Does Megan Basham Misrepresent Gavin Ortlund In "Shepherds For Sale"?

The answer is a clear and obvious when you look at the quotes.

Did Megan Basham actually misrepresent Gavin Ortlund? You have Christian evangelicals on both sides. Alisa Childers, Frank Turek, Allie Beth Stuckey, and Natasha Crain all have had Megan on their shows to address Gavin’s claims. Meanwhile you have Neil Shenvi, Chris Date, Travis Dickinson all taking Gavin’s side. I’ve been following along pretty closely, and I wanted to write something that really hits on the main points that people are talking about.

After watching Gavin’s first video, reading Megan’s responses on X, reading the first part of Megan’s book, watching Gavin’s second response video, watching his Climate Change video (which I had seen before, as I do watch Gavin regularly), listening to her on Allie Beth Stuckey podcast, Natasha Crains podcast, watching Chris Date’s video on it, and then finally listening to Frank and Alisa’s live stream with Megan, I have come to the conclusion that Gavin was indeed misrepresented in the book, both in his words and his intentions.

Lets go through what Megan says in the book and compare that to what Gavin says in his original video.

“Ortlund finishes this portion of the video by saying he is not trying to be apocalyptic or a “doomsday person,” but it’s hard to imagine what he might have said differently if he were.”

Ortlund, in his video, clearly laid out what the consequences of climate change was. And if climate change is true, those consequences would be true. Yet, he dedicates 4+ minutes of the video advocating for why you shouldn’t despair. If you are pro life, you believe millions of babies are being murdered every year. Thats not you being a doomsday person, that’s you advocating for the real consequences that you believe are happening. Unlike Megan, I can imagine all the fear mongering Gavin could’ve put in his video if he was trying to do that. In fact I’ve seen that in the media a lot. If Gavin wanted to fear monger, he should’ve started with not spending 4+ minutes on arguing why Christians should not despair.

“He goes on to say that every “scientific body of national or international standing agrees that human-caused global warming is a serious problem.” To not accept that consensus, he says, is to buy into “conspiracy and hoax;” it is a failure to “take a responsible posture” as a Christian.”

Here is Ortlund’s actual quote:

“from 2007 on every other scientific body of national or international standing agrees that human-caused global warming is a serious problem so the the level of conspiracy and hoax it would be if somehow all of these different—. People think this, that scientists are all together. People have this distrust of science. Science is an inherently conservative process and these people are not all in cahoots with each other.”

Megan’s claim was that Gavin was saying that not accepting the consensus is to buy into a hoax. That is a very different claim then what Gavin is actually saying. Gavin is merely saying that not accepting the consensus entails the belief that scientists are in a conspiracy or as he later states “in cahoots”. It’s like the claim that Calvinism entails that God is morally responsible for evil. It’s not that non calvinists are accusing Calvinists of believing that, but they’re stating what they believe the view logically entails. This is what Gavin was doing.

“To not accept that consensus, he says…it is a failure to “take a responsible posture” as a Christian.”

Here is Ortlund’s actual quote:

“just the burden I have when people are dismissive towards this, if you’re gonna go against a near consensus in the scientific community don’t just shoot from the hip, you know, study it and make sure that that’s a wise thing to do. Because I see a lot of people reacting instinctively rather than really hitting the books and I don’t think that that’s a responsible posture for christians to take. Whatever conviction we come to we should come to it by thorough study among other things.”

I think this is the most obvious and blatant misrepresentation in Megans book. Within the larger context, it is painfully obvious that Gavin was saying that instinctively dismissing climate change, without research, is not a responsible posture. He was not saying that denying climate change consensus is irresponsible, as Megan was making him out to say.

This is why the next sentence Gavin clarifies that no matter what conviction you take, it should be done through study. If Gavin was trying to say you can’t be a responsible Christian and accept climate change, why would he say “Whatever conviction we come to”? Megan very clearly took Gavin out of the proper context here and moved his words around to make it seem like he was making a claim that he was not. At best she was taking notes on the video and missed the larger context, at worst she purposefully twisted Gavin’s words to make her point.

