Shepherds, Basham and the Truth about Those ERLC Donations

You may have heard that The Daily Wire's Megan Basham is out with a new book, called "Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda."

Catchy title, for sure. However, the initial excitement about Basham's book has been quickly marred by the multiple Christian leaders who have been revealing problems in it, from incorrect or inadequate citations to outright misrepresentations and factual errors.

I've only just begun to read the book on Kindle. But already, I've found some additional problems with it, specifically inadequate and inaccurate reporting on donations to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. I found the errors after doing a book search inspired by new information that the ERLC just posted online about its funding. I wanted to see if Basham got the numbers right (and rest assured, I will continue to fact-check the book as I read further).  

Before I launch into the specific errors, though, I think it's important to state three personal facts that account for my interest in this book and the criticism that has arisen since its release.

First, during my 12 years as a Christian radio host, I reported in real time on many of the same people and events Basham covers in her book, including the ERLC, so the subject interests me. Second, I am both a biblical and political conservative who has long been concerned about the leftward drift and/or outright acceleration into progressivism in the evangelical world, so she and I share that same concern, as well.

Lastly, I began my career as a newspaper journalist: I was a reporter, a copy editor, a religion columnist, then an editor charged with guiding and thoroughly editing the work of multiple reporters every day. I can't shake my training or conviction that journalism must be done properly -- nor do I want to.

Let me also stress that my journalistic concerns here are unrelated to my personal feelings about problems, old or new, within the ERLC or among its leaders. And my concerns also have nothing to do with who I think should or who should not be donating to the ERLC, so anyone who might want to malign me as some kind of "turncoat lib" for insisting on fair and factual reporting standards would be lying (you Internet trolls know who you are). I am still as much a conservative as ever. I just concurrently believe in the absolute importance of truthful, thorough, fair, factual and ethical reporting, especially when you are trying to convince people that other people are worthy of exposure for misdeeds.

What did Basham get wrong in her reporting about ERLC donations?

Beginning on p. xx of her introduction to the book, Basham references the fact that eBay founder Pierre Omidyar donated to the ERLC through a private foundation called Democracy Fund:

" ... In 2018, another billionaire, eBay founder and longtime Democratic donor Pierre Omidyar, a Buddhist, dipped a toe into the evangelical influence game. His foundation made the first of several $50,000 grants to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the legislative lobbying arm of the nation's largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. This contribution's stated purpose was to help combat America's alleged white supremacy problem."

To prove her claims, Basham cited ProPublica filings referencing the Democracy Fund's donations and a Democracy Fund article that offers this description of the ERLC as one of the recipients of its "multiple grants:"

"The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention hosted “MLK50 Conference”, a conference focused on racial healing and unity in Memphis, Tennessee, on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. We are supporting ERLC’s efforts to turn the energy from the conference into long-term action. We believe that faith leaders can play an important role in combating the white supremacist Alt-Right movement, white supremacy more broadly, and other forms of extremism."

That "white supremacy" reference is worth comment, but I'll come back to that in a minute.

First, we need to note that when Basham writes that the Democracy Fund gave the ERLC "several $50,000 grants," the word "several" actually means "more than two." In fact, not only did the Democracy Fund not give "several" grants to the ERLC, one of its (just) two $50,000 grants actually was returned to the organization -- a fact that Basham never mentions.

However, the ERLC mentioned it in its new FAQ website section, under "Financials," answering the question, "Did the ERLC receive a grant from The Democracy Fund?"

"The Democracy Fund provided a grant in 2018 for a project focused on racial reconciliation, an issue which has been an ERLC assigned ministry area for decades. The first grant from Democracy Fund ($50,000 received May 30, 2018) was used to fund a private convening of national leaders during the MLK50 Conference in April 2018 and to produce a church curriculum 'The Church and the Racial Divide: Finding Unity in the Race-Transcending Gospel' written by a Southern Baptist pastor and published by LifeWay Christian Resources. The grant also helped produce digital video resources on similar topics. A second grant of $50,000 was received on December 23, 2019, but was returned in December 2021, when it had not been utilized."

