In formulating a doctrine of creation, the first issue which shall be undertaken is that of beginning or origin. Where did the universe come from? Cosmology has proposed that there was a �big bang� from which the cosmos as it is currently known developed. The question still remains, where did it come from. In order for there to be a �big bang�, a highly concentrated point of matter must first be present. Another theory of cosmology relating to the �big bang� theory is that of the oscillating universe. This theory proposes that before the current cycle of expansion of the universe, there was a cycle of contraction, preceded by a cycle of expansion, and so forth. This theory is purely speculative, because evidence can not be obtained from any universe other than the current one, but even this speculation still does not seek to answer the ultimate question of origin. This origin is creatio ex nihilo: God brought into being matter and energy out of nothing. This claim is made on the basis of faith, and not from science, since origins necessarily fall outside of the realm of science, that of the observable universe. The claim is made in Genesis 1:1: �God created.� God also says he created, while rebuking Job: �Where were you when I laid the earth�s foundations? �Who marked off its dimensions?� Richard relates claims on the basis of faith to the process of scientific inquiry, asserting that �To believe in God the Creator is not to offer a scientific explanation for the world; it is to accept good news about the world.�
Creatio ex nihilo is the first point at which kenosis is asserted. The kenosis lies in this: In order for God, omnipotent and omnipresent, to create that which is other than Himself, God must necessarily limit Himself in some way to allow for something genuinely other than Himself to exist. Polkinghorne refers to God�s self-limitation in this way:
Christian doctrine of creation is rightly concerned with the self-surrender of divine all-inclusiveness in the creating of a world genuinely
other, to which God can be �closer than breathing�, in the sense of continuously being aware of it and interacting with it, without being,
even partially, identified with it.
Otherness, being truly apart from God, is the basis of kenosis. Simmons writes of this otherness, �The kenosis of God in creating allows for true relationship and community, by creating the �other� to which God can be related.� God allows something other than Himself to exist, and thus, must limit Himself. Richard furthers this notion, describing the act of creation as an �affirmation of the Other, a giving of being, a sharing.� It is in this way, the allowing of �other,� that creatio ex nihilo points to kenosis, in that God must empty Himself in allowing a being other than Himself to exist.
As discussed above, creatio ex nihilo is not the only understanding of God�s creative action. Creatio continua, continuing creation, is also an integral concept in the understanding of God�s creative action, and of God�s kenosis. God did not need to create in a manipulative, single act, but instead, was able to create a process and a being in which creation was allowed to develop. This can be seen in the big bang theory, where God can be viewed as the originator, creating matter, and setting the big bang in motion. Instead of creating a finished product, God allows the world to develop within the framework He set up. This notion of creation through development also leads to an understanding of cosmological and biological evolution in which God is seen as using the development of the cosmos and of creatures as a type of continuing creation. The evidence of a universe of development points to creation by kenosis. God did not bring about creation in a single, definitive action, but instead used a process guided by laws. In allowing physical processes to develop the universe, God allows true development to occur. A universe of true development is another point of kenosis in creation.
Discussing creation in light of modern science tends to lead to a deistic notion of God�s action of creation, and God�s relationship to it. By the deistic view of creation, God brought matter into being out of nothing, and then allowed creation to truly develop within natural laws set up by God. In this view, God completely withdraws, ceasing to interact with creation. This view in regard to creation is similar to the Christological assertion that Jesus Christ lost divinity in emptying Himself, and that He was only human. The kenotic paradigm does not leave Jesus as simply human, and neither does it leave God as simply deistic. The true kenotic understanding of divinity in Christ entails a retention of divinity and Christ�s continued ability to exercise it, and the understanding of God in relationship to creation is the same. God is not understood to be absent from creation, but instead, is still interacting with creation.
Polkinghorne points to the deistic tendencies of the kenotic view: �Christian theism �must be sufficiently tinged with deism to recognize relatively settled order.� God�s will is not whimsical.� Polkinghorne very rightly points out that some deism is not inappropriate, due to the faithfulness of God, but this does not in turn create a totally deistic view of God�s action. It is important to view God not only as originator of the universe, but also as sustainer of the universe, upholding order, and giving life. Polkinghorne writes of divine faithfulness and passivity: �Divine upholding of the cosmos, whose regular laws are understood as reflections of God�s unchanging faithfulness, is part of the story of God�s relationship with the unfolding history of creation, but it cannot, and need not, be taken to be the whole of that story.� God as detached sustainer does not need to be the entire view of God. As in the kenosis seen in Christ, divinity is set aside in a fashion, but it is not totally lost. This is the same as God�s relationship to creation. Although God chooses to allow the universe to develop through free processes, God can still intervene, exercising His divinity. God does not just kick the ball rolling and let it go. Instead, God�s relationship with His developing creation continues. This is where the role of creatio continua comes into play. Continuing creation can be seen as God sustaining the world; e.g. through holding the laws of physics together. But God�s ongoing creation does not need to be limited to such a passive and uninvolved role. God is free (and able) to interact with His creation. Polkinghorne writes, �God�s care for his creation must be continuous, but it does not follow from that that there are not occasions when that care is exercised in specific ways.� Even though God has limited Himself in His interaction with the world, kenosis doesn�t rule out the idea of God interacting directly with His creation. Providence does not become a thorn in the side of kenosis theology, in that an exception to the limitation must be made, but instead, providence affirms kenosis theology. Kenotic Christology asserts that Christ set aside divinity, but not entirely. Jesus Christ still was able to perform miracles, and exercise His divinity. This is the same in God�s relationship to creation. God may choose to allow free creatures to live their lives, but God can also be �the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning.�
Even though God acts in a providential way in creation, this does not mean that this will be able to provide proof of the existence of God. There is a degree of kenosis, even in God�s direct interventions, in that God�s action can not be directly proven. Polkinghorne writes, �God�s action will always be hidden. It will be contained within the cloudy unpredict-abilities of what is going on. It may be discernible by faith, but it will not be exhibitable by experiment.�
Kenosis fits together divine providence and the unrecognizability of God�s actions. As God can be seen as being veiled in Jesus Christ, so also can God be seen as being veiled in His relationship with creation. This is an example of the parallel of kenosis between Christology and creation. Christ was truly God, yet he took on the form of a servant, hiding his divine nature. This is the same type of �veil� which God wears in relation to creation as a whole. God is still truly God, yet God chooses to hide the full extent of His being, revealing only portions of it. This revelation can be seen to come in Christ Jesus, but also in creation, in specific actions, as well as God�s sustaining hand.
The idea of a veiled creator, and a kenotic act of creation is consistent with the current debates as to the identity or existence of a creator. The debate between evolution and creation has raged for many years. A kenotic theory of creation is consistent with this lack of definitive knowledge of the Creator. No irrefutable evidence of God�s action in creation can be found. Polkinghorne observes that one does not find �objects stamped �Made by God.� � Kenosis in creation describes God veiling His action as creator, and this is consistent with the world as it can be observed.
Kenosis describes God the creator and His action of creation. First, kenosis is seen in God�s willingness to allow for and cause the existence of something truly other than Himself. Secondly, God�s gift of freedom of becoming to creation is evidence of kenosis in creation. Kenosis can also be seen in the veiled action of God. God�s act of creation, both ex nihilo and continua, is an act of kenosis. God truly limits Himself, allowing for a creation truly other than Himself to exist. This is not a denying of the importance of God, but instead, a discussion of the beauty and magnificence of God�s method of creation.
