Who's RIGHT? Gavin Ortlund or Megan Basham

Protestant social media was abuzz with the release of Megan Basham's book Shepherds For Sale. Among those bristling about it was youtuber Gavin Ortlund.

🔴 SPONSORS

🔴 GIVING

This show and future live shows are made possible by you. Thank you for giving your tax deductible offering to this worthy cause.

🔴 LINKS

Support the channel and get some sweet gear

🔴 SOCIAL

Facebook and Instagram: @reeduberman, @theindiethinker
TIkTok: @theindiethinker

#indiethinker #Christianity #apologetics #reeduberman

[marinusswanepoel]

The day that Gavin Ortlund is accused of poor disagreement then we are in a really bad place

[patrickwillison]

To lump Gavin in with progressive Christians over something non-salvific is divisive and wrongheaded.

[TheToeSong]

The main thing I'm learning from this whole situation in general is that if a Christian claims they believe in climate change, then there are other Christians who say they believe in every progressive ideology.

[glstka]

0:23 "his feels" - He gave a calm measured response where he could have been more emotional than he was. Megan concocted a quote of Gavin from two different parts of Gavin's original video 10:34 and 16:20. That is a lie. Megan is a liar.

[arthurcook]

Indie Thinker; I am a Christian ecologist (environmentalist). Gavin Ortlund is a good man, Christian, theologian, and thinker. I appreciate often his research, views, and findings. He seems more conservative socially than myself. I am also a strong believer in Jesus, who is my Savior and Lord, the Scriptures as the Word of God, and theologically I am conservative. But, I am socially and politically progressive. Does being socially and politically progressive make one a non-Christian? Where in Scripture does it say, “social and political progressives cannot be saved”?

You may not call yourself a fundamentalist, but you have all the trappings of fundamentalist culture. Fundamentalist culture is a merger of conservative (Evangelical) theology with extreme conservative right wing social views and politics. Because you’re so enmeshed in it, i.e., your fundy culture, you can’t imagine how someone can be politically and socially left and still be a born-again Christian. Going with right social issues and politics is your choice (remember you have a God given free will).

My suggestion to you is this, You, personally do not have to agree with him, but leave Dr. Gavin Ortlund alone. He has received enough damage to his reputation by Megan Basham. I consider what Megan has said and wrote about Dr. Gavin as sin. 16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” Exodus 20:16. She needs to repent.

[robinhoodieradio]

I’m not a Gavin Apologist as many of his subscribers seem to be, but I have enjoyed his videos. I did get a weird feeling about the book having read an interview with the author in World magazine, before the Gavin situation came about. I would recommend to anyone supporting Basham’s takes to read the article “Which Shepherds Are For Sale?” written by Warren Cole Smith, friend/acquaintance with most involved in the book, including the author. I believe it confirms my initial feelings that the book may not be so helpful for building up the body.

[andrewkester]

Forgive the ridiculously long reply, but I’d like to make a few comments in preface. First, in full disclosure, I’ve not read Basham’s book. I’m only familiar with the controversy over the first chapter concerning Ortlund, having listened to Ortlund’s replies and a slew of other YouTube videos on the topic. I just listened to an interview with Basham hosted by the Sword and the Trowel Podcast, which was my first exposure to her. Second, like you, I disagree with Ortlund regarding (a) that there is true (and not fabricated) broad scientific consensus on climate change, and (b) that scientific consensus itself, especially in its modern iteration, is a good indicator of scientific fact. Third, I, like Basham and many others, am concerned over the pull of progressivism and theological liberalism on the church, and find leftist ideology to be largely incoherent and often morally bankrupt. Fourth, I would consider myself loosely familiar with Ortlund. I’ve not heard him teach or preach and I’ve not read any of his books. I’ve probably listened to two dozen YouTube videos of his and have generally found his insight valuable. Last, at the beginning of your video, you stated that it’s important for Christians to be good with disagreement. I’m commenting here in good faith not wanting to engage in “foolish controversy” (Titus 3:9-11), but rather in an effort to contribute fruitfully to the conversation.

With that said, I would make the argument that your video (like certain statements in Basham’s book) is an uncharitable and disingenuous take on Ortlund. I’ll start with Basham’s quote from page 26:

“He goes on to say, every ‘scientific body of national or international standing agrees that human-caused global warming is a serious problem.’ To not accept that consensus, he says, is to buy into ‘conspiracy and hoax;’ it is a failure to ‘take a responsible posture’ as a Christian.

As Ortlund correctly pointed out in one of his replies, Basham pieced together quotes from him out of context to assemble this sentence, which is clearly evident. Ortlund used the words “conspiracy and hoax” in stating that it would be a conspiracy and hoax if all major scientific bodies/agencies colluded to fabricate a false consensus and push an agenda. Again, I would like to emphasize that I agree with you here that this is not only possible, but probable, as evidenced by the pandemic and, as you pointed out, the capture of the medical and public health communities by big tobacco. I’d gladly discuss my difference of opinion with Ortlund on this. However, Basham still used Ortlund’s words out of context to make his words seem inflammatory/accusatory.

