Plundering the Mercenaries: On Knowing What Time It Is

Do you “know what time it is”? The enlightened ones know. The rest don’t. Whatever time you think it is, it’s clear we are at a unique moment in our culture’s history. Whether you resonate with Aaron Renn’s theory of American secularization where we are in a “negative world” that disdains Christianity or not, it’s clear. Something is different.

But I contend that it’s not that different. As the Preacher said: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). Whatever the time, we have an inheritance of moral reflection with trusted ways for stirring up ecclesial and societal virtue formation. While these methods do have contextual fluidity, their core remains the same across time and space. Even as the world is chaotic, we can be calm, friendly, and convictional in its midst. Therefore, instead of founding totally anew we must retrieve from the past because nothing new is under the sun—not even our ecclesial and cultural problems.

There is much to retrieve but, in this essay, I focus especially on moral courage, moral judgment, and the constellation of these two in the virtue of honesty. I argue that courage and judgment require an uncompromising commitment to honesty. There can be no room for deceit. But I do not merely stay in the theoretical abstract. I progress to concrete examples including Aristotle, Critical Race Theory, “Moscow,” and Shepherds for Sale to encourage deliberation on these vitally important topics. What I write here is surely not the final word, but I hope it serves the church well to carefully consider the nature of courage, judgment, and honesty in times of plenty and in times of famine. What I write is also lengthy for an essay of this sort. I believe the length in this case is necessary to form the ideas and arguments fully. While shorter essays are more popular there is value in extended deliberation that requires patient attention.¹ Whenever one writes on topics as current and volatile as these it is imperative to labor to be clear about what one does mean and doesn’t mean, hence the long-form essay.

1. New Methods for New Times?

The wisdom from the Preacher that nothing we encounter is brand-new is often ignored, especially in dark times. Instead, the fear of the unknown reigns. It’s a brand-new moment, a brand-new time. We must turn the clock back to when the times were good. And the bad news is that the enemy doesn’t play nice. The enemy continues to hasten the clock forward toward ruin. This means we need to do whatever it takes to “win.” Our entire culture is at stake. Our children’s lives are in the balance. Our churches have gone rogue. Gone is the focus on the ordinary means of grace, regular evangelism, institutional development, and the like. Now the focus is on memes, crude jokes, and deception which will pave our way to victory. As one author put it in an American Reformer essay:

Politically-active American Christians who defy the enemies of God and wage war against evil, and who necessarily employ crude memes, subterfuge, and even deception toward these ends, will likewise be commended for their faith.²

Christians supposedly necessarily employ sinful tactics. Apparently, it was also faith that moved Abraham to lie to Pharoah about Sarah, his sister, or… wife? Nonsense. These sorts of calls are more therapeutic, looking for high fives, than they are prophetic. The way of Christ puts away every kind of falsehood and speaks only that which builds up as fits the occasion, polemics not excluded. This doesn’t mean we must cower in fear and avoid direct and forceful language as the occasion calls. But the methods we find in Scripture for virtue formation and societal renewal remain committed to integrity no matter the cost. Moral courage and moral judgment demand honesty. The methods we find in the Protestant Reformers similarly uphold Christian integrity as a line that is not to be crossed. Francis Turretin, for example, is representative:

Lying without exception is everywhere condemned in Scripture as a sin abominable to God, as promoted by the instigation of the Devil, the father of lies, injurious to the majesty of God, the author and such a lover of truth that he can neither lie, nor by any dispensation ever give the power of lying; yea, has expressly forbidden and decreed severely to punish it.³

Turretin is clear: there are no exceptions. He does not allow for deceit in the cases of American political unrest. He does not allow deceit in cases of denominational turmoil. He does not allow deceit even if we tell no direct lie but lack forthrightness. By forthrightness I mean the virtue of being disposed to avoid misleading by giving sufficient information.⁴ For example, he would not allow someone to describe an event in such a way as to intentionally distort the facts, even if minor. That remains deceit. He is not an outlier in his view. Herman Bavinck, writing later, indicated that the Reformed as a group “held all forms of lying to be sinful.”⁵ The Westminster Larger Catechism argues likewise. These are not new standards for truth but wise old reflections on the moral life.

But in our current moment, we are moved to think that given the decay of church and society, we must align ourselves with the greatest warriors for Christianity to win, whether they are hired mercenaries with tactics at odds with the Christian faith and tradition or not. It’s not merely that we need to fudge a few facts for the sake of holy subterfuge. It’s time to take the gloves off. No one will have clean hands at the end of this war. Those purists who attempt to leave the world unstained are the very ones laying waste to all that is precious by their refusal to fight for the good. It’s time to beat our ploughshares into swords and our pruning hooks into spears.

