A book that purports to show how “evangelical leaders traded the truth for a leftist agenda” has become a best-seller. It’s also become a target, as several Christian leaders profiled in Megan Basham’s book Shepherds for Sale claim it misstated facts and failed to provide essential context. And reporters, including the Texas Tribune’s Robert Downen, allege Basham violated the “most basic journalism ethics,” by outing a sexual abuse survivor without her consent.
Conservative commentator Janet Mefferd went so far as to urge Harper Collins to pull the book, after prominent pastor and former Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) President J.D. Greear refuted the book’s claims about him.
“I can’t see how she can possibly keep wiggling her way out of her own reporting failures,” Mefferd posted on X. “Just devastating. Pull the book, @HarperCollins – enough is enough!”
The controversial book, published by HarperCollins’ imprint Broadside Books, premiered at number 12 on the New York Times’ Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction Best-sellers List last week. Basham states the book’s premise in the introduction, writing, “Once-trusted evangelical leaders and institutions have yoked themselves to left-wing billionaires and their pet projects.”
Some, like Christian apologist Frank Turek praised Shepherds for Sale, saying it “blows the lid off why leaders may be straying from the word of God—for money, power, or some combination thereof.”
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Donate $75 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive the “Reimagine Church” 2-Book Bundle including ‘Invisible Jesus’ by Scot McKnight & Tommy Phillips and ‘Need to Know’ edited by Danielle Strickland. To donate, click here.
Similarly, Reformed writer Samuel James called it “a spirited rebuke to a kind of high-minded self-delusion in certain parts of evangelicalism.” But, he added, “Shepherds for Sale contains good, hard questions, but not enough reliable answers.”
In statements to The Roys Report (TRR), nearly a dozen well-known Christian leaders critiqued in the book say Basham never contacted them to address her published claims. They include online apologist Gavin Ortlund—cited over 20 times in the book—former World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky, The Trinity Forum president Cherie Harder, and Holy Post podcaster Phil Vischer.
‘Not me. Not my voice.’
Basham mentions Vischer in the book’s introduction, stating, “When the guy who created the Christian children’s program VeggieTales starts arguing that evangelicals should take a more ‘nuanced’ position on abortion . . . something is badly off in mainstream evangelicalism.”
Vischer responded in a thread on X, writing in part, “I was curious what talk I gave that she was referring to, so I followed her footnotes. She refers to a video discussing the best ways to reduce abortion— that I didn’t write, nor did I deliver. Not my words, not my face.”
Basham responded to Vischer, in a since-deleted post on X, “You guys are ridiculous. And what you’re doing is obvious. I am done with your nonsense.”
Others online pointed to X posts by Vischer that seemed to be saying essentially what Basham accused him of saying.
However, Mefferd replied to Basham’s defenders: “If you cite a footnote for a claim, but the footnote does not prove the claim, then you have committed a citation error. Citation errors are bad. They can destroy your credibility as a writer. And saying, ‘he said it somewhere else, though!’ doesn’t save you.”
Gavin Ortlund and climate change
Another Christian leader caught in Basham’s crosshairs is Gavin Ortlund. In her book’s first chapter, she confronts Ortlund’s view on climate change, which was expressed in a March 2022 video.
In the video, Ortlund urged Christians to engage with the evidence on this issue and addressed what some refer to as “scientific consensus” on the issue.
Basham writes, “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.”
However, in a recent video, Ortlund documented how Basham’s summary was pieced together from phrases he uttered six minutes apart in his 2022 video, “concocting her own sentence and placing it in my mouth.”
“What Megan is doing is she’s plucking little snippets out here—sometimes not even plucking out, just completely projecting things onto me—that fit the narrative, and then leaving everything out that doesn’t fit the narrative,” Ortlund said.
TRR reached out to Basham multiple times with specific requests for comment but did not receive a response.
However, Basham responded to Ortlund’s objections last week, in a video interview.
“It was a little ridiculous to suggest that that was something unique to me,” she said regarding the quote. “I understand that he objects to me just taking a couple of phrases. But, when you look at the totality of the video, I don’t know how you could come to any other conclusion.”
J.D. Greer claims Basham’s reporting is ‘demonstrably untrue’
On Monday, J.D. Greear, pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, North Carolina, published a 10,000-word response to Shepherds for Sale. Greear, who is mentioned by name over 75 times in the book, claimed Basham’s reporting is “in many places, demonstrably untrue.”
