Can we get some Preston Sprinkle Pretzel stickers? Made out of "theology" with little sprinkles on it that say "feelings" or "my opinion" or "inner desire"?
Preston is so snarky about Christianity and Christians. Big red flag. I would not be surprised at all if he just came out openly as a Progressive Christian in a few years. Actually, I wish he would. (Although that's not what I want for his soul.) Then maybe his influence in the Evangelical church would lessen. Thanks for putting all that work into this episode!
I cut out quite a bit of the snark, only choosing to highlight a few particular examples. Even after all the research I've done with regard to Preston, I was caught off guard by his level of contempt for traditional Christians. One thing: progressives apparently view him much the same as we do. They see him as evasive, unclear, and holding to views they don't agree with. He really is in his own category, which frankly makes him more concerning. Glad the episode was useful!
All Ortlund had to do was say, "I could have put more thought into the video", and it is all over. His ego would not let him do that. All he is doing is giving cover to the really bad actors in the book.
Like Tim, at 66 yo, I have deconstructed with the rise of Donald Trump within the evangelical community. If Evangelicals embrace DJT I want nothing to do with that community. Christian means Christ follower. I am focused on following him. I'm done with cultural Christianity, which has nothing to do with following Christ. Read Matthew 25, what does it mean?
You're new to the podcast. We did an entire episode titled "Why we need better than Trump," so you're barking up the wrong tree if you're accusing us, or evangelicals in general, of worshiping Trump. It's also very concerning that you would deconstruct specifically due to Trump. The way you stated things, you've made Trump a test of faith and changed your beliefs based on him (which seemingly something you're accusing Evangelicals of doing) Look, I'm not trying to be smart with you, I'm trying to be straightforward based off one short comment you made. Think about what I said, and see if there's any truth to my assertion. You know you better than I do after one comment.
This breaks my heart. Attended this church for years under Max Cadenhead and then Hayes Wicker. I said years ago the SBC was on a dangerous path and going woke. Preachers are to be watchmen on the wall so their sheep are not devoured by wolves. Seminaries are cemeteries according to Leonard Ravenhill.
Want more? Watch the full lenght documentary "Enemies Within the Church" at www.EnemiesWithinTheChurch.com for information on similar situations happening throughout the Evangelical church in America.
I put a lot of effort into bringing a more unique angle to events we cover here. Glad to hear I was able to get over some initial skepticism and provide something useful.
I live close to FBCN. It’s been interesting and sad to watch so many people leave that church. What’s been really sad, has been watching many leave for other churches that look strikingly similar to FBCN. Churches that do the same sort of cultural Christian stuff. Churches that aren’t overt crt but covert. I’m convinced many left because their cultural experience was violated, not the Gospel.
It's an awesome film that documents the systemic and planned demise of the church by the enemies of God and liberty. If you don't understand why the church is failing today, this film will answer all of your questions. Highly recommended.
Hi, Thank you for a stimulating podcast! I recognize and appreciate both your noncritical attitude but more importantly your firm stance on what I believe is Biblical truth. I began to watch this after searching for EWTC's statement of faith, that is, fundamental beliefs but was unable to find such. I'd love for you to answer this question: Is belief in Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God, and that his shed blood is the payment for all my sin and is the power to give me eternal life? Is eternal life, then, a free gift? Does one's behavior following such belief have power to negate or affirm that belief of eternal destiny or does it determine one's rewards at the Bema following assurance of eternal salvation? This is poorly worded but I hope you can somehow decipher my meaning. Thank you so much for your honesty, dedication, and concern for us all!
So as far as the last question, Tim affirmed the Apostles creed, and/or Nicene creed and you can't say he is a Christian? That almost seems apostate. I think maybe I should question about your salvation. I'll pray for your salvation.
I wish I would have read this comment before responding to your other comment. You are pulling out some serious double standards. I cannot question Tim's salvation, yet you're allowed to question mine? Also, just because he said he affirms both of those, does automatically mean his saved. First, people can say a lot, but what do they actually believe. Second, there was a lot more in the episode than that. Again, I'm not trying to be overly forceful with my responses, but I've got to shoot straight. It's also difficult to not sound a bit hard-edged when you're initiating things in a pretty hostile way. Open to hearing your thoughts, but please lay out something I can interact with, rather than throwing out accusations and hostility.
18:50 At this point the article you are reading seems to be dealing with verbal slander on a more local level. This is dealing with things on a private level. Megan's book is out in the public discourse so the whole article really doesn't apply. Same thing with the amount of time to reply.
