Thread by @wokal_distance

Any Christian who thinks they can use deconstruction and keep the Nicene Creed is badly mistaken.

Once you accept the logic of deconstruction and decolonization there is no confession of faith that will be left standing

Let's view a couple of examples to illustrate the point...

I'm re-doing this thread so I can be more clear about what I mean, @sure_mercies thinks he can defend the Nicene Creed by accusing the (white) man who attacked it of White Christianity.

However a Latinx non-binary trans theologian like Robyn Henderson-Espinoza (@irobyn) said...

her (their?) book "Activist theology."

In that book Henderson-Espinoza says all Christianity post-constantine can be seen as "empire religion." One cannot simply dismiss that view as "white Chirstianity. Someone could take @irobyn's observstion and make the following argument...

One could argue the council of Nicea was structured to produce a creed that benefited the interests of both constantine and his empire, while at the same time legitimizing his theology and preserving his views permenantly in a creed that defined orthodoxy for Christianity....

Further, since the Nicene creed was created entierly by men the creed is warped by the both the interests of the men who made it, and the absence of queer people and women.

Which means the very creed used to define orthodoxy was built on a foundation of patriarchy and injustice

@sure_mercies can't side step that argument by saying that it merely engaged in white liberalism. It's an argument that is entirely consistent with progressive Christianity, and which follows the logic of decolonization and deconstruction. It can't just be swept aside.

@sure_mercies will need a new defense if he wants to dodge the thrust of that argument.

Let's look at another example:
@KyleJamesHoward tries to defend the Nicene Creed by arguing that the most prominant voices in forming the creed were African POC...

He is right that many if not most of the bishops that were at the council were African. But that won't help him.

A deconstructive theologian can say those african bishops were appointed to the council of nicea by constantine to protect constantine's interests. And since...

Constantine oversaw the council, the options the bishops had for what to put in the creed was restricted by constantine's power to set the agenda for his own benefit, and Constantines presence at the council and his power exerted a powerful influence on everyone at the Council...

So while many of the bishops were african, one can argue that those particular African Bishops were picked by Constantine because he knew they would give him what he wanted while still lending legitimacy to a creed that was created benefit both Constantine and his empire...

That means Nicene Creed is fruit of a poisonous tree that is warped by the interests of the powerful emporer who planned and oversaw it. Thus both the council of nicea and the nicene creed must be deconstructed so we can remove from our faith all the seeds of "empire theology"

And here is the thing....

If you accept the logic of deconstruction and decolonization (which I do not), than it is totally correct to say that all Christianity, post-constantine, including the Nicene Creed, is tainted by empire.

That is where this is going...

There is no avoiding it: Deconstruction has no stopping point, and eventually deconstruction will disolve the historic confessions of faith. It's inevitable.

Don't say I didn't warn you.