The Impact of Shepherds for Sale is Only Just Beginning
It’s the summer of 2017 and we all have cultural whiplash. Between the explosion of the MeToo movement and the election of Donald Trump to the highest office in the land, it was not difficult to feel like we were all trapped in a poorly written reality TV show. I hadn’t heard the term “patriarchy” bandied about much since I stopped being around Riot Girls reading zines in high school, yet suddenly even nice young women without shaved heads were marching against them. Upon questioning, hardly a single one of them seemed quite able to explain why, but they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the genesis of all of their angst was a hierarchical relationship in which men were firmly on the top of the ladder.
By this point, it was normal to see Christian women online having regular conversations about the importance of “holding space” for “people of color.” So-called “empathy” particularly for the “oppressed” was treated as a given for Christian conduct. Anyone who dared ask questions like, “Who is being oppressed?” or “How is this oppression?” or “What is white privilege?” were quickly shut down as unloving or even racist. It was in these conversations that I first learned of a concept called “intersectionality” and a quick google search led me down a rabbit hole of philosophies that quickly explained all the new lingo these Christian women were using, and where, exactly, their ideas of oppression, racism, and even the “patriarchy” were coming from.
The thing I hadn’t quite figured out yet was why women from solid, biblical churches were using the same language as atheists, feminists, and otherwise explicitly anti-Christian movements. And it wasn’t just similar language—they were moving almost lock-step with the exact same talking points one could find in any secular humanities course on a university campus across the US.
In short order, it became perfectly normal for popular Christian conservatives to parrot left-leaning social justice advocates in reframing the conversation around abortion. They would often decry their fellow evangelicals as not caring about children AFTER they’re born, which, turns out, is code for “not supporting expansive government social programs.” Quickly, many popular evangelicals began to adopt the phrase “pro-life from womb to tomb,” signaling in Christianese that they, too, wanted to see the expansion of government social programs that would supposedly make it easier for those considering abortion due to economic factors to consider not killing their child in exchange for taxpayer funded healthcare, childcare, and government checks.
By the time TGC held a women’s conference in 2018 with a special meeting explicitly and only for “women of color” so that they could share their “distinct experiences”, the jig was clearly up. Major evangelical institutions had already drunk deeply from the well of Marxist philosophy. Language that had typically been reserved for social justice advocates influenced by the most insidious of philosophies, such as critical theory and intersectionality, was commonplace. In what can only be described as a massive gaslight, the people using language from these playbooks were quick to assure their followers that not only did critical theory have no influence over them, but no one also even knows what critical theory is!
That same year, TGC hosted a conference commemorating Martin Luther King Jr. A quick perusal of the recorded sessions would tell you that what the actual conference was about was slaying the giant of “white privilege” in the church. This is also where we were given Matt Chandler’s now-famous line about his recent hiring practices for his new church plant. When asked by the person helping him find a potential pastor for the plant, “If we find an Anglo 8, and an African American 7, which one would you want?” He responded, “I want the African American 7.”
Later in 2018, Nate Collins, an alumnus of the largest seminary in the US, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, would found Revoice, a group formed with the explicit aim to encourage “gay/same sex attracted” Christians. This group has gone on to normalize the idea that unrepentant homosexuals are some of the most faithful Christians in the pew.
By 2019, it was standard for major conservative evangelical institutions to produce content that pushed the ideas of leftists social engineers, albeit with more of a “love your neighbor” twist. Love your neighbor, be quiet if you’re white. Love your neighbor, accept homosexuality in the pews. Love your neighbor, let women lead the church. It’s not so shocking that in 2020, when the next “love your neighbor” dropped (wear a mask, get this jab) evangelicals largely fell in line when it came to the Covid-19 pandemic. After all, under the guise of loving neighbor, we had been selling out for years.
If it seems as though I’ve been all over the place so far because I’ve mentioned racism, abortion, so-called gay-christianity, and the patriarchy, it is because the leftist assault on Christianity has been multifaceted by design. Saul Alinsky’s rule number 8 for radicals that want to change the very face of a nation is this:
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
Ultimately, each of these issues are social issues; they have to do with how we interact with each other. What moral obligation does a Christian have to their black neighbor, their unborn neighbor, their “same-sex attracted” neighbor? What obligations exist between a man and his wife, or between all men and all women? These are the very questions of what it means to be a person that is moving through the world; since we know that we have a duty before God to love our neighbor, these issues matter. Many Christians fear being accused of a failure to love their neighbor, and if it isn’t obvious by now, enemies both inside and outside the church are acutely aware of this.