15:43How much time is something of a judgment call. If something is about to do some serious damage then you may need to act quicker. An off hand comment at some seminar might not be likely to do much damage, a chapter in a book that is obviously intended as a call to action for the Church, something which will leave a permanent record, that may require a bit swifter action.
9:50 The video he produced was a response to her book. You can't just cut the response video out of what went before it. He has every right to make a video responding to what she said in her attack. You don't have any right to demand which ways he responds to her attacks.
9:19 She is the one who initiated the situation. She wrote a book making claims. He is only responding to her criticisms. The back and forth is only part of his response If this is her X account then he is going on as a response to her. If he no longer want's to respond on her space that's his right.
9:00 "He's making it about him rather than about her" It IS about him. She wrote a book attacking him. He is responding to her attacks. He has every right to decide when and how he will respond.
7:15 "This is moral posturing" You seem to be judging Gavins motives. AlI see is that he is not finding the exchange ON X profitable. He is also leaving it open that there might be other ways of meaningful discussion on the issue.
It is clear that this server is what is behind the flooding of comments sections and Amazon reviews with passionate and uninformed comments against Megan by Ortlund fanboys who have not read the book, have not read chapter 1 and probably have not watched Gavin's climate video.. Shame on them because of their wicked folly I will never ever give any credence to Gavin Ortlund
"It is clear that this serve is what is behind the flooding of comments sections and Amazon reviews..." I think you're putting too much on the server. Though I think the culture fostered there is problematic, and likely led to some members taking part in such activities, it does not seem to be the case that it was organized by or originates specifically from that server.
First, we don't play their game of "guilty until proven innocent." Evidence first, then conclusions. Second, I've seen much more from the server than I included in the video, and unless there's something very hidden, then there's no evidence of organized attempts to comment/review bomb. Third, with the numbers on the server, an organized effort would have produced even more. As I said though, it does seem that there were individuals motivated to comment/review bomb by the server's culture regarding Megan.
Gavin is an advocate of what is termed these days "winsomeness". Winsomeness has a contextual definition in 21st century evangelical culture, specifically: "cuddle left and punch right". His climate change video was a great example of cuddle left. It was an uncritical embrace of the climate narratives of the left, even to the point of telling Western Christians that they should feel very guilty because of their level of "consumption". Her treatment of Megan Basham not at all in keeping with his Gospel Coalition article recommendations is a great example of punching right. So yes, Gavin Ortlund is an epitome of winsomeness.
A voice coach to eliminate his accent somehow will win people to Christ? How? That's a stupid thing to say, IMO. But as a Southerner I am often offended (which rarely happens) when "the beautiful people" use the exaggerated drawl to mock people as stupid. But they're my moral and spiritual betters, right?
@ewtcnews Yes. Gavin said in his second response video that he contacted Alisa Childers because of the respect he has for her (I would assume out of working with her and not necessary with the other people that interviewed Megan). But Megan was not interviewed only by Alisa, but by multiple outlets, podcasts, whatever. The claim both on X and in your video is this: "It appears Brave Sir Gavin is now running around to everyone in the eva/apologetics tent who's interviewed @megbasham , trying to make them delete." It implies Gavin contacted ALL (and not only one) the people that had Megan for an interview and asked them to delete. Can you prove that, the ALL statement, in any way?
@ewtcnews X said 'all'; you didn't. But you still used plural, so more than one. And you claimed Gavin tried to convince the host to take the video down. Is this a fair description of what you claim? Can you document where Gavin asks anyone to take the video down?
I'm primarily going off Gavin's statement, "Others who have platformed the book have deleted their videos, which is honorable." There is debate about how directly Gavin has been involved with getting videos deleted, so yes, I should be clearer about my wording. That aside, he claims that videos have been deleted due to his actions (whether via his response videos, X responses, RU-vid comments, or personal contact).
@@ewtcnews Yes, he does say other deleted their videos. He doesn't say he asked them to do it. You claim he asked them exactly this: to remove the video and their support for Megan. When interacting with Alisa, Gavin just asked her to reconsider her position of Gavin not being misrepresented by Megan. Which Chris Date showed both on his channel and on Trinity Radio that Megan indeed mischaracterized Gavin entirely. Now going back to your claim of Gavin ASKING PEOPLE TO DELETE their videos, can you substantiate that? Can you say why you claimed he approached people (as in multiple, not just Alisa) that platformed Megan? Or are you just assuming and generalizing?
