John Stonestreet has taken up the mantle of Charles Colson
and promotes his Dominionist Theology through the BreakPoint outlet which runs
its daily commentaries on Christian radio stations all across the United
States. I often listen but very rarely do I agree with what is said. Even when
Stonestreet is right, it's usually for the wrong reasons. Their religion is not
the Christianity of Scripture but is instead Capitalist Western Civilisation, a
kind of Christo-Americanism. Though ostensibly Protestant their version of
Christian Sacralism is particularly broad and easily embraces everything from
Roman Catholicism to significant elements within the theologically liberal
mainline. What really matters for Stonestreet is that everyone is engaged in trying
to build Christian culture, whatever that means.
Whether actually postmillennialist or not, he is guided by
that ethos, the impetus to transform and 'redeem' culture and he equates such
cultural sanctification with the Kingdom of God. Colson openly spoke of
'another gospel'. The gospel wasn't just saving souls through the preached
message of the cross. No, there was another
gospel, that of the Cultural Mandate in Genesis 1. Apparently he was ignorant
of the verbiage and how 'another gospel' is specifically condemned in Galatians
and invites a curse.
Ignoring the so-called Cultural Mandate's post-lapsarian
modification not to mention its complete re-casting in light of the New
Testament, Colson (following in the footsteps of figures like Abraham Kuyper
and Francis Schaeffer) sought to destroy any kind of separatist or
fundamentalist remnant left within the Evangelical sphere and to push all
sectors toward Dominionism and Transformationalism. They've been very
successful as their view is now the orthodoxy of our day. They're not alone.
There are other forces at work within the larger Evangelical sphere and even
within movements such as New Calvinism that have helped to bring about this
reality.
And yet in addition to being ignorant of Scriptural doctrine
and sometimes even basic hermeneutics, the larger movement in promoting and
relying upon 'worldview' teaching is easily corrupted by worldly thinking and
philosophies. The irony is pretty thick at this point as worldview teaching is supposed to protect Christians from worldly philosophical
influence but in reality it lays the groundwork for the very thing they seek to
avoid... complete compromise with the world and the synthesis of its thought.
And thus when Stonestreet offers up his little cultural
commentaries on BreakPoint, what we find is a twisting of Scripture and in many
cases a distortion of realities. The view he presents is less than Biblical and
often represents a distortion or misreading of the cultural issues he wishes to
comment on. Through their 'worldview' (which is often politically aligned) they
think they already know what the right conclusion is in discerning, dissecting
and interpreting world events. This makes them highly susceptible to political
propaganda and the influences they would ally themselves with and rather than
promote discernment it repeatedly leads to sloppy and often ignorant
commentary.
The daily broadcast is almost always erroneous in how it
frames the questions and certainly conjures up some pretty bad solutions.
Frankly it's terrible. That's not an exaggeration but sometimes it's especially
bad and over the course of a recent week Stonestreet was on a roll with three
in a row that were especially bad, a heretical hat trick as it were, but
despite my bad pun, it's no joke.
On 6 January 2020 in response to the Soleimani assassination,
Stonestreet defended the action on the basis of Just War Theory. While I will
admit there's a lot of historical basis for the position, the theory has
absolutely no basis in the New Testament. And thus we're back to basic
questions about how to read the Bible. Stonestreet stands (rather proudly) on
the shoulders of the Roman Catholic tradition in promoting the idea of the
Christianised state and as such Christianised violence.
Echoing the propaganda lines flowing the Pentagon,
Stonestreet once again played the happy role of the Right-wing mouthpiece. Like
Colson who endorsed the Iraq War in 2003, Stonestreet always supports the US
Empire and its many wars and crimes. There are always some propaganda outlets
like the Hudson Institute or The Federalist which can be quoted and in the end
Stonestreet praises the killing. The Scriptures have nothing to do with the
discussion. The controversial aspects of the assassination in light of
international and constitutional law and questions of militarism and diplomatic
relations have nothing to do with it. Stonestreet's 'Christian Worldview'
amounts to little more than a reiteration of Neo-Con militarist talking points.
The comical and tragic aspect to the invocation of the Just
War tradition is every time I hear it appealed to, it's clearly being
manipulated. Somehow whatever is wanted or seeking to be justified is brought
into line with the criteria. Or rather (if we're honest) the criteria are
manipulated, broadened and narrowed as needed in order to justify the act. In this
case Stonestreet (like his predecessor Colson) is clearly guilty of
strengthening the hands of those that would do evil. There is a blind, naive
and frankly immoral assumption of American morality and exceptionalism. If this
is Christian worldview, then Christian must mean something very different from
the religion of the New Testament. If this is Christian wisdom and leadership,
then God help us because it's a sign that the Church is under judgment and the
false prophets have taken over. Again, they strengthen the hands of those that
would do evil.