The last part of Basham’s quotation of Ortlund (“…it is a failure to ‘take a responsible posture’ as a Christian”) is likewise out of context and similarly make his words come across as inflammatory and divisive. Gavin used that phrase in reference to making a decision or forming an opinion on a matter of consequence without having studied the topic. Here again, we could caution the reader that there is no shortage of agenda-driven science published in the academic literature or in the proceedings of climate science conferences. Nonetheless, Basham is ascribing words (and implications) to Ortlund that are simply not true, which he explicitly clarified in his responses (i.e. in no way has he stated that failure to adopt the scientific community’s consensus on climate change is a failure to take a responsible posture as a Christian). Further along in your video, you speak of insinuation. Having listened to Ortlund’s original videos where he speaks about climate change and his two recent responses, I find no such insinuation.

Following the clip you show of Ortlund in which he states, “Christians should care about environmental issues like climate change, ” you make the following comments:

(Starting at 11:52) There Seems to be an insinuation there, maybe something to the effect that “if you don’t agree with everything I tell you in this video, then obviously you don’t care about the planet, ” and a second time, “there sure seems to be an insinuation here.”

In another clip you show of Ortlund, he says that he is “burdened that many people come to a super strong opinion on climate change just as they do on other social and cultural issues without having studied it; not based on the evidence but based on the sociopolitical associations of the issue.”

In your statements following this clip, you infer that, essentially, he believes people are being intellectually dishonest in their views on climate change because of political disagreement, and further, that Ortlund is effectively saying to people, “Not only do you have a political blind spot, but you’re just shooting from the hip and you actually haven’t studied this, and you have no evidence, and you *hate* evidence, and that’s why you don’t believe the progressive narrative.”

Forgive me, but as others have pointed out in comments elsewhere on this controversy, this smells of the infamous Cathy Newman “So what you’re saying is…” interview with Jordan Peterson. Ortlund’s concern is entirely legitimate, namely that people often make decisions based largely or purely on the sociopolitical associations of the issue. In fact, this is one of my (and I would imagine most Christians and social conservatives) biggest criticism of the left in general – that decisions are made based on a groupthink mechanism which overrides evidence and moral objectivity. Christians and social conservatives are by no means immune to this, and I think Gavin is right to point out the risk of hypocrisy. To misconstrue Ortlund’s words here, going so far as to comment that he is essentially accusing people of *hating* evidence, or implying that to disagree with him is akin to hating the planet, is a gross mischaracterization.

You made some comments starting around 9:12 in which you summarize what you believe to be Basham’s core arguments:

“What Megan seems to be saying in her book there, is not necessarily that Gavin is for sale or that somebody bought him and made him say these things, or even that he is making climate change simply a Gospel-centric issue, but rather that Gavin seems to be co-opted by the progressive left. Megan’s book is simply suggesting that in Gavin’s video that he does on climate change that he is essentially only regurgitating leftwing talking points and not, rather, giving us the full story. Then he’s also *subtly kind of suggesting* that if you’re a responsible Christian, you kind of care about the climate and so you gotta take progressive talking points at face value. So this seems to be the accusation that Megan is making against Gavin in the first place.”

To this, I would simply point out the absurdity that, in your words, “subtly kind of suggesting” something and “*seeming* to be co-opted by the progressive left” would be sufficient grounds for having your name appear in a book titled “Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for Leftist Agenda.” Regurgitating leftwing talking points on climate change is what Greta Thunberg does. What Ortlund does in the videos in question is not even remotely close, and any objective person watching this controversy can see this.

I find it borderline unconscionable that Basham did not seek to clarify Ortlund’s position before publishing. One reviewer on Amazon cited “Megan’s unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity.” She violated journalistic integrity with Ortlund. Rather than speaking to the primary source, it’s my opinion that she used the same tactics you rightly accuse climate alarmists of using; namely, curating and doctoring “data” to further an agenda. The sad part is, there’s more than enough real evidence of progressive co-opting of evangelicalism without having to fabricate it and misrepresent someone in the process.

[brandonzylstra]

Gavin didn't respond with "his feels", he responded point by point showing that Megan had lied about what he said. Instead of starting with facts you immediately lead off with sarcasm and falsehoods. Your only supporting fact is that he made a video about climate change, but you ignore the specific details of what he actually said in that video. If you care about truth, you need to pay attention to details. Him making a video in which he mistakenly believes climate change lies is not remotely the same as him saying that you must believe the same lies to be a Christian. Putting words in someone else's mouth is a clear violation of the commandment against false witness.