I think a lot of the content in this video is problematic because this is screenshots of private conversations between random people for the most part - using these discussions between average people isn't really a very useful thing to discuss. It'd be the same as candidly recording random people talking in the foyer after a church service, or elsewhere and showcasing their dicussions afterwards. I just urge caution in really delving into the comments of ordinary people in a chatroom that was private.
It's not a private server though, it has public invite links on Gavin's videos. Based on info I didn't use, those are all public channels as well. None of this was/is truly private. I also stressed the point of bringing up some of the server conversations. It was to show how setting an adversarial tone towards Megan manifests in more negative views of Megan. "It's not just that Gavin says these things, but others join in. An echo chamber has been created," was what I was trying to show. Again, this highlights that Gavin's "humble tone" toward Megan in his videos does not seem to match up with his actual views of her. Further, it acts as a warning to Gavin (and the server admins) to set a better example and better manage contentious topics. Frankly, I'm dumbfounded at the disconnect between Discord Gavin and video Gavin.
@@ewtcnews I see some of what you're saying better now but it must be noted that everything you're saying is just as applicable to you - anyone could comb through the comments of your videos on this and show that you have created an adversarial relationship against Gavin in some of your viewers and all the other things you mentioned. I'm just trying to keep things balanced in pointing that out
You're missing a pretty key bit of information: Gavin put on a face for his video, yet thinks different. Also, you're comparing a less cultivated community (RU-vid comments, particularly on a controversial topic) to a more cultivated community (Discord server with rules and more direct relationships). That said, that's the strongest point I've seen you bring up, and it is something I think about. What is the right tone to strike when handling situations like this? What is TOO much? Is my motivation in check? These are questions I think about a lot, and often run things by people that I know are willing to say "Kyle, don't be dumb." If you really have a question about how I handle interactions with people I don't agree with, then you'll find this week's podcast extremely interesting.
Oh hey, I'm a part of the server in question. It's main original focus is to provide assurance and a place to ask questions and get answers for people who are questioning Protestantism and being pressured to join EO or RC churches, but it does have a lot of other additional roles now. There are many sub-channels that have people discussing, debating, and sharing resources on a variety of topics, so things like sharing videos such as this would not be out of place, in the right channels. Gavin and some others have all their new videos ping members when they are released (or rather, mods on the server ping people with their videos), so this isn't just related to the Megan Basham videos. They made the subchat to keep discussion about the situation from taking over other chats that have dedicated theological purposes.
Having run Discord servers before, I understand they grow and change. That said, I've seen the rules/about section, and it's very clear about the narrow focus of the server. Additionally, creating a channel for the book legitimizes, and even encourages (to one degree) discussing it. This is amplified when there seems to be a history of viewing Megan as a negative figure.
@@ewtcnews well you're also legitimizing and encouraging - actually potentially even profiting off of discussion of this through your videos. So why is this a problem? The server has many roles and they made the subchannels specifically to keep conversations like this from distracting from the main purpose of the server
"actually potentially even profiting off of discussion of this through your videos" Oh? Well now, that's quite the accusation. Why don't you expand on that? What's the reason you said that? And do you have ANY proof for saying that?
@@ewtcnews well, if these videos are monetized you literally make money the more people watch them and the more comments people post, the more traffic you get, etc. etc. Not saying that's your intent, I'm just saying that a lot of your critiques here are equally applicable to the space you're creating in your own comments sections.
I'm not letting you off the hook yet for that comment. Please, explain further not only what you meant by that comment, but also your intent. That was an accusation that goes beyond simply "some of your critiques here are equally applicable." Because the implication that I can see is that I'm a basically a conman, willing to lie for money. Be very careful when you carelessly bring up an accusation like that, and be willing to defend it.
So Ortlund is upset that she didn't credit him with being an eco-wacko maskhole leftard vaxxer all on his own and suggested that he advocated those positions for money? OK, Gavin, you win. You did it all by yourself without corrupting influences. You deserve full credit for your corruption.
I think I'm going to lose my mind if one more person makes a claim like this, but provides zero reasons why. I'm willing to hear critiques, but I can't do anything with "it's manipulative and dishonest."
@@ewtcnewswrongfully so. She put words in Gavin’s mouth, and made him say the exact opposite of what he actually said. It’s a disgrace we’re allowing this kind of behavior.
@@ewtcnewsand no one who is defending Megan is actually contesting the idea she bore false witness. They are merely ignoring the accusation and trying to claim Gavin is a liberal theologian, which itself is also absurd.
