Megan Basham responds to the Debate about her new book ‘Shepherds for Sale’ w/ ‪@alisachilders‬ + Q&A!

<__slot-el><__slot-el>

<__slot-el>

<__slot-el> 12K views Streamed 4 days ago

Megan Basham’s new book “Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda” is blowing the lid off of some prominent evangelical leaders and their organizations that seem to have sold their souls for leftist money and political positions. A few of them are now challenging some of Megan’s findings, saying they were taken out of context. Are they correct? Megan will respond on this livestream an …

499 Comments

Add a comment…

@travispelletier3352

4 days ago (edited) As I’ve said elsewhere, I love this ministry. Dr. Turek is a huge blessing to the kingdom, and I agree with the main thrust of “Shepherds for Sale.” And I would even recommend buying it because of the takedowns of folks like Collins. I was also shocked by some of the info about Christianity today (although not that shocked considering its recent pieces) But I’m honestly baffled by how Frank and Alisa don’t see the misrepresentation of Ortlund. It seems just blatant and undeniable to me that she repeatedly claims he says things that he just doesn’t say. And the idea that “this is just how journalists work” doesn’t cut it as a response. I’ll past some stuff from another post I wrote here just to provide examples (and yes, I have bought and read the book myself): Megan claimed that Gavin states that to disagree with the consensus is to take an “irresponsible posture,” but what he stated was that dismissing a consensus “as a knee-jerk reaction” without looking deeply into it and “really hitting the books” was to take an irresponsible posture. That’s a significant difference in meaning. Megan claimed that Gavin gives no reason to accept the consensus except “love your neighbor,” when he gives at least 4 reasons that we should take the consensus seriously. He even lists and numbers these reasons. That’s just another blatant falsehood, showing she simply did not listen carefully to his video. Megan claimed that Ortland states that disagreement can ONLY come from political motivations when what he said was that the “primary” explanation for why “many” believers disagree is political. The former statement (that you accused him of), is obviously false. However, it’s just obviously true that for many Christians their politics (whether conservative or leftist) drive their views on other political issues like climate change – and that’s what he actually said. Megan claimed that J.D. Greear states in a particular speech that supporting the black lives matter movement is a gospel issue for Christians, when what he actually said was that he had serious problems with the movement and did NOT align himself with the organization, but that the sentiment that black lives do indeed matter was one that all Christians should agree on and state boldly as a gospel issue. Megan claimed that J.D. Greear accused “any who raised objections to the promotion of CRT, Feminism, or LGBTQ ideology in SBC churches” as “divisive” and “demonic,” when what Greear said was that he agreed on the sanctity of life, on the importance of rejecting homosexuality as sinful, but that when people try to cause division based on “misunderstandings, distortions, and outright lies,” that behavior is demonic. I could keep going for a while with these sorts of faulty citations. And for the record, I agree with Megan’s overall view of Greear. I do think he has given WAY too much sway to leftists. But you can’t just make up stuff that he didn’t say and then claim that he said it! Similarly, I agree with Megan’s view of climate change and think that Ortlund puts too much stock into the IPCC reports/scientific consensus on that issue. But you can’t just make up stuff that he didn’t actually say and then claim that he said it! These are not minor problems. They are serious failures to accurately cite your sources. 77

@TimothyFish

3 days ago Megan Basham: “The big pushback is coming from Gavin Ortlund. I don’t know his work very well.” Wait! What?! You’re accusing someone of something without doing your research? 56

