Secularization as Kenosis

secularization as kenosis | 199
I will criticize Vattimo’s equation of secularization and Christianity with an argument
from René Girard’s anthropology of religion.
The original context of kenosis is the letter of Paul to the Philippians, according
to which Christ ‘emptied Himself’ (Philippians 2:7). The term functions in Vattimo’s
writings to give a biblical legitimization for secularization. It is very questionable, however,
to what extent the term kenosis can give this legitimization. As Vattimo uses it,
kenosis depicts only a downward mobility of humility and weakening. But this is a very
selective use of the text. The direct context of the word kenosis is not only a movement
of humiliation, but also of the exaltation of the Son and the subjection of all things to
him. 117 The point I want to make here is not a matter of mere biblicism, rather I do
contest the rather one-sided usage of kenosis by Vattimo (and many other postmodern
authors). With regard to secularization as weakening, a more comprehensive definition
of kenosis would show that kenosis is not a matter of mere emptying, but rather an
Umwertung in which power and transcendence are not done away with, but rather are
redefined in terms of the righteous rule of God. The Christological hymn in Philippians
finds its culminating point in the adoration of Christ as Lord. Vattimo’s narrowing of
kenosis to a weakening and dissolution of transcendence is , in this perspective, mistaken.
Another text that Vattimo quotes is from the Epistle to the Hebrews. The first two
verses of that Epistle read: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.”
Vattimo reads the reference to the Son (In the last days He has spoken to us through
the Son.) in contradistinction to the prophets of the Old Testament, with their idea of
an omnipotent, creator-God. Here too, however, the author speaks of a glorification of
the Son and the subjection of everything to him. 118 Vattimo here makes an uncritical
opposition between the Old Testament and the New Testament and unrightfully makes
kenosis and incarnation sound as mere weakenings and humiliation, whereas in the
New Testament witness it is also a testimony of the divine power attributed to the son
of man. 119
However sympathetic I find Vattimo’s intention to introduce biblical notions in
the philosophical debate, I think he interprets these texts too much from his own preunderstanding
of what kenosis is. I think Frascati-Lochhead is right, when she says that
the intention of the text from Hebrews is the antithesis of the interpretation Vattimo
suggests. 120 Vattimo reads the New Testament in opposition to the Old Testament. In
particular with regard to the ethical implications of the New Testament, it is questionable
whether this approach does justice to the New Testament authors. 121 Vattimo tends
117 As the KJV reads: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father.”
118 The KJV continues: “. . . whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the
word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high.” 119 E. Verhoef, Filippenzen Filemon. Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Kampen: Kok, 1998), 43–45.
120 Marta Frascati-Lochhead, Kenosis and Feminist Theology The Challenge of Gianni Vattimo (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1998), 157.
121 See for example: Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order. An Outline for Evangelical ethics,