Shepherds REALLY for Sale? Book Review

Josh Klein
Aug 16, 2024
23 min read

2020 was a difficult year for many of us for a variety of reasons. By the end of 2020 I would be seeking new employment after over 12 years in youth ministry. There are many stories that could be told as to why that was the case, but that can be for another time. Suffice it to say that I am very sensitive to how innuendo, misrepresentation, and uncharitable readings of one’s actions can result in character assassination and reputational damage. So, when I read a book like Megan Basham’s most recent, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda and I see the charges of both misrepresentation and even defamation my alarm bells go way up. As many have noted, being included in a book such as this is no small issue. Which is why writing a review of Shepherds for Sale is such a difficult endeavor. Because the truth, at times, can be complicated and often we complicate it further by seeking to frame an argument based on our interpretation of a certain position. Sometimes this is necessary. For instance, if someone repeatedly tells you, “No, I am not a Marxist, far from it!” But then goes on to champion Marxist policies such as equity (equality of outcome), seeing the world primarily through an oppressed-oppressor framework, embracing the concepts and ideas of Critical Theory, and price control on food it might then be wise to read beyond the specific words they are saying and out them for what they really are.

The danger in doing this on a large scale though is that human beings are all fallible, sinful, and their minds can change over time. But it seems to be this very thing that Megan Basham seeks to expose in Shepherds For Sale (Purchase HERE). To be sure, Basham unequivocally proves and exposes some insidious progressive influences within the Church at large, however, she then seeks to connect these influences to specific ancillary individuals to prove just how far the rot as reached. In some cases she hits, and in others she misses. This book has operated as a sort of litmus test concerning the faithful and the compromised. But it is not intended as such:

As I read through the book, sorted through the controversies (Integrity for Sale?) and checked numerous footnotes I am of the belief that neither position is either charitable or true. That there is a third option: This book is well written and important, well researched but also questionable in some areas, it utilizes an unconventional approach to notation and fails to clearly differentiate between authorial commentary and statements of fact. In my opinion none of the shortcomings outweigh its important or desired impact. To dismiss this book because of its problems would both be myopic and unwise. Whatever concerns one has with the book, the central thesis holds up well under scrutiny. The central figures in the book are represented fairly (with the possible exception of JD Greear. Which I will not wade into in detail here. If interested in this interaction I would invite you to read both Greear’s open letter and Basham’s open letter in response linked in the footnotes of this article. ) This review will focus on an overview of the themes of the book (something that is profoundly important to understanding Basham’s strategy in dealing with these issues), the important details she exposes that ought not be overlooked and what I think she ultimately gets right in the book. Finally, I will end with three general problems for the book and my proposed solution to those problems.

What this Book does Well

Structure and Theme

Basham structures the book through an Introduction and then addresses eight specific examples of leftist influence in the Church. Often, in books such as this, introductions are shuffled right past into the main body of the argument. However, Basham’s introduction is integral in understanding the planned structure of the book and what she seeks to elucidate within it. One of many criticisms of the book is in its title.

Shepherds for Sale

is provocative to be sure, but many book titles are. I, personally, understand the frustration with one’s name being included in a book like this with a title as seemingly accusative as this one, however, Basham goes through great efforts to explain what she means to communicate about the names she seeks to expose. Basham says she wants to expose

“wolves, cowards, mercenaries, and fools”

(pg. XXI) in her introduction but what does she really mean when she says this? At least two quotes from the introduction suffice to explain her position:

“But it need not always be explicitly transactional. Institutional prestige, seeing oneself lauded on CNN and in the

Washington Post

as more intellectually and morally advanced than the rest of the evangelical rabble, can also be a potent elixir. So can gilded invitations to the most exclusive parties in the world… Perhaps some are simply weary of being the bad guys and are eager to sign on to something,

anything,

that will draw the culture’s approval.” (Pg. XXII)

“But there are differing degrees of error. Passivity, fear of reprisal, and plain old lack of discernment are also reasons pastors my compromise with the culture. For those who are not outright wolves, forthright, brother confrontation, such as when Paul opposed Peter… may bring about sincere repentance.” (pg. XXIV)