Greear objected to the book’s recounting of his sermons and public statements on race issues, LGBTQ inclusion, immigration, and other topics—sometimes implying his involvement. For example, in a section that quotes Greear on standing against racism, the book mentions the renaming of schools and tearing down of monuments.
“I didn’t participate in any of the social activism surrounding statue removal or the renaming of schools,” wrote Greear, adding he “never addressed” these issues in the pulpit or another context.
He concludes, “Basham’s book is, sadly, a product of our times. She exemplifies the tendency to respond to anyone outside of our tribes with bad-faith, cherry-picking hostility.”
In a lengthy X thread later published on ClearTruthMedia, Basham responded that her mention of schools renamed and statutes removed was ”important to show how his preoccupations paralleled those that were dominating academic, entertainment, and corporate culture at the time.”
She concluded: “With the exception of whether comments Greear made came from a February or June 2021 sermon (and I will check this and correct if necessary), nothing Greear brought forth is an error.”
Alleged abuse survivor ‘outed’ in Basham’s book
Perhaps generating the most outrage from Basham’s book was her decision to name an alleged survivor who claimed former SBC President Johnny Hunt sexually assaulted her in July 2010.
Robert Downen, who reported the woman’s story for the Houston Chronicle, posted on X that he “worked with that woman and her husband for MONTHS before they would let me tell their story, and only with a ton of assurances that we would do everything possible to protect their identities. Meg outed them after finding a court doc that was accidentally filed w/o redactions.”
He adds, “I can’t think of a single journalistic reason to have done so.”
I worked with that woman and her husband for MONTHS before they would let me tell their story, and only with a ton of assurances that we would do everything possible to protect their identities. Meg outed them after finding a court doc that was accidentally filed w/o redactions.
— Robert Downen (@RobertDownen_) August 8, 2024
Basham acknowledges in her book that she found the woman’s name in a court document that the woman’s lawyer had failed to redact. (This has since been corrected.)
On August 6, Basham responded on X that the woman and her husband “were outed by their lawyers, not me.”
She added, “I do think when you make public accusations (especially when you aren’t willing to take them to actual authorities like the police or a court) you should be obligated to stand behind them.”
Many online accused Basham of violating The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. It states that reporters should “minimize harm” in their work. And it notes that journalists should “recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish.”
Longtime abuse survivor advocate Christa Brown, who has sought for the SBC to adopt stronger safety policies in churches, told TRR she considered Basham’s disclosure “an act of pure cruelty” to the alleged victim.
“There is no ethical universe in which it is okay to publicly name an alleged survivor of sexual abuse without that person’s express permission,” said Brown. “So, the book is outside the bounds of an ethical universe, and in my view, it’s also outside the bounds of kindness, compassion, and human decency.”
In addition to requesting Basham’s comment on this disclosure, TRR repeatedly reached out to HarperCollins for comment on this issue but did not receive a response.
Political money from the left scrutinized—what about the right?
Karen Swallow Prior, a longtime Christian academic, commented on the book’s seeming double standard—a focus on a “leftist agenda” seeping into churches without similar scrutiny of well-funded right-wing agendas.
“Inasmuch as money is at the root of the leftward turn, it is also at the root of the rightward turn,” Prior told TRR. “Just look at start-up and ongoing funding of Basham’s employer, The Daily Wire, and certain Christian media outlets.”
Warren Cole Smith, president of MinistryWatch, analyzed this issue in his review of Shepherds for Sale for The Dispatch.
“The rise of such organizations as Turning Point USA (and its subsidiary Turning Point Faith), the Epoch Times, and The Daily Wire itself—organizations that combined bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue—bear witness to the financial benefits of pandering to populists,” he writes.
Calling the book a “flawed effort to malign particular Christians,” Smith sums up his thesis.
“Shepherds For Sale has many villains, but it has only one true hero: Donald J. Trump. He is mentioned more than 30 times in the book, all positively or defensively . . . The real sin of those demonized by Basham is their public opposition to Trump.”
Christian academic, historian claim their views misrepresented
Known for her pro-life advocacy dating back decades, including over 15 years of involvement at a local pregnancy center as a volunteer and board member, Prior is cited over 30 times in Basham’s book. Notably, Prior’s op-eds and public stance opposing Trump are scrutinized, without mention of her pro-life op-eds in publications such as Vox.
In a chapter covering Prior, Basham also critiques New York Times opinion writer David French for “savaging his fellow Christians for making a pro-life devil’s bargain in voting for Trump.”