In the introduction to Shepherds for Sale, Megan Basham outlines how the Communist party infiltrated mainline denominations between 1920 and 1950 through pastors, which the communists referred to as “the biggest suckers of them all.” It is not a secret that any of this happened, but in our typical modern-day hubris, we tend to think it couldn’t possibly still be happening to us today. “What leftward drift?” they type into their Twitter feeds before inviting us to join their “Evangelicals for Harris” #faithvoters #christiansforharris Zoom call.
Shepherds for Sale hadn’t been on the shelves for 24 hours before a fully edited and well-produced response video was available for your viewing pleasure. Gavin Ortlund, who was not accused of being “for sale”, and was mentioned in a total of 7 out of 30 pages in the first chapter, immediately uploaded a video to his YouTube channel with a thumbnail of a grumpy-looking Megan Basham alongside a pretending-to-be-shocked Gavin with the words “SHE’S TALKING ABOUT ME” (yes, in all caps).
While Ortlund was mentioned in the chapter, you’d be hard-pressed to come away from actually reading the content believing that he was in any way the point of the chapter. Interestingly, the full court press of Ortlund and his followers was unleashed, announcing that this book was full of errors and misprints. No need to read this rag if you can even stomach chapter one! Is it a coincidence that Ortlund’s fellow “minister in residence” at Immanuel Nashville, Russell Moore, is a major player in chapter two because of his involvement with the Evangelical Immigration Table (a group that has been majorly funded by George Soros’ Open Society)? Or perhaps many would not like you to read on to chapter 3, which details Moore’s strange lack of excitement about the reversal of Roe v Wade? Perhaps Moore’s co belligerents would not want you to read on to chapter 7, which details Moore’s less than ideal involvement in several abuse cover-ups in the SBC?
If you’ve been taking notes, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the release of Shepherds for Sale, which clearly outlines the ways in which large evangelical institutions have been intentionally influenced by leftist political aims over the last several years, has felt like someone has finally taken a match to a powder keg. While the proof of the leftward drift has been evident to anyone also capable of reading The Cat in the Hat for years, Basham has given us the receipts. And now we must begin asking the questions.
Why are major Christian institutions seemingly interested in finding corruption amongst their own ranks via the #ChurchToo movement but vehemently opposed to dealing with the content of Basham’s book past chapter one, which clearly outlines plenty of corruption in their ranks? Further, why does there seem to be a concerted effort to paint Basham as a poor journalist shilling for Trump? (For the answer here, see Saul Alinsky’s Rule #12). Why are pastors with ties to organizations like TGC assuring us that this book is not needed for the average Christian in the pew? Why are we being assured this is just a mere distraction from real work?
Surely the work of being a shepherd involves much care and tenderness. It must also involve being willing to take up arms against wolves. If the nerve required to stare down wolves amongst the sheep is a qualifying characteristic of a pastor, wouldn’t it follow that shepherds who are fearful or unnecessarily rattled at the first unveiling of a controversy be the shepherds least needed in our current cultural moment?
The hoopla around Shepherds for Sale has helped it climb to the bestsellers list. In terms of Basham’s ability to make muddy waters clear, it is well-deserved. This book is going to accomplish more than that, however. For too long, modern Christians have not been known for their wisdom and discernment. The world does not stand in awe of our love for neighbor—it is much more common for them (and for the evangelical elites) to decry us as hypocrites. Unbelievers who read this book looking for one more reason to despise Christians are in for a taste of an unrelenting allegiance to Scripture as the standard for what it truly means to love thy neighbor. She never misses an opportunity to remind the reader of the Gospel and the supremacy of Scripture as our ultimate authority when it comes to our orthodoxy and our orthopraxy.
