Megan Basham responds to the Debate about her new book 'Shepherds for Sale' w/  

Gavin says, "X" Megan says, "Gavin said X+Y" Gavin says, "No, I only said X. I do not believe Y." Megan says, "No you really did say X+Y." Gavin says, "No, I only said X, and here's the proof." Megan says, "He said X, and he was very careful to NOT say Y so that people would understand that he really meant to say Y." Gavin says, "No, I only meant for listeners to understand the thing I said, which is X. Not Y." Megan says, "Gavin is throwing a fit because I'm exposing that he believes Y." Gavin says, "I wish you well, sister. Peace. I'm out." Megan says, "Look, he's retreating because he doesn't like being exposed!"

I appreciate the context mentioned surrounding the Ortlund controversy, intimating that Gavin is an end-product of left wing money used to influence seminaries & christian institutions. That may be true. I have to disagree with Alisa & Frank when they say that Ortlund has been fairly characterized. He lays out bare bones ideas for how others disagree with him, speaks on why he wants to address the issue, says people should be responsible for their beliefs and study issues rather than merely accept their cultural consensus, and lays out his beliefs and possible consequences. He presents his position in the softest possible language to allow for the possibility of dissent. Megan appears to have taken the inverse of his arguments and used the firmed language possible for his positions. If she didn't malign his integrity, and misrepresent what he said, then I don't think this would have been a much of an issue. As it is, this continues to distract from the overall message of the book, and brings into question her credibility. The line about "other journalists do this too" isn't really much of a defense. I dislike it when other journalists read their biases into their subject (if this were theology, it would be characterized as eisegesis). I disagree with Ortlund on many topics, and he always allows room to disagree. I'm disappointed with Megan's research, candor and inability to admit she was wrong. It's truly unfortunate because this is one of the types of books the evangelical community needs. But due to a lack of repentance, and an inability to admit one's failings, the book will be unable to have the desired and needed impact.

The problem is that if you’re going to write a book about bought and paid for Pastors and teachers of the word, DON’T ADD SOMEONE THAT IS NOT BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. That’s not right.

I had not heard of Gavin until this controversy. I have subsequently listened to several of his videos and found him to be a very thoughtful, solid, and orthodox Christian apologist. He should never have been mentioned in a book about shepherds for sale. I am so disappointed in Alisa and Frank. Sadly, I must unsubscribe from both of them because I feel I can no longer trust them.

I do not agree with Ortlund's conclusions about climate science interpretation. I also have not read Ms. Basham's book, although I concur that at the very least modern American Evangelicalism is drifting away from biblical fidelity (but I think the reasons run far deeper than just political ones). That being said... Ms. Basham did indeed incorrectly cite and categorize him, based on what I have seen so far from both sides. Ortlund is simply calling for people to study the issue. He did not shut down anybody by demonization for disagreeing on the point. Also, Ortlund has denounced the "weaponization" of climate science interpretation; i.e., that politicians use it as an excuse to merely increase government power or greedily gather more revenue.

I'm appalled by the sloppy thinking Frank and Alisa are doing about the criticisms of Gavin. I've never heard of or listened to Basham until this week, so I don't know what to expect from her. But from Frank and Alisa, this is really disappointing.

She completely sidesteps the fact that her remarks about Ortlund are demonstrably incorrect and cobbled together to mislead. It's not wrong to insist on accuracy.

Please understand that those of us defending Gavin are likely to agree with Megan’s points made in her book; however, it is not acceptable to misrepresent a faithful, conservative pastor and scholar like Gavin. Imagine this happened to you, or maybe worse, a close family member. I don’t think you’d think you’d view this the same way. It seems likely you’re concluding that it’s not that big of a deal because the book makes such important points. I read the introduction and have listened to the arguments, but there’s no way I would read the rest after chapter 1.

They do exactly what she describes in the book, only from the other end of the political spectrum. Selling out to an ultra conservative political position, while Gavin Ortlund is trying to find a balanced Christian position. And to be sure, how to best care for your neighbor has to be approached with wisdom and knowledge and is always subject to the “fallenness” of the world. There are no perfect solutions to the worlds problems and Christians can come up with different political sugestions and programs, but they should be humble about it.

If Gavin Ortlund is being misquoted and misrepresented in the first chapter...and he is..then this book and Meghan Basham lose all credibility with me, and I cannot go any further with this book.

I have respect for Megan, Frank and Alisa. Having said that, I really feel she could have left Gavin out of this book. His view is very moderate and he encourages people to research for themselves and weigh the issue in their own mind. I really feel Megan overstepped here

This is all too much. Gavin is an insanely intelligent scholar and climate change is so far from being an issue that he is elevating. Triaging these issues is such huge part of his ministry. Alisa and frank should be ashamed.

It was a mistake to include Gavin in the book. If you all really don’t think so invite him on your podcast to clarify that, and he will have the opportunity to respond to the claims that are being made against him here.

