The recent book, Shepherds for Sale, by Megan Basham has stirred up quite a conversation and controversy in the conservative evangelical world. The book claims to expose the infiltration of progressivism in the church by the deliberate strategy of secular anti-Christian elites and organizations, including billionaires, foundations, think tanks, and high-up government officials. The book mentioned many names and criticized high-profile Christian leaders, such as Tim Keller, Russel Moore, Francis Collins, J D Greear, Gavin Ortlund. There is hardly any other recent book sweeping so wide a landscape in the conservative evangelical circle. And there is hardly any other recent book receiving so many praises and yet also so such condemnation among the theological conservatives. In consequence of that, we are witnessing another moment of “evangelicalism divided” after the 1920s[1] in the US and the 1960s in the UK[2].
The publisher highlighted two endorsements: one by John MacArthur (“This may just be the single most important book on modern Evangelicalism in recent years. It is bold, clear, and very well-researched.”), and the other by Os Guinness (“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.”). In the X-sphere, the recommendations are countless, and most names are familiar to those who in the past years have paid attention to the issues discussed in the book, such as climate change, critical race theory, abortion, Me-too movement, etc.
The credibility of the book and the author has been fiercely attacked by many. Surprisingly, the most vocal critic came from one minor figure in the book (Gavin Ortlund). The bigger names featured have not addressed the book directly (Keller deceased), and they are defended largely by friends and associates. Megan’s thesis is that the leaders she criticized are under the influence of left-wing secular ideology, and through their preaching and articles, they knowingly or unknowingly help to promote anti-Christian secular agendas in the church, which is exactly what those secular elites would like to achieve. Megan traced the money flow and assessed the views promoted by such Christian leaders.
The backlash against the book was similar to what happened after the Strange Fire Conference hosted by Grace Community Church under John MacArthur in 2013 (a book with the same title published afterwards). The charge was that too wide a stroke was brushed in the presentation, and not all the persons criticized should be categorized as “shepherds for sale”. Indeed, error always has a spectrum, and not all those who have erred err to the same degree or in the same context. But all those who have erred are on the same trajectory, and both this book and the Strange Fire are focusing on the erroneous ideology/theology, which should be the concern of every Christian. Anyone holding or promoting erroneous ideology/theology must be criticized for his error and held responsible. For those who have an obsession of “nuance”, please read the Bible and you will find biblical authors, especially our Lord, may be accused under the same standard. Shifting the discussion from the substance of the book to the manner of presentation is evading, if not escaping.
“Nuance” has become a buzzword for the progressives in the church, who are horrified by the lack of “nuance” from the “fundamentalists”. They want nuances on issues like homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion, etc., therefore, Christians should not be harsh or judgmental towards those affirming such sins. Some radicals even say the Bible “whispers” on issues mentioned above. Others say these are not gospel issues, so Christians should have “freedom” to disagree. What is alarming is that these leaders are not willing to take a firm stand against homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion. They are not willing to simply say yes or no. They want “nuances”. These are the weak leaders in the church, either appeasing the pagans or intimidated by the pagans. Image ten or twenty years ago, would they have asked for nuances when addressing transgenderism? No. But why now? Because pagans have embraced it, not because these leaders have found nuances in the Bible.
The two tactics they employ are common in the previous liberalization of the church (I am not saying all of them are liberals, but they are promoting liberal ideas in one way or another): treating an issue as non-gospel, and advocating an error as a means of evangelism. They would argue that homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are not gospel issues, and non-gospel issues should not divide Christians. They even argue that these are political issues, and Christians should not get entangled in the politics. The naivety of progressive thinking needs no more evidence than these.
First, the Christian gospel is never a few words summarizing a few key doctrines. The Christian gospel is the pinnacle of God’s revelation to man, and is supported by the totality of God’s Word explaining God and the created world under God. There is no gospel left if the underlying authority and content of God’s Word are taken away. On the surface, homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are not gospel issues, but that is not because they are not important, nor God whispers, but because they are more fundamental than the gospel, since they are against the fundamental order God ordains for man. If someone denies the authority of God over human sexuality and sanctity of human life, how would he accept the authority of God over sin and salvation? If one denies the clarity of God’s Word in addressing human sexuality and sanctity of human life, how would he accept the clarity of God’s Word in addressing sin and salvation? Is it not that the latter is more complicated than the former? The same argument was presented by the liberals one century ago. They were saying that Creation was not a gospel issue, so a Christian can deny God’s Creation and still hold the gospel. Really? No! If you deny God is Creator of all, how would you or why would you accept God as Savior?
That homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion are purely political issues (thus Christians should abstain or be neutral) is another shocking statement. Political issues? These are clearly biblical-moral issues, sin-issues. They appear in the political discourse only because some politicians are promoting sins and immorality, and are coercing Christians to conform to their policies. Christians are forced into it, not voluntarily. Think about the NT church under Rome: was worshipping Jesus a purely political issue just because Rome outlawed Christianity? Were Christians being obsessed with politics if they refused to conform to this prohibition? Were they rebels? Were they violating Romans 13? Again, it is naïve to think a biblical-moral issue is simply a political one when it is politicized by pagans.
Second, undermining truth for the sake of evangelism is also an old trick. The revivalism had experimented it centuries ago, and failed miserably. Today some argue that the church shall not address homosexuality, transgenderism, and abortion, in order not to push some people away. If we avoid talking about them, these people may find us friendly and come to our church to hear the gospel, after which we can talk about their sins. Some even boast the success of this tactic. This is the grandson of revivalism and the son of the seeker-sensitive movement. The only difference is that now it came to the theologically conservative churches (mostly reformed in name, small r). But the mentality is always prevalent in the church. To avoid addressing sin will facilitate evangelism by making the church more inviting and engaging. Can you not talk to a murder his sin while talking about God, sin, judgment, and grace of Christ? Can you avoid sin when preaching the gospel? Some of these leaders may not deny the necessity of convicting sin on paper, but they deny it in practice (and make it a strategy).
But there are more in the deep under the phenomenon documented in this book. That is, the lack of a robust Christian worldview. The error of these theologically conservative leaders is rooted in their lame worldview weakened by pagan ideology. Their theological conservatives only stay in a narrow band of theological presentations. Concerning how the biblical truth defines the totality of Christian worldview, they are too close/friendly to pagan, lacking Christian distinction. They place a high trust on the pagan mind/heart, the “consensus” of the scientific/political community. For example, most of them adhere to a theistic evolutionism and/or a local flood, because they will not question the “solid consensus” of science on the age of earth and the evolution of species. Recent issues include climate change, COVID vaccines, governmental controlled poor-relief, etc. They never question the pagan views because they do not think there is anything questionable. Why? They do not think the sin of unbelievers would affect their work in science, medicine, or politics, even after plenty of evidence shows the opposite (from pagans themselves).
The greatest success of pagan ideology against Christians is the blind trust of some Christians towards pagans in the name of science, medicine, reason, and compassion. Many Christians are not equipped to think biblically and critically on any of these issues. I do not think most of the leaders mentioned are motivated by greed, possibly some by vainglory, but the most important is the blind trust towards the unregenerate scientist, politicians, social workers, psychologists, etc. These shepherds may not be for sale; but they are so blinded that they do not recognize that they are being used. That is why they think they are on a mission, a God-given mission to enlighten the confused Christians.
They are tamed by the pagans through education and media. This lack of critical thinking against pagans is the most dangerous sign in the church today. Too many have been used to talk about feelings not facts, about presentations not substances. They have not given up reason, but under the information ambush of the secular ideology, they have little choice but the accept. For example, what is caring for the poor? Some Christians think the best if not the ultimate solution is the redistribution of wealth through government; what is loving the addicts and criminals? Maximize goodwill and minimize punishment. The churches have told Christians that these are social issues and Christians shall not take a stand. But the Christian worldview has no blind spot. Christians are to think by a distinctly Christian principle on all issues, in the church or outside. The unregenerate will err, and often err catastrophically and self-righteously, as Thomas Sowell has elegantly discussed in multiple books.
The church and Christian education have left huge voids in the Christian worldview, and now secular ideologies enter through the voids, whether it is social, political, educational, recreational, or whatever issue. If you are not thinking after God, you are thinking after the world and you err.
[1] As experienced by Machen.
[2] As documented by Iain Murray’s book with this title.