Basham’s thesis then, is to expose witting

and

unwitting people of influence that have either been influenced and compromised by the left in nefarious ways or have experienced the drift and gone along with it because of fear, shame, or a lack of discernment. Basham goes on to say:

“Every name I put forward as evidence of liberal drift and infiltration is commonly trusted and welcomed by orthodox American Protestantism. They are men and women whom I… still sometimes learn from, though with a much more cautious posture than I once had. Naming them is not a question of punishing or singling out, but of understanding what is taking place in the Church so we can put it right.” (pg. XXVII)

This speaks to Basham’s motives in writing the book, which is important to understand as one processes the following chapters. She is

not

saying that the names are non-Christians or outside of the faith but that they have either been affected or led astray by nefarious forces. She goes on to assume that the reader will understand which leaders are compromised and in which way:

“Some are yes, wolves-unfaithful pastors and teachers deliberately leading sheep astray. I believe that you’ll have little trouble pinpointing in these pages who they are.” (pg XXIV)

Clearly, Basham’s belief that people would have little trouble pinpointing these was a bit naïve as the maelstrom following the book’s publishing would indicate. In Gavin Ortlund’s critique of the first chapter (a controversy I cover here: Integrity for Sale) he states:

“…the irony is that she's the one making climate change a test of gospel faithfulness this is her opening chapter in a book about pastoral sellouts”

While Basham’s beginning with climate change might seem strange (and indeed would be) if she wanted to start with her strongest case this is not her intent. Whether right or wrong Basham sees climate change ideology and activism as a “foot in the door” issue to more progressive causes. She said as much on Twitter in 2022:

Thus, it would seem Ortlund would occupy the “least compromised” category concerning at least the flow of the book. It seems clear, at least to me, that Basham’s case is to build a foundation of concern in the introduction and, like revealing an iceberg, expose each layer of possible compromise from chapter one to eight. This seems to be the structure of the book, which is powerful and climactic and finishes with an exposure of underhanded and insidious forces seeking to move the church on sexual morality (pgs. 220-226). The book is a thorough treatment of multiple institutions and ideas that have been coopted or sought to be influenced by the secular left. Basham makes a credible case for the compromise of many.

Heart Wrenching Anecdotes

Basham knows that anecdotes are not arguments, but they can serve to highlight the real people that such drift are affecting. In multiple chapters Basham allows people to tell stories of drift in their own local churches and these stories should be highlighted, not ignored. She bookends

with the story of Bailey and James Anderson who left a church in California for a church in their home state of Georgia only to find the same political ideology they fled from in California had infected the church back home in Georgia and the story (pgs XI-XV) and

USA Today

columnist Kirsten Powers who lost faith in part because of Tim Keller's lack of clarity on social issues (pgs. 230-231). Most of her chapters open with similar stories of regular Bible believing Christians being ambushed by radical ideologies from the pulpit. She closes her book with a her own story, and relates why this book is personal to her:

“If I had walked into that church and heard the same lessons I was getting in my Feminist Theory class or my therapist’s office dressed up in spiritual jargon, I would have had little reason to stay and, if I had stayed, no understanding of how to live my life differently” (pg. 237).

Anecdotally, I can verify this sort of thing happens even within the confines of midwestern flyover country like Nebraska. Part of the reason Dr. Stratton brought me on board with FreeThinking Ministries was to address this drift that seemed to be radically taking hold in various churches. In 2020 I had a pastor sit in my office insisting that red lining was still legal and done in many states and that these practices led to systemic wealth inequality. After he finished opining at the state of things I tried to gently correct him by informing him that while some red lining policies in the 50s and 60s might have led to continued detrimental effects decades later or perhaps, even now, that red lining had been illegal since 1968. A few years later a pastoral resident at another church in the Nebraska delivered a sermon championing Critical Race Theory (similar David Platt’s sermon in 2018). Elsewhere, I conversed with a pastor that sought to preach on Galatians 2 and had infused part of his sermon with terminology concerning systemic racism which he did not understand stemmed from CRT and cultural Marxist thought. Instead of exegeting Galatians 2 around Christian liberty in the face of legalistic practices based on culture he had shifted the meaning of that portion of the text to a sermon point on anti-racism. None of these pastors were intentionally leading their congregations astray. They were all well intentioned, but also very busy. They trusted certain popular pastors and institutions that, if compromised, might lead them astray. These anecdotes serve as a somber warning and personal connection to those experiencing such unintentional drift in their own congregations.