No one is denying that the book as a whole isn’t well researched the problem I have is I’m still not convinced from what I’ve heard so far that Gavin hasn’t been misrepresented and this is truly saddening.

Even though I don't agree with Gavin's views on climate change as expressed in the clips shown, I do on the other hand believe he is a true brother in Christ. The fact that his name is even mentioned in this highly controversal book would naturally be upsetting to a person. I think Megan should at least be honest and acknowledge that: major figure or not. And whether or not it was her intention, Megan did in fact bring defamation to Gavin's name by associating it with her book. I can't help but think of Matthew 18:15-20 and consider how Jesus would want His followers to handle this situation. Perhaps if agendas were put aside for the sake of reconciliation and forgiveness, this issue would be put to rest and people can see beyond it to the bigger picture of what Megan is trying to communicate. As it remains, this is a large stumbling block the reader's have a hard time moving past. Also, Alisa calling critics of the book or Megan bullies sounded an aweful lot like the same tactic the far left uses to shut down a conversation by calling those they don't agree with racists and bigots. So I was disappointed to here those words from Alisa.The fact that there is so much criticism should warrent an honest re-evaluation.

So, the general topic of the book is so important that its ok to lie about people. Got it.

Hold on, Frank. Gavin did not EVEN REMOTELY say that if something is a scientific consensus, then it must be true. He said that if something is a scientific consensus, you should not reject it without studying the issue thoroughly yourself. If you study it thoroughly and faithfully and come to a different conclusion, then great! But many people reject anthropogenic climate change out of hand without studying it because rejecting it is part of their political camp. Others reject it because of having studied it. Great! He's speaking only to those who are rejecting it without study, saying you shouldn't do that.

Frank dropped the ball on this one. He should have played the statesman between Gavin and Megan rather than going all in on one side. Gavin is one of the most thoughtful evangelical Christians on RU-vid (though I disagree with him on Calvinism) and a well-educated one to boot. He is not some ignorant nincompoop, and to be dismissed as some minor RU-vidr as Meghan did is uncharitable and arrogant. First, it is not wrong to say that humans do cause environmental havoc and (taking the Christians view) that they should be better stewards of the environment. Is this not part of man’s (humanity’s) priestly mandate? Why is this a left and right issue? Why is someone automatically sold to the left if they should say so? Have you not become what you are accusing others of becoming when you automatically assume that any politically conservative position is a Christian position? Second, is Frank scientifically naive when he appeals to science to support a Christian point of view in his apologetic work? When he does so, does it cease to be true that scientists tend at times to be anti-Christian? And if they are, does that negate truth qua truth? If Frank knows that it doesn’t, why does he apply a different scale to Gavin? If Frank (despite scientific disingenuousness) can still appeal to it discernibly, why should that not be true of Gavin? Why is he deemed to have sold to the left if he does or to be ‘scientifically naive’? Third, Frank will not always get everything right or say everything as precisely as he would wish, nor for that matter will Alisa, but I am glad to say I know both (through their work of course) and will not easily go along with anyone who sloppily or uncharitably criticizes either them or their work. This should have been their attitude toward Gavin, especially considering that he is as much and as deeply evangelical as they themselves are. This is an unfortunate situation, and for me it is painful to watch.

Meghan's defence: Yes, I did quote him, and say "ortland says", but what i really meant was that he didn't say that, but meant it in the video overall, cause journalistic standards... If that's the "journalistic standard" she's holding to, I'm not gonna bother buying her book to read it.

Alisa, I love your show, so please accept my disagreement as coming from a place of love: Here is an example of Megan's unkindness: when someone (I believe it was Gavin) tweeted citations/ time stamps of his videos, Megan responded, "How pedantic of you." Not only did her tweet come across as mocking, but it also implied a lack of seriousness about high journalistic standards.

Gavin is such a good man. He deserves an apology, I believe.

It would be best to have Gavin Ortlund on to talk with Megan. I am embarrassed on behalf of everyone who endorsed this book, including Shapiro, who usually is so thorough.

Just spent a few minutes reading the comments, and I think the fact that nearly everyone here is standing up for Gavin should warrant a moment of self-reflection and honesty from all three of the people here, especially Megan. Doubling down instead of talking a disagreement out is not a brotherly thing to do.

No, Megan, Gavin did NOT say that if you're studying the issue, then you will agree with the scientific consensus.

So many people have said what I would have wanted to say so the only thing in going to add is this: Megan may say that she is surprised that this small part of her book is getting this much attention but Jesus said that it is the little leaven that leaven the whole lump. Until she retracts or properly represents Gavin, it'll throw the rest of the book into doubt for those who need to be convinced of a left infiltration. Until then she's only preaching to the choir and making money off of it is the only real impact the book will make since it won't convince those she believes she wrote the book for.