But we are not in a brand-new moment. It may not be the 1950’s anymore but it’s not uncharted territory. Nothing new is under the sun. This doesn’t mean we roll over like doormats as Christian morality and doctrinal fidelity are spit upon. It does mean we must remain steadfast, patient, and honest. Our methods are not of this world. We do not employ deceitful and underhanded ways. We remain steadfast as Saint Paul teaches: “preach the word; Be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). Our means of virtue and society formation remain constant. Whatever season it may be, the ordinary means remain central to forming Christians who then can be both innocent and shrewd. That’s true whether these ordinary means are ecclesial (Word and sacrament) or societal (ordinary habituation of virtues and the leadership of moral exemplars).

2. The Vacuum of Courage

But courage and conviction require speaking more directly in these times. Generalities are necessary but so are specifics. The brave man stands firm against the fear of the times in the right way, as reason prescribes, for the sake of the good, since that is the end aimed at by virtue. This is not to be rash. The rash person is excessively confident and boasts but is a pretender. The rash person enlivens the world of unrighteousness with their tongue of fire against nothing that is truly frightening. But the brave person is not so eager for action. The brave person is eager in action. At least that’s what we learn from the likes of Aristotle and John Gill.⁶ The brave labor to keep a quiet life until the time calls.

I believe that time is now—at least in my American context. In times past it has been appropriate to ignore the noise. After all, the tongue is a raging fire. Better to say nothing than be rash and regret. But our time is plagued with a lack of leadership, not unlike the Judges. There is a vacuum of moral gravitas. The internet continues to fracture and paralyze us, both as individuals and as institutions. It drives us to the extremes, polarizing us and neutering our ability to reason. We lack the courage to both befriend others and to speak forthrightly with prudence when it is costly. We need more with the courage to speak the truth even when it maddens the masses.

Because of our lack many have been moved to untrustworthy mercenary-like groups. Groups that are not afraid to fire the bullet. For example, those in “Moscow” aren’t so paralyzed—those like Doug Wilson and Canon Press. They aren’t alone. New groups continue to form with similar mindsets, such as American Reformer and its latest Center for Baptist Leadership, anointing themselves as leaders. But unaccountable individuals also continue to speak into the void like Megan Basham at the Daily Wire. Whoever it is, the method is the same: blowtorch the enemy. Build the platform. Collateral damage and unadulterated truth be damned.

3. Moral Courage, Moral Judgment, and the Plundering of Mercenaries

Conquering our enemies sounds great. But do not be fooled. Many of these groups and individuals that are clamoring for the microphone, the conference platform, and the book deals lack both the necessary moral courage and the necessary moral judgment for our time and should be understood for what they are: toxic agents of the moral life. As such, they are not to be trusted—even if they are sometimes right.

3.1 Defending Free Thinking Amid the Abyss

Now, I believe we must be resolutely committed to protecting diversity of thought. We should defend those with differing ideas. The marketplace of ideas is a treasure we shouldn’t sell for a mess of stew. It’s good to engage and entertain different viewpoints. So, when I claim that some should not be trusted I am not advocating for intellectual softness. Likewise, we shouldn’t assume every individual or group is always either “good” or “bad.” Reality isn’t that black and white. We should be readily prepared and willing to learn from everyone and anyone within reason. But this is why we should be clear about the vacuous nature of those who lack public virtue—especially those who lack the moral courage to defend their ideas with honesty, integrity, and respect. Those who lack public virtue have the right to speak (and many times can be right in what they say), but they should not be given the right hand of partnership, nor should they be unquestionably trusted—especially in matters that benefit their brand and ultimately their wallets. We must exercise careful moral judgment in our time and have the moral courage to declare it.

3.2 Should We Trust Crooked Sticks?

This is not to say we must avoid or treat as untrustworthy those we think are wrong simpliciter. Maturity is respecting and entertaining those of different convictions. We should actively pursue those who think differently and befriend them, whether in-person or virtually through essays, books, and lectures. It is a good thing to befriend someone that thinks differently. However, it is to say that Christians have put away falsehood and should not partner with or brazenly promote those who lack virtue, especially public virtue. Those that lack virtue in private are less dangerous than those that do so in public. In our time, this is regularly displayed by deceit. It is not merely ignorance. It is intentional subterfuge. There is a distinct difference between being wrong and being deceitful. One can make a poor argument but one cannot employ deliberate deceit to achieve one’s end. None are immune to this—our entire “news” ecosystem, whether ecclesial or national, is infected with an inability to be fully honest. Everything is deliberately crafted to avoid true honesty. These are the works of darkness that we cannot partner with but must expose. But again, this is not to say those who employ such tactics are necessarily evil persons or organizations. We all stumble in many ways. But it is to say that moral judgment requires us to discern what and who is trustworthy and true and what and who is untrustworthy and in need of further formation.