@pascalpowers

3 days ago I was hopeful but ultimately disappointed with the results of this livestream. Megan both denied ever misrepresenting Gavin and then minimized the issue by saying it’s a small part of the book and “a distraction”. I agree it’s an unfortunate distraction because I support the main premise of the book and have been aware of the types of issues she brings up in it since well before 2020. It’s a long overdue book and should have easily been a slam dunk for revealing these problems to Christians across the nation. The reality is she caused this distraction herself by her poor judgement in including someone whose work she herself admitted she was not very familiar with in this book and then misrepresenting him. Despite her insistence that it’s a minor issue, admitting that a book can still be overall true when it contains some errors, saying that she’s not very familiar with Gavin, and her obvious concern that it’s a distraction from the main premise of the book, she refuses to recognize the validity of the critiques she is receiving. I’m not a rabid Gavin Ortlund fan. I was literally misspelling his last name while discussing this with my husband yesterday. I’m a conservative and disagree entirely with Gavin’s position on climate change. His words were still misrepresented in Megan’s book and the problem is her failure to acknowledge her error. Diverting to explaining why climate change policies have caused harm doesn’t address the misrepresentation issue. In fact, it doesn’t even prove that anthropogenic climate change is wrong, just that the political approach to the issue has been a dismal failure. Again, I say this as someone who disagrees with anthropogenic climate change. It’s simply a matter of the logical argument. We’re all on the same page, but Gavin being wrong doesn’t make him not misrepresented. No one has claimed that the problem is that he doesn’t actually believe in anthropogenic climate change, so pointing out that he’s wrong doesn’t address the problem. Many of us who believe Gavin has been misrepresented also disagree with him, including Chris Date who did a comprehensive video on exactly WHY Gavin was misrepresented. It wasn’t simply because he’s been written about in a book called “Shepard’s for Sale”, but that his actual words were skewered. The disclaimer at the beginning that she’s not calling everyone featured in the book a false teacher doesn’t address the issue. That someone may believe Gavin is a false teacher is a possible result, but in no way is it the main concern anyone has been bringing up. He simply wasn’t saying the things Megan claims he was. If you’re unable to recognize this, you’re probably still accepting Megan’s framing. If you cannot see how Megan has put words into Gavin’s mouth, I’d recommend watching Chris Date’s video for a disambiguated perspective. The most charitable position I can imagine for Frank Turek and Alisa Childers is that they are, like many of us, very invested in getting the word out about these rampant problems in the evangelical world, yet so much so that they are willing to overlook Megan’s refusal to employ some self-reflection and recognize that we are not all leftist Big Eva backed Gavin fanboys, but just people who value truth and honesty, especially among Christians and how we treat one another. I’m still disappointed in their contribution to the situation and have little hope this will actually be addressed to any satisfaction. We don’t want Megan set upon a pyre, we just want her to acknowledge her error. It’s such a simple ask and it’s unfortunate that she almost certainly never will. 37

@steverational8615

3 days ago Megan is courageous for putting this book together. Progressive Christianity is a real danger so I appreciate her calling this BUT I must say with all due respect, and in Christian love, she is totally wrong about her claims about Gavin. I would even argue it is slanderous. You owe Ortland a public apology. And to be clear I do not always agree with Ortland especially when it comes to his substantive views on climate change but I do agree with what he says about the need for everyone, Christian and otherwise, to come to conclusions based on “doing the research”. And it is so true that there are some Christians who, when it comes to climate change, are driven by pure ideology. 35

@alecguertin7812

4 days ago Frank, thank you for bringing this topic up. But please acknowledge the qualms He brings up in his response video. Most of us don’t even agree with Gavin on the topic of climate change. But we see that she has been dishonest/mistaken in what she has written about him. it is clear as day to many of us that she should retract her words. 77

@coltonmoore4572

3 days ago As the interview with Chris Dates on Trinity Radio points out, people who take issue with the book are not defending Ortlund by saying “well he said this, but what he meant was this.” People are defending Ortlund by saying “he said this and you twisted his words.” That’s the issue. You aren’t seeing the precision he used with his words! 40

@CollinBoSmith

4 days ago Unfortunate to see Megan doubling down on her errors on Gavin Ortlund. Even more unfortunate to see Frank and Alisa backing her in this. I hope they have Gavin on to give his side at some point and then just to talk about apologetics which he is a great resource for. 61

@mnutt5049

4 days ago Never thought I’d be the type of person to think about unsubscribing to both your and Franks channels. Megan’s false representation of Gavin is just egregious and straight up wrong. Her doubling down on her error as if she’s being genuine in her analysis of Gavin’s statements is actually comical. Her unwillingness to set aside her pride, apologize to a brother in Christ, and make a public statement regarding her failure to represent Gavin accurately just speaks volumes about her Character and her spiritual maturity. Megan, I really hope you take the time to read ALL of the statements from your brothers and sisters, and pray for clarity from our Lord, and come to a point where you can see the log in your eye. I think Gavin is doing a fantastic job of living out Paul’s lessons in Ephesians trying to maintain unity within Christs body, while you’re unfortunately who Paul was addressing – by trying to cause disunity. 50

@isaiahschrock5082

3 days ago (edited) St Paul: “Do not bite and devour one another, lest you consume each other.” Megan Basham: “CHOMP!” 18