So not only did the ERLC not receive "several" (i.e., more than two) $50,000 grants from the Democracy Fund, but after it returned half the money it was granted, it ended up only receiving $50,000, period.

Why didn't Basham report the returned donation in her book, instead of reporting that the donation number was still $100,000? How many interviews did she do -- or attempt to do -- with anyone from the ERLC staff or one of its more than 30 trustees, for that matter, which could have revealed this vital piece of information? It's hard to know (especially since she's blocked me online), but the fact is that no one from the ERLC is quoted.

And it's not the first time Basham got that number wrong. She also got it wrong in a speech she delivered in June, before her book was released, at the "SBC at a Crossroads" event that took place during the 2024 SBC Annual Meeting. Here's the relevant excerpt of what she said from a transcript posted at the Founders website:

"In 2018, when the Democracy Fund was looking for evangelical leaders to help foster more 'constructive politics' in the U.S., it, too, turned to the ERLC. The purpose of the $100,000 grant it gave them was to pursue 'long-term action' against America’s alleged white supremacy problem. The ERLC took it for granted that the Southern Baptists it is supposed to represent would agree that one of America’s most pressing problems is white supremacy."

There's that $100,000 mistake again. But even more baffling is a contradictory claim Basham makes elsewhere in her book about the amount of Omidyar's contributions to the ERLC.

On p. 88, she reports a different wrong donation amount: "The Southern Baptists' legislative lobbying arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is a fellow beneficiary of (Democracy Fund founder) Omidyar's largesse, to the tune of some $150,000."

How does $150,000 square with her previous (and erroneous) claim on p. xx that Omidyar gave the ERLC $100,000? Is she just running with the "several $50,000 grants" summary from earlier in the book, under the assumption that there were three grants? Or is she reporting that she somehow found new evidence of an extra $50,000?

It's hard to tell, since she throws out the $150,000 number without any citation at all. In other words, the reader cannot know where she's getting that number, because she asserts it without any endnote to back it up. Consequently, no one can check her source for accuracy. At least now we have the ERLC stating on its website exactly how much money it took from the Democracy Fund: $100,000 - $50,000 = $50,000. But we didn't get that number from Basham's book.

There is also a problem with her narrative about the "purpose of the (Democracy Fund) grant."

To recap, the ERLC stated that the $50,000 Democracy Fund grant was spent on an MLK50 leaders gathering, a church curriculum and video resources, Basham, however, makes no reference to any of that.

Instead, she cites on p. xx only the Democracy Fund's stated motivation for investing in the ERLC -- "this contribution's stated purpose was to help combat America's alleged white supremacy problem" - and leaves out that the funds actually were spent on a few one-time purposes that weren't nearly as sensational as Basham might lead readers to believe.

Worse, Basham said in her speech -- in remarks similar to those in her book -- this line: "The ERLC took it for granted that the Southern Baptists it is supposed to represent would agree that one of America’s most pressing problems is white supremacy."

In that case, she wasn't just quoting the Democracy Fund's own words; she was putting words into and magically extrapolating motivation from the brains of the ERLC leaders from afar -- without presenting any evidence that anyone from the ERLC ever "took for granted" anything of the sort.

Is this not begging the question? How would she know if anyone at the ERLC took anything for granted concerning the Democracy Fund donation if she never bothered to interview anyone over there who weighed in on the subject? (For those who want to know, there's also a section in the ERLC FAQ that addresses the issue of how it accepts donations from outside organizations.)

To be fair, there's nothing wrong with Basham including what the Democracy Fund hoped would come of the grant in the long run, nor is it wrong to report that a far-left organization gave money to a Southern Baptist entity. Southern Baptists deserve to know those things and can and should address their concerns about them with ERLC and SBC leaders, as they feel led.

But for Basham to leave out the more-mundane reality of where the Democracy Fund money actually went is simply not fair or balanced or comprehensive reporting. Again, why was Basham unwilling or unable to obtain interviews with any ERLC employees who could have given her the complete and accurate picture of the grant transaction and the actual purpose of it? Failing to include that vital information is simply bad reporting.