Basham noted how, led by Trump-appointed Supreme Court judges, Roe v. Wade was overturned in the Dobbs court decision. Basham concluded: “Rather than consider this, French joined Prior in insisting that any lives saved weren’t worth it.”
In a statement to TRR, Prior responded: “The record of my life, writing, and work demonstrates how much I value saving lives. I couldn’t begin to explain such a conclusion.”
Similarly, Jemar Tisby, a Ph.D. historian who often educates evangelicals on racial justice issues, told TRR that his views were “mischaracterized and misrepresented” in the book.
Basham’s former boss on the book’s political slant
Olasky, who hired Basham in 2011 to review movies for World Magazine, is mentioned a half-dozen times in Basham’s book, but also was not contacted by the author.
He demurred when asked for an analysis of the book as journalism. “She wasn’t a World reporter,” he told TRR. “She wasn’t part of our biweekly reporter phone calls where we emphasized fact-checking and giving people the opportunity to respond to criticism. I could go point by point about her errors but prefer to remember her as a good movie reviewer.”
Citing how the book seeks to malign several public figures he considers as friends, Olasky said Basham’s approach makes “political disagreements become moral indictments.”
“I know David (French) and Karen (Swallow Prior), knew Tim (Keller), and have interviewed them all at length,” said Olasky. “They’re not shepherds for sale. They’re shepherds who, like another David 3,000 years ago, have fought lions and bears.”
Alleged errors and mischaracterization in financial analysis
In some sections, Shepherds for Sale takes a “literal” approach to its title, citing liberal and public funding for evangelical groups.
However, some groups profiled say certain figures in the book are inaccurate. For example, Basham claims that in 2018, “World Relief received $215.3 million from taxpayers for administering federal refugee grants.”
In a statement to TRR, a representative of World Relief called this “dramatically inaccurate” and stated that the actual figure received was “less than one-tenth” of what Basham claimed.
“As our publicly available IRS-990 forms and audited financial statements demonstrate, our total organizational revenue in 2018 was only about 30% of the $215.3 million that Ms. Basham inaccurately alleges World Relief received from the federal government for the refugee resettlement program ‘in 2018 alone,’” World Relief told TRR.
Regarding other claims that Shepherds for Sale makes about World Relief, the humanitarian group provided a 1,500-word statement to TRR. These include disputing that its guiding principles on immigration are out of step with evangelicals (citing a Lifeway Research survey) and rejecting any advocacy for “open borders” despite the book’s claims.
Another of Basham’s targets, mentioned over 20 times in multiple chapters, is The Trinity Forum, an evangelical-based nonprofit that is part think tank, part public apologetics ministry. Basham claims that a left-leaning foundation, Democracy Fund, gave Trinity Forum “nearly four hundred thousand dollars to ‘research the role of Christian leaders in public life.’”
Cherie Harder, the group’s president who is cited twice, said Basham never contacted her. Harder told TRR that the Democracy Fund was a bipartisan organization when it gave Trinity Forum $360,000.
Harder added that Basham insinuates that Trinity Forum no longer receives most of its funding from donors and now is largely funded by large foundations.
“This is demonstrably false,” Harder said. “Over the last five years, less than 18% of our total funding has come from competitive foundations.”
According to Trinity Forum’s website, nearly 70% of its funding from 2109—2023 came from individual donors.
A third group, Redeeming Babel, whose study curriculum, The After Party, objected to how the book characterizes its funding and purpose. Executive Director Curtis Chang told TRR the book contains “inaccuracies and misleading insinuations.” He provided a response to questions and analysis of the book’s dozen mentions of The After Party.
Will best-selling book be updated with corrections?
Smith, who was Basham’s former colleague at World Magazine, cited in his review several specific omissions of context that he considered “factual errors.”
For example, Basham noted in her book that several reporters at Christianity Today (CT) had donated to Democrats. Yet Basham omitted that CT had since instituted a policy of prohibiting its reporters from donating to any political candidates.
Smith also reached out to well-respected author Os Guinness, founder of The Trinity Forum, who said Basham had used a quote of his that was “absolutely wrong.”
Basham did not respond to her errors noted in Smith’s article, but instead pointed out an error Smith had made. “He claims I did not deal with abortion rates going up under Trump. Here is where I do, right there in my chapter on the pro-life movement,” she posted on X.
Within 24 hours of the review’s publication, Smith and The Dispatch corrected one paragraph and included a correction note per journalistic standards.
“I regret that error, but I also note that we made the correction quickly and in a transparent manner,” Smith told TRR.
