The Basham Believers: No Evidence? No Ethics? No Problem!

I've had secondhand embarrassment for people before, but nothing like the kind I feel right now for what I'll call the "Basham Believers" -- those for whom Megan Basham's book, "Shepherds for Sale," is treated almost like a sacred text that they must follow and defend with sheer blind faith.

It's truly unbelievable to watch. No matter how many errors and misrepresentations Basham is proven to have made, no matter how many citations she gets wrong, no matter how off the mark she is on actually proving her central thesis and no matter how nonexistent her journalistic ethics, the Believers keep on Believing that the mountain of accumulated evidence against her just makes their Daily Wire heroine a Super-Size combo of a Christian Carl Bernstein and Leftist-Busting Luther for today's church.

So dedicated are these Believers that some who were most behind me when I exposed Mark Driscoll's plagiarism in 2013 have managed to ignore completely my evidence on X that shows Basham's book contains lifted and rephrased passages from Wikipedia, complete with two of Wikipedia's same footnotes, and one of them doesn't even prove the claim she was making. Doesn't matter, they're thinking. Because ... we Believe!

This is why I was glad to see Kevin D. Williamson, a journalist and former longtime columnist at National Review, write what I consider to be an appropriately scathing review of Basham's book. I particularly liked his main title: "Bearing False Witness: Megan Basham's 'Shepherds for Sale' is Not a Smart Book." It's the best headline yet for an anti-"Shepherds" review. And boy, does he rightly take her to task.

"Reviewing a book like this is like trying to argue with an avalanche — an avalanche of stupidity and error, to be sure, but an avalanche all the same," Williamson writes. " ... The author can make enough errors in a dozen words that the critic needs 400 words to correct them. And so one ends up writing an annotated companion to a work that was not worth reading in the first place, much less annotating."

Amen to that. In digging through the book on my own, that's exactly how I've felt. There are so many errors, of so many kinds, on so many fronts, and it would take so long to explain why they were wrong, from so many angles, that I had to give up in exhaustion. It's just too much work, and none of the Basham Believers are swayed by silly things like facts, anyway.

But the "Bearing False Witness" angle desperately needs to be addressed. How is it that self-described conservative Christians have reached the point of total apathy over a "Christian" book that repeatedly and obviously bears false witness? And why are they so pack-like in ferociously attacking even the few conservative Christians who recognize that it is, in fact, sinful to jettison truth, ethics and logic just to "own the Left?"

As R.C. Sproul quipped in the popular meme: “What is wrong with you people?!”

I honestly don't know, but let's tackle the logic problem first, because this is where the intellectual dishonesty of the Believers is so crystal clear. It's also not a surprise that Basham -- known not just for her inept reporting, but for her strident, ceaseless self-defense techniques online -- has a problem with logic herself.

For instance, she posted this on X after Williamson's article appeared online:

"There is a certain class of conservative writer for whom their highest aspiration is to be viewed as intellectually sophisticated. The greatest condemnation they can imagine is to sneeringly call someone 'not smart' (or some acerbically inventive variation thereof). Thankfully, I have never had a background that would even allow me to pretend to be among this class. I do not aspire to admiration for my mental acuity. I aspire to truth and wisdom."

First of all, who responds to a brutal review about her journalistic incompetence by doubling down on not being fit to run among the intellectually sophisticated or the mentally keen -- and expressing pride over it?

Worse, Basham commits two flagrant logical fallacies in the process of hailing herself for rising above the need to be smart: an Ad Hominem (dismissing the opinion of people who value "smart" books just because they are "a certain class of conservative writer," rather than directly addressing Williamson's arguments) and a False Dilemma (presenting a false choice between being "viewed as intellectually sophisticated" and "aspiring to truth and wisdom," as if it is impossible to be smart, truthful and wise all at once).

Basically, it's a way to pat yourself on the back for being “above” the need to make intellectually sound arguments in your book, since it was intellectually sophisticated people who pointed out that, as a matter of fact, you didn't make intellectually sound arguments in your book. Huh?

I mean, how embarrassing. But there's more! In fact, anyone can sniff out the logical fallacies of Basham and her Believers simply by putting her statements and/or their statements into this handy-dandy online Fallacy Detector, found at logicalfallacies.org.

The Believers, in fact, have been drowning in logical fallacies themselves as they've attempted to defend Basham's many indefensible book errors. Here are a few random samples of some of the most common fallacious arguments they're making online, with some of the Fallacy Detector's analysis:

• "Even if Basham's book has the facts wrong, her thesis is true." Logical fallacies committed: Tu Quoque ("a logical fallacy (that) does not address the validity of the original accusation, as it only serves to distract from it”) and the Fallacy of Composition (a fallacy that "makes the assumption that one part of something will apply to the whole, or that the whole must apply to all the parts").