Exposing Institutions

It is these institutions that Basham exposes directly within the pages of

Shepherds For Sale

. Whatever issues with other sources on ancillary figures within the book, it seems to me the sourcing for compromised institutions is credible and convincing enough to highlight the veracity of Basham’s thesis. For instance, Basham exposes that the E

vangelical Immigration Table (EIT)

was receiving funding and control from the N

ational Immigration Forum (NIF)

backed by George Soros.

“… Soros’s foundation was unequivocal that its money went to make sure the EIT’s Bibles, Badges, and Business work was “bridged and aligned” with Soros’s broader effort to see a pathway to citizenship passed and the refugee cap raised… As of 2021, Soros was still funding the NIF, the NIF was still controlling the EIT, and a host of evangelical leaders were still involved in their efforts.” (pg. 45)

Basham’s source on footnote 55 is reporting directly from the NIF’s 990. Some influence was more effective than others. While Soros seems to have mostly wasted his money (

considering recent polling on illegal immigration

) other efforts seem to have been more successful. And besides, the efficacy of such measures is not the point, the fact it is happening at all ought to be enough for concern. The Trinity Forum, founded by Os Guinness as a platform to debate theological questions and the existence of God, was also coopted by leftist ideals as exemplified in pages 79-89. Showing that Basham’s statement in the introduction that certain individuals and institutions would settle for ivory tour credibility over Christian witness is not only plausible but happening. (

note: In this section Larry Alex Taunton speaks to a particular debate which passed over a supposed well educated “man of the people’ in favor of someone more “sophisticated. According to The Dispatch the man chosen was allegedly none other than John Lennox

but this does not necessarily cast doubt on Taunton’s point concerning the seeming desires of the Trinity Forum’s new leadership in observing their interactions with Hitchens at the event.)

Basham points to the compromise of integrity and theological conservatism of Christianity Today in elucidating that every single political donation coming from staff and board members of the evangelical publication went to Democrats:

“Between 2015 and 2022, the outlet’s staff and board members made seventy-four political donations. Every single one went to Democrats.” (pg. 75)

Basham goes on to explain just why this statistic is problematic:

“

just that a number of

Christianity Today

staffers donated to Democrats. It’s also

which

staff have done so. It might not make much difference if the IT guy or the woman who sells advertising places some chips on blue before an election, but when the CEO, a board member, and a vice president do so, and no one in the executive ranks appears to counterbalance their views, there’s a question of how much that’s influencing the content of the magazine.” (pg. 75)

Elsewhere Basham skillfully exposes Francis Collins' manipulation of church figures who would ultimately fall in line with vaccination policies under the guise of

love your neighbor.

(pgs. 110-118) Finally, Basham shows the insidious nature of pro-LGBTQ+ theology seeping its way through the church. I outlined some of this in my article concerning Andy Stanley but Basham exposes just how intricate the plot goes. Following progressive activist groups such as the Reformation Project (

partially funded by the Arcus Foundation

) seeking to subvert the orthodox position on sexuality through reforming conservative churches from the inside. She follows the arc of Greg and Lynn McDonald who feature prominently in Andy Stanley’s church and in his movement to what is called “B-side” Christianity.

“After an interview with the McDonalds in 2019, popular faith and family authors Mark and Jill Savage recommended Embracing the Journey to their audience. If the Savage’s names don’t ring a bell, some of the organizations they’re associated with probably will: Crosswalk, Family Life, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family…” (Pg. 212)

It is Basham’s work in following money trails and linking them to compromised organizations that is, by itself, worth the purchase of the book. This exposure, all in one place, in and of itself would be cause enough for a book (and there are more entities than the ones I highlight here) but Basham seeks to explain more and to target not only institutions, but central figures.

