Secularization as Kenosis

200 | postmodern condition and secularity
to select elements from the Christian tradition and the Bible, without giving a more
encompassing legitimation of his choices. There is a considerable tension with the interpretation
of kenosis in a more encompassing series of events, which not only entails
the humiliation of Christ, but also his resurrection, exaltation and judgment. The idea
of Christ as the one who sits on the throne and who judges does not fit his scheme of
weakening. When he speaks of the possibility of an afterlife, he says: “Eternal life is
nothing else than the perfect maturing of the meanings and spiritual forms the history
of mankind has brought forth . . . ” 122 To my mind this is an arbitrary interpretation of
the tradition. Moreover, it is in a sense a form of natural theology, as it can think of
eternity only in terms of a continuation of the here and now.
According to Vattimo, a consequence of the secularization of Christianity is that it
is open to new interpretations and that the only rule for interpretation is the rule of love.
I am not convinced that Vattimo is right here. If we followed Vattimo, every dogmatic
creed of Christianity and every institutional form of the Christian religion could be
left behind, without losing its essence: love. I find this particularly unsatisfying when
Vattimo claims that this is coherent with René Girard’s account of the uniqueness of
Christianity. Therefore this section assesses Vattimo’s relation to René Girard.
Girard has developed a theory that enables us, according to Vattimo, to interpret
Christianity as essentially different from metaphysics. Christianity is not of a piece
with metaphysics, but is the exception to metaphysics. For a brief summary of Girard’s
theory of a non-violent Christianity we can rely on Vattimo’s summary of it:
Girard claims that human societies are held together by a powerful drive, the mimetic
drive, which is also the source of crises that threatens to destroy them when the need to
imitate others erupts into the will to possess things belonging to others and engenders
a war of all against all. The harmony is re-established only by finding the scapegoat
on which to focus the violence, rather in the way that the anger of the fans in a soccer
stadium tends to discharge itself upon the referee. Since it really works – ending
war and re-establishing the basis of society – the scapegoat is invested with sacred
attributes and made into a cultic object, while still retaining the status of the sacrificial
victim. 123
Vattimo sees his own program closely related to the work of René Girard. For
both the truth of Christianity consists of a critique of truth in a strong sense. 124 The
difference between them is that Vattimo sees this critique as compatible with a secular
culture, whereas Girard does not think that a post-modern secular culture in the end
overcomes violence or the sacred. In this respect, the two stand in radical opposition to
each other. When we realize that Girard sees any type of human culture as originally
violent, this stands in sharp contrast to Vattimo. 125 Girard’s problem with religion is
not transcendence as such and Girard does not criticize Christianity because it knows
a transcendent God, as Vattimo does. 126 Girard is more critical of the post-religious,
Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 156.
122 Vattimo, After Christianity, 59.
123 Vattimo, Belief, 37.
124 Vattimo, After Christianity, 43.
125 Milbank is a different case. He sees the necessity of a Christian, historical social ontology. To his
mind, Girard’s shortcoming is that he proposes resisting secularity, but does not offer an alternative social
theory. Milbank, Theology and Social Theory, 395.
126 Guido Vanheeswijck, ‘Every Man Has a God or an Idol. René Girard’s View of Christianity and