Could you either expand or clarify what you mean by

“The Nicene Creed is also more narrative theology than systematic theology”

I would say that the Nicene Creed is very systematic.

For what it’s worth, in this post I’m not addressing “The Emergent Church” considered as a whole thing. I think that it is diverse enough that such a thing is preposterous. So I have two specific recent theological excursions from specific people in mind when I wrote this.

With regards to “Constantinianization,” I understand that the critique is pre-Emergent, keep in mind that I said “old story.” I would also agree that as the Church became the church of the Roman state that the identity and vision of the Church shifted strongly. I also agree that the way in which the church/state connection has been used has often been sinful (Though I think that the American/Evangelical connection is much much weaker than say the Russian/Orthodox connection). What I don’t buy though is the way that “Constantine” has become a cipher that holds all sorts of ideologies, only some of which have a clear hold on the evidence. I wasn’t also really referencing any rejection of Nicene catholicity. I agree that many I know of use those creeds as the only statements of faith.

Re: Systematic Theology – My concern is more here having to do with epistemological and/or philosophical grounds to reject systematics than with narrative vs systematics. I imagine that if we hashed this out we’d agree more than we’d disagree. But for now I’ve got to head off for coffee.

Peace,
Tony

However, I think the critique of Constantinianism as it was made by pre-Emergent theologians (Yoder, Hauerwas, Clapp, et al.) remains valid. In fact, it seems to me that American evangelicalism’s support of America’s increased nationalism and militarism after 9/11 is an example of a continuing Constantinianism (blurring of church and state, embrace of power, acceptance of violence, etc.). I don’t think a rejection of the Nicene Creed simply because of Constantine’s involvement is valid, though. Is that what you’re concerned about–Emergents rejecting Nicene catholicity? I wasn’t aware this idea had entered into the Emergent conversation. Many Emergent churches use the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed as their (only) statements of faith.

On the subject of systematic theology, it seems to me that one’s theology can be consistent without being systematic. I believe the Emergent critique of systematic theology began with the basic observation that the Bible is more a work of narrative theology than of systematic theology. The Nicene Creed is also more narrative theology than systematic theology.

The Word of the Day would be hard to Tweet, I’m afraid, given the 140 character limit.

I totally agree on ECUSA. We’re the ones who created THE National Cathedral after all.

I think that “Constantinianizationasionalizationishisticness” should be deemed the Word of the Day.

My only problem with the Constantinianizationasionalizationishisticness of Christianity (I saw I misspelled and just decided to run with it) is that it cut off a certain line of reasoning, which up to that point had been controversial but within the umbrella of the church, as heterodox or unorthodox. Can’t remember the difference.

Kinda like when King Henry just kinda said, “Nope. England has it’s own church.”

And it was the linking of the church’s narrative to the state, which is still something the ECUSA does, in my opinion.

But yeah, totally loved your nameless critique of the most nameful man in Emergent Xianity.