1 Introduction:
LOCUS CLASSICUS
The oft-made claim that Christian theology is the locus classicus of kenosis is not entirely unjustifiable, though, as will become apparent, it is neither the origin nor the culmination of kenosis and kenotic thought.1 Nonetheless, since it was via the Christian doctrine of the paschal mystery that I came to this project and was introduced to kenosis (the doctrine’s essence), there is an element of poetic merit in viewing kenotic genealogy with reference to its classical place in Christianity. Such a viewing position requires a looking back to Plato and before, as well as a looking forward to the present day, not so much in search of a chronological history, but a thematic one. Thus the Christian notion of kenosis can be seen as arising from that which preceded it, as well as that to which subsequent thought reacts, either by expanding or challenging it. The fact that so much of Christian theology originally draws on Platonic and Aristotelian thought, and, furthermore, that the most contemporary and radicalised interpretations of kenosis relate
1
A brief, but useful introduction to 'kenosis', from a theological perspective, is provided in J. Haught, "Kenosis," in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, ed. J.W.V. van Huyssteen (New York: Macmillian Reference USA, 2003), 500-502.
themselves to Christianity, makes the choice to view kenosis from this vantage point all the more fitting. For purposes of this discourse, however, it is important to primarily consider what the Christian narrative proposes about kenosis, as a concept, and largely avoid the skirmishes it stirs within theology. Even in a lengthy and comprehensive treatise on the paschal mystery, noted theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988) states that “the doctrine of Kenosis is so difficult from the viewpoints of exegesis, the history of tradition and of dogma that here we can only touch upon it, and deal with it just so far as it is unavoidable for our theme.”2 As if to corroborate Balthasar’s view,
theologian Jürgen Moltmann (1926-) acknowledges not only “the many individual exegetical problems” associated with kenosis but also “the theological ones.”3 Although
such difficulties and problems are amply debated in theological circles,4 they are essentially unresolvable and, here, largely superfluous. I therefore echo Balthasar’s caveat and limit my exploration, focusing on those aspects of the Christian concept of kenosis that usefully inform a secular reading of kenosis and human creativity, particularly as it might later be applied to architecture.
That which constitutes Christianity as a pivot point of kenotic thought is the fundamentally distinguishing claim of a manifested messiah, the divine in human form, their Christ. (This discussion, however, is indifferent to the factuality of such a claim, since the concept, alone, is sufficiently pivotal.) Although prefigured in Hebrew prophesy (as seen later in this chapter), the appearance of a messiah is claimed to have eventuated only in the Christian narrative, where it is seen through the complex salvific concept called the paschal mystery, referring foremost to the humiliating but paradoxically life-promising death of a messiah who somehow possesses two natures, divine and human (another topic of debate, flowing from kenosis). The paschal mystery courses its way throughout the Christian scriptures but takes on a unique dimension in the [ca.] 60 CE letter from the apostle Paul to a fledgling Christian community in Philippi (Greece).5 In that letter, which appears in the Christian scriptures as ‘Philippians’, Paul discusses the merits of “imitating Christ’s humility” (Phil 2). Most of that discussion centres on a recitation of what is regarded as an early Christian hymn (Phil 2:5-11), now often referred
2
H.U. von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter, trans. A. Nichols, English ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, (1970) 2005), 23.
3
J. Moltmann, "God's Kenosis in the Creation and Consummation of the World," in The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, ed. J.C. Polkinghorne (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 138.
4
In addition to their own extensive works, both Balthasar and Moltmann direct readers of the above cited references to other sources in which the noted difficulties and problems of kenosis are pursued. An example of such difficulties is briefly discussed at note 11.