• "People who are getting upset about Basham's argument are only showing that she's over the target!" Logical fallacies committed: Ad Hominem (the people criticizing Basham's book should be disregarded since they are obviously bad people), Appeal to Emotion (this "occurs when an argument is made that is based primarily on emotion or feelings, rather than facts and logic; this fallacy is often used in an attempt to manipulate the audience into accepting a particular argument or position, regardless of its validity or truthfulness") and Strawman (a strawman is "asserting a simplified version of the opponent’s position that is not accurate so it can therefore be easily debunked.")

• "The quote in the footnote is wrong, but it's OK, because the person said that quote somewhere else." Logical fallacies committed: Tu Quoque ("answering criticism with criticism") and the Fallacy of Ambiguity ("the argument implies that just because a quote was said elsewhere, it can be assumed to be correct in the context provided").

• "Even if she made mistakes, Basham is right." Logical fallacies committed: Ad Hominem, Circumstantial (dismissing "the author's mistakes as irrelevant to the validity of their conclusions, suggesting that personal circumstances might influence the argument rather than focusing on the argument itself"), Begging the Question ("when an argument simply reiterates the same point over and over again without adding any additional evidence to support the conclusion") and Appeal to Authority (which "makes the argument that if one credible source believes something .. it must be true").

I'd also argue that Basham and her Believers are living out daily the Fallacy of Proof by Verbosity (also known as proof by intimidation), which the Fallacy Detector describes as "an argument that is far too complicated and verbose for an opponent to reasonably address all the particulars, or the person making the argument is so well-reputed that one takes his claims as truth."

Williamson aptly referenced that first point -- so verbose is Basham that for roughly every dozen of her words, at least 400 are needed to refute them. Then, the Believers reiterate the second point every day online: "Megan Basham, because she is Megan Basham, is above your 'factual errors and journalistic ethics exposure,' you Leftists, you conservative sellouts, you Enemies of Believing!"

As the kids say these days: Yeah ... no.

Regardless of the Believers' reckless blind faith in her, Basham is definitely not above the truth. She's definitely not above the Ninth Commandment, and she's not above journalistic ethics, either. She's not above anything that is a basic requirement for anyone who is writing an expose of any kind. As her former boss, the longtime WORLD Magazine editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky, put it, Basham is just a "bad reporter." Who are you going to believe on these matters, Believers: Experienced Christian journalists or your lying eyes? Never mind. We already know the answer.

They keep going back to the same dumb, fallacious argument: It's all about The Thesis! "The Thesis is true! That's what matters -- the Thesis!" What is this Thesis? Basically, it's that a gaggle of Leftist billionaires and progressive power brokers are changing the American church because evangelical leaders traded the truth for a Leftist agenda! I take issue with that Thesis -- and the defense of the Thesis, because Basham doesn't actually definitively prove the Thesis in her book (Remember? All the errors? Resist the urge to respond with your usual logical fallacies, Believers!).

This all reminds me of a relevant situation that I encountered during my first year as a full-time newspaper reporter.

On his way to our bureau each day, my editor at the time drove past a busy intersection that had a gas station at all four corners. One day, he came into the office to suggest a story to me, based on something he had noticed about these gas stations.

"Janet, there's a gas war going on down the street!" he told me. "Every day for the past few days, I've seen one gas station lowering its prices, and then the other stations lower theirs. Go down and interview the gas station owners to find out how the gas war is affecting their businesses!"

Off I dutifully went to the gas stations. One by one, I interviewed the managers, asking about the gas war, how they felt about the gas war and how the gas war was affecting their stations.

There was only one problem. One by one, each manager said the same thing to me: "There isn't any gas war. We don't even set the prices here. That's all done by corporate officials who live in another state, and so our prices at this station have nothing to do with the prices at other gas stations nearby."

Having uncovered the truth, I returned to my bureau and wrote a story that cleared the four gas-station managers of any "gas war" theories the locals (including my editor) might have had. I wondered at the time why I was even bothering to write the story at all, given that there was no story. But what did I know?

Unsurprisingly, my editor didn't like my story. "There is a gas war!" he insisted. "The gas station managers just won't admit it." Now I was in a pickle. As a young reporter, I didn't want to run afoul of my editor. But on the other hand, I knew his thesis was bogus. More than that, I had four sources on the record, saying that his thesis was bogus! I tried to make this case, but he just wasn't having it. The next day, there was my story on the front page, declaring that there was an old-fashioned gas war going on in town, and the gas station managers were trying to cover it up.

What?! Mortified, I wanted to crawl under my desk and never reappear. Instead, I returned to the gas stations and, one by one, profusely apologized to each manager. I explained that what I had actually written stated just the opposite of the story that got into the paper, because, against all the facts and quotes and the basic journalistic ethics of the situation, my editor just wouldn't let go of his thesis. All four of the managers, happily, believed me and forgave me and thanked me for coming in to tell them what happened -- but they were disgusted with my editor and, by extension, my newspaper.

