I have the audio book on order, and it’s read by THE Megan Basham herself. But you can already get it in some stores. The audio book is live TODAY (July 30th, 2024). Anyway, I’m excited about this book for many reasons. One reason is that I’ve long held the conviction that evidential apologetics is needed in order for Christians to be bold. I think their compromising with the left is related to that.
Anyway, here is the early book review from Amy Simmons, published in Truth Script. (H/T Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)
First, let’s just see what the book is even about, and then I’ll share my favorite paragraph in the review.
This is what the book is about:
In this extensively researched exposé, Basham unravels how the progressive left has infiltrated the conservative church through shadowy non-governmental organization (NGO) initiatives with benign-sounding front groups that well-respected pastors, theologians, and para-church leaders promoted under the banner of “loving your neighbor.” Based on a compilation of her years of reporting on church issues for the conservative news and media outlet The Daily Wire, Shepherds uncovers the behind-the-scenes political machinations of evangelical elites that have led venerated Christian institutions and publications.
Utilizing her research acumen, personal anecdotes, and connections with evangelical insiders, Basham systematically unmasks the benefactors of current progressive left ideologies being pushed into conservative evangelical churches. The amount of players involved in what is akin to a conservative evangelical ”deep state” is overwhelming at times, but that serves to show the level of obfuscation under which the current regime operates. Basham writes with precision and thoroughness while still wearing her layperson’s hat. The reader senses her righteous indignation as she does not hide her own beliefs and convictions, and her commentary is fortified throughout with biblical refutations. The following are some takeaways one can glean from a good-faith reading of Shepherds.
So, I have some experience dealing with this compromise myself, as someone who has tried to get evidential Christianity into the church. I have seen all kinds of pushback to learning how to defend your faith from within the church, and this paragraph from the review nails what I’ve seen in many different churches:
Since our society has become more feminized, we’ve seen a propensity for leaders to cater to the whims of those who are led by their emotions. Rigney is again helpful here by describing this inclination as “untethered empathy,” which is “a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality.” Basham goes to great lengths to show how the SBC abuse reforms are based on specious arguments from “trauma-informed” counseling and the now-rescinded Obama-era Title IX Sexual Abuse guidance. In fact, it’s a deception that will keep women in bondage to a “victim status” rather than taking accountability for their own actions, which Basham demonstrates through powerful anecdotes.
You can read the review to see which specific areas Megan talks about in her book.
So I want to make one point about why church leaders are so prone to bend over backwards to please the secular left.
In my experience with apologetics, my goal has been to provide evidence to people, because I think that evidence sets boundaries on what a person can and cannot believe. And then their actions run within the boundaries of their beliefs. I think the root cause of our problems in the church is that pastors and other church leaders have not rooted their beliefs in evidence. People like Russell Moore and JD Greear don’t know whether God exists, or whether Jesus rose from the dead. They don’t know where to look in nature for signs of intelligent design. They don’t know how to answer philosophical challenges to Christian doctrines. They don’t study these topics, and they can’t convince non-Christians about any of it. On the contrary, for them Christianity is about proving to other people how good they are. And it’s this mad rush to feel good and look good to others that causes them to capitulate to the secular left, lest they appear to be “mean”.
So, on global warming, I would immediately go to the evidence, from books by authors like Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke, etc. On economics, I would immediately go to Thomas Sowell, Jay Richards, Jennifer Roback Morse, F. A. Hayek, etc. On race / CRT, I would immediately go to Thomas Sowell, Heather MacDonald, Voddie Baucham, etc. On abortion, I would look to people like Robert George, Maureen Condic, Scott Rae, Francis J. Beckwith, Christopher Kaczor, etc. On marriage, I would immediately go to Ryan T. Anderson, Jennifer Roback Morse, Robert George, etc. And so on. I look for people who have studied, published and debated on these topics. Not people who are trying to be noticed by secular leftist elites in the New York Times. Basically, you have to study the evidence if you want to have convictions. And our Christian leaders haven’t done that. They think studying is a waste of time.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“And it’s this mad rush to feel good and look good to others that causes them to capitulate to the secular left, lest they appear to be “mean”.”
The above quote is probably 90% of the Left’s playbook. For the Left the only sin worth talking about is “oppression” which amounts to telling a person “No, that’s not what you should be or do.” The only thing that’s evil anymore is to be white, cisgender, and (the laws of nature forbid) Christian.
The other half of their playbook is to accuse your opponent of what you are doing. That way they you are always on the defense. For example, Democrats denying election results while telling Republicans to deny elections results undermines democracy.
My point is if the church would stop buying into the trap of “never opposed the current thing in culture” then they would become fully devoted follower of Jesus. That simply isn’t true, and I call shenanigans on any non-believer who claims that.