17:10 "the big pushback has largely come from Gavin Ortlund" Uuuhhh yeah, because Basham told bold-faced lies about Gavin in her book. Not even nuanced. Not even confusing. Just straightforwardly false statement. Easy to see. Just listen to his video on climate change, and then read the section of her book about that video. She attributes to him position he unambiguously did not espouse. She flat out lied about what he said. Anything short of an apology and correction falls flat. Frank and Alisa are not thinking clearly to be standing behind her on this.

Yes, Alisa, Gavin said in his video that he believes anthropogenic climate change is real. He did NOT say that everyone else has to think that. He said that people should not reject the scientific consensus for purely political reasons, but you're free to disagree with the scientific consensus from a studied, evidential position. He said some REASONS for rejecting the scientific consensus are wrong, not that rejecting it at all is wrong.

Unfortunately, it really seems like these Christian apologists are putting their credibility on the line to defend American conservatism. For me personally, it's hard to take Frank's other work as seriously in light of his demeanor and approach to this issue.

Several times throughout the video, Basham claims she doesn’t understand why the few pages about Ortlund are such a big deal, and claims to be disappointed because this controversy is distracting people from the point of the book. She also confirms that Ortlund is NOT someone she considers to be a “shepard for sale”. So if he’s not an example of what she’s talking about in the book, and he’s unimportant compared to the actual false teachers she mentions, why even include him in the book? Why choose to lump him in, knowing how people will react? It appears that she is just still upset about their heated conversation on twitter several years ago, and that’s the only reason she’s including him. It’s her own fault this is distracting from the main message of the book- and by her own admission, his part of the book was relatively unimportant. So again, why add him in other than being petty over an old twitter disagreement? She can’t blame him for not wanting to be listed in a book named “Shepards for Sale” alongside true false teachers, even if she isn’t outright claiming he is one. She has to know that people will now lump him in with those other false teachers.

"Wide-eyed blinking shock... why is Gavin so upset with being named in a few pages of a book entitled "Shepherds for sale'" ? Who is for sale (see Amazon)? Who is parroting party policies here? Who is the bigger Big Eva? Who is open to being corrected and having a humble conversation?" It grieves me deeply.

...this is hard to get through. Alisa, I like you, and have benefitted from your work immensely. I was initially interested in this book...I trend toward that belief about the money, and even on face value agree with Phil V., etc. Yet I GET why Gavin would raise concerns at how he was included in this, and how Megan is responding screams culture warrior in a way that has made me back away from this. I was interested in this stream, yet the tone of this seems very dismissive of what seem to be, at the least, very earnestly held concerns and at most valid and reasonable criticism of reckless writing and poor editing in the ¿first? chapter that has caused the Gavin controversy in the first place. With so much mud in the water, I don't feel okay spending money on a book like that...maybe it'll show up in a used book store. Ultimately, then, I can only rely on the passages I'm presented...and with what I can find, even though I don't agree so much with Gavin in climate change, _I do agree with him being misquoted an misrepresented here._ And as it comes to the optics of this? Gavin is winning, hands down (maybe Megan would say it's his calm guru voice and ventura style).

Basham might think Ortlund is a minor player, and disagree with his own view. Fine. But she has misrepresented his point which is that Christians should care about these issues and study them before drawing conclusions. Ortlund is extremely careful in his formulations. This misrepresentation is not minor. It is a deception. Period. I have really appreciated Alisa Childers ministry, but this advocacy of Basham’s careless treatment of others has sadly make me question the value of your platform.

Alisa, I often enjoy your videos, as well as Frank's, and have even heard things I appreciate from Megan, so please take this as constructive criticism, and not the lashing out of an opponent. Watching the clip at 25:50 of Gavin, he does NOT say, as Megan suggests, "if you are skeptical of this climate change consensus, it's probably because you have been influenced by your sociopolitical outlook..." What he says (in the clip you chose) is, "I am deeply burdened that many people come to this super strong opinion about climate change, just as they do on other social and cultural issues, without having studied it. Not based on the evidence, but based on the sociopolitical associations of the issue. I think that is a massive problem." Megan thinks the assumption of this is, "if you're hitting the books and doing this studying.... GOING to agree with this scientific consensus." But is that what he says? When I hear the clip (that you chose) of Gavin, even without more context than that small clip, I don't hear, "if you disagree, then you're not hitting the books". I hear, "if you are blindly disagreeing without hitting the books, it's a problem, as it is in other areas of society." (This can be the case on BOTH sides of the climate change issue, can't it? Isn't the other side of that coin exactly what Megan is decrying?) He's not saying that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. He's saying that he wants people to come to the conversation with knowledge, rather than just saying, "Republicans believe this, so I do too" or "Democrats believe this, so I do too." And whether or not you agree with him about climate change, there is an awful lot of "the party I vote for believes this so I do too without looking into it myself" going around. I'm sure you can see it in the other side's voters easily. I may agree with every point that Megan is trying to make in her book. I don't know. The point is that you don't get me to read your book by misrepresenting people and then doubling down, as it makes you sound disingenuous. If Gavin is a distraction from the people Megan was really meaning to call out, he is so because she put him in the book, not because he clarified his position.

