A Response to Other Responses
INTRODUCTION
Much fanfare and spectacle has swept through the evangelical world due to Megan Basham’s new book Shepherds for Sale. Fault lines have once again emerged and scores of onlookers have streamed behind their preferred battlements, some to defend the book and others to decry its illegitimacy. As polemical books are wont to do, this book has brought submerged conflict out into the open (S/O Joe Rigney), and now it’s up to us to wisely and appropriately navigate the new terrain.
I do not intend to write a review of the book, as many others have taken up that task elsewhere, but I do intend to make some general comments on the Shepherds for Sale phenomenon and interact with a few of the active players and ideas floating around.
FOR STARTERS: HOW TO APPLY PROVERBS 18:17
To begin with, we should be slow to judgment until all the dust settles. Moments like these make Proverbs 18:17 all the more relevant and important. In this case, I can see the process unfolding like this:
First, Megan Basham provides her initial journalism and the merits of her analysis are weighed in the balance (the shock value of the book causes many people to rush to judgment and join a camp or tribe). The first person states her case. Then, those named in the book are given an opportunity to defend themselves, and we should give them a fair hearing. The other person comes and examines her. (At this point, the critics of the book might want to circle the wagons and raise their glasses in victory as though the matter is settled). However, I would argue that our application of Proverbs 18:17 isn’t complete yet. It isn’t just an open-and-shut case with the second person’s word trumping the first person’s word. It’s more like opposing forces coming to an equilibrium with the equilibrium not being a consensus or third-way between both voices, but the truth. In this way, each voice needs examining until the truth comes more clearly into focus. (E.g., consider the initial treatment of JD Greear in the book, JD Greear’s response to the book, and then Megan Basham’s response to JD Greear’s response).
With that being said, it should also be noted that a large majority of Megan’s journalism is not being disputed at all—she is certainly over the target.
THE (MIS?)REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS
Some have responded to Megan’s book by pointing out that the people she names in her book would not always agree with her representation of them, which is not something we should take lightly. As Christians, it is our duty to charitably represent the views of others in ways that they both recognize and claim as their own—this is what the 9th Commandment would require of us. So far so good. But, what happens when the weight of evidence stacked up against someone is in conflict with their own perception of their views? This introduces a new difficulty into an already difficult situation. This can’t simply be shrugged off as “thinking your enemies are as bad as possible,” wishing “black to be blacker,” or hoping for their misfortune as C.S. Lewis warns against. It requires sober-minded clarity to look things straight in the eye. I’m not saying that creating a category for this dynamic automatically leads to a guilty verdict for those in question. However, when the evidence is substantial and conclusive, it is not a time for damage control; it is time to take responsibility for where you went wrong and to humbly repent. You might be surprised at how many who are sympathetic to Basham’s work would be eager to grant forgiveness were this to happen (myself included).
WHAT ABOUT NEIL SHENVI?
In Neil Shenvi’s review of Shepherds for Sale he writes, “Basham believes that a misrepresentation of one clip calls into question the framing of all the others. Unfortunately, after finding multiple misrepresentations in Basham’s work, I reached a similar conclusion: she is an unreliable interpreter. While many of her claims may be true, I can’t assume that any quotation I find in her book has been represented accurately.”
He writes this after documenting what he believes to be four blatant examples of misrepresentation related to Karen Swallow Prior, Todd Benkert, JD Greear, and Tim Keller. Briefly, I’ll address three of those examples (because Greear has been responded to elsewhere).
First, Shenvi calls Basham’s comments related to Prior untrue, but then he also seems to agree that her views were somewhat ambiguous when he interacted with Bethel McGrew here. While Prior herself denies what Basham alleges, perhaps the situation reflects a difference of opinion related to how her words were logically working rather than a blatant untruth.
Second, related to Todd Benkert, Neil believes that the response he received from the task force chairman, Marshall Blalock, completely clears the air related to Todd’s departure from the ARITF. But as anyone working within an institution knows, what is communicated publicly doesn’t always represent the full story of what goes on behind the scenes (e.g., do you remember when Kimberly Cheatle “resigned”?). While it does provide an alternative view to what Megan provided, it hardly settles the matter on whether or not Megan’s claim was misrepresentation.
Lastly, Shenvi claims that “Basham’s characterization of Keller is incorrect on multiple levels.” While I do think it is fair for Neil to be concerned about the accuracy and completeness of the citations in the book, sometimes it comes across as pedantic when the larger context seems to support Megan’s claims. For example, Robert A.J. Gagnon compellingly defends Megan’s comments related to Keller’s seeming contempt for Trump voters. One can agree with Neil that Keller never explicitly claimed to be Never Trump while still disagreeing with him (and Keller) on how Keller’s words landed on Trump supporters.
In the end, the verdict remains open regarding each of the examples that, Neil claims, prove Basham’s untrustworthiness. It seems illegitimate to conclude that she is an unreliable interpreter based on what he presented. There are other things that could be said about Neil’s review and tactics, but we can leave that for another time.
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY & LEFTWARD DRIFT
Most importantly, what those examples illustrate is the concept of plausible deniability and how it can function in subtle ways to protect those at the top. It goes like this: People with considerable influence can make statements that appear to carry certain implications with them (consider Gavin Ortlund’s initial video on climate change), but then, when they are called out on their claims (like many were in Shepherds for Sale), they can deny that they were intending for people to draw any conclusions from their statements.
As Timon Cline pointed out though, “We evaluate rhetoric not simply on the literal words in abstract, but the other implicit aspects of good communication.” In other words, we understand things based on the context from which they originate. The actions and words of leaders and other figures in the last decade did not come to us in a vacuum, so they should not be received or interpreted as though they did.
Further, many want to maintain their conservative bona fides even though their views are no longer conservative nor do they represent the rank-and-file conservative in their audience. If nothing less, Megan’s book made it a lot more difficult for those people to fly under the radar as conservatives. Those people may not like that it happened, but it seems disingenuous to shoot the messenger when she isn’t the one making the compromises.
And while we are on the topic, it should be noted how many of the above-the-fray, pietistic types will try to dismiss Basham’s book by calling it too political or partisan. However, we should ask: why is it only political when the right calls out what is happening? Is it not equally political, if not more so, to let leftward agendas influence our teaching and institutions? There may have been a time when it was easier to escape the realm of politics, but that is virtually impossible now. And we shouldn’t simply be asking if certain ideas are left-wing or right-wing, we should be asking how those ideas map onto a biblical worldview. The goal is not to play the middle, the goal is to be biblical, even if that doesn’t fit neatly into the prevailing Overton Window.
CONCLUSION
Megan’s book has caused quite a stir, and rightly so. I do worry that the concerted effort to discredit the book will distract people from dealing with the significant substance of Basham’s case. It is fair to withhold judgment until the dust settles and the truth outs, but once it does, we should follow where it leads.
Certainly, the goal of such a book is not to cancel or anathematize those who have been caught up in the liberal drift, but to call those who have wandered back. For those who see their error and repent there is certainly hope “that times of refreshing may come” (Act 3:20).