Stonestreet and the Hermeneutics of Nationalism

https://www.breakpoint.org/is-it-biblical-to-honor-our-nation/

Evoking the memory of the apostate Richard John Neuhaus, BreakPoint commentator and Colson protégé John Stonestreet attempts to address the dangers of idolatry regarding nationalism, and yet in keeping with patterns often seen in his commentaries he misses the central point and falls into error.

Rather than seriously seek to limit or warn concerning the dangers of nationalism, he in fact encourages it and blurs the lines that already cloud contemporary Evangelical thought.

Utilising a Judaized hermeneutic he fails to read the Old Testament in light of the New and as a consequence misses the very essential Christocentric lessons and basic structure of Scripture.

In a somewhat bizarre fashion he uses Babel as a reference and a justification for nations (and thus a limited nationalism) and cherry-picks prophetic verses that refer to 'the nations' in various capacities. Nations resulted from Babel and are referred to throughout the Scriptures and therefore must be vindicated. In good dominionist fashion he seems to suggest the notion of eschatological continuity – that the 'achievements' of the present age will continue into the heavenly order. As dominionists have (contrary to Scripture) sought to sanctify culture they believe that many of the works of men become part and parcel elements of the eternal Kingdom – even though the Scriptures are clear that the works of men will be burned. Usually this argument for continuity is in reference to cultural elements such as the arts. Others of similar stripe have argued that we'll have not just the arts in heaven, but architectural design, and even banking and thus the skills men have acquired in this life will be perpetuated and enhanced in heaven. Apparently you can take it with you.

Stonestreet logically extends this to nations (implying we will also have them in heaven) and yet never defines just what a nation is.  

Historians and sociologists would tell him that this is a somewhat complicated question and in fact it's one that plagues Western and American culture at this present hour. For some a nation is a tribe or clan – basically an extended family based off common culture – race, language, religion, customs and the like. For others it's a grouping based on commonly held ideals and yet this too is besought with difficulties and tensions. Others have described nations as armed language groups that are able to impose their will within certain boundaries. While that may sound somewhat cynical and even reductionist, it's not altogether incorrect. Stonestreet's comments at this point represent shallow thinking at best but more poignantly he fails to grasp the way in which the New Testament is referencing the nations and how the concept of God's people or nation was expanded in the New Covenant. This is not to sanctify nations or vindicate them but is cast in terms of the fact that salvation is no longer tied to the one nation of Old Testament Israel but now people from all nations are able to find salvation and reconciliation with God. The physical and geographical barriers tied to Judaism have been removed.

Contrary to Stonestreet, (and apparently entirely escaping his thought) the New Testament posits a new nation, one in which there is no Jew or Greek, no barbarian or Scythian. It's a Kingdom comprised of people from all nations – people who leave or set aside those national allegiances and obligations to kith and kin and put themselves under the aegis of a new King, a new family governed by a new set of ideals that inhabits a spiritual land, waving (as it were) banners of a new spiritual realm, and waging war not with the sword but by spiritual means.

Stonestreet evokes Babel but apparently fails to understand that Pentecost represented its undoing – the Church is forged as a kind of anti-Babel, a reunifying of mankind in Christ. This doesn't mean the world is fixed or remedied in this age and that the dream of a peaceful world order can be achieved. By no means, but in Christ the curse of nation (and Stonestreet misses that the breaking of Babel was a curse) is removed, or begins to be so. Again these things are cast into the eschatological framework that characterises this age, one in which 'in Christ' we 'already' experience and participate in the eternal order and yet still bound to this groaning present evil age, we are 'not yet' able to experience these realities in their fullness. Christians don't seek to build new Babel's and top them with colourful rags, war banners, or cheap golden crosses. Rather they take up the cross and live as pilgrims and strangers in this world – an order in which Satan is the 'god of this world', an age doomed, destined to perish in fire in which all of men's works (including the cultural idolatries Stonestreet has sold his soul to and the idolatrous nations men would build with blood and steel) will be consumed.

In Christ, all the national divisions are eradicated, a point further emphasized by Peter's vision Acts 10.

As a dominionist Stonestreet not only doesn't understand the New Testament call to be strangers and pilgrims, it's a doctrine (and an ethic) that he rejects and is quite hostile to.

Under his dominionist scheme the nation is crucial to the formation of the false construct of Christendom. His thinking represents the rot and confusion of a Kingdom-concept that conflates culture (and nation) with the Church and its distinct identity. It's no wonder he wants to defend nationalism. His only real concern is when it falls into extremism and becomes culturally destructive. Otherwise it's an idolatry that he is very keen to endorse.

Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians regarding those who are 'outside' has no meaning to him, as is Paul's rejection of the secular courts – a point also taught by Christ whose doctrine and ethics dominionists reject and even hate. The antithesis posited by Paul and the other apostles is anathema to Dominionist categories as they seek to reconstitute the Judaized Kingdom dreams of the Pharisees – the very forces that opposed Christ and the Kingdom He preached – just as the Dominionists do today.

Stonestreet's shoddy hermeneutics represent a disservice to New Testament doctrine and provide a superficial cover for the idolatrous goals of his dominion theology. The doctrinal and ethical dangers associated with his position cannot be overstated.