What this Book Doesn’t Do Well

Assertion Commentary

While Basham is clearly a gifted writer and storyteller and her passion for truth and exposing wolves is admirable, she makes a few mistakes in

how

she writes within the book. This is not an effort at tone police, I am not one that believes tone is paramount within the cultural conversation. However, it is an observation that writing without distinguishing specifics between claims and interpretations can be unnecessarily confusing. Basham believes the reader will be able to discern who the wolves are and are not. There might be some truth in that. Obviously, a minor figure in the book such as Gavin Ortlund should not be considered on the level of someone like Russell Moore. However, Ortlund features more prominently than Phil Vischer, and Vischer, to my estimation, has exhibited much more wolf-like behavior in his tone, tenor, and content in the past ten years than one Ortlund video. This means one can reasonably conclude that certain people are wolves, certainly institutions are, but we are left to wonder exactly what she thinks of Ortlund, Vischer, and even J.D. Greear among others. This is because she employs what I have come to think of as

assertion commentary

. To Basham, it seems that everything written that is not qualified with quotes should be read as her commentary or interpretation. Thus, when she says what she says about Ortlund or when she states that, “Among his (JD Greear)

highest

priorities for the SBC in 2020 – retiring the 150-year-old presidential gavel that had belonged to Robert E. Lee’s chaplain…

(emphasis mine)

” (pg. 125) she is making an assertion based on her understanding of the events surrounding Greear’s decision to retire said gavel. In many instances these assertions

could

be correct and technically not misrepresent what occurred, but the issue with these assertions as with Greear, Ortlund, and others within the book is that, to the reader, it puts ideas of what a person said in their minds even if the person never said those

exact

words, and while that may not rise to the level of intentional misrepresentation it can be seen as accidental. Another example comes when Basham states, “National outlets like PBS and

Washington Post

had fawned over Greear as just such an antiracist reformer” (pg. 125). Without a footnote one is left to wonder exactly to what Basham is referring. It seems to be that she is reading the events surrounding the public perceptions of Greear of that time (particularly a PBS interview he did in 2018). Basham does this in multiple ways throughout the book. In some instances, I agree with her characterization of the comments or events, but my personal agreement means very little. The question is, what exactly did they say? If one is going to assert something, one has the obligation to back up such assertions. Basham, in essence, listens mostly to what these figures

mean

rather than what they

say

exactly. In some cases, this is needed. People can be slippery when they are going against a prevailing narrative and testing waters of acceptance. As Basham and others have outlined, this sort of tactic can be used with relative ease. Figures like Andy Stanely have been intentionally evasive on the issue of LGBTQ issues in the church and so much of what they

don’t

say or reading behind what they do say is important. Basham is right when she says there are times where charity must be eschewed in favor of hard truth, especially when someone is being intentionally evasive. But, whether wittingly or unwittingly, offering assertions in commentary as if the words were

actually said

when they were not could lead to misrepresentation. While one may not be misrepresenting someone’s perceived posture or tone one would be misrepresenting their quotes. A rather striking example of this occurred in Basham’s critique of Tim Keller on page 60:

“Yet, while Keller argued that the Bible does not tell Christians how to oppose abortion, there was one way he clearly felt was wrong – by voting for Donald Trump. Being a Trump supporter, he told

The Atlantic

meant that you were focused on “power and saying, How are we going to use power to live life the way we want?”

What did Keller literally say?

“Both those evangelical strategies are wrong… both of them are about power and saying,

how are we going to use power to live life the way we want.

They’re not about service; they’re not enough about serving the common good.”

I am no Keller defender. I disagreed with him on Calvinism, and I truly believe his version of third-way Christian political engagement

did

help to move people towards accepting progressive ideology whether he realized it or not. However, it is clear here that Basham is handling Keller the same way she did Ortlund. Basham is seeking to capture the moment in which Keller made these statements, assert that what he

really

meant was that voting for Trump meant that you were focused on “power.” It could be, and possibly is, reasonable to make this commentary concerning those statements but it is not technically correct to assert that this is what Keller said. This does not misrepresent him

per say

but it does not represent him clearly either and

does not differentiate between Basham’s commentary about Keller’s statements and what Keller actually said.