Your complaint about his comment on fundamentalists is irrelevant to the question of whether he said what he is accused of saying. Your arguments against climate change are also irrelevant. Yes his naiveté about scientific consensus is astonishing after what we have all lived through—but that is also irrelevant to the question of whether he said what Megan claims he said. It's a smokescreen. Your whole video sidesteps the only question that really matters here.

[glstka]

0:02 You start out with a meme, which shows from the start that you are not interested in a balanced discussion. When someone lies about you there is good reason to be upset and it should not be mocked with the meme DAMAGE!!!"

[Ladynilow]

Imagine calling someone a sherpard for sale because they spoke on climate change ?? I thought he was ordaining gays or something for such a title, it's definitely harsh and uncalled for. I can think of 20 shepards for sale before this man would even come to mind yet he was first on her list ??😂 also whatever you believe about climate change doesn't affect your Christian standing - this is wild

[jayv]

Uhhh, I don't see any "emotional damage" on his part. At all. In either response video. Frustration, yes. But frustration isn't synonymous with some kind of anger or sorrow.

[JesseStevenPollom]

Great work Pastor Reed! A lot of people seem to miss the larger point that slick guys like Ortlund (who are fellow brothers in Christ and obviously worthy of our respect) have been slowly shifting the ecclesiastical overton window to the left for years, like the rest of the Gospel Coalition.

[Angel-cumf]

It's good to hear another discerning critique of this goofy mess! 😂 It's so obvious Gavin was puppeting climate propaganda in his original video and not so subtley shaming his science denying, fundamentalist, cromagnon brothers and sisters who don't agree with his nuanced, studied take of The Science. 🤣 My psychoanalyst spidey senses pick up on the butt hurt in his hair splitting, verbose response videos, ("straining at gnats" someone said 🤣). His Borg army, whether bots or actual persons, were out storming every comment section within 24 hours of the book being released, many of whom hadn't even read it, making one wonder if it was an indeed safe and effective coordinated effort to distract us from the real matters at hand.

[tawnalynelle]

You are absolutely putting words into Ortland's mouth

[piracy]

14:20 you either have lost your faculties to critically think or are intentionally misrepresenting his point. He’s talking about people who disregard scientific data without studying it — because they already hold a political allegiance to the presupposition. Very ironic your railing against the Left’s post-modernisms, while at the same time not factually representing Ortlund’s points.

Actually twice in a row you haven’t taken the time to understand his point, or intentionally misunderstand his point, or are incapable of following logic. If you’re going to deny a scientific consensus, you need to have factual counter evidence, not just “uhhh leftist”. It’s pretty simple. You’re not really wanting to understand the point he’s making are you? Give me a break.

Lastly, you act like he’s talking about you in the video and you talk about this “we” quite a bit. You do understand he’s talking about those who have denied the evidence because of political motivations, not factual counter evidence. Of course, maybe you intend to include yourself in that group, as those who have not researched. However, he says, if you make yourself one who disagrees with climate change after looking at evidence, you’re justified as a Christian to hold that position. Notice, he even says it’s possible that conspiracy is a good reason, as long as you have evidence (which you have given evidence of conspiracy — so even less reasoning for you to be offended by what he’s saying)

You’re taking offense to the video because you haven’t understood what he’s saying.

[freddavis]

Two Questions: Is there a nongovernmental solution? What problem has the government ever solved?

[glstka]

0:29 now you do a Rodney King meme. Is this supposed to be a Christian channel? You aren't acting like a Christian to Gavin.

[johnlocke]

I see a lot of people defending Ortlund by stating he never talks about climate change. This is a strange defense because in his own video he said it is something we need to be talking about. Seems they want to have it both ways.

Also when Megan referenced the climate change = salvation issue that almost made Ortlund fall out of his chair, I took that as a call back to her examples earlier in the chapter not a direct reference to Ortlund.

[kathleenellison]

Megan’s book is a treatise on the progressive left’s influence within the evangelical church. Her research, documentation and context is extensive.

[thomasfryxelius]

I think this video is missing the point.
I also have disagreements with Gavin´s video. But Basham accused him of making this a gospel issue.
That´s a lie. A very serious lie.
Around 15.00 you showed a clip and then summarized it. Let me summarize your summary;
Gavin: If you are going to go against the scientific consensus, don´t shoot from the hip. Hit the books, get informed.
Your summary: So if you disagree it means you shoot from the hip and need to hit the books.
That´s not what he said. I appreciate that you played his clip first, but it just shows how off your assessment is.

I think the climate change scam is one of the worst things in our time. It ruins economies and causes so much suffering. I completely disagree with Gavin on the issue. I´m also not offended by his wish that his opponents should be more informed. I think we should be too, and many of us are. He also, very clearly, in the video says that those who disagree are still his brothers and sisters in Christ, so he never makes it a Gospel issue. Basham slandered him.

You can be right on the issue and still be completely wrong in how you treat someone.