5 The HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV) indicates that Paul’s letter to the Philippians was written sometime
between 54 and 62 CE. See H.W. Attridge and W.A. Meeks, eds., The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2006), 1908.
to as the ‘Kenosis Hymn’.6 Therein, an already-existing Word, or Logos, is portrayed as
being “in the form of God” but not inclined to “regard equality with God as something to be exploited.”7 Instead, this Christ who would be named Jesus, “being born in human
likeness,” is said to have “emptied himself” (the original Greek text employs the term ekenosen8), thereby “taking the form of a slave.” Then, “being found in human form, he humbled himself” – a kind of earthly extension of his emptying – and, in obedience to God, willingly suffered crucifixion, all purportedly for humanity’s salvation. Thus the act of ‘self-emptying’ is known by the noun kenosis and, in this narrative, is that which effects particular kinds of servitude and humiliation. Paradoxically, however, it also culminates in the “exaltation” of the self-emptied one. This presentation of kenosis suggests a threefold event. In addition to the kenosis itself, there is that which precedes it and that which succeeds it. Each aspect of the event importantly characterises the conceptual nature of kenosis and warrants elucidation.
Preceding the Kenosis
Prior to his retelling of the hymn, Paul initiates the kenotic theme in his own words. He asks that the Philippians “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit …” (Phil 2:3). Thus, even before the term kenosis is deployed, before the notion of self-emptying is invoked,
6
Theologians speculate that this hymn may have been used, originally, in connection with baptismal events wherein, according to Christian tradition, catechumens enter the paschal mystery by ‘dying with Christ’ in what is effectively their own act of kenosis; a reciprocation of Christ’s. Paul’s retelling of the hymn, as it appears in Philippians 2:5-11 (NRSV), is as follows:
5
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
6
who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
7
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,
8
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross.
9
Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name
10
so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend
in heaven and on earth and under the earth
11
and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar, suggests that this is a “rounded off” version of the hymn and that, for emphasis, Paul added a line, “even death on a cross,” as the conclusion of verse 8. See von Balthasar,
Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter: 23.
7 The New Revised Standard Version uses the term ‘exploited’ and translates it, literally, to mean “‘seized’, as
in a robbery.” In lieu of ‘exploited’, other biblical translations use terms such as ‘grasped’ (English Standard Version, International Standard Version, American Standard Version) or ‘clung to’ (New Living Translation) or ‘used to his own advantage’ (New International Version).
8
Other word forms, derived from the root verb kenóō (to empty, or empty out), are used elsewhere in the Christian scriptures to mean ‘empty’, ‘emptied’, or ‘void’, but not in direct reference to a divine emptying.
there is a call to abandon self-interest. Then, the early phrases of the hymn reinforce that call as they announce the “regard,” or attitude, with which the still-divine and not yet incarnate Christ is said to approach his kenotic event.9 He seemingly recognises that “equality with God” is an impediment to self-emptying, as well as a contradiction to his forthcoming earthly situation. Therefore he chooses not to exploit, grasp at, or cling to the advantage of his divinity. He volitionally distances himself from the privilege of position and lets-go of aspirations to glory or power. Paul’s preamble and the hymn’s initial stanzas thus reveal a kind of prerequisite to kenosis; namely, that it not be approached strategically, especially as a pursuit of privilege. The kenotic paradox, of course, is that this renunciation of power is precisely what produces power, perhaps even a greater power, that of powerlessness. That, however, is a subject to be discussed, later, in connection with events succeeding the kenosis.
The Kenosis
Paul’s preamble goes on to invoke kenosis, itself. After his call for abandonment of self- interest, he writes to the Philippians that they should each “look … to the interests of others”10 in order that they might “be of the same mind” (and also have “the same love,”
from verse 2) “that was in Christ” (Phil 2:4-5). It is in such a mind-set and out of such love that – according to the continuing hymn – Christ underwent his kenotic event, the self- emptying by which he could be human,11 and thereby be consummately relational with humanity and attentive to their shared situation. By virtue of his human-ness, he could open-up and make-room for others, even “to the point of death” on their behalf. Christ’s kenosis, then, is his Passion. Thus the term ‘self-emptying’ comes to be equated with notions such as self-contraction, self-withdrawal, self-surrender, self-humbling, self-
9
Balthasar confirms the legitimacy of reading the Kenosis Hymn to mean “that the subject who thus ‘empties’ himself by taking the form of a servant is not the already incarnate Christ, but he who abides beyond this world, being in the form of God.” See von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter: 23-24.