Atheist here. Here's a problem with you folk, on both sides of this brawl. You really are no better than the rest of the world you often insist needs to be more like you. Too often you see yourselves as - in the light, the salt of the earth, wise, the holders of the truth, joyous, righteous, Godly, the holders of pearls, humble, and so on, while the rest of the world is seen as - in darkness, fools, the holders of lies, miserable, wicked, children of Satan, swine, arrogant and in bad need of saving in order to be more like believers. Yet in reality with things like these brawls, believers show that they are no different to the world they often say needs to be more like them, the world they say they need to seperate from. (And the world, in its many displays of goodness, shows that it is often better than believers are.) About the only thing believers can legitimately offer the world without looking silly, is the idea that to gain eternal life, people of the world need to believe in Jesus. Beyond that, believers have nothing to little to offer. And even then, in the context of what it means to believe in Jesus, Christians cannot agree, and often damn each other for holding contrary views on that issue. So these brawls which often turn nasty (just look at some of the comments here, and look at some of the comments from Ortlund's defenders), and at times in history have turned brutally deadly, simply make your claims about yourselves and what the world needs to be like, look hypocritical and silly. To be human is to be hypocritical at times, amongst all the faults we humans can have. But you folk (mostly) claim to be born again bible believing Christians who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the clear, inerrant and infallible word from God, the bible, supporting you. Yet you get into these ugly brawls, and it's been this way across two millennia. There are some really decent Christians out there. But they would all help their cause ginormously if they actually understood that they really are no better than the rest of us, and when the bible tells them otherwise, that they ignore it. When believers can behave better towards each other, then come to us and preach about yourselves and why we necessarily need your faith. FWIW, I feel a bit sorry or Ortlund. If nothing more, I reckon he's been make to look guilty by association. As for "promoting truth"? When you all stop your internal brawling, then come and inform the world what you think the truth is.
I totally agree that sellout pastors are a problem and even supposing every chapter, every page, and every other point in the book is correct (I'm not arguing it isn't) just the section on Gavin should be amended due to the misrepresentation that is present concerning Gavin and his position.
This is false. Please make sure to look into things before speaking out against a brother. He is most definitely not a wolf in sheep's clothing. I confess that normally I love books like Shepherds for Sale because I truly despise pastors who use God to promote things that don't please the Lord. Gavin is not that pastor and this situation causes me to be slower to assume the books are always accurate. I hope and pray for unity coming out of this situation. God bless.
@@zgilly2157 Gavin repeats climate change hysteria just like the left and suggests those that oppose that narrative are the dumb ones. He's a wolf brother.
@@philipmurray9796 he is a part-time Democrat shill, which forfeits any possibility of respect from me. Does he ever speak out against the exploding movement for the mutilation of children? Does he ever speak out against Side B in the church? He is quite willing to call Tucker Carlson and his viewers white supremacists.
“Gavin made a video on climate change encouraging Christians to adopt his position.” Making a video explaining your position and offering encouragement for people to do their own research on issues as a matter of practice is not synonymous with encouraging people to adopt your specific position. What you’ve engaged in, probably unknowingly, is an argument from silence rather than from affirmation.
But to the specific point you’re making about how Gavin is judged hypocritically because he is the initiator is strained. She initiated by writing a book in which he was the principle example about shepherds who are effectively false prophets.
@@conceptualclarity Feeling bad that someone has made an argument isn't the same as MAKING someone feel guilty or even seeking to. Given that nobody is a mind reader, it is inappropriate to ascribe to someone ideas and sentiments they didn't express and ignore the ones they did express. I'm skeptical of details of climate change. I watched the video. I didn't feel guilty. Maybe you did feel guilty. All that proves is that you and I are different. It doesn't magically ascribe motive or invalidate what was actually communicated in his video.
@@conceptualclarity While your other critique is completely invalid, this one isn't. You're right. "Principal example" was too strong and a bit hyperbolic. As for having not read chapter 1, I've read the portions that have made themselves public but not the book and I wouldn't even if I could. I'm under no delusion that shepherds are for sale, and don't need a book to make a list for me. I'm also uninterested in reading a superfluous book (which doesn't mean it's bad...just that it's a book about an obvious thing; a bit like writing a book about corruption in politics) by an author unwilling to admit they made a mistake.
At 3:14 I say "[the question] is not about Megan." The question DOES bring up Megan as an example of someone that has been critical of Gavin. I was moving fast and didn't mention that part, but that leaves my comment of it not being about Megan misleading. I meant the question as a whole wasn't about her. I should have explained the context, and frankly should have just read the entire question out loud. That is on me, and I own the implications that unintentionally creates. I will not be uploading an audio form of this podcast, without editing it, since there isn't the accountability of the question being on screen.
