"A theological doctrine of creation is not a religious cosmology that enter= s the lists in competition with the cosmologies of physics. But it has to be compatible with physical cosmologies. The theological account of experience= s of God is different from the scientific account of experiences of nature. But," observes Jurgen Moltmann, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology a= t the University of T=FCbingen in Germany, "if we bring them into dialogue with each other, two things soon emerge. First, theologians have a particular preference for the 'great scientific narratives', with their unique and unrepeatable histories, because these narratives correspond to their own histories with God. The one narrative is the development of the expanding cosmos since the 'Big Bang'; the other the evolution of life in 'the phylogenetic tree'. Second, theologians have a particular interest in a natural phenomenon for which scientists have no great liking: 'contingency'=
. We know from the unpredictable fortuities in human life and in our own personal biographies that these can put paid to our plans, for both good an= d ill."

Thus Moltmann begins his contribution, God's Kenosis in the Creation and Consummation of the World, to The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, a series of essays edited by John C. Polkinghorne, (Paperback; 210pp.; ISBN: 0-80284-885-0; Eerdmans Publishing Company; and April 2001). In his essay, Moltmann explores the Christian notion of kenosis and the Jewish understanding of Shekinah as well as the relationship of both the creation and the consummation of the world to God's kenosis, patience, and driving energies. Today, you will find the first two parts of his essay--those on kenosis and ob the Shekinah--posted below. In the following weeks, we will be posting excerpted essays from The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis by Malcolm Jeeves, Arthur Peacocke, and Holmes Rolston III as well a review of the book from Peter J. Haas, Abba Hillel Silver Chair of Jewish Studies, at Case Western Reserve University.

For those interested in more information about the book, or in purchasing it, please go to=20<http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802848850>.

-- Stacey E. Ake

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Subject: God's Kenosis in the Creation and Consummation of the World From: Jurgen Moltmann

. . . faith in [love's] triumph is neither more nor less than faith in the Creator Himself - faith that He will not cease from His handiwork nor abandon the object of His love. --Love's Endeavour, Love's Expense, p. 63

As a theologian, I should like to begin this contribution with an account o= f Christian and Jewish kenotic theology, and shall then go on to ask about it= s possible relevance for an understanding of God's presence and activity in the cosmos. A theological doctrine of creation is not a religious cosmology that enters the lists in competition with the cosmologies of physics. But i= t has to be compatible with physical cosmologies. The theological account of experiences of God is different from the scientific account of experiences of nature. But if we bring them into dialogue with each other, two things soon emerge. First, theologians have a particular preference for the 'great scientific narratives', with their unique and unrepeatable histories, because these narratives correspond to their own histories with God. The on= e narrative is the development of the expanding cosmos since the 'Big Bang';
the other the evolution of life in 'the phylogenetic tree'. Second, theologians have a particular interest in a natural phenomenon for which scientists have no great liking: 'contingency'. We know from the unpredictable fortuities in human life and in our own personal biographies that these can put paid to our plans, for both good and ill. Sociologists such as Jurgen Habermas and Hermann Lubbe therefore actually see the very function of religion as being "the mastery of contingency." So in developin= g a theology of nature, we ask about God's presence in the history of nature and in the chance events that herald a future which cannot be extrapolated from the past and present of the cosmos. We shall see whether here Christia= n and Jewish kenotic theology can sharpen our insight.

1. Christian Theology of the Kenosis of Christ

Christian experience of God springs from perception of the presence of God in Jesus Christ and his history. According to the hymn that Paul quotes in Philippians 2:5-11, Christ's history was understood as a kenosis for the sake of the redemption of God-forsaken men and women:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is also in Christ Jesus; who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born like another. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him. . . .

The history of Christ which the first part of this hymn describes begins with the 'divine form' of the Son of God in heaven and ends with the 'form of a servant' on the cross at Golgotha. The becoming-human of Christ presupposes his 'self-emptying' of his divine form and results in his 'humbling of himself', his self-humiliation. God's Son becomes human and mortal. He becomes the servant of human beings and dies on the cross. He does all this out of 'obedience' to God the Father. I shall not go here int= o the many individual exegetical problems, but shall turn directly to the theological ones.

1. Early Lutheran theology tried to understand this kenosis of the Son of God in the light of the christological doctrine of Christ's two natures. Christ's kenosis means that in becoming human Christ renounces the attributes of divine majesty, so that he is not almighty, omnipresent, and omniscient, but becomes 'like another human being', which is to say a limited being, who encounters other human beings in a human way. But it was only in respect of his human nature that he 'renounced' (as the Giessen theologians said) these divine attributes, or 'concealed' them (as the seventeenth-century Tubingen theologians explained). Neither group was prepared to talk about a kenosis of the divinity of the eternal Logos. They merely wished to make room for the true and real humanity of Christ's life on earth.

In the nineteenth century the Lutheran 'kenotics' (Sartorius, Liebner, Hofmann, Thomasius, Frank, and Gess) initiated a new approach and, followin= g patristic theology, took as subject of Philippians 2 not the Christ-who-has-become-human, but the Christ-in-his-becoming-human. His kenosis does not relate only to the attributes of majesty inherent in his divine nature; it already appertains to the divine being of the eternal Logos itself. Out of a self-limitation of the divine proceeds, as Thomasius taught, the Son of God-human being. His human form, which is the form of a servant, takes the place of his original divine form. But if nothing divine encounters other human beings in the incarnate Son of God, how could they then recognize him as the Christ of God? The kenotics replied - though admittedly with some degree of embarrassment - by postulating a dichotomy i= n the divine attributes: the incarnate Son of God 'renounces' the divine attributes of majesty related to the world, but retains the inward attributes that constitute God's essential nature: truth, holiness, love. For the act of kenosis is an act of God's free love for men and women.

To split the attributes of the Godhead in this way, as presupposition for the incarnation and the kenosis of the Son of God, remained so unsatisfactory that the nineteenth-century Lutheran kenotics found no successors. But they had detected a problem, for all that. The attributes o= f deity related to the world (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, immortality, impassibility, and immutability) derive from Aristotle's general metaphysics. They have little to do with God's attributes according to the history of God to which the Bible testifies. So they cannot, either, be the attributes of the God in whom people believe 'for Christ's sake', an= d whom they therefore call 'the Father of Jesus Christ'. For that God 'was in Christ', according to Paul (2 Cor. 5:19), 'dwells' in Christ, according to the Gospel of John (14:11), and is 'worshiped' in the Son.

[from John Polkinghorne, ed., The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis, (c) 2001 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. Used by permission; all rights reserved. To order this title, contact the publishe= r at 800.253.7521 or visit ]

PLEASE NOTE:

Dues to an agreement with Eerdmans Publishing Company, this excerpt from The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis cannot be reposted in its entirety to our website archive. If you are interested in reading more, please contact Eerdmans at the address listed above.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   2002.07.10