11:10 but her title is not nuanced whether you sell out economically or figuratively either way that’s despicable. What a farce this is. Her title is not nuanced, that’s ridiculous. It’s actually quite clear Shepherd for sale figuratively or not a serious call into question of somebody’s faith and dwelling up the Holy Spirit.

What is odd is that there are several controversies surrounding Megan Basham, but the most pressing issue is not about the general thrust of the book, but it is in how Megan misrepresented Gavin Ortlund in the first chapter of the book, and more importantly how she misrepresented what Gavin says in his videos, and then doubling-down on her critique of Gavin. The "distraction," as Alisa calls it, is the fact that Megan is not owning up to her mistake, which casts some doubt on her credibility as a journalist, thereby taking away from the credibility of the book more generally. Most folks who have commented about this already agree with much of the general argument that Megan is trying to present. If Megan would just come clean on how she has misrepresented Gavin, her book might have greater impact. Otherwise, the book will only influence those who already accept the premise of the book! Please, Alisa, take a second look!!

Admitting one might have been wrong, is not admitting shame, but strength!

Just curious did Megan actually reach out to Gavin and some of the other people she mentions in her book before writing it? If it was me I certainly would just to be very sure that I was not misrepresenting them. I’ve watched both sides of this debate and listened to Gavin’s take on it and he seems genuine and calm and encourages people to make their own conclusions. I don’t necessarily agree with his take on climate change but doesn’t seem like he’s been sold. This whole conversation between you three just seemed like you were doubling down on your own ideologies with a side of “ do your own research” but if you come to a conclusion not like ours you’re still wrong. Just how it played out for me but I’m willing to read Megan’s book and do further research into this.

Have any of you reached out to Gavin? If you have had on Megan 3-4 times between the two of you, why not have on Gavin?

Not only DID Megan Basham misrepresent Gavin in the book, but I just watched her misrepresent Gavin AGAIN in the video. The clip they showed clearly shows Gavin taking a much more reserved and nuanced stance than Megan claims he’s taking. It doesn’t matter what her intent was in the book, what matters is how the reader will understand her words. If she has to keep saying “what I meant was…” then clearly her intent wasn’t well communicated. Sloppy. Gavin speaks in very nuanced ways and is a very context heavy teacher. To cherry pick single word “quotes” out of context, even if “all of the media does it all the time”, is dishonest. Be humble. Apologize to Gavin. He should not have even been mentioned in the book to begin with.

30 minutes in and I’m really troubled about what is happening here trying to make out Gavin would be in favour of policies that have led to harm of people and economies. Stop trying to justify putting him in the book.

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!

57:07 Megan is responding graciously?? What? Alisa, have you considered that perhaps your opinion on Megan's posture is heavily influenced by your closeness to her? You've clearly aligned yourself with her, and just like these "shepherds for sale," sometimes our perceptions of a situation are skewed when we're too close. She wrote this book. She positioned herself for a lot of pushback. If she thinks it was necessary, fine. But she is not being gracious online. That Not the Bee article Megan shared was gracious? Really? I was willing to consider Megan's interpretations of those who feel they've been mischaracterized were fair. But your perception is seriously skewed if you think she's been gracious.

I am actually somewhat thankful that Gavin Ortlund is taking issue with being used as an example in the book. I don't think anyone should be ok with being associated with Rick Warren or Andy Stanley. In 17:17 Megan's say that she is "not very familiar with Gavin's work". I would like everyone to consider that the reason many of us who have heard/watched much of Gavin's work are so staunchly defending him is because we have a context to interpret his climate change video. We understand that Gavin desires to make Christians think deeply on issues and "not just shoot from the hip". So personally, I watch his video and I clearly see that he is saying that if you come to a different conclusion on climate change "its fine" just make sure you are doing so from having actually studied the issue (he is not saying that by believing differently you are buying into hoax or conspiracy). And I am actually challenged by that (in a good way). There are a host of issues that we need to have that approach on, to think deeply and not just come to a conclusion because it's the "company line" so to speak. Please don't just punish Gavin simply because he believes in man caused climate change. I don't agree with Gavin on this issue. However, to give an example: One can believe that smoking is bad for you without being an activist, without making it a gospel issue, without being influenced "downstream" by the CDC (not trying to compare the evidence against smoking to climate change, just the conclusion drawn). Dismissing Gavin as a minor figure in her book, does not take away from the people Megan compared him to. "Claims as hyperbolic as Greta Thunberg (pg 25)" "California Pastor Gavin Ortlund may not have the name recognition of Rick Warren but....(pg 24)" My question is: how clear is it from your book that Gavin is not lumped together with Rick Warren and the host of other people who do need to be called out? If I was reading the book having no context, would I be able to distinguish Gavin Ortlund from everyone else?"