Keller’s critique of certain political strategies certainly could be taken as saying Trump supporters are only searching for power, but it ought to be made clear that this is a contextual framing of perception not a reflection of his literal words. Would being clear that such statements are her own interpretation harm her case? In some ways it would, because people can brush off her perception as just

the way she sees things

as a conservative Trump supporter, but I would argue it does less damage to her case than asserting a specific thing was said when it was not. Does this mean Basham’s criticisms of Keller and Greear and others is without merit? No, I do not believe so. There are legitimate problems with the way these men sought to engage with the public sphere. As attested by this quoted tweet from Keller:

What exactly did Keller mean by “it’s a fair question”? One could make a reasonable statement based on context clues but one ought not assert that Keller

said

a thing he did not say.

It seems Basham assumes the reader will understand that all the words apart from quotations are her commentary

However, when one uses the word “says” it looks as if this is a quote or at least an accurate retelling of a quote, not a commentary on the context of the individual’s history concerning the spirit of what was said.

Unfortunately, no matter how correct an individual is in sussing this out this can bring doubt to the veracity of the claim when no such quote is proffered or the context of the quote does not necessarily match the claim. This could be fixed by adding language to indicate personal commentary. As an example:

“Yet, while Keller argued that the Bible does not tell Christians how to oppose abortion, there was one way

it seemed he

felt was wrong – by voting for Donald Trump. Being a Trump supporter

, he seemed to intimate to

The Atlantic

meant that you were focused on “power and saying, How are we going to use power to live life the way we want?” (my augmentation)

This might still not represent exactly what Keller was saying but it is more accurate to what Basham wished to communicate and it does not come with the charge of misrepresentation, rather, it would be a charge of misinterpretation.

Yes, it seems to weaken the case but in being more accurate it actually strengthens it. When we present interpretation as fact, we unnecessarily muddy the waters. Perhaps another instance of this, and more clearly so, is in a short discussion on Karen Swallow Prior’s comments on vaccines and masking. Prior says this of masking and vaccines:

“I have a hard time with a lot of folks who are on my side of the aisle on this issue (pro-life concerning abortion) yet inexplicably fail to apply

the same logic

to the precautions asked for during the Covid-19 pandemic” (emphasis mine).

She then goes on to argue that asking people to get the vaccine and wear a mask is not:

“…asking too much – in fact, it’s really the bare minimum – for those of us who believe we are justified in asking a woman to sacrifice much to preserve a life growing inside her body to inconvenience our own bodies by voluntarily (even cheerfully) wearing a piece of cloth… By no means am I arguing that the willful, intentional destruction of life of an unborn child is morally equivalent to inadvertently passing on a virus to someone vulnerable.”

Of this section Basham quotes, on pg. 69:

“…She (Prior) insisted that a person could not credibly claim to be pro-life unless he continued wearing them (masks) anyway. She also repeatedly argued that those, like Cross (pregnancy center advocate and worker)… couldn’t claim to be pro-life if they weren’t willing to get the vaccine. Such attempts at moral equivalency infuriated Cross.”

I think Basham gets the

tone

of Prior’s article exactly right and that Prior

is (in tone)

making a moral equivalence but in recognizing that she will be accused of this heads off the accusation with a denial. However, Basham does not deal with the words as they were

actually

stated. Prior never explicitly says people couldn’t “

credibly claim to be pro-life

” she also never says that pro-life workers “

couldn’t claim to be pro-life if they weren’t willing to get the vaccine

” and she explicitly denies she is arguing for moral equivalency even though she used the words “