Basham also announced that Guinness had endorsed her book. He stated in part, “Some will quibble over details, but no one should miss the powerful warning in this book.”
Prior reacted to Guinness’ widely-shared quote.
“It is not quibbling to debate the reliability of the evidence,” she said. “The book’s thesis is one arrived at through inductive reasoning. The weight of any claim based on inductive reasoning depends entirely on the evidence and therefore on the accuracy with which that evidence is presented.”
As to Smith, he pointed to the lack of response from the publisher or author to his evidence.
“The most telling response has been the utter failure of HarperCollins and Megan Basham to acknowledge the clearly documented factual errors,” he added. “HarperCollins has so far been silent, and Megan has resorted to ad hominem arguments, obfuscation, deflection, or denial.”
Correction 8/18: This article has been updated to accurately state the location of The Summit Church. We regret the error.
Freelance journalist Josh Shepherd writes on faith, culture, and public policy for several media outlets. He and his family live in central Florida.
English 
Spanish 
79 Responses
I can not judge motives. Yet many comments like this, “I usually like to read a book in its entirety before commenting. But I don’t want to give Basham the attention (and money) she clearly wants. She knows what she’s doing.” Are picturesque of the postmodern “church”. Which is why I wonder how many people who comment on this page are in Christ or actually read the Bible. Commentary rooted in deep affection and have had years of rightly dividing the Word. Clearly it is an issue because these comments judge the motives of the author. “ and money) she clearly wants”- Maybe judge the content of the author by truth. Hopefully this book opens dialogue about God’s precious church. There definitely is two different gospel approaching this topic. Biblical Christianity and those who do not believe in the authority of scripture. Thereby deducing actual content vs the motive of the author or the individuals the author writes about.
Jason – as the comment came from me, I will explain my stance on not reading this book:
Upon hearing about the controversy, I went to Basham’s page to read her bio and responses to the criticism she has faced, with a plan to buy the book. However, what I saw is ZERO humility, apology, or concern for how Basham’s errors are misrepresenting and can cause harm to others (she even mocks David French and promotes disrespect of him and his work ). There are posts where Basham justifies cutting journalistic corners, explaining with “BUT”, which is a sign of someone who just wants to be right even when exposed as wrong. It’s like an apology with “if I hurt you” in front of it – it’s FAKE.
Furthermore, Basham’s additional online activity includes promoting half truths (the DNC is NOT providing abortions at the convention), and liking and retweeting posts that question the faith and/or name call those who disagree with her.
THAT tells me all I need to know. So YES, I did look at Basham’s ability to tell and promote truth through her online behavior about the book, the church, and politicis, and it removed all interest I have in reading her book.
That does NOT make me Biblically illiterate. It means I expect more of a Bible-believing Christian; perhaps you should question if SHE has read the Bible.
Marin, So a few responses. I believe in facts. Also deductive logic. First you misrepresented her tweet. Obviously, like her book you did not read her statement. Misrepresenting the statement. She did not attribute the Abortions being provided by the DNC. However, the abortion pill is being provided by Unplanned Parenthood. Never understood why it was called planned. Just walking distance from the DNC you can get the abortion pill. For ummmm… Ya an abortion. Please read what she did say. This proves my observation of judging motives. Unplanned Parenthood is loved by the left more than the right. I wish it would cease to exist. I was at the rally. I saw the little mobile clinic.
Jason –
I read her statement AND the last YEAR of her tweets and found MANY problems with her replies to being called out for skirting around journalistic rules (for more than just this book), and her liking and retweeting inflammatory comments and half truths. Liking and retweeting is a great way to throw stones while appearing to have clean hands (which you have bought into by defending her retweeting a misleading half truth about abortions at the DNC, that INTENTIONALLY left out that PP is onsite, to make it seem as if abortions are sponsored or provided by the DNC). That is a manipulation demonstrating a lack of integrity for follows, likes, and clicks. Furthermore, the mobile clinic is NOT solely providing abortion pills (half truth). It is providing information about access to ALL related reproductive care, including birth control and pelvic exams.
When I was a grad student who had aged out of my parents’ health insurance, PP provided my annual pelvic exam, which revealed pre-cancerous cells and a mass that needed to be biopsied. For $10, PP got me the necessary treatment, AND access to birth control to manage excessive bleeding (a side effect) for $5/month. I am FOREVER grateful to PP, and I continue to support them to make sure other women can receive the same aid. It’s disappointing “Christians” would rather see it go under. Less than 5% of PP work goes towards abortions (which they don’t even provide in all states); AND they provide prenatal exams, birth control, sex health/ed classes, parenting classes, and the like.