Just because there is a sizable group that sees a major issue with the book, doesn't mean it is spamming, or rude, or bots. Perhaps it's a good indication to listen and take a second or third look...

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.

Megan, I appreciate the intent of your book. I am not a fan of Ortlund (hadn't listened to anything from him until reading your book). You misrepresented him in fact. You should own that. Again, I agree with your thesis, but this was the most egregious error I found. It's OK to make a mistake. It's not OK to deny what's in black-and-white when it's pointed out. But maybe THIS is a topic that's not up for discussion and anyone who points it out just has to accept the message without any reservations or be accused of being Big EVA. Sorry, our side shouldn't do that either.

Just curious, did y’all even reach out to Gavin? Asking him the same question.

Megan, if you did not intend for Gavin Ortlund to have been the focus of your book, and if you did not intend to imply that he was a sellout, then why did you place him as Exhibit A in chapter one? ? It would have been better to write about him in an appendix about faithful shepherds who have been influenced "downstream from progressive organizations."

I do think the book is correct in its central argument, and I do think people should buy it and read it. The expose on Christianity Today and Francis Collins alone are worth the price. However, I'm disappointed at the failure to deal with the specific criticisms of errors that seem to be serious - not just minor details like getting page numbers wrong. When your book states, "Gavin says . . . " or "Greear says . . ." what follows should be something that Gavin or Greear actually said - not something that you have to "read between the lines" or something that you think his view might imply. When someone points out that a citation isn't an accurate citation, it isn't sufficient to say, "Welcome to journalism." Yeah, journalists also lie all the time, but that doesn't justify anything. 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 boldy 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 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.

What Frank just did at 23:45ish is exactly what Gavin is encouraging people to do. Research the issue and engage with the it honestly and earnestly. He would welcome Frank's pushback. What he was pushing back against was "I think climate change isn't real because I don't feel it is" kind of thinking. Y'all aren't disagreeing with him at all, you're just thinking he's saying something he's not.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight as a Catholic . I am familiar with Gavin from his Apologetics videos vs Catholicism (where I strongly disagree ). However I did happen to watch his climate video when it came out just out of curiosity. The gist of what I got out of his stance was : 1) whatever your view should be based on reading as much evidence of both sides as you can and not just the cultural influencers from both sides and 2) seemed to be asking for mere permission to believe in climate change without being branded as outside orthodox evangelical Christianity. So actually fighting against the “binding of conscience”. Again, I didn’t think much of it at the time as I am not part of that evangelical world . And in the Catholic world, no one is bound by any matters of purely scientific interpretation in Laudato Si . Just seems strange that these three seem to be doubling down. Like even the carefully selected and edited clips. The fact that they numbered and organized them shows they carefully did that together. And it has the same distorting effect Gavin complained about . Or this Frank guy’s “summary” of what Gavin said (again he seems to either misrepresent it or misunderstand it because he is so “worked up”). We have our own problems in the Catholic world but glad I am not in your world .

This comment stream is the most cathartic experience I've had on youtube for a while. I'm not going to hide that it feels supremely satisfying to see Gavin almost universally defended.

I don’t think how you have interpreted what Gavin said would stand up in a court of law if he chose to go down that path.

What does climate change have to do with the church??

Just finished the video. So many mixed feelings. I sense Megan knows she made big mistakes in the book. But it's difficult to apologize in public, especially because it undermines her book's credibility (everybody's book is their baby). So I understand that she feels obligated to dig in and dismiss the criticism. (I wish she did it less dismissively though.) I lost some respect for Frank in this one. As an apologist grappling with logical arguments, he should know that it's possible to agree with Megan's mission, but criticize mistakes in her argument. Rebutting a bad argument for God doesn't make you an atheist. Likewise rebutting a bad argument against Big Eva doesn't make you a proponent of Big Eva.

Well it would have been wonderful to actually show Gavin's complaint rather than straw man it

I can't help but recognize what a beautiful opportunity this is for church leaders to truely practice what they preach. Instead of ignoring or deflecting, taking this moment to publicly repent in contrition and go forth to do better. Putting Christian leaders on a pedestal as infallible is an impossible expectation. Show us how it's done. Humble yourselves before God & man, repent and grow in your faith. You will be respected so much more! Let's all pray for our leaders that they may grow in Christ too.

Ad hominems are being employed far too often. Though Megan says she is voicing her concerns graciously, she is more than fine calling Gavin "homeboy." In the end, I may agree with some of her concerns, but utilizing language in this sort of way hurts ones credibility.

What a strange defense of the practice of deliberately distorting words of someone else, 23:39

Her accusations against Gavin Ortlund are completely false, and Ms. Bashim should write her retraction immediately.

Oh what a shame. This is sloppy re Ortlund.