the same logic

” just paragraphs earlier. While Basham might reasonably, and perhaps rightly, add commentary to Prior’s article to insist that she is adding qualifications to avoid criticism, this is not explicitly said by Basham in her commentary. Instead, to the reader, it appears as if Basham is stating that Prior is literally saying these things when Basham, as a commentary, is insisting that no matter the hedge or qualification, functionally, Prior is arguing for moral equivalence. While Basham could be (and I think likely is) right in this instance, this is a dangerous game to play because arguing how words function rather than arguing about the words themselves can lead to misrepresentation and unfalsifiable assertions. Conservatives know firsthand how this sort of assertive commentary can affect a narrative. In a more overt example of this phenomenon one need look no further than the media’s handling of Donald Trump’s words about there being “good people on both sides” in Charlottesville. When we overstate our position by speaking to what people mean (without qualifying that that’s what we’re doing) rather than the exact words they say we open up the same strategy to be employed against us. Some say Basham has violated bearing false witness (violating the 9

^th

commandment) against a brother or sister and while I contend this is not the case, I do believe clarity in commentary rather than assertion would help dispel this charge. Basham may think it pedantic, but it matters especially if the book is seeking to reach those that would not already agree with its thesis. Call it what you will, misrepresentation, putting words in people’s mouths, sloppiness of execution or assertion commentary. This does not disprove the thesis of the book, nor does it mean the book is not credible in total, but it does limit its effectiveness.

Static People

Entities and institutions are often more static than individuals. Especially if those individuals are committed to a life of humility and sanctification. As Christians we believe that human beings have dynamic positions that can change when being presented with new evidence and through the outworking of the Holy Spirit. In 2020, when George Floyd died, I wrote a Facebook post reacting to the subsequent outrage. In the post I used these phrases:

“Racism – in all forms, is anti-Christian and evil…. It must be condemned at all times.” “A systemic issue is NOT impossible to correct. Especially in this case.” “In order to fix a systemic issue, it takes people within that system to correct it.” “(I Pray) For evil to be rooted out within the political structures of the Minneapolis government and law enforcement offices, as well as evil to be rooted out in those that respond through destruction rather than construction.”

During this time, I was not a CRT or intersectionality advocate but I did jump at the chance to say something and, perhaps, virtue signal in a way that Basham chastises other pastors within this very book. Most of what I said in that Facebook post is true but there are things I would change now after having study primary sources on both Critical Theory and Intersectionality. Assuming the officer was guilty of murder, my intimation that the altercation was based on race, and my use of the words “structures” and “systemic” just to name a few. The point is that I learned and grew in my understanding of what was going on within the broader culture. I was not a static person. I was dynamic, able to shift my perspective based on new information and the search for truth. This sort of changing of mind seems to be what Basham desire to accomplish with this very book. Perhaps it is fair to be skeptical when someone says they change their mind, but Basham seems to hand wave JD Greear’s change of mind on the Bible whispering on sexuality and pronoun hospitality (pgs 225-227). I have vacillated on pronoun hospitality. This was not because I was compromised but because I was genuinely searching for the best way to minister to those non-activist people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It seems Basham understands this conflict when speaking on a person-to-person basis:

“This is not to say that when we meet a teenage girl suffering from Gender Dysphoria, we’re to launch harshly into the reasons we won’t use male terms to address her. But we shouldn’t, because of her presence, withhold the truth from our own people or from her” (pg. 230).

Perhaps Greear is not being honest about his realizations and repentance on such issues but that is not for us to decide. Publicly, at least, in these areas, regardless of how, he has repented and moved forward boldly to speak truth on these very issues. Basham does laud one individual for being dynamic. She praises Becket Cook (pg. 224) for pulling an endorsement of an affirming LGBTQ book by Greg Johnson (

Still Time to Care).

Perhaps Basham simply does not trust Greear or some others to be honest considering their change of hearts (to be sure, some of Greear’s responses seemed lacking). However, when we treat people’s words with a hermeneutic of suspicion, it can lead to dangerous places. 1 Corinthians 13 indicates our disposition should be to bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, and endure all things. I think this can extend to those that publicly change their minds.

