Q & R: hints of Kierkegaard. What about Chalcedon?

Here’s the Q:

Over the past year, I have come to appreciate your challenges to conventional theology. I am particularly interested in your discussions about the incarnation, where you have described a sort of “solidarity Christology” in relation to Philippians 2:5-11 that emphasizes Christ’s identification with creation in order to transform it.
I was hoping you could elaborate just a bit more on your particular view of Christology. Does it just involve God’s solidarity with creation and the human story or does it also incorporate ideas of the divine-human natures as in the Chalcedonian formula?
Also, with relation to the hymn in Philippians 2, I detect hints of Kierkegaard’s stress on subjectively actualizing Christ in our personal life. Would you say you agree with Kierkegaard’s form of kenotic (kenosis) Christology, where Christ empties himself of certain divine attributes in order for us to emulate his example of humility and willingness to suffer? Thank you for the clarifications, Mr. McLaren!

Here’s the R:
Philippians 2:5-11 is indeed important to me. It is one of very few passages that made it more than once in the lectionary for my 2014 book, We Make the Road by Walking.
I cherish the church’s attempts to articulate the mystery of Christ, including the language of Chalcedon. Our great creeds from the 4th and 5th centuries were doing important work for their time: seeking to articulate an evolving understanding of God in contemporary thought forms and cultural settings. I think we face an important question today: if the Gospel of Jesus, a Jew, could be radically reinterpreted in the framework of Greek philosophy and Roman politics in the church’s first five centuries, is it forever bound a limited to function within those exclusive parameters? Or is it free to enter and engage with new cultures and thought patterns, including our own – learning both positive and negative lessons from its earlier engagements?