It has not been uncommon to hear that we must first interrogate our own before looking outward for problems in the larger culture. Yes, and Amen. Shepherds for Sale has come along to do just that. Now we are left to wonder why the first major interlocutor against the leftward drift of conservative evangelicals has elicited calls for repentance and retraction before the average person has even had time to crack the spine. I think the answer is clear, and it has a lot to do with spine.
Image Credit: Unsplash
So no shepherds have been sold to those on the right? And that there are no instances of oppressed vs oppressors in an America with its history of slavery, its history of ethnic cleansing, its history of Jim Crow, its history of harsh segregation in the North, its remaining vestiges of systemic racism, and its marginalization of the LGBT community? If we haven’t seen shepherds bought by those with conservative beliefs, who were those spiritual advisors to Donald Trump who prophesied a 2020 victory and then return to power regardless of the election and who paid them?
For as long as some conservatives continue the Rush Limbaugh demonization of non-conservatives, how long can America continue on without surrendering to a 1 party rule? Of course, George Soros has to be blamed for a part of what is going on. And there are the Communists who must be mentioned too. After all, even Martin Luther King Jr. was called a Communist by some who opposed the Civil Rights Movement.
The move toward liberal theology happened long before the Communists were here. And during some of that time, we had outstanding white conservative theologians who supported some level and form of white supremacy. That was true of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, and J. Gresham Machen. And that might still be true of some of today’s Reformed theologians and other religiously conservative Christians. Here we should note that there are different drivers of racism. Ignorance is one that affected me and some of my friends from the past. Fear and intolerance and the need to control others in order to insure conformity are big drivers. And these last traits are major drivers of authoritarianism.
The above article doesn’t really argue logically or historically. It is meant to be purely persuasive for a bad end. It’s an end that implicitly encourages Christians to vy for the role of the Pharisee from the Parable of the Two Men Praying especially when they see and hear the messages of non politically conservative Christians.
Curt, your argument is disingenuous, you never argue on the author’s points from all the comments I’ve seen you make on these articles… You seem to always fear the “right” on everything. It’s the “right” that seems to push racism and sexism and oppression, etc. so we must fight them at every turn. You are the epitomy of the leftist radical who cannot give an inch, but you demand a mile at every argument. I hope I’m wrong and you are commenting on good faith, but even then you are sadly mistaken. It was always the left that oppressed people in the past, since the 18th century when there was a distinction. The French revolution brought that about. It was the hard left Jacobins that insisted on the murder of the nobles and all the opponents of their revolution, giving them no quarter, whereas the right wanted some stability and try to copy the American revolution. The French revolution tried to eradicate the church. It was Karl Marx and Lenin and the communists who orchestrated the murder of tens of millions in the 20th century. Communists were glad to eradicate religion and Christianity, so we would be silenced if they had their way. It was the Democrats who were the party of slavery and the Jim Crow south. The Republicans were the party established to unite the country and rid the US of slavery and segregation. Democrats opposed the civil rights act, they fought against it. Look at the vote tallies, all republicans voted in favor of it. LBJ passed the “great society” in order that “I’ll have them (n-words) voting democrat for the next two hundred years.” Hardly a good man doing this out of the kindness of his heart. Before that passed, black fatherlessness was relatively low, and many black families were intact, and surprisingly (not really considering the lefts record) most blacks voted Republican. Afterwards you see a downward spiral within the black communities. It was Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood who wanted to eradicate blacks and other undesirables to create the perfect race through eugenics and abortion. Some founding members of PP inspired the Nazis and Hitler for their plans to eradicate the Jews. So this insistance on attacking conservatives is misplaced. Please do your research.
That being said… Meghan’s book points out the deception of those being influenced by the left. I don’t see it coming from the right. I see lots of clips of preachers have democrats talk and campaign from the pulpit, if the party was reversed the media would have a heyday with it. Endorsements of right candidates are hardly ever seen from the pulpit, if ever. So I don’t think we need to worry about the right, so calm down. It’s a cottage industry to attack conservative values and people and claim it in the name of Christ, see David French and his ilk. Meghan’s book points out a lot of weird things coming from “Big Eva”, and it connects the dots that we haven’t seen before. Lots of unbiblical stances disguised as “loving your neighbor”… The people bashing us over the head with these attacks are acting in bad faith, and I hope you aren’t one of them.
