Sep

28

2011

Kenotic Christology: Good Theology or Digression Towards Heresy?

For much of its history the Church has struggled to hold together the divine and human natures of Christ. This is largely because God’s becoming one with humanity is, as Kierkegaard said, the ultimate paradox.[1]

Nonetheless, merely appealing to ‘mystery’ is inadequate in our post-enlightenment context. Chalcedon did not attempt to fully investigate this mystery but rather to protect it; no answers regarding how the incarnation worked were offered thus leaving many questions unanswered. In the past two centuries this void in the Christian tradition has come to the fore. Dogmatic answers and pleas of ignorance appear to both the intellectually inquisitive and to relativistic sceptics to be an evasion, further solidifying their conviction that Christians are intellectually deficient, holding onto an archaic faith which is fundamentally flawed. Context demands coherent answers. Kenotic Christology seeks to better understand how the incarnation worked, attempting to articulate a perspective which makes coherent sense of both Christ’s divinity and humanity. Also, by revealing the genuineness of Christ’s humanity, kenoticism challenges those evangelical believers who have fallen for “naïve docetism”.[2] Whether or not Jesus was legitimately human as we are human has significant implications; if he only faced temptation, struggle, hunger and suffering as a farce, how could we possibly find encouragement in knowing he endured that which we endure? But, “A God who empties himself out of love for human beings, who recklessly… gives up divine privileges to endure all the hard realities of human life, is a God whose love is credible and inspires love in return.”[3] This essay will first, consider the history of Christology, second, offer a description of the general kenosis theory and mention some of its variants, and finally, use the Wesleyan Pentalateral as a platform to examine the theory’s strengths and challenges in order to determine whether kenotic Christology can be considered ‘good theology’.

Since the formation of the Church arguably no doctrine has received such brutal treatment as the doctrine of Christology. During the patristic period the church was constantly bombarded with heretical Christologies, thus forcing her to take a position of vigorous defence. Such conflicts created the need for unified statements of faith, for example the Nicene Creed, penned in part to respond to the heresy of Arius. Nicaea affirmed “with unambiguous clarity that Jesus is to be identified as God incarnate”.[4] In fact, for Athanasius, the incarnation constituted the very “hinge between God and humanity.”[5] However, in the process of countering heresies which would undermine Christ’s divinity, the church began to emphasise the divinity of Christ to the extent that his humanity was effectively downplayed. This resulted with a church which failed to sufficiently embrace Christ’s full humanity. [6]

The Chalcedonian Definition, likewise written to counter the tide of heresies within the church, quickly became the Church’s authoritative statement on Christology.[7] It teaches the doctrine of the hypostatic union, the belief that in the incarnate Christ was the “perfect union of two distinct but never separate natures – one human and one divine – in one integral, eternal divine person.”[8] Chalcedon did not, however, seek to explain how Christ could be one being with two natures; its purpose was simply to protect the mystery of the incarnation from heresies that threatened to undermine and destroy the Christian faith. Chalcedon effectively provided the parameters within which orthodox Christology can be explored. Nevertheless, until recently the church has struggled to hold together the divinity and humanity of Christ.

Unsatisfied with fickle, dogmatic answers, in the 19^th century Christian thinkers began to explore how Christ could be both human and divine. Thomasius, arguably the first modern kenotic theologian, wanted to do proper justice to Christ’s full humanity.[9] He successfully mapped out an approach to Christology which defended Christ’s divinity yet made adequate room to properly consider his true humanity. Since then various models of kenoticism have been presented, all stressing different points in order to strengthen the theory’s weaknesses and further demonstrate its ability to make intellectually viable the paradox of the incarnation. The following is a description of a general kenotic Christology.

Central to Christianity is the belief that the divine Logos,[10] became a legitimate human being. This belief appears to be contradictory: how could one being be omniscient and non-omniscient, omnipotent and non-omnipotent? According to the kenotic theory, Christ’s divine and human natures need not be seen as contradictory; rather, it is possible to reconcile this apparent paradox in a way which is both coherent and intelligible. Moreover, this theory justifies and even celebrates the blatant humanness of Christ found throughout the gospels, something alternative theories constantly struggle with.