I'm not surprised that Frank Turek and Alisa Childers have doubled down on defending their political side. I've always gotten the vibe that for them "defending your side" takes precedence over an honest, unbiased search for the truth. Not to say that they don't make good arguments, they do. Their work is valuable in that respect. But if there's a genuine weakness in their argument, their natural tendency is to try and cover it up, ignore, and gaslight, not honestly discuss it. One key sign of intellectual honesty is when you admit that your opponent has made a good point, and it's a genuine difficulty for your position. Frank Turek has never done that, to my knowledge.

Someone please get Megan and Gavin together to have a conversation about this. Gavin is an excellent speaker and sees so genuine. Megan is identifying a real issue. They need to discuss this, as sister to brother.

24:27 please read this, because apparently you’re not getting it. Didn’t he say it’s an irresponsible posture if you reach that conclusion without hitting the books and doing the research? Was not the conclusion reached, but HOW you reached the conclusion is what he said is irresponsible

Yet another sacrifice to the golden calf of American politics in the evangelical community. If only we loved God and each other like we love the dirt we all stand on.

19:33 we want to disagree with this public content you created, Megan. But I guess that makes me a "Big Eva sellout pastor" too.

Excellent subject! Excellent book! Excellent Guests! I personally experienced this subject matter as an almost 40 year teacher/leader in our local non-denominational church. When I chose to oppose the arguments surrounding Trifecta of the Presidential election discussion, BLM and COVID church closings, it was obvious I didn’t agree or “fit” the current majority, and am no longer a part of this church.

All three of you: “I don’t really know him.” If you did you would know why it hurts so much when you slander him. The dude puts so much care and effort into encouraging unity, healthy disagreements, and intellectual honesty. You just claimed he is being intellectual dishonest, shutting down disagreements, and creating division. And yes it only took a few tiny sentences in your book. They matter. Be responsible for the way you portray a brother publicly, especially when you profit from it.

This video is a further discouragement in what has already been an incredibly discouraging series of events. Alisa and Frank, I have tremendous respect for each of you, but you are in serious error in your judgment here. What Megan Basham has said about Gavin Ortlund is demonstrably dishonest and untruthful, and it discredits the very real and serious concerns of the author. As a graduate of two evangelical seminaries, I have been very concerned with the creep of theological and political liberalism into traditionally conservative areas of the church, so when I first heard of Megan's book, I was encouraged in what seemed to be a strong principled stand exposing this creep. However, after seeing how she slandered Gavin Ortlund and has refused to walk back her clear factual errors, I am shocked and disturbed at her continued promotion. Alisa, you say this matter with Gavin is a distraction from the main thrust of the book, but this is poor thinking, intellectually and ethically. Slander is slander, and if you care about the importance of the cause this book claims to represent, you should know that any slanderous content will damn that cause. If the facts aren't enough to convince you of Megan's error, let us consider the responses of both parties. Gavin has been reasonable, fair, charitable, and fair tempered in all of this. Megan, on the other hand, has taken to X and thrown further slanderous accusations that are quite frankly easily falsifiable. When will you ask Megan about her claims on X that Gavin organized a review bomb of her book? When will you ask Megan where she has seen Gavin is a 'creation care activist'? When will you ask Megan if comparing Gavin to Greta Thunberg is accurate or a sign of Christian character? This is not the response of an honest person trying to unify the church. Quite the opposite. Alisa and Frank, please reconsider this. I know acknowledging error is not easy, especially when it seems doing so might harm a righteous cause, but do not hitch your wagon to someone like Megan Basham. Doubling down on this will only hurt this cause, and I fear for the church when its most prominent influencers eschew legitimate moral and intellectual concerns in order to protect a larger cause. Grace and peace.

This is the last video I will watch around this topic. I really came in with the interest of integrity because I listen to both Gavin and Alisa and they are two people I really respect (that’s why a little section matters). I will leave saying I feel like I left this back and forth conversation feeling like I am crazy, because I just cant marry Megan’s words to Gavin’s video - say he was influenced by data from whatever powers might… sure… I can digest that. I cant come to the same conclusions about what he is implying vs what she says he is implying though but I have decided this has had enough of my time.

Knowing how few people will read a book that becomes popular, it's actually even more irresponsible to have a title like "Sheperds for Sale" that names a whole lot of people who you're not claiming to be sophists. Similarly, if you need to keep remarking about how frustrated you are that everyone's misunderstanding you, this suggests you should reflect on your own communication skills. That title is clearly incendiary. Another issue is this comment about how those quoted are making a huge deal about a single sentence here or there... If sentence attributed to them is significantly misquoted or false, they are right to take issue with it, and you should be apologizing for it, full stop. By suggesting anything other than this, you come across as a dishonest person.

As someone who has been in the ministry now for over two decades and has been involved with the SBC I can attest that Megan's book is spot on. A Socialist world view/agenda has been gaining momentum in many denominations for decades. By the way, the vitriol in some of the responses to the book is just another example of a professing body of believer's that often lacks spiritual discernment. I've swam in the ministry stream with these folks for years and Megan's book & title are absolutely spot on.

