August 10, 2024
HERE'S MY TAKE
I hesitate to wade into the online firestorm since the July 30th publication by Harper Collins of American journalist Megan Basham’s Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda. This week it ranked twelfth on the New York Times bestseller list. And anyone who has an X (Twitter) feed that touches on the overlap between religion and politics will have been inundated by passionate debate about the book. Polarised opinions pro and con are dividing many folks who might previously have been thought to be in the same camp.
Basham’s thesis is that many pro-life evangelical leaders have shifted toward the political left to the point where some seem willing to compromise historic Christian convictions especially when it comes to questions of life, gender, marriage, and sexuality. Basham makes her case as if she were a forensic detective, often linking grants received from foundations to a “guilt by association” accusation against a Christian leader. Her typical approach is to point to a grant-giving foundation she believes has made a “woke” issue its cause. She then names a ministry leader who has received funding from that foundation, noting that the said leader hasn’t been as vocal on controversial issues as Basham thinks they should have (or in many cases, has made ambiguous or nuanced statements which she interprets negatively). That is her “evidence” that a ministry leader has been “bought.” Basham repeats this formula for several Christian leaders and the foundations that fund their work to make her case.
While I am no fan of Basham or her approach, any fair-minded observer will concede that there are many Christians on both the left and the right who have moved significantly from positions they advocated a decade ago. Being a person of character used to be a prerequisite for political leaders to receive a Christian endorsement. Similarly, having a pro-life platform used to be a requirement for ballot box support from many evangelicals. Marriage and gender identity matters used to be black-and-white questions. Now, at least when it comes to how these matters translate into the political sphere (and for some, it’s caused theological adjustment as well), some folks are taking different positions publicly. It is also true that in the midst of all of this polarised debate, many have avoided taking positions by making purposely ambiguous statements in hopes of not offending either side of the political spectrum.
Basham uses eight chapters (focused on climate change, immigration, pro-life issues, media, COVID-19, critical race theory, the #metoo movement, and LGBTQ issues) as building blocks in her thesis. Fifty pages of footnotes (“the receipts” in her language) establish the case. (I would note, however, that her online critics—or auditors—are raising questions about the accuracy of her work.) Of the eight issues Basham uses to make her argument, I would largely agree with her on several. On a couple, I would respectfully argue that her applications are more political ideology than biblical thinking, so I come to quite different conclusions. When it comes to the remaining few issues on her list of eight, I might agree with her conclusions but I am repulsed by some of her flawed arguments. Thankfully, unlike Basham, I don’t have to navigate the U.S. political environment which respectfully involves much more than the eight issues she lists. Still, I could imagine that if we were voters in the same election, we might even find ourselves voting the same way.
But faithful public square engagement is about more than a checklist of policy positions. Reading the book, I found myself saddened by her polemic tone and her disrespect towards some people and organisations I know personally and did not find fairly portrayed. She spends more time impugning motives of others than evaluating consequences. This isn’t the forum for either defending or critiquing other leaders and their faithfulness. There are plenty of online reviews coming from either side of this question if those specifics are of interest.
My greater concern lies with a fundamental hermeneutical flaw in Basham’s approach. Hermeneutics is the set of principles used to guide interpretation. We often associate the term with biblical interpretation but it applies to all disciplines. Whether we realise it or not, we use a hermeneutic to interpret culture as much as we do to interpret Scripture.
Basham’s title betrays the first hermeneutical problem. The thesis is framed as a trade between “truth” and “a leftist agenda.” But what is truth? The truth of Scripture is of a different sort than the truth tested in a court of law. Basham uses a comprehensive concept of truth throughout her book. She characterises those who differ from her as “heretics” and “wolves.” She clearly sees the political and cultural matters she focuses on to involve essential Christian truths. Frankly, I get the sense that if you disagree with Basham politically, she would believe you don’t belong in the same church.
Basham mixes the disciplines of politics and theology. Progressive and conservative, woke and traditional, or whatever other opposites you wish to apply to our contemporary political context are—political binaries that can be useful and helpful for public discourse. But for these terms to have meaning, they need to belong to the same category and be actual opposites. The opposite of political truth is political falsehood. The opposite of political left is political right. However, theological truth and left-wing politics are different things. Sometimes they correlate; sometimes they don’t. Yet Basham uses truth and left as opposites as if they belong in the same category. In her book, when she writes “truth,” she seems to intend a theological category. For those who read the title as referencing political categories, the logic she sets up is that the political left is un-Christian implying that the political right is synonymous with Christianity. For those who read it theologically, theological truth implies a right-wing political agenda, and therefore anything from the political left is theologically unorthodox and heretical. Not only is this logically flawed, but it effectively slanders many faithful Christians in previous generations as well as our own who remained orthodox in doctrine but were used for great political good in seeking to apply their faith to the issues of their time.