A key passage for kenotic theologians is Philippians 2:6-11 which states that, in the incarnation, the pre-existent Christ “emptied himself” and became a human. The Greek word for “emptied himself”, kenoo, inspired theologians to consider the idea that in becoming human, “God the Son in some way limited or temporarily divested himself of some of the properties thought to be divine prerogatives”. [11] This “act of self-emptying has become known as ‘kenosis’.”[12] Put simply, at the incarnation everything which is inconsistent with being a true human was somehow set aside by the second person of the trinity.[13] He chose not merely to become a human, but to do it in such a way that he could not access or rely on his divine attributes as he lived his life and engaged in ministry; Jesus was a man, and chose to live his life on earth as a real man.[14]

Kenotic theories are not exclusively based upon one passage of scripture but are derived from a careful consideration of the whole NT, especially Hebrews and the gospels.[15] The Philippians passage simply states that Christ “emptied himself” but makes no attempt to explain what that emptying entailed. Clearly, however, this passage alludes that “the only way for an infinite thing to become a finite thing is by giving up or emptying itself or divesting itself, in some sense, of some infinite properties.”[16] This understanding that Christ relinquished certain divine attributes is alluded to throughout the gospels, especially by the way he is depicted as living a truly human life.[17] He came into the world by a human birth (Gal 4:4); underwent human growth including mental, social and spiritual development (Luke 2:52); became hungry (Luke 4:2), thirsty (John 19:28) and tired (John 4:6); he was ignorant on some matters (Mark 9:21; 13:32);[18] experienced joy (Luke 10:21), sorrow (Matt 26:37-38), anger (Mark 3:5), astonishment (Luke 7:9), and anguish of heart (Matt 27:46).[19] Interestingly, the gospels even attribute Jesus’ miracles, not to his own power, but to his reliance on the Father and the Spirit (Matt 12:28; John 5:19).[20] Rather than claiming that these attributes of Christ’s humanity were somehow a façade they ought to be taken at face value. Clearly, Scripture portrays Christ’s humanity as genuine, allowing little room for the argument that Jesus relied on his divine attributes during the incarnation.

Surprisingly Hebrews, which opens with a brilliant articulation of the divinity of Christ, is filled with clear references to his true humanity.[21] Christ is portrayed as the Church’s true high priest, a position he earned by virtue of being genuinely human (Heb 4:14-15). We also learn that Christ was made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:10), that he learned obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8-9), and that he was tempted just as we are (Heb 4:15). What is more, the prayers he prayed paint an incredible portrait of his true humanity despite his willingness to submit to the will of the Father (Heb 5:7; Cf. Matt 26:39.)

It is argued that only the kenosis perspective can explain this clear portrayal of the genuineness of Jesus’ humanity. More importantly, for Jesus to be humanity’s high priest, representing them before God as one who can sympathize with their weaknesses, he had to suffer and undergo genuine human temptation. If Jesus’ humanity was somehow a façade then the whole plan of redemption is undermined; redemption requires that Jesus was the ‘genuine article.’[22] Similarly, this perspective makes acceptable the scriptural affirmation for believers to pursue Christlikeness; because Christ was genuinely human, not relying on his divine attributes, he does provide an example of true human life.[23]

A number of proposals have been made regarding the nature of Christ’s ‘emptying’. The most extreme form of kenoticism holds that, in the incarnation, Christ gave up the attributes of deity. Many have found this view unsatisfactory, as, given today’s understanding of attributes this appears to depict a “virtual transmutation of deity into humanity.”[24] Various modified forms of kenoticism have been offered that attempt to avoid this issue. A common approach is to argue that Christ only gave up those attributes of deity which would be incompatible with humanity. For example, Thomasius held that Christ only surrendered his relational attributes while retaining his immanent ones.[25] Likewise, Davis made a distinction between essential and accidental attributes of both deity and humanity, contending that Christ could have been truly human but not merely human.[26] Erickson has approached the issue in a slightly different manner, arguing for a “kenosis by addition”.[27] That is, by virtue of adding together divine and human natures some of Christ’s divine and human attributes became latent; they were not “set aside,” but because of the incarnation these attributes manifested differently to before.[28] These varied perspectives demonstrate that there are plausible ways to explain the nature of Christ’s ‘emptying.’[29]

Because “Christianity is Christ,”[30] the topic of Christology must be approached with an attitude of reverence and careful consideration. The “Wesleyan Pentalateral” will now be employed to determine whether this doctrine conforms to the boundaries of orthodox faith.[31] Firstly, as demonstrated, arguments for the kenosis theory are primarily based upon scriptural evidence. Kenotics claim that NT is permeated by a kenotic understanding. Furthermore, kenoticism is able to reconcile the very human portrayal of Christ found throughout the gospels with the NT’s claim of his divinity. Thus, a true reading of the NT becomes intellectually viable; one need not abandon logic in order to comprehend scripture.[32]

Secondly, the kenosis theory seeks to examine something which has received little focus within church tradition.[33] The council of Chalcedon did not attempt to present a formulation of what it meant for Christ to be incarnate, but simply created boundaries which would protect the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Therefore, so long as kenoticism is explored within the parameters of Chalcedon – Christ’s divine and human natures being without confusion, change, division or separation – it can be considered a valid expression of faith which does not impinge on tradition.[34]

Thirdly, it is in the area of reason that kenotic theories find their greatest challenges. This is not because kenosis theory lacks inner coherence, but because it has encountered much opposition in the area of philosophy. Proponents of kenoticism have presented sound, logical arguments to defend their positions, discussing at length the philosophical and metaphysical issues which are necessary for kenoticism to be considered viable.[35] However, three challenges are often raised. First, due to philosophical assumptions inherited from the church fathers, some have rejected kenoticism on the basis that it conflicts with the doctrines of immutability and impassibility.[36] These people contend that genuine kenosis would introduce change into the Godhead, thus undermining his greatness. However, proponents of Kenoticism argue that Scripture presents God as being dynamic, thus they reject strong immutability and impassibility.[37] These Christological debates actually revolve around contention regarding the very nature of God, and it seems unlikely a consensus will be reached on these matters.

