What Christian Nationalists Can Learn from Elon Musk

Elon faced his toughest opposition from his heroes. But he's continued to advance toward the goal of space exploration, despite their criticism. Christian Nationalists can learn from this.

There’s a certain pain involved in being chastised for expressing the truth, by those who taught the truth to you.

I know that pain, because I’ve experienced it. On so many different occasions I’ve felt the sorrow of condemnation by my heroes in the faith, or even my mentors, for carrying out the task for which they once applauded me, only for the sin of taking that task one inch further than they thought appropriate. It’s a very real sorrow.

OF DOG BREEDS AND BROKEN FRIENDSHIPS

Over the years I’ve struggled to find the right guard dog for my family. We’ve tried German Shepherds (we had two, and both turned out to be retarded from inbreeding), a St. Bernard (dumb as a brick), mastiffs (too big) - even tea cup Yorkies (eaten by coyotes) - and basically everything but the psychopathic breed of pit bull. We had a Rottweiler who had promise, until he took a chunk out of my son’s back when he was sparring Tai Kwon Do with his sister (apparently he thought she was being attacked).

The thing about dog breeds is, they do what they’re bred to do. A terrier is going to dig holes looking for things to terrier. A sheep dog is going to roam, because they’re made to patrol. A bird dog is going to harass your chickens. A Rottweiler is going to eat little kids who hit their sister. It’s just the way it is.

Apparently I was bred, and trained, to (1) notice stuff and (2) say stuff and to do both with utter disregard for how popular either one of those things are. And there is a market for that in the evangelical ecosystem because there’s a need for it. In the early days of polemics, we learned to “call a spade a spade” and say to hell with the consequences. And so, we would call out orthodox leaders who would speak along side heretics, thus lending them credibility.

But when we criticized MacArthur or Buice for denouncing Social Justice while simultaneously platforming its biggest proponents (Mohler, Dever, Duncan), or criticized White for platforming Michael Brown, or criticized several in the Discernment Camp for agreeing to appear at a conference with Jackie Hill Perry, suddenly we were the bad guys.

This substack is part of what I do to provide for my family. If you enjoy it, please consider getting a paid subscription to access additional content and to help a brother out.

Again, whether or not you agree with all that is beside the point. The point is, it was surreal from my perspective to be scolded for insisting that people on our side have the same standards, by the very same evangelical leaders who taught us to apply that standard to others. In the heated arguments in those days, I recalled the words of Paul, “Have I become your enemy, by telling you the truth (Galatians 4:16)?”

I wish those men could have recognized that, like a well-meaning dog, I was just doing as I was bred and trained - by them - to do. Like a bird dog slapped upside the head for killing a chicken, it perplexed me as to what exactly I did wrong. As a man of limited intelligence, following one set of rules has always been a challenge. But applying two sets of rules, for different people, is well beyond my capacity.

GENERATIONAL TRAUMA IN THE POST CONSERVATIVE-RESURGENCE GENERATION

Finding yourself at odds with your mentors is always unfortunate, but it’s going to happen as a fact of life. It’s also going to happen in the church. I’ll provide just a few brief examples that I - like you - have probably have lived through.

For example, my pastors taught me, as a kid, that the Bible was completely true - every bit of it - from cover to cover. We were, after all, offspring of the Conservative Resurgence (the great battle in the SBC over inerrancy, lasting from 1979 to 1990), and inerrancy was the preeminent doctrine of the church. The phrase, “God said it, that settles it” was uttered almost weekly from behind the pulpit, to affirmations of ‘amen.’ But when I discovered Romans 9 (a complicated passage about God’s election), I asked one of my childhood pastors why he didn’t ever preach from it and he told me, “It’s controversial.”

Controversial? Who gives a crap?

God said it, that settles it. Right? Later, he criticized me for “taking Scripture too literally,” which set me back in shock. I was just interpreting the Bible and believing what it said as he taught me to do.

The way we were trained to read the Bible and hold it in high regard, led my generation of church kids to rediscover church discipline, elder leadership, the patriarchy, election, and other doctrines largely ignored or forgotten in Baptist circles. And these things were often opposed by the very people who taught us God said it, that settles it.

If you didn’t come out of that first post-Conservative Resurgence generation of church kids and at some point find yourself at odds with the people who drilled Scriptural Inerrancy into your head, you missed out on some heartbreak. The people who we respected the most were pretty quick to call us heretics for doing what we were trained to do; read the Bible and believe it.

THE SCHISM IN GENERATIONS, AS IT PERTAINS TO CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM

Almost everyone watching the Christian Nationalism debate acknowledges that there is a generational divide, with one side calling their opponents “fatherless young men,” and the others classifying the opposing side as “boomers.”

I’ve always considered Doug Wilson to be interesting, at the least. Sometimes, he was interesting in a troubling way. People forget that he was an early proponent of the Federal Vision heresy (it was classified as either “heresy” or “aberrant” by at least four Reformed and Presbyterian denominations). In fact, although he no longer identifies as a Federal Visionist, Wilson explained that he’s distancing himself from some of the language, but that it “does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe.”

No matter how much I appreciate Wilson’s wit and writing ability (except for the Antioch Statement, which is the most disjointed, linguistically jumbled piece of hogwash I’ve ever read), it’s hard to not recall his 2004 debate with James White over whether or not Roman Catholics are “brothers in Christ,” with Wilson taking the affirmative.