I’m honestly just trying to get past the foolish impulses to never respect Frank or Alisa on anything again (I didn’t know Megan before this controversy), but especially respected Alisa. I know it’s foolish, but it’s kind of like having a math teacher insist 1 / 0 = 0. You can say, “It’s just one statement.” But you have to wonder, if he can miss it so badly, can I trust him to teach math on anything else? Again, I know it’s foolish. I’m just trying to work through my emotions. Any advice would be accepted.

Its obvious she gave her book that title for shock factor. Lets be real she has a book to sell

JD Greear just posted a lengthy, well cited rebuttal on his website. There appears to be very significant misrepresentation of him.

Megan got Big Eva to endorse her book, lol. All those names are the biggest ones.

When you name a book "Shepherds For Sale", it is assumed the author is including every pastor mentioned in the book is in that category.

I don't think this was Frank's best effort. I agree with him most of the time. However I think he should not give Megan a blank check without doing a little research first. First Megan writes this hit piece “Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda”. The thesis is everyone I am criticizing here has traded the truth for a political agenda. Then she goes on Alisa's channel and touts the book. It later comes out that one of the so-called "false teachers" disagrees and shows the receipts where he was misquoted. Did Megan apologize for exaggerating to sell books? No she gets together with Frank and Alisa and does a hard double-down on everything. It was interesting to see the anger in her face whenever she was read anything that disagreed with her original thesis. Where is the remorse that she has told falsehoods and wronged a brother in Christ? I can see why Gavin said a discussion would not be a good idea at this time. Brothers and sisters in Christ should not be lying about one another in order to sell books. Megan should repent for her mischaracterization of Gavin, apologize to him and then have an online discussion about their views. I think that if there was an honest and frank discussion they would find they have more areas of agreement than disagreement. Although I don't agree with everything Gavin says, he is not a false teach and has not traded the Truth for political reasons.

I do respect both Alisa and Frank, but this was way off base for both of them to not actually speak to Gavin re his views. Do better. This was just sloppy re Gavin. Taking comments out of context, and cut and splicing others together to make "supportive" statements is such a childish thing to do.

I hope for there to be humility and conviction on these issues, and willingness to change despite disagreements. If you twist words, under-contextualize, and mischaracterize someone you disagree with, while dismissing any push-back as “distractions” despite it being slander no matter the amount, you might be a shepherd for sale.

The slander against Ortlund, specifically, needs to be taken seriously. Not over his disagreement about climate change, but the slander.

This is so discouraging and disheartening and not what I would have expected from you or Frank. I know it can be extremely hard to do, but I sincerely pray that you and Frank will take some serious time to reflect on all that you said in this video and acknowledge the wrong you've committed against Gavin. Not only would this be the right thing to do, but I think it would go a long way in restoring your lost credibility, especially in the eyes of those who have held you in high regard and are so disappointed by your appalling treatment of a fellow brother in Christ.

Beggar’s canyon podcast did a great video talking about how she slandered Gavin Ortlund

Gavin is the best RU-vidr IMO. Honest. Intelligent. Compassionate. Godly. Trustworthy. Addressing important issues. This criticism is hugely concerning

Disappointed in this. They let Megan get away with so much equivocation. 1) You don't misquote someone and then claim it adheres to journalist standards. Journalism has no integrity these days. 2) Naming your book with such an inflammatory title and expect a short statement in the prolog to excuse how it is perceived doesn't cut it. 3) The amount of praise and promotion of the book makes me wonder if Frank and Alyssa profit from it? I want to hear them deny it. 4) How well do you know Megan? You both mentioned you don't really know Gavin, but how well do you really know Megan? 5) Have you researched her testimony? Seems an odd thing to put in such a book. I don't doubt there are Shepherds out there willing to water/distort the message and some may be financially influenced. It still doesn't justify sloppy work. My own experience: Judge Paul Pressler was my Sunday School Teacher in Houston. I admired him. But, he hid his sin by his righteous indignation about hyper inerrancy and political drive. I found out this year that he had been behaving wrongly with young men his whole life. It caused me to remember a time he wanted me to go skinny dipping in his hot tub with him. I really didn't think anything about it at the time due to my naivete, but in retrospect, I luckily evaded him. I have learned to be wary of those with righteous agenda. They may be coving something up. I get a bad vibe from Megan. I think it is about selling books for her. I heard no apology, just excuses. Even a mild, "I didn't intend to misrepresent . . ." Franks claiming all books have mistakes doesn't cut it.