Gavin in the video is going through reasons why he believes Christians should care about general environmental issues, and climate change would fall into that. Why we should care about the environment at all is very different than why you should believe in climate change. Gavin never says that loving your neighbor means you must accept the prevailing climate change narrative.

For example, I would say Christians should care about politics, and Christians especially should care about politics, no matter what side you fall into. Thats no different than what Gavin is claiming with the environment.

Additionally, Gavin offers 3 different reasons why a Christian should care: 1) We have a mandate from God to steward the Earth 2) Love your neighbor 3) Basic Christian principles (Wisdom in planning the future, opposition to greed, etc). The direct quote is too long to put here, but it’s from 2:20-8:06 in his video. Saying Gavin offers “nothing more” is disingenuous to his original video, and again takes the quote out of context of Gavin’s original point.

“Perhaps if Moo wants the Church to offer a “distinctively Christian witness,” he and Ortlund could consider what words of calm assurance, rooted in a loving God and His stable creation, would mean to generations who are deeply worried about climate change.”

The problem with this particular statement from Megan is that Gavin does this in the video! Here’s a direct quote from Gavin’s video:

“Here’s what gives me hope, and why I say don’t despair, is what if there was a way, in the midst of all the polarization happening in our world and all the hatred and outrage, and the fundamentalism and the far left are just escalating upwards and upwards, what if we began to see this issue, as we go forward throughout the 21st century, as something that we can unite around? Because who doesn’t stand to benefit from a cleaner and more stable planet and environment? Anybody can get on board with that.”

Seems like Gavin has considered “words of calm assurance”. That’s why he dedicates 4+ minutes for why Christians shouldn’t despair. But again, as someone who is very pro life, I am worried about the millions of innocent children dying. And if I’m right, I should be. If climate change is a human caused problem, it is something we should be worried about. If we can put ourselves in someone else’s shoe for a moment, I think we can stop making them an enemy by misinterpreting their intentions, and instead see that they are genuinely concerned.

“Ortlund both began and ended his presentation by stressing (albeit in those same soothing tones) that Christians should discuss the issue respectfully and not attack one another. But however softly his words were uttered, it’s hard to square that with his insistence that those who hold views that differ from his can be doing so only because they are motivated by politics or haven’t “hit the books.”

Here is some of Ortlund’s actual quotes:

“I see a lot of people reacting instinctively rather than really hitting the books and i don’t think that that’s a responsible posture for christians to take. Whatever conviction we come to we should come to it by thorough study among other things.”

“I’m just 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 socio-political associations of the issue. I think that is a massive problem, and we’ve got to avoid that. If we are called to be people of truth, that means we shouldn’t make up our minds in advance on an issue. We should study the issue; we should read books about the issue. I’ll give some book recommendations at the end. Now, none of that all, you know, means absolutely someone has to have some opinion out of the gate. I’m just—all I’m trying to say here is at the beginning—is to make an appeal that there’s nothing that, in principle, should make us close-minded about this. On the contrary, our theology should make us eager to steward well over the environment, and I just want to make an appeal to my evangelical friends to give this issue an open mind.”

Gavin never insists that people holding other views are only motivated by politics or because they haven’t done the research. He’s talking about a very specific group of people, people who react instinctively and dismiss it with no good study or reasoning. Saying words like “a lot” or “many” are not universals. They aren’t even referring to most! If Gavin did mean that, he would’ve used those words. This is why he talks about being open minded and that no one has to have an opinion on it out of the gate.

I think when it comes to other issues, such as young earth vs old earth, Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Molinism, etc, this appeal to be open minded would also bode well for those conversations. But I wouldn’t interpret that as that person saying “if you hit the books then you’d come to my conclusion”.

“When I asked Beisner about Ortlund’s assertion that Christians resist engaging on climate change because they’ve been politicized, he minced few words: “The Christians who have become activists regarding that issue are almost invariably doing so because they’ve been politicized. I can almost guarantee you that Gavin Ortlund has never read any significant part of the scientific reports of the IPCC. He may have read press releases from it, he might possibly have read the summary for policymakers for the latest IPCC assessment report. But that would be about it.”