Noah,
My comment was pointing out the inconsistency of her article. That she only mentions the deception of the left while neglecting to show the deception from the right is partisan. And it is consistent with Rush Limbaugh’s demonization of the left even though he never distinguished liberals from the left. He really meant all non-conservatives. And perhaps you can distinguish between what Martin Luther King Jr said about the west with what she is implying about the right and what you are saying about the right:
‘The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.‘
If we replace the word ‘Western’ with a fill-in-the-blank, what is to stop one from putting in the words ‘conservative’ or ‘the right’ into the fill-in-the-blank? And what is stopping us from putting in the name of some leftist groups as well? And what is the difference between that attitude from the attitude of the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying?
The Right has a history of racism and sexism, even though that is not true of everyone on the right. Famous religiously conservative Christians gave in to varying degrees of racism from Jonathan Edwards to J. Gresham Machen. And even when we look at the roots of today’s Christian Nationalist movement, it became an entity when it protested the Government’s attempt to stop racial segregation on college campuses like Bob Jones University. It was the Right, being conservatives who were trying to preserve tradition, in the South who defended slavery and created the KKK. It was the Right who established and defended Jim Crow. It is the Right who denies the existence of the remaining vestiges of systemic racism, man-caused climate change, the seriousness of the pandemic, and the fair election of 2020 with the latter being used to support a grifter for President. In other nations, it was the Right who supported wealth and power against the interests of the people. That was true in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Spain, and Russia. That means that it was the Right that oppressed people before the Left did.
And since Lenin et. al. did not rule his nation as a Marxist, one could hardly blame Marx for either Lenin’s, Stalin’s, or Mao’s sins. You should be aware of the fact that Lenin called the left-leaning Marxists ‘infantile’ because of their dissent to how he ruled. In the words of Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin’s government was based on a bourgeoisie dictatorship model.
Though I lean toward Marx, I can easily say that he had his faults too. But at least he was concerned with equality which today’s Right is opposed to. If you want a fair criticism of Marx, I recommend what Martin Luther King Jr wrote about Marx in his book, Stride Toward Freedom.
We can trade shots at each other’s side if you wish, though you seem to only be aware of what critics said of Marx rather than of what he wrote himself. But for as long as we trade shots at each other while denying the faults of our own side, we vy to become the pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. And that was the point of my first comment.
And btw, I see plenty of endorsements for the Right from the pulpit in the conservative churches I’ve attended let alone the ones I’ve seen on the internet.
The entire point of the objections to the book is that she doesn’t have receipts. She’s lying about the receipts. She’s omitting critical context. Greer’s response to her was extremely enlightening.
Somehow this blog – which claims to be biblical – is missing all the verses about respecting pastoral authority, bringing claims to the person directly before going public, and being honest and truthful. Basham did none of those things. These are sins of which she is unrepentant. This is very serious. If she’s a member of a church, the pastor must reproach her and hold her in contempt until she apologizes publicly and repents.
Do you know for a fact that she didn’t try to talk to these people? No, you do not. So you, dear David, are doing exactly what you accuse her of.
You might want to look at the issues, ask yourself why you are so upset, and repent yourself. 🤷♀️
Did Megan claim to have contacted them? It’s journalism 101 to say “the mayors office did not respond to requests for comment.”
Greer made the accusation that she did not attempt to contact him, and in her response to him, she didn’t refute it.
So we can certainly conclude she didn’t attempt to contact him.
But she has the receipts. She just responded to Greer.
We, the sheep, have had enough. The gaslighting, misdirection, and the oddly vehement attempted character assassination of Basham isn’t going to work.
Greear said that homosexuality was a sin *seven* times in the message in question. That’s clear as day. He quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in full. To say that Greear encouraged his congregation to minimize sexual sin is a lie.
Exactly. None of her critics has evicome close to refuting the main argument of her book and I’m almost certain none of them will, because it’s the truth. All they can do is complain about relatively picayune things in an attempt to undermine it. And as far as I’m concerned, Megan didn’t need to approach the subjects of her book personally. They spoke publicly before a large audience and therefore, they are open to public criticism.
*even come close
Matthew 18 would like a word.
Thank you for this review. This book is needed, especially noted after the last 2 comments on your page.