10 Notes to the New Standard Revised Version indicate that ‘others’ (in the original text) can be literally
translated to mean ‘one another’ and, thereby, see Paul suggesting that the Philippian Christians “show humility toward one another, not necessarily toward people in general.” Such a suggestion, however, appears inconsistent with the model of Christ’s earthly behaviour, and antithetical to kenosis. As such, it points to one of the ‘problems’ associated with the theological interpretation of this text.
11 It is the exact nature and implications of this ‘self-emptying’ that has stirred so much theological attention
and debate. Indeed, the origins of kenotic theology are traced primarily to seventeenth century Lutheran theologians who suggested that only the ‘attributes’ of divinity had been emptied, not divinity itself. Even then, those in Gießen proposed that the emptying was truly a ‘renunciation’, while those at Tübingen advocated that the kenosis had actually been krypsis, a ‘concealment’ or ‘hiding’ of divine attributes. Then, in the nineteenth century, other Lutheran theologians, including Thomasius, proposed that the divine nature had been ‘split’ into two sets of attributes: the outward ones of “majesty,” which were renounced, and the inward ones of “truth, holiness, love,” which were retained. As Moltmann points out, although this dichotomous treatment of divine attributes found no followers, it did serve to highlight one of the inherent problems in kenotic theology. Balthasar’s trinitarian view – discussed here in part – goes some way to resolve that problem, though still not fully (sufficient, however, for the purposes of this discourse). See Moltmann, "God's Kenosis in the Creation and Consummation of the World," 139; and K. Ward, "Cosmos and Kenosis," in The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, ed. J.C. Polkinghorne (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 155.
yielding, and dying-to-self. Yet, despite all of its seeming negation, this narrative depicts the messianic kenosis as a bold and revelatory act of creation. It purports the physical revelation of God to humanity, but, even viewed as myth, it significantly alters the human situation in which it ‘happens’. The mere notion of a hypostasis of God living amongst humanity – not only in human form, but as that of a servant who is ultimately executed at the hand of humanity – dramatically elevates the possibilities for thinking and acting vis-à- vis human-divine relationality, and therefore vis-à-vis human being. In that dynamic, three important characteristics of kenosis are uncovered. Kenosis is seen first as a creative act, second as one which both requires and effects relationality, and third as one which effects “a transition to a higher plane of action and meaning, [which] transforms the nature of what is happening and how it is seen.”12
The messianic instantiation of kenosis, as a creative act – which Balthasar refers to as “the horizontal relationship between Crib and Cross” – leads directly to another, more fundamental kenosis. Because the paschal mystery incorporates the whole story of this messiah’s earthly life, it necessarily includes the originating creative act of incarnation, by which the divine is seen to become human and be placed humbly amongst humanity. Indeed, the incarnation opens up what Balthasar calls “the vertical [relationship] between heaven and the Crib.”13 Although Christ’s self-emptying is seen as
that which effects his human-ness and consequent passion, it is not that which effects his original creation as a human being; that is, it does not effect his begetting. It is in that generation – the incarnation – that Balthasar sees the primal act of kenotic creativity: the self-emptying of the Godhead. As “Father,” Balthasar sees God being the first to let-go of his divinity “in an eternal ‘super-Kenosis’,” by which he “makes himself ‘destitute’ of all that he is and can be so as to bring forth a consubstantial divinity, the Son.”14 Australian
theologian Anne Hunt offers a concise summary of the Balthasarian view:
… all forms of kenosis ad extra are contained within that primal kenosis ad intra that is the Father’s generation of the Son. The generation of the Son manifests the complete self-giving of the Father to the Son, a self-yielding surrender of divine being. Similarly, the Son’s self-giving to the Father in his death on the cross is already contained within this eternal generation; in fact it is a modality of the Son’s procession.15
This incarnational view not only reveals an originating kenotic event (though not necessarily the first, as will subsequently be seen) but also another underlying
12
What I am naming as a third characteristic is presented and discussed in G.F.R. Ellis, "Kenosis as a Unifying Theme for Life and Cosmology," in The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, ed. J.C. Polkinghorne (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 126.