The whole issue of this book of Megan Basham, was about Christian leaders and influencers having been coopted, or pulled into, the wrong sphere of influence and motivated to do so for financial, or viewer numbers, and or other than Christian, political or world views! So, it boils down to the motivation behind the accused, in her book, Christian leaders/motivator's statements and/or positions. It is not necessarily about what was said or conveyed, but WHY these Christian influencers said it! In light of my statement above, Megan used peoples names, claiming she knew, or knows, what MOTIVATED these accused Christians, to say what they said! Thus, she categorized these Christians, as having compromised their Christianity, for either financial or other worldly gains! That is where she chose to put Dr Gavin Ortland! In light of that, I'm sure, Gavin Ortland objected about a substantial section in the book (several pages), accusing him as being one of these so-called coopted Christians, basically selling out their souls for worldly gains! So, again, the issue I have with Megan, is that the moment she decided to "name" people, she stepped into the trap of accusing people of their motivation for saying things. That should have been done, before using peoples names, by consultation with these "accused" to ensure she understood these "accused's" motivation, before putting their names in a book publicly available! She basically named and shamed, people! That, to me is very dangerous to do and basically should be done only when one is absolutely sure of what actually motivated these accused!! That is where I see the issue with her, and her book! It is simply un-Christian like to do such! Again, what you are saying Megan, and you Alisa are now supporting Megan and her book, thus you are basically also accusing Dr Ortland of compromising his Christianity! This is NOT good and definitely not how Christians should act or behave! So, here is my feeling about this book: It was not done in a Christian like manner and is thus a book trashing other people, who at the very least claim to be Christian! That is not right! Simple and plain, not a way to act as a Christian! And what is Megan's motivation really? One may ask. Not at all to enrich herself on behalf of other Christians??? Yeh, ok! The Bible clearly say how Christians should act when "reprimanding" other Christians! One should go to them and talk to them about the issue at hand, and when the person do not repent, one should go again, but take with you other Christians, preferably "elders", and reprimand again, and if the accused refuse to repent, only then the issue should be made public to bring it in the open! That is, and should be the Christian way!!! Sorry, this was not done in this case! And that is what bothers me! The more I think about this, the more "cringe" I feel! Frank, you are WRONG in how you defend this book! It is not the content that is wrong, but the claim that she knows what motivated those she chose to name! This book stinks like trash and I will handle it as such! And sorry, you, Alisa and Frank, now chose your "side" and that makes me very uncomfortable! NOT HOW CHRISTIANS should be! I will NOT buy this trash book! That is it! So she should enrich herself by trashing others! NO!!!! Frank, it is not that we should not unabatingly defend the Gospel, but that one should do so righteously and with the Spirit and in love! You're NOT doing so by defending this trashing book!!!!

“The politicians of Jesus’ day were the Pharisees, and He went after them.” Actually, the Sadducees were the more political of the two major Jewish sects. They were the ones gaining favor from Rome (having control of the temple).

1:01:00 Basham admitting she is a young earth creationist is a massive credibility torpedo for anything she has to say about scientific issues.

All three of you admitted to not knowing Gavin or his material well. Megan even said she didn't do much research on him. To then cherry pick and assume meaning without due diligence and then associate a brother like Gavin with bad actors is awful. She knows the reality of writing a book or article and names that are thrown altogether.

Andy Stanley Doesn't = Gavin Ortlund!!!

I get it. It’s hard to unpublish a book. But just think about what you’ve done to those you slandered.

I''d much rather listen, or follow, Gavin Ortland, than Megan! She just comes over as NOT how a Christian should be!

Shepherds 'for sale' is not nuance

Alisa THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY and your accurate assessment about Megan vs Gavin's accusation against her. I came to the same conclusion from watching Gavin's videos, and this video. Thank you Magan, you are a blessing.

Good people, admit it when they were wrong with something. It seems as though this lady made a mistake in judgement and cannot admit it! In principle, or in general, her book tackles a topic that was long overdue and surely has merit to it. In the case of Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) she is wrong!

The way you talk about a brother in Christ (Gavin) is so dismissive and your message is rightly lost because of this. I am sad Alisa is in on this too-my respect for you has gone down.

Alisa, did your "investigation" include speaking directly with Gavin? At this point, you have participated in publicly slandering someone and have not personally spoken with him. It is not a "distraction" to make sure your guests aren't slandering others. Your appeal to "others who are happy about this distraction" is a thought-silencing act. "Don't worry about the possibility of slander because of "more important" issues. You've just lost all credibility as a defender of truth if you wont' stand for the small truths.

Megan's "defence" was most unfortunate. It was minimising and patronising. As a journalist, is she not supposed to be careful about semantics and "hair-splitting"?

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" II Tim. 4:3 I think that time has come.

Meg made a huge mistake w Gavin Ortlund no less than twice. She shoulda, coulda, woulda just accepted his pushback as credible (which it was and is). Everyone makes mistakes after all. In this it case was her’s. This would not have demeaned either her or her book.. but her stubborn online reaction to Gavin’s appropriate rebuttal has now tainted Meg (but not the thesis of her book). This is unfortunate for all.