What research have you done on PP? Your comments about it demonstrate a lot more “reading and repeating conservative talking points” than looking at the FACTS. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
When you defend an organization that eradication was one of its original premises and murdering children. Which by the way is one the main message of the Democratic Party. Their messaging mirrors each other. There was not Abortion medication and vasectomies promoted at the Republican convention. If you are objective. Then you know the DNC and Unplanned parenthood have the same messaging. I know that the abortion pill provision is not just coincidental during the DNC.
As for Megan Basham-You misrepresented her post and now you expect this platform to believe you will adequately represent her views? Versus looking at the nuanced perspectives of her tweets. To be fair, I knew absolutely nothing about her prior to this book. People are very nuanced. So I do not have the time nor care to read every tweet. You are now trying to change the subject to eclipse your misleading representation of Megan Basham’s tweets. Now you could have stated, “I believe this is what she meant. Or this is my opinion of what she’s really saying.” Then you have context that is profoundly subjective and that you are projecting.
As for my research. I have an M-DIV, D-Min and my ministry dissertation was how to minister to people who have lost children at birth or at a young age. Then, I was pushed to do a THD. (Doctor of Theology). Thus the focus of my dissertation was on a Biblical&Theological view of Babies that die at birth. Where do they go? I have years of research on planned parenthood. I would never had listed my credentials. But you asked.
This is in response to Marin. Any benefits you received does not undo the fact that anyone who works them is working for an organization that believes it is okay to murder children before they are born.
Many Christians believe this is okay, partially because most pastors will not talk about this because they are more concerned about offending someone and losing contributions.
And can you explain how justifying cutting corners, mocking and disrespecting David French, belittling those who disagree, posting and retweeting insults and the like is acceptable for a Bible-believing Christian?
You are quick to question if people like me “have read the Bible”, but you don’t question if someone who behaves as Bashan has? Why? I really hope it’s not because of politics.
Marin- I read and reread David French’s article on being pro-life and voting for Kamala. I agree that the Republican Party has watered down their pro-life stance. Trump has as well. I’m not a Republican. But I found some of his points agreeable. I found it less than circumspect. His one example of the child tax credit as agreeable has roots in Trumps plan. I found the why and what in his perspective as less than convincing. In fact, I am more convinced by the counter after cogitation of his words. His statements are up for scrutiny. There is a difference between disagreement and “disrespecting”. As an example, I disagree with 1/2 of Julie’s articles. At times there are missing objective questions/subjective issues as well. I will not say she is unsaved/heretical. I disagree with some of her articles. Is that “disrespecting”? Or disagreement? It is unfair to subjugate Basham’s statements by attribution of motives vs disagreement.
Jason –
You did not answer the question; you changed the subject to be about how you disagree with David French (which is just fine, as disagreeing is not disrespectful in and of itself – it’s HOW one disagrees).
I asked if it is ok to like, post and retweet insults and the like (“David French leads Evangelicals for Satan” is one of Megan’s) is acceptable for a Bible-believing Christian?
Marin- In response (above & below) to your direct question/comments to me-Megan’s comments were probably about the article linked below:
https://babylonbee.com/news/david-french-founds-new-group-evangelicals-for-satan
Nuanced please? One can speak passionately for Trump (I like Kennedy). That does not suggest that he is a prophet or the Jesus of our time. People/media contextualize comments. That is my reflection with French. His premise(s) lack an orbital sense. He focused on certain premises with zero credence to other information. Thus creating a false narrative. I still stand by data and facts that you have done that with the unplanned parenthood and DNC. Megan was correct in her assertion. She left out Unplanned Parenthood. However it (meaning the abortion pill/male vasectomies). The DNC promoted unplanned parenthood. The had a booth inside and provided the Abortion pill outside the event. How can you repeat falsehoods? Marin? Are you exchanging the truth for a lie? Romans warns about that.
Jason –
“She left out Unplanned Parenthold.”
Thank you. Confirming I told NO lie (while accusing me of lying, no less). That was my point.
Megan left that part, creating an impression and narrative for those who were not there to land on this all being sponsored by the DNC.
I find that to be shady journalism. Sounds like you’re a fan of this method.
We disagree.
So tell me how is not checking with primary sources before quoting them showcase and reveal the truth? Either it was a deliberate attempt to distort or laziness on the part of the author. In either case, it is not the truth. I guess you are OK with that, but then I am not surprised by you and your ilk.