Truth used as a theological term isn’t as straightforward as some would make it. I’m an orthodox Christian who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that the sixteenth-century Reformed confessions are a faithful summary of Scripture, and that amillennialism is the best way to interpret the admittedly complicated end-times biblical teachings. As an ordained elder in a confessionally Reformed church, I have publicly affirmed these truths and subscribed to the same with my public signature. I believe they are true.
But that’s quite a different thing than to suggest that those who differ from me on those truths are heretics or unfaithful. Given that she is a Southern Baptist, I don’t expect Ms. Basham agrees with me on my second and third truth statements. Yet, I count many Baptists as brothers and sisters in Christ. They think I’m mistaken on some things; I think they are. I suspect that when our eyes are ultimately opened to a fuller understanding of God’s truth, we'll all realise how much we all got wrong.
In the study of Christian theology, it is common to refer to different “tiers of truth.” There are slightly different definitions depending on your denominational tradition.
I learned to distinguish issues by the source of authority, with distinctions made between the authority of Scripture, the creeds, historic Reformed theology and finally matters of Christian liberty as first-, second-, third-, and fourth-tier issues respectively. It seems common for many evangelicals (who tend not to emphasise creeds and theological traditions like the Reformed and Presbyterians do) to reference essential doctrines (Trinity, justification by faith, incarnation) as first-tier truths; important doctrines that define church communities (sacraments, worship, offices within the church) as second-tier truths; issues of the day that are matters of core conviction (sexuality, ethics) as third-tier; with fourth-tier issues reserved for matters on which you acknowledge are important but regarding which Christians can differ in good faith.
And here is where the book makes a second hermeneutical error. While the significance of this varies among the eight issues Basham articulates, her language and core argument is that on all of these issues, evangelical leaders who differ with her are labelled wolves and heretics. In a few cases she qualifies these statements with offsetting acknowledgments of the (usually former) faithfulness of their ministry. Still, unless a reader is parsing every sentence with great care, the conclusion anyone would draw is that all of these leaders have “sold out”—“traded” in the words of the title—their biblical convictions for cultural compromise with a progressive, woke political agenda. "Who is being bought and who is doing the buying?” asks Basham. “I’m naming names and bringing receipts,” she writes as she accuses others of “pimping their pulpits” or being “cozying up to leftist sugardaddies.” These are not phrases Christians use for those they consider fellow believers. Understandably, those Basham names (and their friends) have responded with vigour to defend their integrity.
I hate labels given how contextually they are understood, but if forced, it’s fair to describe me as centre-right on the political spectrum. But I do not claim my right-leaning sympathies as part of my religious identity or faithfulness to the truth of Scripture. There are fundamental challenges with liberalism and conservatism—both historic and contemporary. Any time I hear left or right, political or progressive, used in the context of Christian teaching (or, sadly, a sermon), I cringe. Almost always, it is not accompanied with adequate nuance to prevent it from becoming a basic hermeneutical error and a misrepresentation of the gospel. Even when the intentions are noble, the result is almost always a mistaken teaching about political positions becoming a test of biblical faithfulness or orthodoxy. It’s a very small step from there to what we’ve been seeing online in the past few weeks where for many, their political ideology has become an idol that, I say with care and respect but also conviction, is an idolatry that in itself is a violation of the first table of God’s law.
Left and right, progressive and conservative, pick whatever political binary seems useful. These have their place in political dialogue generally and among Christians specifically. By all means, let’s have our vigorous debates about applying our Christian convictions to our politics. Let’s challenge each other as “iron sharpens iron.” But when we transfer our political conclusions from fourth- and third-tier truths to second-tier, suggesting that those who differ with us are heretics and unworthy to be called Christians (as many of Basham’s online followers have done), we descend into a different territory.
Sadly, Basham’s book conflates political and theological categories and treats them as second-tier truths. Then, by implying wrong motives with her inflammatory “Shepherds For Sale” title, suggesting that her opponents are compromised and bought by funders, it makes important political debate next to impossible. The name-calling and dismissals on social media during the past few weeks have borne this out.