Unorthodox Footnotes

One person that was supposedly misrepresented by Basham was Os Guinness, but Guinness ended up latently endorsing the book after accusations:

"Some will quibble over details, but no one should miss the powerful warning in this book. We face a gathering storm, as Winston Churchill warned a century ago, but this time the enemy is inside as well as outside the gates. Every convinced and unashamed Evangelical should read, ponder, and pray over this important book."—Os Guinness

Within the book itself there are small details. A broken footnote here or there, a missing footnote altogether (both on pg. 126) and some footnotes that seem not to prove Basham’s specific claims but could support her more general interpretation. These are smaller details, but they do matter to a degree. Footnotes should do more than support that we

could

interpret certain situations one way or another, they should prove specific claims.

Incorrect Criticisms

Finally, a few criticisms I find incorrect concerning the book. First, the criticism that Os Guinness was misrepresented on page 89. Guinness, according to Basham provided the above endorsement after the dispatch came out with an article critical of

Shepherds for Sale.

“Since he stepped down, Guinness, for his part, has carved out a very different position from that of Trinity Forum. During a recent podcast interview, he said that Christians who buy the line, oft peddled by

Christianity Today

and current Trinity Forum fellows, that to be faithful believers means “keeping their heads down” as the early Christians did under Rome are “dead wrong.” The Dispatch asked Guinness about these comments, “In an interview for this review, Guinness told me the precise words Basham quoted from him are indeed accurate, but taken out of context; he was not referring to either

Christianity Today

or the Trinity Forum. “That’s absolutely wrong,” he told me. “I was talking about evangelicals who were not voting. I was not talking about the Trinity Forum.”

Basham, for her part, explains the misreading in this tweet. However, one might point to the fact that the author of the

Dispatch article employed “assertion commentary” concerning that portion of Basham’s book

. Which goes to show, as I explained in my article on the Ortlund controversy, that we all tend to do this. In fact, as I wrote this review, I had to be sure I guarded against it as well. This is part and parcel of how we engage in ideas in the 2020s, some might call these compositional devices. But this clarification does go to show why such a strategy can be dangerous. We

could

, as Basham claims here, get the intent wrong.

A final critique I find unhelpful is that Basham only punches left and does not punch right. She touches, slightly, on why this might be the case concerning human sexuality.

“While theologically conservative churches might conversely say they would like to see every affirming (LGBTQ affirming) church embrace biblical standards on sexuality, gender, and marriage, they’re not training activists to infiltrate affirming denominations in order to transform them from within.” (pg. 210)

To Basham’s point, while there could (and possibly should) be concern about conservative organizations like

Turning Point USA

, and others like

The Daily Wire (of which Mrs. Basham is an employee)

, making political conservatism a mark of biblical faithfulness it is not necessarily a covert movement hiding behind obfuscated influence and big money. One book cannot be about all things. Basham’s thesis was about progressive drift and influence in the church, to criticize her for not attacking right wing political influence in the church is unfair.

Conclusion

At the end of her book Basham introduces the idea of Civil War being upon us. This is not to call people to literal arms but to wake people up from the apathetic stupor many “rank and file” seem to embrace. She says that we did not start the war, but open war is upon us whether we like it or not. Her book is a clarion call to faithful followers of Jesus to resist the influence and deception of what many term “Big Eva”. The question is, does she accomplish this end? In some ways she clearly does. Basham clearly demonstrates some nefarious influences and take overs of past influential institutions. She also brings to light specific names that seem to have been compromised by the zeitgeist of the day and it seems she is able to at least demonstrate how one is starting to see these effects trickle down to smaller platforms and within the pews/seats. In some ways she does not. The seeming inaccuracies of certain figures gives faux coverage for others. Some characters may have a legitimate gripe and others, like Andy Stanley, Phil Vischer and Russell Moore may use these examples as cover to discredit the book’s thesis in total. If I had space, I could write much more on why the book is helpful and explore more ways in which there are issues. In my opinion Basham stepped to the plate with an opportunity to hit a grand slam but in the end pulled a ground rule double. Still good but not what it could have been. Thus,

Shepherds For Sale

receives a solid 6.5 or 7 out of 10 here.