The Left never compromises, which is my they are willing to eat their own in the race of victimhood. The church, on the other hand, can’t seem to compromise enough because of this unspoken promise that if we do and support the things they like they will become followers of Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I urge you to look at Gavin Ortlund’s response to her claims about his video on climate change before endorsing this book . He goes point by point through the video (which is still available) and it certainly appears he has been badly slandered. I know these things are difficult but I hope you will consider taking this endorsement down until you’re certain it’s claims about Dr Ortlund are true.
LikeLike
James, I watched what I could of the original “climate change” video Ortlund did. And no amount of niceness does away with the fact that he is passing on as “evidence,” lies. Stuff disproven for years. I made it to the “scientific consensus” portion and haven’t had the stomach to go thru the rest. Maybe I will have time at some point to do some point refutations of the larger video. But he waxed long about truth and evidence. Something he failed out of the gate.
Wintery Knight has some great posts on this, as do I. In WK’s search bar type in “Climate Consensus” — it is a fun venture.
Here are some bullet points from mine:
■ Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis
■ (one claim refuted) In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman asked two questions of 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded. That survey was the original basis for the famous “97% consensus” claim. For the calculation of the degree of consensus among experts in the Doran/Zimmerman article, all but 79 of the respondents were excluded. [….] [of] “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change)… 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
■ Friends of Science announce the release of a new report entitled “97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths and Social Proofs.” Contrary to claims of these most-cited 97% consensus surveys, there is only 1-3% explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming, and no agreement with a catastrophic view. “These ‘consensus’ surveys appear to be used as a ‘social proof,’” says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. “Just because a science paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases.” The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a “remarkable lack of disagreement” by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
Do you see the problem? Ortlund’s first major claim out of the blocks is a weak one. Another is the heat index rising. I won’t get into it here, but a major portion of the temperature devices are place in cities, surrounded by concrete and some right next to air-conditioning exhaust. Silly.
I would be appalled if Dr. Ortlund allowed the same level of introduced evidences by Biblical Critical scholars. Appalled I tell you. At any rate, I wish to get the book now more than ever — I am in a “Dave Ramsey” portion of my life, so I have to wait… all my credit cards are paid off, hitting my student loan with the maximum amount each month. Arrgh!
LikeLike
Thanks so much for responding your attention to this issue and candour are refreshing. My concern was in a slightly different direction than yours, but I can see why you’ve taken the stance you have.
I actually agree with you that the information on climate change he has given is incorrect but the dispute is not over that, it’s over this specific quote:
“It is wrong for them to make agreement with on political policies a test of Biblical faithfulness. It is wrong for to make climate change activism a measure of one’s commitment to the Gospel.”
So I went over the video again and he’s right, not only has he not suggest anything of this nature, at the end of the video he goes to great lengths to call for dialogue and increased communication.
There’s a big difference between being wrong about science (of which he is guilty) and accusations of politically motivated spiritual strong arming (of which he is innocence.
The quote is still slanderous.
Pax J
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is George Grant’s take: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Doc-Grant.jpg
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for updating us. I know Ortlund is still responding. I guess we’ll just have to see how this plays out. I wish Douglas Groothuis had been a little more forthcoming, but that’s instagram for you.
Maybe someone who’s read the book can weigh in with a little more detail. I’m just not invested enough to buy the book just to satisfy my own curiosity.
If it turns out I was wrong I’ll accept that, I did comment without actually reading the book.
Pax J
LikeLike
Wow! I’m impressed with that.
LikeLike
Sorry, completely missed the Dave Ramsay bit. Congratulations on embracing financial realism. I’m so proud of 26 year old son. He quit his useless post secondary education before he accumulated massive student loan debt, then searched long hard and found a job with a merit based company that develops and educates staff internally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLike
I just unfriended a guy (same last name as me, but unrelated) who found me because of my website. He was decidedly more conservative in theology until Trump. Then he started posting stuff by the Lincoln Project, and the like. Then his theology followed suit. I noted that while Reagans 80-percent rule: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” He has been quoting radical Democrats, people who reject the Gospel, such as Shane Claiborne, using N.T. Wright as some noble chieftain to say I practice Christian Nationalism [in the racist way of course]… etc. We agree about 30 percent of the time, and that is generous. So I posted an entirely too long post on it incorporating: Shane Claiborne, David French, and Natalie Grace.
But while doing the post I came across her book. I am soo looking forward to getting it.
LikeLike
She also did an interview with the Federalist too.
https://ricochet.com/podcast/federalist-radio-hour/megan-basham-on-how-top-evangelicals-traded-the-truth-for-leftism/
LikeLike