On 7 January, Stonestreet decided to talk about millennials
and declining Church numbers. The statistics should get our attention but as is
so often the case the discussions on this topic turn to a distorted analysis of
means and cures. The Church is built through the preaching of the Word. God
uses means like the family but ultimately the work of conversion is
supernatural, a work of the Holy Spirit. Despite the heretical testimony of
Charles Finney, there are no tricks and culture won't make Christians through
some kind of osmosis. Stonestreet is part of a Dominionist-Sacralist tradition
that seems to think we can erect a culture in which unbelieving lost people
will nevertheless live and think like Christians. This is to deny or at the
very least downplay the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation.
As I and others have argued, they at best can create a veneer
which will eventually collapse and that's just what happened. They spend a
great deal of time lamenting the fall of the supposedly Christian society that
existed in the 1950's and spend a great deal of time attacking and blaming the
forces they believe overthrew it. The real lesson which they have missed is
that it wasn't real. It was just a veneer, a form that lacked any kind of
substance.
Along those lines Stonestreet believes it's better to have
compromised mainline and even nominally 'Christian' churches around than to
lose them and have the Christian witness represented by a small number of
strong churches. I count it a good thing when I see the apostate mainline
churches closing around my area. That's one less false expression of
Christianity that people can flee to for comfort when they're confronted and
challenged by the real thing. The truth is (and I can testify to this
personally) that a lot of these people when confronted by actual Biblical teaching,
they chafe against it, reject it and become quite angry. And yet they can go on
pursuing their pseudo-Christianity because the institution with a building
(along with Pastor Bill or Pastor Suzy) is there for them, to vindicate them in
their Chicken Soup for the Soul type
of sentimental faux Christianity.
Because of these 'churches' Christianity has become an almost
meaningless term. But if the Church is small but faithful, suddenly its words stand
out and the lives its people lead will stand out. It is the watered down
Christianity that Stonestreet seems eager to defend as better than nothing,
that is really the worst thing for the Church. Under his logic, the high place
worship at Dan and Bethel was better than nothing, because at least Jehovah's
name was invoked.
Stonestreet celebrates cultural Christianity because he
believes it's a means that God uses to bring people to Christ. I would argue
just the opposite. It creates nominal Christians, sows confusion, baptises
worldliness and in the end compromises the Church. Where do we find in the New
Testament a concept that we should Christianise culture? Only by twisting the
Great Commission and combining it with a Judaized Old Testament hermeneutic can
such a teaching be found. But since the Scriptural evidence is weak what the
argument really rests on are assumptions rooted in the Western tradition, a tradition
which a student of the New Testament would recognise as a heritage of apostasy.
This is the heritage of Stonestreet and Colson.
I've read this quote many times and it continues to astonish
me:
First, God often uses the culture we are born in to
introduce us to Christ. Think about it: Are you more likely to hear about your
need for Jesus in a culture with a church on every corner, or in a culture in
which churches have been turned into bars? And second, the Gospel still has an
effect on those who come to church for the wrong reasons, like social
acceptability.
The Christ being presented by Roman Catholicism and the
Mainline is not the Christ of Scripture and so that hardly helps the cause of
the gospel. The Church on every corner in a culture that is (to any Bible
reader) patently Un-Christian is more
likely to lead to disgust and a dismissal of all churches. The Church operating as a minority force within
culture maintains the antithesis and thus while it will be less attractive or
even offensive to worldlings (which should be a rather basic concept to us) it
will nevertheless have a strong witness.
Stonestreet thinks that a coercion-light form of Christianity
is a good thing. And what if those like him were given real political power?
Would that coercion come in a stronger form? He would probably say no, but this
is because he hasn't worked out the implications of his cultural theology and
has not learned the lessons of history.
The whole discussion also exposes a very deficient
understanding of what the gospel is, what conversion is and rather than
understand that the Kingdom is built by the Holy Spirit, a Kingdom which one
must be regenerate to even see... for Stonestreet it is a work of man's hands,
what I would call a Pseudo-Zion, a Tower of Babel with a golden cross planted
on top of it. The gospel is an offense. The Christianity of Stonestreet is
world-affirming. His Christianity floods the Church with unregenerate people
and results in a baptism of culture and ultimately of its many evils.
God uses means. He uses the Word, he even uses the family wed
to the concept of covenant. The inclusion of culture means that God uses the
state and thus by implication, the laws, police, courts, military, the media
and the many public institutions and bureaucracies. The culture also includes
the arts and sciences. Are these the means God has ordained to bring people to
Christ? Stonestreet thinks so. That's a long way from Sola Scriptura or the
foolishness of preaching. In fact it's dangerous.
In the end, why are the millennials leaving the Church?
Because they're unregenerate and in some cases it's because the gospel message
has been compromised. Their actions demonstrate both of these realities.