginning that we have to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We are encoded with the messages of self-sufficiency, self-gratification, and self-aggrandizement. Setting aside my need to be right and to win simply does not sit well with us, but that is exactly what is needed if we are going to be successful or even survive as a church.

I know that we face some uncertain times in the years ahead. That uncertainty is going to bring with it the great temptation to pursue our individual agendas, to get our individual ways, and to lobby for our individual plans. Let us firmly resolve, with Paul, that we will intentionally choose not that which is to our personal advantage, our personal benefit, our personal gain, but rather that which is most edifying, most encouraging, and most conducive to peace and unity in the church.