Kenotic Theology and Animal Liberation

For me, the biggest theological impediment to an animal-liberationist Christianity is the personal example of Jesus of Nazareth, who likely used other creatures for a variety of different purposes. I believe this can most easily be overcome by embracing a radical Unitarianism, which understands Jesus as one human spiritual teacher among many, with all of the flaws that designation implies.

However, there are ways an anti-speciesist might try and reconcile a more traditional Trinitarianism with Jesus’ exploitation of our fellow creatures. One such method would employ kenotic theology, a perspective I’m eager to learn more about. In short, kenoticism, which gets its name from the Greek word for the act of emptying, argues Jesus voluntarily divested himself of divine attributes and this includes not just omnipotence, but also perhaps omniscience and omnibenevolence.

This view takes inspiration from the description of Jesus in Philippians 2:6-8: “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!”

Beyond this specific passage, the view is inspired by the many instances in the New Testament in which Jesus is portrayed as imperfect, limited or, well, human. I’ve cited many of these in favor of my preferred view of strict Unitarianism. For instance, Jesus initially refuses to help a Canaanite woman, because she isn’t Jewish. Kenotic theologians might interpret these instances to argue Jesus, as God, has chosen to temporarily retract his divine powers.

I should note kenoticism is controversial within mainstream Christianity. For example, in 1951, Pope Pious XII argued: “There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion… This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it.”

However, kenoticism is not so controversial it hasn’t had mainstream Christian adherents. Charles Gore, the Anglican bishop of Oxford, fell into this category. That said, my understanding is Gore didn’t believe Jesus’ voluntary limitation of his own powers extended to allowing himself to be morally fallible, which I believe is necessary for a vegan kenotic theology to make sense. What’s required is a radical kenoticism, akin to the strict Unitarianism I prefer, that leaves room for Jesus to be wrong.

The question remains, though, of why God would allow himself to be morally fallible. Indeed, from an animal-rights perspective, Jesus is so flawed there are many spiritual teachers whose views are unquestionably superior to his. I imagine the answer might be similar to various theological responses to the problem of evil, but I’m interested to read what kenotic theologians who are more open to the possibility of Jesus’ moral fallibility have to say.

The post Kenotic Theology and Animal Liberation appeared first on CounterPunch.org.