But there's more. Basham also failed to report accurate information on two other ERLC donations, which she references on p. 88 of her book.

There, she writes, "The Fetzer Foundation (sic), likewise, has gifted the ERLC $220,000. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg was good for another $90,000 -- and all this between 2018 and 2021 alone."

Is this true? Not according to what the ERLC just stated in its latest FAQ. Here's what it reported about The Fetzer Institute donation it received: "A grant was secured in 2018 from The Fetzer Institute for a project focused on courage, civility, and healthy democracy, a priority underscored in the 2011 SBC Resolution, 'On Civil Public Discourse.' The grant was for a total of $305,000 and was used to fund several specific projects."

So according to the ERLC, the Fetzer donation amount wasn't $220,000, as Basham reported, but $305,000. Why the $85,000 discrepancy? Where did she come up with the $220,000 number? Readers are left guessing on that question, because she includes no citation alongside that number to show her documented source for the figure, nor does she quote anyone from the ERLC saying that was the donation amount.

And what about that $90,000 ERLC donation that Basham states Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg "was good for?" Basham got that figure right: the ERLC did receive a $90,000 grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. According to the ERLC, it submitted a grant proposal in 2019 to the initiative for the State Level Criminal Justice Reform Project, stating:

"The proposal was accepted, and a $90,000 grant was received on March 24, 2020. From Feb. 1, 2020, until June 30, 2020, the ERLC worked with various Southern Baptist state conventions and pastors and leaders to lay groundwork for state level policy work, especially criminal justice reform based on the Trump administration’s federal legislation. The funds from this grant were used exclusively for the personnel costs of the project for the five months it was active."

All fine, except ... then comes another, familiar plot twist in the ERLC's statement:

"Due to COVID restrictions, the project ended prior to completion and the balance of the funds ($59,684.71) was returned to the organization on Feb. 24, 2022." 

Another grant returned! That means that, again, the donation initially given to the ERLC was not the same amount that the ERLC retained and used. The upshot is that, according to the ERLC, it only spent $30,315.29 of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative's grant, while the rest went right back where it came from -- another fact that Basham doesn't report in her book.

But even that $30,315.29 wouldn't necessarily be right, if you're intent on tracking "Zuckerberg money," because the ERLC states that Facebook, Inc. also gave the entity a $50,000 donation in October 2020 for its "work in the emerging fields of technology ethics" -- another fact that Basham doesn't include in her book. Per its FAQ:

"Following the organization’s work on AI ethics, the Digital Public Square research project was launched by our team as a way to engage the ongoing challenges to free speech and religious freedom in our digital world. The grant came alongside the trustee-approved research project to provide additional resources for the research team, including books, journals, research material, and travel costs, as well as help support the design and production costs associated with the project landing page at erlc.com, the WeeklyTech Newsletter, and WeeklyTech/The Digital Public Square podcast (2020-2024). The remaining balance of this grant will help underwrite a research gathering .."

What's odd in this case is that the Facebook grant has been public knowledge for three years, so there was no reason not to include it in the book. This 2021 Baptist Press story discussed the Facebook grant:

"The (Digital Public Square) project is funded by the Cooperative Program, the SBC’s unified giving plan, but Facebook Technologies LLC also provided a research grant after the effort was under way. (Jason Thacker, chair of research in technology ethics,) provided assurances to the trustees and on the project’s website – www.erlc.com/digital – regarding the ERLC’s independence in accepting the grant."

Thacker added that the Facebook grant "was provided on an unrestricted basis, meaning the grant monies will be used at [the] sole discretion of the ERLC leadership team and board of trustees without any direct or indirect oversight by Facebook in research efforts nor any influence on project outcomes or resources produced."

I ask once more: Why didn't Basham report this? Did she ever contact Thacker to interview him about this additional grant?                                           

Admittedly, these ERLC donations are just a small slice of what Basham covers in her book, but since I already knew she'd misreported on the Democracy Fund donation, I was curious to see how closely her book mirrored the information in the new ERLC FAQ. As you can see, it wasn't a mirror image.

