Kenosis and the Christian Life: Part I

There is an old Christmas hymn that I love:

Lord, you were rich beyond all splendor,Yet, for love’s sake, became so poor; Leaving your throne in glad surrender,Sapphire-paved courts for stable floor: Lord, you were rich beyond all splendor,Yet, for love’s sake, became so poor.[1]

This hymn captures the heart of kenotic Christology, that Jesus became human and set aside the power and privilege of divinity. Within the Christian tradition, this concept is understood in different ways, and however we think about Kenosis is often how we think about the shape of the Christian life.


Kenosis is one of those theological words that come from the Bible, but then does a lot of work outside of that context. It is very similar to the concept of the imago Dei because it occurs rarely in scripture yet has a very broad and varied theological history. Kenosis, throughout the centuries, has captured the imagination of many theologians and pastors.

The word, Kenosis, comes from the Christ hymn in the second chapter of Philippians. Kenosis comes from verse 7: “but made himself nothing.” It can also be translated as “he emptied himself.” The King James translates it as “made himself of no reputation.” Kenosis, in this passage, talks about Jesus' move from divinity to humanity. Jesus becomes one of us, to the point of death on the cross. It is the wonder of this mystery that has lead to the development of a theology of Kenosis. Moreover, it is also about what it means to be humanity in the light of the God who became human.

Thus, how we understand Kenosis shapes our theology of discipleship—the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of being the people of God. Often the language used around Kenosis is joined with Christ’s command to pick up your cross and follow him. Narrative theologian, Michael Gorman, refers to this as the ‘cruciform’ life: our lives should have a cruciform shape.[2] In other words, to be true Christ followers, we must sacrifice ourselves. In this context, Kenosis is often translated ‘to empty out’. Thus, Christ empties himself out for us, and, as Paul says at the beginning of the Christ hymn, we must be of the same mind as Christ. In this way, we too must empty out ourselves or make ourselves nothing or of no reputation. We must die on our own cross.

But there has been some critique in the last 20 years with regard to the translation of Phil 2:7. Feminists, in particular, have wondered if a discipleship model based upon the sacrifice or the death of the self can ever be a positive model for women or marginalized peoples. Some feminist theologians (e.g., Radford Ruether, Bondi, and Coakley) point out that this understanding of Kenosis can perpetuate cycles of abuse and violence in the name of Christ. Those who are powerless are told that they must give up what little power that they have in order to follow in the way of Jesus. As Robert Bondi articulates this problem:

The difficulty comes at the point where we are tempted to think that real Christian love is of such a self-sacrificial nature that Christians ought not to have a self at all. Instead they must give themselves away extravagantly for the ones they love, pouring themselves out like water into sand for the sake of those they love and serve. This does not work.[3]

We might say that this pattern of discipleship as self-abnegation can be thought to be a path to salvation. But feminist point out that this model for discipleship actually reinforces negative patterns of living for some people and as Bondi so boldly puts it, “This does not work.” In the fall we talked about different models of sin that focus on pride, with a solution found in humility. To apply this to a model of atonement we can say that if sin is pride, then we must live into a place of humility in order to be saved. But if, for some people, sin is defined more as negation or the disappearance of the self (what some feminists talk about as ‘sloth’), then a discipleship model of humility would actually reinforce one’s sin, resulting in self-destruction.[4]


Hence, a discipleship model that focuses solely on the necessity of the death of the self will result in the harmful patterns for certain people. If you come from a place of power, perhaps discipleship models that are solely shaped by concepts of cruciformity and the death of the self can be empowering. However, discipleship models should be empowering for all people, in one way or another, because it is about how we are as the people of God in the world. If you do not come from a place of power then this kind of model could actually burn you out or even tear you down to the point of self-destruction or self-annihilation. As Roberta Bondi argues, “there cannot be love of others, much less love of God, where there is no self to do the loving.” [5]

The core of this kind of sin is really the underdevelopment of the self. And, if a self is required for the Christian life then in order to die to the self or to empty yourself out you must first have a self to give. I would also argue that no matter your definition of Kenosis, the self always remains intact. You must be you in order to be a disciple of Christ. Self-negation or self-dissolution is not the model that is consistent with scripture. If we really are to put on the mind of Jesus Christ, then we need to know something of the God who comes to us in the incarnation.


(Part II: Gordon Fee’s definition of Kenosis; Part III: Sarah Coakley’s contemplative solution.)

[1] Tune: French Traditional; Words: F. Houghton (1894-1972).

[2] See Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross; idem, Inhabiting the Cruciform God.

[3] Roberta Bondi, To Pray and To Love, 76.

[4] “The temptations of woman as woman are not the same as the temptations of man as man, and the specifically feminine forms of sin – ‘feminine’ not because they are confined to women or because women are incapable of sinning in other ways but because they are outgrowths of the basic feminine character structure – have a quality which can never be encompassed by such terms as “pride” and “will-to-power”. They are better suggested by such items as triviality, distractability, and diffuseness; lack of an organizing center or focus; dependence on others for one’s own self-definition… – in short, underdevelopment or negation of the self…[T]he specifically feminine dilemma is, in fact, precisely the opposite of the masculine” (Saiving Goldstein, ‘The Human Situation’, p#?).

[5] Roberta Bondi, To Pray and To Love, 77.