Barth Journal Entry #4: The Christian in Affliction?!

I realize I might be reading Barth through the lens of Alex Cornell's recent sermon, but I have a problem with the idea that the Christian is made and chosen to be in partnership with God and Christ to be in a state of affliction.  I confess I am willing to concede that I agree with Barth's statement on page 608 "Hence it is not out of any need, but in this special demonstration of mercy, that Christ calls His people".  It is when Barth calls affliction a necessary part of the Christian vocation, that he enters dangerous waters.  Especially when taken out of context, this could mean that oppressed Christians could be told, taught, or led to believe that their suffering is a necessary part of being a Christian, and makes them more holy.
However, Barth warns against this on CD IV.3.2 618:

A further general warning is indispensable before we turn to the matter itself.  If the ministry of witness is the primary demonstration of the Christian existence, and the ministry of witness unavoidably brings the Christian into affliction, then we have to say that none can be a Christian without falling into affliction.  To be sure, we have not a desire to seek or provoke it, as martyrdom or the so-called baptism of blood was coveted in some circles in the early days of Christianity.  This could only rest on misunderstanding, as though the bearing of affliction made the Christian a Christian.  In fact, it is only the call of Christ, as His calling to the ministry of witness, which can constitute Christian existence as such.  Yet such a view would also miss the true reality of the specific affliction of the Christian.... it comes upon him from without as an occurrence over which he has no power, which he cannot escape, but when she has not to desire or bring upon himself... so affliction only be the work of the surrounding world and cannot in any sense he brought about by himself.  As willed and caused by himself, it could have nothing whatever to do with his Christian existence.  It can only be an arbitrarily conjured evil such as all men bring on themselves and have to suffer.  On the other hand, since the vocation to be a Christian is essentially and decisively the vocation to be a witness, a man cannot possibly become and be a Christian without having to experience and endure affliction as the work of the surrounding world.  Real Christians are always men who are oppressed by the surrounding world. The pressure exerted on them can take very different forms.  Its form will not necessarily but only relatively seldom be a spectacular one of persecution or something similar.… may often consists in a continual and relatively tolerable habit... which has perhaps almost become an institution, which is the reaction of the surrounding world to his witness and which he has thus to endure.

 Barth makes a good point or two in there, but ultimately succombs to his "surrounding world".  He says that one does not fundamentally have to endure affliction in order to have a conversion experience of becoming a Christian, and that we should not desire to bring affliction upon ourselves.  However, he contradicts himself by saying that Christians should expect affliction in this life.  It is not an aberration which should not be, as sin is in most accounts, but a sign that we are in fact fulfilling our vocation.  "Only the call of Christ" can make us a Christian according to his opening remarks, and that we should not desire to invite affliction upon ourselves, but doesn't his reference to "a continual and relatively tolerable habit" invite people to assume that in order for God to look upon us favorably as servants we should endure and even embrace our afflictions?  And this argument also assumes that all affliction comes from the outside.  He makes no effort to address the fact that there may be systematic oppression by Christians on others and even each other.  He has no conscious self reflection on his own privilege and participation in a flawed system at this point.  He's not acknowledging the influences of society on his writing and theology.


The application of this ministry cannot be done unless we do some recovery first.  If we don't look at the true meaning of what Jesus did, or the ministry of his life, all we will be doing is perpetuating the victimization of oppressed people and oppressed Christians, especially women, the poor, and people of color.  And we shouldn't be doing this, because our vocation is to help "the least of these".
First of all, it is unwise to tell parishioners that it isn't possible to be a Christian without experiencing affliction.  While it is true that at some point in the life of every Christian, some one is not going to like our hypocrisy, what someone preached, all the Bible was used against them, or how people claiming to be "real Christians" impinge on their personal freedom and did not let them come to their own decision, this is not the way to get people to come to Christ or to begin evangelizing.  Instead, we should allow those who come to us with questions to rest in the fact that Jesus does not have an expectation of continual affliction for us, because he took on our afflictions on the cross so that we could be free from them.  And now we are free to love, even through our afflictions, because Christ is with us.  Being a Christian is not about afflictions.  It's about a relationship, which grows and changes and provides support in difficult times and situations, which come in every person's life, Christian or non-Christian.  This is how we should explain it, not that being a Christian somehow draws more affliction to us than otherwise, or that we should want to have more or go looking for more affliction in our lives.  It's going to happen, and Jesus is going to be with us in it, and for that we should thank God.  Not for the affliction itself.