Gavin Ortlund has made a name for himself as a YouTube apologist. As the son of Ray Ortlund Jr., a “respected” voice in the Young, Restless, and Reformed (YRR) movement, and grandson of Ray Ortlund Sr., a pastor and Christian radio program host, Gavin follows in the tradition of his fathers by pursuing a career of being a big-time Christian communicator to the next generation. As the author of several books, he, too, has now established himself as a “respected” voice for many mainstream evangelicals.
While Gavin is staking out his own claim on the YouTube silver screen, he is also undeniably positioned within the broader ecosystem of what some call “Big Evangelicalism” or “Big Eva” for short.
Along with trading on his family name, he is a beneficiary of a family-created position as the theologian-in-residence at the non-denominational “gospel-centered” Immanuel Nashville, serving alongside his father. Also on staff with Gavin is the former head of the ERLC and current Editor-in-Chief of Christianity Today, Russell Moore, and Associate Pastor Sam Alberry, famous for his quibbling on matters related to human sexuality, and Assistant Pastor Barnabas Piper (himself a fellow progeny of a patron saint of the Young Restless Reformed, John Piper). To top it all off, he is a fellow at The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics, a program started by The Gospel Coalition where the Lead Pastor of Immanuel Nashville, T.J. Sims, serves as a Council Member.
When it comes to his name and his elite evangelical pedigree, Gavin is a true blue blood. Perhaps that’s why he thinks he is above being questioned by scrappy reporters exposing a dark underbelly to Big Eva.
Names and Pedigrees Won’t Save You from Being Exposed in Shepherds for Sale
This week, Gavin found himself in hot water as an illustrative figure in the first chapter of Megan Basham’s blockbuster book Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda, which sits in the top 20 of all books available on Amazon at the time of this article. It should be no surprise that men like Ortlund would be a person of interest in Basham’s work. Basham’s book covers the gamut of Leftist ideologies and infiltration in the evangelical church in America. With the eye of an investigative journalist, she details how various figures and entities in evangelicalism have knowingly or unknowingly adopted Leftist frameworks either by taking money or by parroting leftist slogans.
Her thesis is that evangelical pastors and speakers with large platforms are attempting to convince their followers of certain policies associated with the Left because they are being influenced wittingly or unwittingly by outside entities. These pastors and speakers are caught up in the propagandist nature of our day because there are certain incentive structures created to be a “good boy.”
Enter Gavin Ortlund. Because Gavin has promoted the mainstream, secular climate change agenda and its subsequent policies from a “Christian framework” and encouraged his tens of thousands of followers to do the same, it makes complete sense that Basham would use him as an example in her opening chapter.
Basham’s book is well-researched and does what many men are too cowardly to do (to our shame): names names. Just as with Voddie Bachaum’s book Fault Lines, those who take issue with her approach and perspective are refusing to engage with the ideas and factual claims and instead have resorted to character assassination in order to signal to others that she should not be trusted. While some minor issues, such as the seminary pedigree of certain figures, are expected to be updated in subsequent editions, the wide swath of criticism against Shepherds for Sale is completely fallacious and intent on framing Megan in a poor light (much like Gavin’s YouTube thumbnail but more on that later).
Gavin took notice of his mention in Basham’s book and decided to release a YouTube video in his defense just one day after Megan’s book came out. Although calling his video a defense is somewhat generous, as he displayed the typical passive-aggressive pietistic contempt that we have all come to be familiar with from our Big Eva overlords. Attempting to salvage his reputation, he often referenced and spliced in clips from the original video that Basham noted in her book.
And thanks to him, many of us listened and learned that Basham’s critique was entirely fair.
He Said, She Said—But We Can All See with Our Own Eyes
In the original video, he claims his interest in climate change started when he watched a documentary. I, too, remember when I first watched “Supersize Me.” In fact, he declares that he “thinks about [climate change] every day.” What an odd thing to say.
He goes on to say that we as Christians “Can’t not talk about it” (a conscience-binding statement) and that we “should care about environmentalism issues like climate change.” Displaying a staggering level of naivete, he says he simply finds it unbelievable that scientists would conspire together to advance an agenda that was not true. Trust the science, after all.
He says that “Christians should especially care [about climate change]” and that our Christian worldview is “naturally inclined” to find common cause with it. He grounds all of this in the idea of loving our neighbor. Gavin clearly has deep convictions on this matter and wants others to share those convictions, which is fine for a guy to do. Enter the arena, make your case, and aim to win. Gavin does this in the original video.
Again, he says that Christians “should care” about climate change (he says this a lot). He finds the “scientific consensus” virtually unassailable on the issue. He claims that those who disagree with him are anti-science. He says that “evangelicals have tended to be politically conservative. And I think that is the biggest single factor for why more Christians aren’t more active in leading the charge on something like climate change.”
For him, the only reason evangelicals don’t care like he does is because they are motivated by politics. Gavin’s point is that you are a conspiracy theorist at worst and an idiot at best if you don’t believe in climate change. He goes on to advocate for a variety of climate change-informed positions on limiting consumption, clean energy, and government action and says that we should do all of this in the name of “unity.”