Charles-What are you referring to? What source? If you are responding to Marin… she clearly contextualizes Basham’s comments on the DNC and unplanned parenthood. She either didn’t read it what was stated or she made subjective conclusions from words not stated. In other words, she made implications.
Jason,
I encourage you to read Megan’s Twitter feed for yourself. Posting things like “They are killing babies at the DNC” and retweeting messages that call it “the DNC abortion mobile clinic” is both inflammatory and inaccurately implying the DNC is sponsoring and providing abortions. There’s no mention or pictures of it being a Planned Parenthood clinic in any of these tweets, despite there being room to do so. I stand by my statement that this is dishonest, and that a journalist at her level and with her experience knows this.
We can respectfully disagree.
Marin-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/19/planned-parenthood-free-emergency-contraceptive-abortion-vasectomies-dnc/74855652007/
I am sorry but the satanic unplanned parenthood was at the DNC. As well as booths at the convention, period. I took pics-If I could I would upload them. I made the trip from Lake Geneva my home to the DNC all week. Stand by your statements. But they are baseless and your narrative is antithetical to the Truth! Thus you lack credibility and open minded people can not put any weight in your narrative. You have misrepresented the DNC as well as Megan Basham. I’ll gladly sent pics to you to debunk what you stand by. What you call “inflammatory”- I call convictions. I just watched the Scott Peterson documentary on Netflix. He was convicted for 2 counts of murder. 1. Wife. 2. Unborn child. The government has a problem. Why did Scott get convicted of 2 murders. When the California government is a prochoice state? Point is like your statements- The government lacks veracity.
In other news the sky is blue.
This book feels like the humbug Wizard of Oz standing behind a curtain furiously spinnging wheels and pushing buttons to generate smoke and mirrors to distract from the demonstrable fact that far from pastors aligning themselves with the “left”, there are far more that have aligned themselves with sedition, treason, lying, abuse, racism, grifting, power, money, etc….
“Ignore the man behind the curtain!”
Nathan:
Your words: …..”fact that far from pastors aligning themselves with the “left”, there are far more that have aligned themselves with sedition, treason, lying, abuse, racism, grifting, power, money, etc….”
Nathan with the words “sedition, treason, lying, abuse, racism, grifting, power, money, etc…” you realize you have perfectly described the Left, right?
Cynthia –
This site is full of articles and research on pastors who have outright stolen, abused, and or covered up abuses within their congregation and communities.
Replies like “you’ve perfectly described the left” is why they can get away with it; more focus on “the Dems”, “the left”, “progressives” and “the libs” than on what’s happening in pulpits.
What’s that verse about taking the plank out of one’s own eye…..
haha – ah…oh that’s funny. No – I was referencing Donald Trump, January 6th, Rudy Guliani, far too many mega (and smaller) church pastors (just read the headlines here), Newsmax, the MyPillow Guy’s delusions, et al.
I have no illusions that the left is perfect nor holds to all “biblical standards” but I recall in 2016 being told by Robert Jeffries that we weren’t voting for a pastor…I guess that doesn’t hold true now?
From Kevin Williamson’s review of the book over at The Dispatch:
Reviewing a book like this is like trying to argue with an avalanche—an avalanche of stupidity and error, to be sure, but an avalanche all the same. I have the same problem with this book I had reviewing Alissa Quart’s similarly idiotic Bootstrapped: The author can make enough errors in a dozen words that the critic needs 400 words to correct them. And so one ends up writing an annotated companion to a work that was not worth reading in the first place, much less annotating.
Ah, I just read this! What a magisterial take down of not only Basham’s unChristian attack, but in general, the whole american religious right’s money making machine of grievance, lies, fear and stupidity… May God have mercy on their souls and somehow bring them to repentance…
One thing to note in JD Greear’s response, is the part 6 where he completely glosses over his rush to judgment.
See the investigation on this affair on this website including his tweet.
https://julieroys.com/excommunicated-baptists-say-megachurch-smeared-them-as-racists-and-so-did-sbc-leaders/
In his response, Greear has a lame: “If anyone was falsely accused, I’m sorry I contributed to that.”
This lack of forthrightness about this incident, makes me think Basham is not wrong in her calling him out.
Never trust or accept any apology that begins with “if”.
Yes, I also wrote that investigative story on First Baptist Church of Naples. Interesting that our reporting was first on that story, but not referenced as a footnote in the book (author’s prerogative). The interest is not in defending any particular pastor, it’s in quoting them accurately and reporting fairly on their positions.