13
von Balthasar, Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter: 23.
14
Ibid., viii.
15
A. Hunt, "Psychological Analogy and Paschal Mystery in Trinitarian Theology," Theological Studies 59, no. 2 (1998): 204.
characteristic of kenosis: that of reciprocity. Kenosis elicits kenotic response. (It is, however, important to note that, despite such response being volitional, kenotic response may include agonising reluctance or vigorous resistance, as illustrated in the narrative of Gethsemane). Being a product of the ‘Father’s’ kenosis, the ‘Son’ responds kenotically, and similarly declines to cling to divine powers or attributes. Thus, a divine desire to relate to humanity is fulfilled in a “double kenosis,”16 which occurs primordially in God’s
self-emptying to create itself in human form and, then, secondarily (or consequentially) in Christ’s self-emptying to make-room for the desired relations with humanity. In the latter, Christ is seen to be human, a constituent to his human context and earthly situation – at least in part. Balthasar describes the ontological identity of the always extant Logos (and eventual Christ) as consubstantially divine; an identity that, despite kenotic transformation, is apparently not surrendered in any ultimate way. There is some sense (the extent an ongoing topic of debate) in which the kenotic Christ remains divine, even while becoming (through incarnation) and being (through passion) human. Theology and theological debate aside, this concept uncovers still more essential characteristics of kenosis. Self-emptying effects heightened “receptivity” and “hospitality,” or “a conscious opening up to the other in order to partially become the other,” in a kind of “hybridisation” that finds self and others “radically contextualised” in the situation they comprise. Importantly, however, self-emptying does not threaten fundamental self-identity.17 In fact, the hybridisation and contextualisation of kenosis points to a strengthening of self- identity, if self-identity is not regarded as something to grasp at or cling to.
By invoking Father-Son imagery in his discussions of the incarnation, Balthasar takes an obviously trinitarian approach,18 which, according to Hunt, finds that “the paschal mystery and mystery of the Trinity are inextricably interconnected.”19 So, amidst the
divine kenotic events, what is the nature and place of the third hypostasis, the Spirit? Hunt finds insight in the work of another theologian, François-Xavier Durrwell (1912-2005):
In Durrwell’s theology … the Trinity is these Three: the Begetter, the Begotten, and the divine power of Begetting. The Spirit … is the power of the process of begetting. Durrwell thus proposes what is effectively a ‘bi-polar’ trinitarian model.
16 The notion of a ‘double kenosis’ is explored more fully in Ward, "Cosmos and Kenosis," 162-165. 17
Drawing on the works of Yves Raguin, Theo Sundermeier, and Tinu Ruparell, Martha Frederiks (Utrecht University) gathers these notions of kenosis together in an exploration of kenosis as applied to interfaith relations. They are, however, useful and pertinent in describing the fundamental nature of kenosis in any application, not least in application to human creativity. See M.T. Frederiks, "Kenosis as a Model for Interreligious Dialogue," Missiology, An International Review XXXIII, no. 2 (2005): 216-217.
18
Although some scholars are able to find and interpret certain passages of the Hebrew scriptures as suggesting three aspects of God, there is no ‘Trinitarian Doctrine’ as such. Similarly, no formal doctrine appears in the Christian scriptures, although God’s actions can be seen as being of three distinct natures, and there are references to Father, Son, and Spirit, albeit not as a ‘Trinity’. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is first found as a fourth century construct, which has continued to be interpretively expanded.
19
There are only two poles, not three, he insists, for the Father has only one Son, who, as the only-Begotten, is the unique term of the Father’s paternal action. The