Megan Basham | Pastors In America Are Selling Out

In this episode, I got to talk with Megan Basham. Megan is a culture reporter at the Daily Wire and has written for many publications including First Things, National Review, WORLD Magazine, The Telegraph, and The Wall Street Journal. She recently wrote a book called Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda.

Megan and I discussed how “climate change” rhetoric and advocacy made its way into the American Evangelical church in the 1990s and how that started a widespread spiral toward a more liberal theology in the church. We also discussed her controversy with Christian apologist Gavin Ortlund. Megan talks about Timothy Keller and other prominent Christians in America and their equivocating theology that has become the mainstream theological approach for many young Christians. We finally discussed Megans own testimony and the proper Christian response to pastors and shepherds who are for sale: the true testimony of Jesus Christ.

This is one of the most important books of the year, I hope you like this episode and buy a copy!

[ZeldaGreywarrior]

Excellent book and so necessary for a time like this when Christianity is severly under attack.
People should read the book before jumping in to cancel Megan Basham. Make sure of your facts.

[jackjones]

May GOD bless you for your Biblical faithfulness regarding the issue of world appeasement in your own Madison church! Fear God before man!!

[HenryLeslieGraham]

subscribed. seems like a solid channel. im more catholic but its good to hear from other christians. I wish i could afford to buy and read mrs basham's book but hopefully i will in the future.

[scapps]

Why are so many on here pushing a cultlike attitude to Gavin Ortland? It's a small comment in her book and it seems to make so many crazy. Look at his video. He ties caring about he climate to being a Christian. Why? Yes, it might be his opinion but it pushes Christians in the liberal areas and before long you go from Christian to liberal in this one area, then the next, then the next. Each little thing you accept makes it easy to accept the next idea like lgbtq.

[BibleSongs]

Murder is against civil law because it is an overt and objectively observable harm against the constitution. Not being a theocracy, the internal, heart-sin of idolatry, in a country with freedom of religion, is neither necessarily obvious nor against the constitution.

[meatballofall]

You've seriously hit a brother with your bus full of zealous people who now think "Why was this Gavin guy in the crosswalk? What a silly, misguided leftist! Someone probably paid him to just stand there!"

Gavin is very well known as someone who is careful and precise with his words. So it is unfortunate when he is not represented with an iota of precision matching his.

If you keep saying "I don't really know him, or his work very much, so please get off my back", then please stop acting surprised when those who do know his work come out of the woodwork to defend his reputation and ministry from a politically excitable crowd - one which does not know him.

I'll paraphrase Gavin's video here since a few of us seem to be hearing him only with hearts hardened by this book. Gavin does not "insist" that Christians accept the consensus on climate change. He does not put it on the Christian's conscience, to do and say as climate activists do, and he does not at all advocate for activism.

So please, no more "I don't understand why there's this pushback. Huh, weird."

Here is Gavin paraphrased: Now, does the book actually match his content, intent and tone here?

Consensus is something we need to take seriously. Engage it seriously. Don't ignore it and brush it off lightly. This is the point. Don't miss it. That was the point.

Ortlund is saying that if a consensus is out there, then you take it seriously as something to do your homework on. There is a sad equivocation occurring when we think that "serious" here, means to "bow to" or "defer to".

If we dissent from a consensus out of laziness, then we adopt the irresponsible Christian posture Ortlund warns us against. If we dissent from a consensus because our homework actually gives us a good reason to, then great!

If you had a doctor diagnose you with cancer, you should take that seriously in the same way Ortlund is encouraging Christians to do. Yep, you might think the doctor is a great person, or a terrible one. You might think his institution is motivated by money and not by health. Whatever. Not the point. Gavin says we must not ignore the doctor outright. Someone just accused your body of being in terrible danger. Now, you have been given stewardship over that body that God gave you, so you had better exercise some due diligence here and get to the bottom of what's going on.