Keep in mind that I am also far from the only person with concerns about the quality, truthfulness and fairness of Basham's reporting in "Shepherds for Sale."

Pastor Gavin Ortlund has made two YouTube videos, outlining how Basham misrepresented him in her book.

VeggieTales creator Phil Vischer reported online that he was misrepresented, as well. Others have chimed in with screenshots of citation inaccuracies or even claims of outright errors, with "celibate gay Christian" Wesley Hill posting a screenshot of Basham claiming in the book that he and Revoice founder Nate Collins "graduated from a PCA seminary," when neither did.

But perhaps the most damaging criticism thus far came from Warren Cole Smith, president of MinistryWatch and former vice president and associate publisher of WORLD News Group, publisher of WORLD magazine. Far from a distant critic of Basham, Smith notes, "I recommended her to WORLD magazine, where she subsequently spent 10 years as a movie reviewer and culture editor."

And his critique was blistering:
 
"In order to arrive as close to the truth as possible, one of an opinion journalist’s most basic duties is to understand and convey the perspectives of people with whom he or she disagrees. Basham fails to do this in her book—and that leads her to get a whole host of basic facts wrong. It’s worth asking: If we can’t trust her with the basic facts, why should we trust her with the interpretation of these facts? None of the people I spoke with who were mentioned in the book (nearly a dozen for this article) had been contacted either by Basham or by fact checkers from HarperCollins or its imprint Broadside Books, the book’s publisher. Such fact checking is a common practice to avoid legal liability, but it’s particularly puzzling considering several of the people Basham criticizes have themselves published books with HarperCollins or its subsidiaries."

Smith goes on to note other errors in "Shepherds for Sale," with noted theologian and author Os Guinness asserting that Basham took one of his quotes out of context.

Not only that, but Smith shares an anecdote about Basham's false characterization of noted journalist Marvin Olasky, her former boss at WORLD, and her apparent violation of an off-the-record understanding, something quite sacrosanct in journalism. Smith wrote that Basham "grossly misrepresent(ed) Olasky’s position on the life issue, his approach to journalism, and his approach to editorial meetings, which, in addition to being off-the-record (a fact Basham ignored), he often viewed as teaching opportunities."

What was Olasky's reaction to what Basham said about him? He told Smith: "Megan is inaccurate if she’s saying I wanted to turn away from a pro-life position."

But perhaps worst of all for Basham was Olasky's later commentary on X about Smith's article and Basham's book -- ending with a stinger made more even sharp because Olasky knows both journalism and his former employee.

"Good, fact-based analysis by Warren. Others have also noted her many errors. The section about me has no footnotes or quotations, and seems to rely on hazy memories of an event five years ago. I'd rather remember Megan as a good movie reviewer than a bad reporter."

And there's the rub. Many people would say it doesn't matter that this book has errors, because the point is that “we must own the Left!” Actually, multiple instances of errors in a book purporting to make a case against the Left is a really great way not to own the Left. No investigation into a movement can remain credible if the reporter's work is inaccurate in the details, even here and there. Whether you’re talking citation problems, inaccuracies, errors, plagiarism or embellishments — all of those things add up to a journalistic fail, regardless of intent, regardless of a “broader point.” Just ask Jayson Blair.

And when your former boss -- with a long track record of journalistic excellence and achievement -- calls you out as a "bad reporter," it really doesn't matter what any of your journalistically ignorant fans say. You have to report factually, in context, with proper sourcing and interviews, with everything you write put in an ethical and fair way, and you have to do it all the way through whatever you write if your book is to have any credibility or impact at all.

Basham describes herself online as "Journalist Megan Basham" and "Keeper of Receipts." Given the importance of her book's thesis, would that it were so. It's just an insult to Basham's readers that so much of what's been fact-checked thus far in "Shepherds for Sale" fails to embody her lofty self-descriptions.