@brando3342

4 days ago (edited) Now all three of you ought to apologize to Gavin. Megan particularly, but you both should as well for platforming her nonsense takes, and agreeing with them. Unbelievable. 46

@johnjames6336

3 days ago It is possible that some people complaining about her book are people who just don’t like what she is saying about Gavin. And some who don’t like what she is saying period regardless if it is about Gavin or not. 8

@alpinegirl

4 days ago Christians have forgotten that God hates slander. And when someone’s using misleading information to damage someone else’s reputation, that’s not a “debate” – that’s slander. 45

@bigbangcesar

4 days ago Dr Ortlund was unjustly dragged through the mud. RIP to the homie… 48

@kennysmith15

4 days ago It’s sooooo easy to see the slander of Gavin. Then if there’s doubt he respectfully shows why in his video and then Chris does and even better response. Folks pouring it on should repent, it’s ungodly. 52

@cindysyracuse2334

12 hours ago Thank you, Megan, for shedding light on a problem in the church. God is using so many of His called to expose a dead and apathetic church. 3

@marywesley6460

1 day ago Great conversation. Thank you for your courage, Megan, a virtue in short supply these days. 5

@beerad_98

3 days ago AT 23:10 you go over her quote that Gavin said: “to not accept that consensus, (Ortlund) says, is to buy into ‘conspiracy and hoax’; it is a failure to ‘take a responsible posture’.” These are words taken out of there intended meaning and context where he actually says: “Don’t just shoot from the hip, study it and make sure that that is a wise thing to do. Because I see a lot of people reacting instinctively rather than really hitting the books. I don’t think that is a responsible posture for Christians to take.” So see that here he is not referring to a problem of any kind of conclusion on your consensus, but rather the method at which someone came to any consensus. and the other actual quote he makes is in reference to the actual scientific process: “The level of conspiracy or hoax it would be if somehow all these different people (referring to the scientific body) think that scientists are all together. People have this distrust of science, but science is an inherently conservative process. If somebody could disprove this there would be so much incentive to do that and yet you have so much agreement…” So here, he is actually making a claim about our perception of the scientific community itself, not the consensus you take being a hoax or conspiracy but rather that if you concluded it by assuming the entire scientific community is scheming against truth. Which if that was true, would objectively be a huge conspiracy. Both of the statements Gavin was making, although you may not agree, we’re in no way meant to conclude what Megan states here at 23:10. Gavin may not be as conservative as you, but he isn’t some left wing zealot. He is a father, a pastor, and a convicted scholar who’s work does not revolve around climate change but instead around the Church and the work of Christ. And ironically, in an effort to make it seem like Gavin is the one making these political topics and issue of faith and/or salvation, Megan is the one who is likely unintentionally dividing our Church into further tribes and teams with the political motivation to do so. Regardless of if you agree with Gavins video or not, all he was doing was sharing his opinions on this, it wasn’t a hill he was saying we as Christians should die on, and yet his name is repeatedly in her book as someone who is simply being influenced by leftists who have infiltrated big Eva. He does think human caused climate change is real, but that doesn’t make him any less of Christian and any more of less politically influenced than any of you three. That said, it’s fair to say that people are missing the larger point of the book. Which it’s absolutely true that the left is infiltrating the church. Just look at what has split the Methodist church recently. The larger point Megan is trying to make may very well be true and honestly presented. Nonetheless, Gavins name should not have even been in the book over this regardless of if you were meaning to represent him as a shepherd for sale or not. 18

@illadvized7623

4 days ago (edited) Gavin ortlund deserves an apology. 55

@Jackie.2025

4 days ago Very disappointed of how you treat your brother in Christ. 27

@makobean

5 hours ago I am so, so glad Alisa didn’t cave to Gavin or compromise on Neil. So many thoughtful people with good theology would have been taken in by the “We’re friends, I’m making a respectful appeal, etc” schtick that they would have caved, if only just to avoid offense and tension with these people. Alisa has been a very welcome outlier here. 1 https://www.youtube.com/live_chat_replay?continuation=op2w0wRsGl5DaWtxSndvWVZVTmxaRmxIYzE5c2NYRXhkVTVsZERCMU4zRnNVM2xSRWd0bFZYVTVTVkI2V0VNMFp4b1Q2cWpkdVFFTkNndGxWWFU1U1ZCNldFTTBaeUFCTUFBJTNEQAFyBggEGAIgAHgB&authuser=0