Back to Gavin’s attempted discrediting of Shepherds for Sale. It must first be remarked that the thumbnail he chose for his video sent a message in and of itself. He takes a frowny-looking picture of Megan and puts her off in a dark shadow. He is front and center, the victim, with the word “me” colored and highlighted. Aesthetics matter, as any YouTube thumbnail designer knows. And his sends an unmistakable message: “Poor me, this mean woman says mean things about my very smart views on climate change when all I want to do is have a conversation.”
On the content, he claims that Basham does not tell the truth and finds it unfortunate that the book is influential. He frames the book as fundamentalism. He accuses her of “dishonesty,” “distortion,” “spin,” “misrepresentation,” and “bearing false testimony.”
It was a fairly harsh rejoinder, as John West pointed out: “Despite Gavin’s laid-back demeanor, these are harsh, unwinsome, and—yes—judgmental words. If you are going to accuse someone of these things, you ought to have a serious case. I don’t think Gavin does.” Gentle and lowly for me, but not for thee.
West also encourages everyone to watch both videos and read the chapter to “judge for yourself whether Megan’s description of Gavin’s video is accurate and fair. I think it is.” And, importantly, he disarms one of Gavin’s most heated points of frustration:
“Gavin repeatedly focuses on a sentence where Megan says, ‘it is wrong [for pastors and Christian leaders]… to make agreement on environmental policies a test of biblical faithfulness.’ Gavin asserts that Megan is referring to him and his video in this sentence. Yet at that point in the chapter, Megan isn’t even discussing Gavin’s video! She stopped doing that at the top of the previous page. This sentence isn’t the wrap-up of her discussion of Gavin’s video. It’s part of her wrap-up of the entire chapter, a chapter that does include citations to other people who explicitly make climate change a test of gospel faithfulness. When I read this sentence last night, it was clear to me as a reader that Megan was referring to those people who she cited earlier in the chapter. This is a really egregious misrepresentation of what Megan said, and I wish Gavin would consider retracting it.”
As West and others have noted, Gavin’s emotional discomfort with being named in the book seems to have impeded his ability to read clearly. Basham obviously doesn’t accuse Ortlund of making environmental policies a test of biblical faithfulness; this was mentioned at another point in the chapter. In fact, she clearly says she doesn’t intend to single him out but simply highlight him as an example who is making a case for the climate change agenda, something he very obviously does in his original video.
But Gavin wants to have it both ways in his critique. He claims he is not a scientist but will stake out a Christian position on climate change and encourage others to adopt his position. At the same time, he wants to play the role of the idiot, often used by evangelical pastors to downplay their attempt at influence and power. “What do I know? I’m just a pastor. But make sure to repent of your white privilege.”
Rhetoric is a Poor Substitute for Reasoning
Timon Cline does an excellent job exposing this rhetorical maneuvering in a Twitter thread that is well worth the read. Cline explains:
“We evaluate rhetoric not simply on the literal words in abstract, but the other implicit aspects of good communication. His obfuscation on this (in his defense vid) is weird. Gavin has a message. What is it? You *should* care abt climate change *as a Christian.* That’s a moral claim. He’s not impressed by the ‘skeptics.’ He is impressed by the IPCC & the “scientific consensus” (whatever that is) he’s “deeply concerned” about the ‘anti-science’ mentality in evangelicalism.
What’s the message? You’re a tinfoil hat-wearing idiot if you don’t believe in climate change. You’re politically motivated, derelict in your duty to environmental stewardship, & probably contributing to polarization. Gavin doesn’t say any of that literally, but that’s the message. He does, in fact, advocate limiting consumption, clean energy, and other unspecified govt actions as part of the ‘all of the above approach’ toward ‘progress’ on this issue. He says climate change could be a source of ‘unity.’”
Unity? Unity in what? In the scientific consensus, of course, that Gavin is pushing all Christians to adopt. All Megan does in her book is bring to light this morally fraught rhetorical play and ask if Christians really have to join with the environmental Marxists to be faithful Christians on this issue.
Conclusion: Round One to Shepherds for Sale
This won’t be the last Big Eva effort to discredit Megan’s book by relying almost exclusively on rhetoric and name recognition over reason and logic. But Shepherds for Sale appears to have withstood the test of the first brushback pitch.
At this point, this is predictable behavior from men like Gavin Ortlund. They will happily entertain Leftist ideas in the church and encourage others to do the same in the name of “unity,” but they will disparage anyone who dissents from the Leftist idea as motivated by politics, close-minded, or fundamentalist. First, it starts with toleration, then it becomes enforcement.
The message from Ortlund is clear: You should definitely not read Shepherds for Sale. It is a very dangerous fundamentalist book that does not “trust the science.”
Furthermore, if you read it, you might not smash that like button and hit the bell icon to get notified when his next video drops.
-
This article was originally published by the Center For Baptist Leadership, and can be found here.