But Wilson has been fun to watch and read. I can only imagine the affection with which many Christian Nationalists admire him. And one of the reasons I’ve admired Wilson is because he was “based” before it was cool. One example has been his insistence on rejecting the post-war consensus of the American Civil War.

I grew up a Yankee north of the Mason Dixie, but Dr. Kenneth Startup at Williams Baptist University down in Arkansas - which was my undergrad school - largely opened my eyes as to the fuller context of that war (Startup was, and remains, my favorite professor ever). If I could summarize what Startup taught, it was that the Civil War was…complicated.

The narrative of “good guys vs bad guys” was rent in two by Startup, using nothing but cold, hard facts. And without excusing slavery in the slightest, he cut through the post-war propaganda and separated it from actual history. Doug Wilson bravely took this line, and has spent literal decades rejecting that post-war consensus of either the necessity of that war, or its universally positive outcomes.

Now imagine you’re raised on Doug Wilson, being told that not “accepting the received accounts” (to quote the Antioch Statement) makes you a bad person, an immature Christian, or perhaps even a conspiratorial bigot. That must legitimately hurt, for those who grew up spiritually suckling from his breast.

I would imagine his many followers - who he now castigates - are like the aforementioned Golden Retriever who can’t understand why it’s wrong to chase chickens. That’s what they were taught to do by Wilson…question received accounts.

JOEL WEBBON, THE QUINTESSENTIAL CONFUSED GOLDEN RETRIEVER

I feel sorry for Webbon. The poor guy believes what he was taught to believe about false religions, which appears to be his only crime. Chiefly, it’s that (1) false religions send people to hell, (2) any religion that rejects Jesus is false, and (3) and any religion that is opposed to Christ is anti-Christian.

We Second London Baptist Confession people, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith people, identify the Pope - and in some cases, as with confessional Lutherans, the Papacy - as the Antichrist.

Don’t blame us. We didn’t write the historic confessions. We just agree with them.

If the Pope or the Papacy is the/an anti-christ and they profess Jesus as Lord, then what do you think we believe about Talmudic Judaism? Of course Judaism is one of the antichrists that John warns “has already gone out into the world” (1 John 4:3).

So when Webbon teaches that Judaism is anti-Christian, which as a matter of fact it obviously is, he’s not applying a super-hateful, anti-Semitic trope. He’s actually being consistent in his Profession of Faith.

You see, nobody sat down and explained to Webbon or any of the other Christian Nationalists that there was an exception to truth-speaking that requires designating Judaism with God’s Most Favored Nation status. Nobody explained to the young men, as Wilson modeled for them narrative-questioning and fearless pronouncements of facts, that none of that applied to Jews. They’re berating the Golden Retriever for doing as it was trained.

Wilson taught young men that the consequences of truth-speaking be damned. But, he neglected until this late hour, to clarify that there are different rules, for different religions. And now, it’s simply too late. Webbon, and those of like mind who follow him, will always receive the branding of hateful bigotry that Wilson has given them. And this is how irreversible, unfortunate church schisms work.

No matter how tough Webbon or the others are, that betrayal on the part of your mentors or heroes or elder brothers, hurts. It really does.

ELON THE EXEMPLAR

Frankly, I’m making this about Elon just to tick off the right people (that’s my kind of incitement), and also because there’s a video clip that I think makes the point of how much this type of thing can hurt someone.

The background is that Musk has been criticized for privatizing space travel by the NASA astronauts he grew up idolizing. Apparently, they feel the government should be leading the space race, which is exactly what you would expect people who faked the moon landing to say.

Anyway, here’s the clip.

Bro, if that don’t get you…you’re soulless.

Neil Armstong embodies the American spirit of exploration, innovation, and scientific endeavor. Can you even imagine how much his criticism of Musk must hurt him on a personal level?

Musk is doing something that he was inspired by Armstrong to do. And now, he’s doing it better than Armstrong ever did. Musk has accomplished more - by himself - than NASA was able to do with an Army of Nazi scientists. And yet, what is Elon’s response?

Elon acknowledges how much he admires Armstrong, and how Armstrong inspired him. Ultimately, Elon has the same goals that Armstrong had. And yet, he remains unwavering and steadfast in his mission, despite Armstrong’s criticism. He will go where no man has gone before, whether Armstrong approves or not.

You know, the Fifth Commandment is a funny thing. We’re told to “honor” our fathers. There will come a time, in many of our lives, that the best way to show honor to our father is to persist in the things he taught you, even if it’s in disagreement with what he’s now telling you.

You might have to read that twice to make sense of it.

There will come a time, in many of our lives, that the best way to show honor to our father is to persist in the things he taught you, even if it’s in disagreement with what he’s now telling you.

Douglas Wilson taught many young men how to speak truth boldly and how to not give a care about the political correctness of it. He taught us to be true to God, true to the Bible, and true to the truth. Whether or not he agrees with the current truth-telling is irrelevant as to whether or not that truth should be told.

Personally, I think that Christian Nationalism will evolve and become refined, as these godly young men grapple with the precarious balance between the jurisdictional authority of man and the jurisdictional authority of God, as it pertains to government (in the same way that Theonomy was replaced by “General Equity Theonomy”). Ideas get better over time.

But one thing is for sure; Webbon and the others don’t need to back off one iota because what they say is momentarily unpopular among men whose time is past.