Secularization as Kenosis

secularization as kenosis | 197
religion and weakening gives philosophy a basis on which to reflect critically on the
forms religion takes in postmodernity. 108 To think of nihilism as secularization and of
secularization in terms of kenosis, is not the consequence of a logical argumentation.
It does have a “global plausibility in its practical unfolding.” This relation between the
Christian religion and the history of Western thought is a history of weakening that
is a result of the working of Christianity. 109 Kenosis suggests that God is not so much
an omnipotent sovereign, but shows himself in humility. The Christian tradition has
given us concepts like brotherhood, love for ones neighbor, and non-violence. To think
of secularization as kenosis does not mean the end of religion; rather the fulfilment of
religion. Secularization as a farewell to the sacred is in this sense a fulfilment of religion:
in Christianity, the sacred becomes flesh and thus makes it possible to speak of God as
part of the secular. 110 We could as well say that the sacred has become part of history.
Religious language is thus not so much a matter of articulating supernatural truths, but
is related to concrete events in history. Thus, the loss of authority of the Church and
belief in God are signs of the truth of Christianity as kenosis, not of its failure. 111
Caritas
The bond between kenosis and secularization results, on the one hand, in the acceptance
of a range of views as legitimate interpretations of the Christian truth. On the other
hand it emphasizes the continuity with the kenotic events of Christianity. Openness
to truth in different interpretations and religious traditions is possible only as a consequence
of the very unique character of the Christian faith and the Christian tradition
of interpretation, which Vattimo calls the productiveness of interpretation. Interpreting
hermeneutics as a transcription of kenosis means that it belongs to Christianity to exceed
its founding texts and to produce more and more interpretations of the hermeneutic
event. The standards for judging are historical though, not objective. Kenosis offers
philosophy and theology a standard by which to evaluate concrete interpretations. Vattimo
speaks of caritas or love as the limit of interpretation. This is obviously a criterion
taken from the Christian tradition itself and this invites the question as to whether we
can use it legitimately. For is not the criterion of love itself a historically contingent
criterion? How can it be used then as a guiding criterion to evaluate historical processes
of interpretation? Vattimo acknowledges this, but at the same time he holds that
a viewpoint ‘from nowhere’ is impossible. In interpreting the world and making moral
choices, we can only orient ourselves by making reference to the tradition we are already
in. The history of Christianity and the history of the end of metaphysics are in
this sense one and the same history; we cannot take in a transcendent perspective from
108 “. . . this rebirth of religion can and should be examined critically (by philosophy), if she would betray
her own essential inspiration.” Vattimo, After Christianity, 27.
109 There is not always a strict argumentative connection. Vattimo sees a certain family resemblance
between kenotic Christianity and postmodern, weak thought. The central thesis of Vattimo seems to be the
following: “To analyze what it means for the return of religion, that secularization is seen as a constitutive
element of the history of being and consequently of history of salvation.” Vattimo, After Christianity, 29.
110 Vattimo, After Christianity, 32.
111 “. . . secularization . . . also constitutes the Church’s loss of temporal authority and human reason’s
increasing autonomy from its dependence upon an absolute God, a fearful Judge who so transcends our ideas
about good and evil as to appear as a capricious or bizarre sovereign – is precisely a positive effect of Jesus’
teaching, and not a way of moving away from it. It may be that Voltaire himself is a positive effect of the
Christianization of mankind, and not a blasphemous enemy of Christ.” Vattimo, Belief, 41.