
Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God
Oxford University Press, USA, 2006
368 pp., $140.00

Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God
C. Stephen Evans
Regent College Publishing, 2009
360 pp., $26.56
John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
A Christ We Can Follow
The new kenotic theologyOrthodox Christians affirm the basic Christological parameters set out at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451: Jesus was truly divine and truly human, one person in two natures. Such Christians also affirm that no one can comprehend just how the Second Person of the Trinity became human. Recent theology, however, has returned to the category of kenosis to see if it can render at least a little more coherent this paradox of the Incarnation, and a fine sampling of this new conversation can be found in the essays collected by philosopher C. Stephen Evans in Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God.
The paradox has long delighted preachers and poets, even as it has vexed theologians. How can the Logos sleep as an infant in his mother's arms? How can the Son who is co-eternal with the Father and in whom "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells" (Col. 2:9) possibly "grow in wisdom" (Luke 2:52)? How can the light of the world who enlightens everyone (John 1:9) not know some things (Mark 13:32)? How can he who created and sustains the cosmos and who brings eternal life to the world somehow suffer, die, and be buried, as the Apostles' Creed declares?
The traditional Christian answer is that the Son of God took on humanity, adding to his divinity the reality of human being. In some way we do not understand, the respective traits and experiences of Christ's divinity and humanity were shared in his single person, what is known theologically as the communicatio idiomatum.
Several related problems have always been implied by this rendering of the Incarnation. These problems have been addressed by kenotic theology, which is best known (and stigmatized) as a 19th-century movement in Germany and then Britain that erred too far on the "human" side of the Chalcedonian affirmation. (Thomas Thompson provides a full account of this story as part of his participation in this book.) But philosophers and theologians today (notably contributors Stephen Davis and Ronald Feenstra) are ...


Curt Gardner(Registered User)
The problem with kenotic theologians is that they are unhappy with mystery. The Bible teaches Jesus is man and thus he does not know the date of his 2nd Coming. The Bible teaches Jesus is God and thus he is able to know things about the Samaritan woman that he shouldn't know as a mere mortal. How do these two things go together? I don't know. Theologians don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us. It is why the incarnation is a miracle that is beyond human understanding. He is God and man in one person. When he evidences mortal attributes, his humanity is being manifest. When he shows forth superhuman power, his divinity is displayed. Beyond that, it cannot be explained and all attempts to do so will lead to theological error. Kenotic theologians are too caught up in Enlightment rationalism that demands all mysteries bow before human reason. Such thinking destroys the glory of the incarnation, a miracle that is meant to make us bow down in humble worship before that which is beyond our intellect as to its nature and as to the love that brought it about. When statements are made in defense of kenotic theology that we must adopt it because clearly there was a change in the divine nature when the incarnation took place, we know we have strayed into serious error because Scripture clearly teaches God does not change. We must be careful not to try and be more clever than divine revelation and humbly admit that can not understand everything. Behold the mystery of the incarnation. When you try to explain it, you destroy it. I would add that the Philippians 2 passage that speaks of Christ emptying himself is clearly speaking about his status and glory, not his being or attributes. The pastoral applications Paul makes proves this. He is calling his church to follow Christ's example in humbling themselves so they may serve one another. He is not asking them to ontologically became less than human or to give up human attributes, but to adopt the the attitude of Christ when he took on the status of a servant. To make the passage about philosophy and metaphysics is to undermine the ethical punch that Paul intended for it to have. He wasnt asking them to get lost in intellectually pondering the mystery of divine being, but to be motivated to serve by the mystery of divine love.
Add your comment *