Megan, through Beisner’s quote, is essentially accusing Gavin of being politicized. Where is the evidence for that claim? Gavin did one video on climate change. One. Yet he’s now politicized? There’s no evidence to back this claim (presumably that is what was supposed to have been presented before this, but I’ve already shown why those quotes by Gavin were taken out of context). Additionally, he just throws it out there that he can “almost guarantee” Gavin hasn’t read the report. There is zero evidence of that.

In fact, Gavin, in his first response video, claims the opposite:

“False. Yes, I have. Back when I was in seminary, I went there. I’ve done like three or four rounds of study on this. I read through various sections of it at that time.”

Now to say that it was very clearly laid out as Beisner’s claim and not Megans claim is not true. She’s clearly quoting Beisner as a source, and as a source she agrees with. Additionally she could’ve just removed that last part of the quote to get to her point that Gavin has been politicized. So I don’t buy that response that it was just Beisner claiming that.

“Is he aware of how IPCC summaries are assembled and disseminated when he dismisses as conspiracy theorists fellow Christians who, he says, have failed to “hit the books”?”

She repeats this misrepresentation again. Again, Gavin never called people who denied climate change “conspiracy theorists” that “have failed to hit the books”. He never dismisses people who disagree. In fact, he encourages them to talk through it:

“If you have a different opinion about this, that’s fine. Let’s just argue about it respectfully rather than just attack each other.”

“These are complex topics. It is not wrong for pastors and Christian leaders to weigh them and debate them. But it is wrong for them to make agreement on environmental policies a test of biblical faithfulness. It is wrong to make climate change activism a measure of one’s commitment to the Gospel. And it is wrong to bind consciences with a blithe and unthinking “Love your neighbor.”

Now, Megan and others claims this paragraph is not about Gavin (she actually later confirms this by calling out Gavin on twitter using the same rhetoric). But as a reader, it would be really hard to not read Gavin into this paragraph along with the others mentioned in the chapter. First, she calls Gavin a pastor 3 separate times:

1) “California pastor Gavin Ortlund may not have reached the name recognition of Rick Warren…”

2) “Is an influential Gospel Coalition pastor like Gavin Ortlund aware of these scandals…”

3) “This is not to single out Ortlund, who is certainly not the only young pastor promoting climate change activism as a Christian practice”

How does she start her concluding paragraph? “It is not wrong for pastors and Christian leaders to weigh them and debate them.” Gavin fits that description, a pastor weighing in on the topic.

Second, when was the last time Megan mentioned “Love your neighbor” in the book? It was in reference to Gavin,

I’m glad she has come out and said this isn’t about Ortlund, but reading the book that is not clear at all, especially since Ortlund is fresh on the readers mind.

Now where does that lead us? Well, if it was one or two different misrepresentations, maybe it wouldn’t be as big of a deal (maybe). But given that I believe (and have shown) that she misrepresents him 9 different times, it is a major deal. Intentionally or unintentionally, that is bearing false witness against a brother. Regardless of her claims about him, or what she was actually trying to call him, or even if she got the “theme” of his video correct (she clearly did not), the misrepresentations and misquotes are enough that Megan should publicly apologize.

---

Now, I want to respond to some of the things Megan and others have said in her defense. Specifically I want to go through the live stream Frank, Alisa, and Megan had.

Megan says in the live stream,

“he was actually not an example of somebody who is for sale.”

This is true. Now, there is an argument on whether in the book she makes that clear, but I think it’s actually irrelevant. Again, even if that is true she misrepresents him numerous times. But additionally, in the book she claims,

“In order to harness the power of seminaries and high-profile leaders, their aim was to see that influence trickle down, and they hoped it would create sort of a grassroots impact. Gavin’s video, which comes very late in that chapter that I dissect for a few pages, was my example of how they have been successful at having that impact.”

If I was Gavin, I’d still be offended by this. She’s saying that Gavin has been influenced by these groups as opposed to just his own study. That seems pretty bold to assume, and I would be offended if someone claimed that about me. Even if you aren’t labeled as a “Shepherd For Sale”, to be in the book as an example is still offensive (especially if it’s based on a mischaracterization).