How do we take it seriously? Well, no, we don't have to agree with the doctor's claim right off the bat. But, we need to START an investigation from a position of openness. Our attitude is now one that assumes we don't have all the information, and that there is something here I need to get straightened out. So, you go to another doctor for another opinion, and maybe another one after that. You read some books, you read some articles. After all that, you acknowledge that the answer is certainly not as clear as you wish it were. You have some doubts about your conclusion, even while you strongly advocate for what you've decided.

Gavin seems to believe the evidence is indicating that something is very wrong with our (metaphorical) body, and that the evidence implicates a significant level of self-harm as a contributing factor. After all, it would be weird and unlikely if all these doctors, websites, and medical journals all conspired to convince him of something like this, since none of them will personally benefit if we do have cancer. In the end, the doctor has told us about our bad habits of eating too much red meat, playing with radioactive materials, and failing to exercise. So, Gavin lands in this place where he believes it's likely that we've got cancer.

Now, if you disagree with him on that point as I do, great. But that's not his point. His point is that "MANY" Christians dismiss the diagnosis without any effort at all. Megan instead would like us to believe that Gavin is telling point is that "ALL" Christians who dismiss the diagnosis or not true Christians. These implications are not careful, they are not thoughtful, and they certainly do not treat a brother in a clear light.

The doctors might well be shady, and the clinics and books might well be money grubbers. But don't let that distract from his point. You've only been proving his point in the end: that many Christians often believe and disbelieve things too much "shooting from the hip".

Please let this misunderstanding occur no further. See the many other videos out there detailing the other points of contention.

[derekjames]

The truth matters, and Gavin was slandered or is it libel if in print? It’s so ironic to do this to someone who tries his best to be careful and kind with his words. I hope there are apologies given to him, but I pray God uses this to give Gavin (who I don’t personally know) an even bigger platform. His channel is TruthUnites, and this storm highlights that the opposite of that phrase is necessarily true.

[nathanleameister]

Please do more research into Gavin Ortlund. He made a few response videos to Megan. He demonstrates how she clearly misquotes him multiple times to make him say things he doesn't believe.

[beksinski]

I'm a little confused as to what is being upheld as specifically biblical. Lots of modern issues aren't described in the bible due to the differential in technology. Some issues are legitimately conflicted within the pages of the bible. Examples would include slavery, wife beating, monogamous marriage and quite a few others. There are passages recommending different things about those issues. And finally different churches come to distinctly different conclusions with their applied ethics and this has been true for the whole history of Christianity. So while there are certainly a lot of overt and covert agendas in place but ascribing concerted agency to some nebulous 'they' feels irrational. As if leftists are somehow unified and lockstep in their efforts. They aren't. There is more infighting and conflict within left wing politics than there is within right wing politics... and I know there is a lot on the right. I fully endorse everyones freedom of speech, assembly and political activism but I think we are all more empowered when we are rational and self reflective.

[conceptualclarity]

Tim Keller was a habitual practitioner of rank sophistry on Twitter. I wonder if there are any actually saved people left at Christianity Today. My impression is that the outfit is inhabited by people whom I would call cultural evangelicals but not actual evangelicals: people who were raised in evangelical families and have some residual affinity for evangelical culture but haven't really come to know the Lord.

[mitromney]

It's damaging to the entire body of Christ that Megan REFUSES to talk to Gavin and set things straight with him face to face. How can you support a "Christian" who will judge her brother publically without even talking to him first? Stinks of pride, money and worldly politics. DISTURBING you would give her airtime before she fixes this!!!

[JonathanCLacy]

If we were to apply the ways pastors are selling out on the right as well this book would have more weight. I don't believe this interview will age well.

[diogovara-ys]

She should have contacted Gavin Ortlund before she published the book

[krizilloo]

Dr. Gavin Ortlund is not a sellout. That notion is absurd. Why is he showcased in her book? We who love justice ask that she take him out.