Second, some claim the theory crumbles when one asks, Who sustained the world while the Logos was ‘absent’ from the Trinity? Though it is speculation,[38] sufficient solutions have been proposed, namely that the Logos could have arranged for the Father and Spirit to fulfil his role until he ‘returned’.[39] It is also wrongly claimed that kenoticism flirts with tritheism. Kenosis theories are fundamentally Trinitarian, rightly stressing the social trinity.[40] However, as demonstrated from the writings of Barth, the theory can emphasise the unity of the Trinity at the very same time.[41] Third, it is asked, If Christ ‘set aside’ some of his divine attributes that were incompatible with being truly human, how can the exalted Christ possess those attributes yet still be human? Again, plausible answers are offered, the most useful being that the incarnation was probably possible apart from kenosis but that a kenotic incarnation was necessary for redemption to be valid.[42] After the atonement had been carried out by Christ there was no longer any need for him to remain ‘empty’ from his divine attributes, thus now that he is exalted there is no issue with him being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent yet still human. In sum, though its proponents must continue to wrestle with issues of philosophy, kenoticism remains highly plausible, coherent[43] and useful.

Fourthly, proponents of kenoticism have appealed to experience in various ways. First, humanity’s common experience of their own finiteness made kenotic theories inevitable.[44] Second, “there is great religious power and meaning that is intrinsic to the idea of a God who sacrifices and suffers with and on behalf of his creatures.”[45] Christians who have embraced kenotic Christology have experienced comfort in the fact that Christ truly can sympathize with them. Third, Christians throughout the centuries have experienced divine enabling, where God empowered them to endure suffering and to resist sin. Likewise, many have experienced the power of God moving through them to bring healing to others. These experiences have often flowed from the belief that Christ, being a real man, is the template of true humanity. Also, these experiences provide insight regarding how Jesus could live a sinless life and perform miracles without relying on his own divinity.

Lastly, useful analogies are drawn from nature to amplify discussions of kenosis. For example, Erickson uses the human subconscious to illustrate how Christ could be omniscient as a human yet be unaware of it.[46] Likewise, he parallels the coming together of the divine and human nature with how two different atoms can come together and form a ‘new’ substance, yet both original atoms remain unchanged.[47]

It is clear that the kenosis theory measures up strongly to the Wesleyan Pentalateral. However, due to its complex nature it would be unprofitable to introduce deep theological discussions regarding this topic into the average congregation. Instead, environments must be formed where these matters can be properly discussed. Symposiums such as “Exploring Kenotic Christology” [48] are incredibly valuable and should be applauded. Solid answers will emerge during continued communal discussion, especially when the Spirit is free to lead and guide. Implications and applications of the theory will, however, emerge as local congregations are introduced to its fundamental concepts.

The above examination demonstrates that the kenosis theory can be considered ‘good theology.’ The theory has attempted to develop and explain the doctrine of the hypostatic union by answering questions left open by the Chalcedonian Definition. This goal has been achieved by thorough use of Scripture, appropriate respect for tradition, much wrestling with reason, and fitting appeals to experience and nature. It has done this in a way which is both missional, showing the faith remains coherent post-enlightenment, and applicable, demonstrating that Jesus is the ultimate example of how human beings can and ought to live. Likewise, it is profoundly Trinitarian and has escaped the clutches of strong immutability and impassibility. Indeed, in the incarnation God came alongside humanity, choosing to suffer as we do. Thus, though some have presented forms of kenoticism which clearly stray from orthodoxy, overall the theory is a viable and useful resource for the Church.

As Barth cautioned, our approach to theology must “give primacy to the ‘Who’ questions over the ‘How’”.[49] We must recognize that we are wading in deep water which will inevitably go over our finite human heads.[50] However, this perspective must not be neglected as it helps us grasp the fact that the incarnation was very real, not a matter of pretence where Jesus appeared as if he was human. Christ really did endure temptation, live righteously, perform miracles and suffer as a human man, not simply by virtue of being divine. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that there is a huge degree of mystery shrouding the incarnation, and that it appears God wanted it to be left as mystery. After-all, we can only truly celebrate a God who exceeds our understanding.