And who could blame them? I was disgusted, too, because the thesis wasn't true. It didn't matter that I'd spelled the sources' names right or quoted them accurately. Even if had messed those things up in my story, it still wouldn't have mattered because, again, the thesis wasn't true!

And guess what? I have the same misgivings about Basham's thesis, too. As I've noted, I already covered many of the same stories and figures Basham covers in her book when I was a Christian radio host. I'm pretty familiar with the lay of the land that existed when most of her narrative was unfolding.

I think there are some bad actors in power positions in evangelicalism, for sure. And yes, there are outside groups who donate to some causes that impact evangelicals. But do I believe that all these church power brokers were just pure, conservative Christians whose only concerns were love for the Lord Jesus and fidelity to Scripture until George Soros (or the Leftist billionaire du jour) suddenly appeared from behind their office drapes with tempting suitcases full of cash? I realize I'm taking poetic license in the way I phrased that, but no, I don't believe even a straightforward characterization of that theory. The political and ideological compromise within evangelicalism and its connection to the influence of outside groups is a lot more complicated than that, which is why it is my opinion (and not just mine) that Basham's thesis actually was writing checks that her facts couldn't cash.

It's also a funny thing about outside groups. As it happens, Basham was a featured speaker at a side event during this year's Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting, which was co-sponsored by the newly formed entity from the Christian Nationalist Woke Right known as The Center for Baptist Leadership (CBL), which was established and funded by another Christian Nationalist Woke Right group called American Reformer (read what I and some others have written about these entities and their leaders here, here, here, here and here).

The leaders of these two groups (which, for the record, are outside the church) are William Wolfe, executive director of CBL, and Joshua Abbotoy, executive director of American Reformer, both of whom have been entirely open about wanting more control over the Southern Baptist Convention.

Ex-federal official Wolfe has boasted on X about "scheming about how to save the SBC" and also posted a map of America, showing the geographical breadth of the convention with this comment: "You see that massive red block? That's the SBC ... the SBC might very well be the most vital Christian conservative institution out there."

Abbotoy, who's written about why America needs a "Protestant Franco" and has stated that "we're going to need a Baptist Pinochet," also aims to create "pioneer communities" in Appalachia.

Abbotoy posted online that "CBL is (an) answer to prayer and an incredibly high-impact investment for American Reformer. CBL envisions a reinvigorated SBC that uses its massive resources to help churches smartly navigate this negative world." American Reformer also organized a recent side event during the Presbyterian Church in America's General Assembly.

“Investment?” “Massive resources?” Does this really sound like a purely spiritual, gospel-inspired endeavor?

Yet Basham was center stage at the SBC side event organized and/or funded by these same outside groups. She’s appeared on American Reformer’s podcast, and her work also has appeared on American Reformer’s website. Same with CBL; see here and here.  Also note how CBL marshaled its forces to defend her terrible book, here and here.

The last linked article actually calls the book — presumably unaccompanied by a laugh track — “a new and unavoidable litmus test for Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders” and argues that “SBC elites’ response or non-response to Megan Basham’s New York Times bestseller Shepherds For Sale should be viewed by rank-and-file Southern Baptists as an important gauge of our denomination’s spiritual state and of these leaders’ fitness to continue to serve at the highest levels of our Convention.”

You read that right. CBL asserts that it’s not the inerrant Holy Bible that is the litmus test for determining the denomination’s spiritual state. It’s not the inerrant Holy Bible that serves as the gauge of ministerial fitness within the SBC. No, folks, forget 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. If you’re an SBC pastor who wants to know how you’re doing spiritually or wants to determine if you’re even qualified to serve your convention in leadership, then you’d better get in line with an error-filled book by a “bad reporter.”

Doubt no more the sheer idolatry of the Basham Believers.

If other Believers outside the CBL are so concerned about outside groups having an outsize influence on evangelicalism for political purposes, maybe all of this should concern them.

Maybe they should Believe in getting the whole story about any outside forces that may be seeking to undermine biblical faithfulness inside evangelicalism. More to the point, maybe they should trust someone who actually is a trained journalist committed to truth and ethics to investigate what is going on, someone who actually bothers to contact the people he or she is covering, someone who won't bear false witness or lift assertions and footnotes from Wikipedia or engage in logical fallacies in the process of fleshing out the real “outside group influence in evangelicalism” story.

Maybe the Believers should further understand that the very person they so blindly Believe in -- the one who couldn't even factually or ethically craft an airtight argument for serious threats posed to evangelicals from Leftist billionaires -- might be party to an even bigger story of that nature, which sure seems to be percolating right under her nose.

Not that she'd report on it. But my, what an interesting thesis.