In the live stream, Megan continues,

“I have been a little shocked at how much attention it’s gotten because it is such a very tiny part of the book, and in some ways, whether on purpose or just coincidentally, it has been frustrating to watch such a minor figure, who I make no serious allegations about other than, ‘Hey, I want to disagree with this public content you created,’ that has completely stolen the focus off of people who I really do believe did some nefarious things.”

Megan did not just “want to disagree with this public content you created”. Her whole book is about the influence of “Big Eva”. It wasn’t just critiquing generally thought as “left” positions. It was going deeper than that. She in the book accuses Gavin of essentially being demeaning towards people who disagree with him. She accuses him of trying to bind peoples consciences by appealing to “love your neighbor”. Those call into question Gavins character. So yes, it is a serious allegation, even if compared to the rest of the book it’s minor.

Additionally, if you start getting small details wrong, footnotes wrong, quotes wrong, that is going to give me reason to doubt your work as a whole. It really hurts the credibility of the book overall. If she can’t be trusted to handle the small details why trust her to handle the larger ones? And this is coming from someone who would generally agree with her larger accusations.

In the live stream, Megan continues,

“I understand that he objects to me just taking a couple of phrases, but when you look at the totality of the video, I don’t know how you could come to any other conclusion. It really does not present any other possible conclusion you would reach. If you are hitting the books, the assumption is if you’re hitting the books and you’re doing the homework, then you will agree with the scientific consensus.”

She appeals to the “totality” of the video. I’ve seen many appeal to the “theme,” “gist,” and “tone”. I want to quote Travis Dickinson here because I think he really nails it,

“so far everyone that I’ve seen have had to say things like he doesn’t say this but it’s the “theme,” “gist,” “tone” (which tone REALLY doesn’t make sense but I have seen it), “he’s implying that,” “he’s suggesting that”, or “what he’s really saying is...” or “what he means by this is...” and then they end up saying the literal opposite of what he literally said. This, to me, is the very definition of lacking charity. Even if you REALLY disagree, we should be charitable and stick to what the person has said because, with the critical approach, it’s very likely that you’ll going to read into it something that’s not there.”

Megan continues,

But Gavin in his video says all of these things:

“I think part of how we can commend the gospel, those of us who are Christians, is by having conversations about issues where we may disagree and doing so in a respectful, charitable way because that is so counter-cultural right now.”

“I don’t have to be right, and I don’t have to be perfect, but I have to do my best to follow my convictions and not let the perceived consequences be the most important thing.”

“Whatever conviction we come to, we should come to it by thorough study, among other things.”

“Let’s talk about climate change more. That’s the only goal for this video. This video is not intended to resolve everything; it’s intended to encourage more attention on this topic.”

“One of my personal goals for my channel is, number one, to just never shy away from things out of the motive of fear; to address things in a tone that is respectful and non-angry and tries to create freedom and space for conversations to be had.”

“If you have a different opinion about this, that’s fine. Let’s just argue about it respectfully rather than just attack each other. Let me know what you think in the comments; tell me your opinion on this, and we’ll work at it together.”

All these quotes show that Gavin is open to conversation, to disagreement, to coming to a different conclusion. So not only does Megan just not have any evidence that shows Gavin was claiming or implying that Gavin assumes you will agree with him if you study, the quotes of his video say the exact opposite!

Now, if you want to say Gavin is wrong for presenting only one side of the climate change issue, namely, not giving resources or arguments against his view, then you’re going to have to say the same thing about Megans book. You’ll have to say the same about Frank and Alisa’s live stream, where they only give Megans point of view. You’ll also have to say that about many apologetics YouTube videos only giving Christian arguments. So, if its not wrong to only present one side in a 35 minute YouTube video, and you make comments explicitly saying people can come to different conclusions and you just want to have a discussion on it, I don’t see whats wrong with Gavins video.

In conclusion, I think based off the full context of Gavin’s video, it is undeniably clear that Megan misrepresented him. I don’t like assuming peoples intentions, and I’d like to assume the best intentions of Megan. But the blatant misrepresentations, paired with a doubling and tripling down of these obvious errors, causes me to doubt them. I hope some day Megan does apologize to Gavin, and they can end the hostilities between them, since they both do good work.