Hermeneutics matter. Failing to recognise this doesn’t only have the ugly effect of encouraging nasty tribalism, it also tempts many with political idolatry that compromises the core truths of the gospel.
WHAT I’M READING
Six Days of Greek Work
There’s been a fair bit of coverage and reflection on the recent policy change allowing employers to require six-day work schedules in Greece. This seems to be motivated by labour force issues complicated by low fertility and an ageing demographic. A Globe and Mail opinion piece suggests that many western countries will be needing to consider increased regular work schedules alongside automation, higher pay, and controlling immigration as ways to deal with labour supply issues. (They also note a hypothetical fifth—scaling back standards of living as a tradeoff it assumes few will accept.) The Greek laws that allow certain sectors to require up to 48 hours of regular scheduling (for certain sectors) has created significant backlash even as the pro-business Greek government has sought to sell these reforms as pro-worker.
Opposition Leaders and Venezuelan Elections
The July 28th Venezuelan election results are disputed. The official results show incumbent President Nicolas Maduro as the winner with 51% of the vote but independent and opposition exit polls suggest that Edumundo Gonzalez won up to 70% of the vote. President Maduro took over from Hugo Chavez in 2018 and his government continued implementing a socialist agenda using authoritarian tactics. The EU, USA, and several Latin American countries have objected to the official result (Canada expressed general concerns through a statement on August 4th calling on the Venezuelan government to provide proof of the results). Anaida Poilievre, wife of opposition leader Pierre Poilievre, published an op-ed on August 1, outlining the mobilising effort of Maria Corina Machado in securing the votes for Gonzalez. Ms. Poilievre is a Venezuelan immigrant to Canada so it’s not surprising to see she has strong opinions regarding the conflict. What is surprising (and to the best of my recollection, unprecedented) is the wife of an opposition leader becoming a lead voice in a foreign policy matter. Combined with speculation regarding the role Ms. Poilievre might play in a Conservative election campaign and government, this seems significant and worth noting.
Corporate Departures
Five per cent of Canadian corporate head offices closed or merged with other companies in the decade following 2012, a period in which head office employment also shrunk by six per cent. This Fraser Institute analysis observes that not only does this reduce employment and taxation revenue opportunities for the country, but it also moves the locus of corporate decision-making to other places.
Election-Ready
While headlines tend to focus on the American election cycle as well as speculation about how long Canada’s minority federal government will last before going to the polls, the scheduled elections for British Columbia (October 19), New Brunswick (October 21), and Saskatchewan (October 28) will be consequential to Canadian political dynamics. There is also increasing speculation that Ontario voters will go to the polls in an early election in what is presumed to be an attempt by Premier Ford to get ahead of the political ripple effects that will follow the next federal election.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Normalising Euthanasia
My Cardus colleagues released a report Wednesday documenting that Canada has the world’s fastest-growing assisted dying program. In spite of proven shortcomings in the statistics that most likely underestimate the prevalence of assisted dying, it is now the fifth leading cause of death in Canada, surpassing the threshold of 4% of deaths by euthanasia 11 years ahead of Health Canada’s prediction. Canada has normalised euthanasia at a rate far in excess of almost every other jurisdiction in which it is permissible.
TAKE IT TO-GO
Nailed It
I know nothing about athletic hammer-throwing and besides two clips of gold-medal throws by Canada’s Ethan Katzberg and Camryn Rogers, I do not recall ever watching this sport. But a 20-second clip of the pure joy on Camryn’s face as she sang along with the Canadian national anthem at her medal ceremony on Tuesday’s evening news brought down the metaphorical gavel for me—the decision had been made to frame this week’s take-away around the hammer-throw.
It’s not as if I were going to mallet in otherwise, but it did appear that athletic hammers are more akin to a metal ball and steel wire attached to a grip. Not sure how we claw our way from that contraption to the tool I picture when someone says hammer, but I know that throwing a hammer of either description over 80 metres deserves the compliment that he/she hammered it.
Physiopedia tells me that people have been competitively throwing hammers for the better part of four millennia when chariot wheels were being tossed. I suppose that’s enough to convince me that any definition I offer regarding the hammer throw will take a pounding. So let’s just end with congratulations to our successful Olympians and the acknowledgment that the joy on Camryn’s face as she sang the national anthem was evidence that when it comes to happiness coming from a hammer, she nailed it.