Let me be clearer. Those who act like hired mercenaries by regularly employing deceit for their gain, targeting the same individuals whether they have warrant or not, to the cheers of the online mob, do not lead as the virtuous courageous man does. They are the rash pretender Aristotle warns against. They encourage and incite anger, fear, and cynicism instead of faith, hope, and love. They sustain intellectual cultures of deformed “virtue,” tending away from the mean to excess.

This once again does not mean that there is nothing ever to fear or be angry about. Certainly, there is. And rage is necessary at times. So, it is natural to push back at my claims here. Those like Doug Wilson have the courage to fight the regime. We need that! Much of what they say is true and no one else has the courage to say it. If no one else will step up, we need our Deborah when Barak falters. But Deborah was a woman of moral courage and moral judgment, which our latest internet warriors lack. Given the repetitive actions of many of these groups and individuals and their downstream corrosive impact on church leaders and church members, we must be clear. Those that are destructive to the moral life should be avoided. They should not be silenced by coercive and equally underhanded ways. Debate and deliberation should be welcomed. That’s what any fair-minded truth seeker should want. Instead, we can disagree properly by exposing errors, falsehoods, and deceits while still inviting inspection and consideration.

3.3 On Augustinian Plundering of the Culture Wars

The good news is that we are not bound to these self-appointed warriors. Nor need we resource ourselves from their mines where carbon monoxide has already slain the canary. The Augustinian maxim that we should plunder the Egyptians has a lasting legacy for good reason.⁷ Christians should raid spoils, wherever they are found. We should gather resources from every group, even if we don’t agree with every jot and tittle. The logic behind Augustine’s claim is that we should always be ready to plunder the very best of our neighbor’s knowledge and take it captive to Christ. We are given “mines of providence” that we did not create but dug and received treasures.⁸ As he argues, “a person who is a good and a true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature…”⁹ Of course, Augustine isn’t the first to deploy this example or to use its logic. Justin Martyr similarly argues that “whatever things were rightly said among all people are the property of us Christians.”¹⁰ The plundering logic is replete throughout the Christian tradition.

But here’s the truth. There is a common thread among many of the internet mercenaries of our day negatively forming church leaders and members: wars of the culture. Now, the culture is worth warring for. But the culture wars are a heavy drug that must be appropriately administered. Reckless taking of the culture war drug has deleterious effects. The deeper one goes into addiction, the more likely they are to depart from the good and inhale the toxic carbon monoxide deep within the mine without even realizing it. The further one digs into these mines the more likely they are to prize the valor of platform and political achievement than the ordinary means and ordinary doctrine. As Andrew Fuller argued long ago, “taking an eager and deep interest in political disputes” is a species of departure from God himself.¹¹ And many of these groups are blatantly displaying their eagerness for disputes and lack of commitment to truth, honesty, and even at times the gospel itself.

This doesn’t mean we should retreat and become pure anabaptists. A properly ordered political society is necessary and rejecting political means hastens the decay of society even quicker. But it does mean that we must discern far more carefully. Similar affinities and mutual goals alone cannot blind us—or bind us. In this time, it is even more important to not allow bad company to corrupt good character. Augustine’s maxim should be pursued but even he obviously understood its proper limits. After all, we don’t find him opening the City of God with his praise of Ambrose for sharing a platform with the destructive political leaders of the day or leading his Confessions with his praise for Ambrose promoting the wisdom of the Manichaeans. Augustine, instead, would have us exercise wisdom.

3.4 Where Should We Plunder?

So, let’s be specific, shall we? Who should we plunder, promote, and even “partner” with, and why? When is it safe to dig deep within the mines of providence and when does it turn out to be a mine of unknowing demise? Take four test cases to see some of the differences.

3.4.1 Aristotle

Can we plunder Aristotle? Yes. Maybe this is controversial to some, but it shouldn’t be. Aristotle is the greatest philosopher of all time (sorry Plato—at least you’re more enjoyable to read!). There is a reason Christians through the centuries have encountered and commentated on his work. The falsehoods within are recognizable and treatable. The superstructure of his thought is grounded in common sense—in reality. His unchristian claims are not fundamental to his theory, his work does not employ deceit, and he does not sound the siren song of false doctrine to Christians. His false doctrines are obvious—and ugly. They do not tempt.

3.4.2 Critical Race Theory

Can we plunder Critical Race Theory? In most cases, no. I don’t know if this is controversial anymore. Maybe it is to some. But take the time to read the sources and you’ll see it’s dead set on destroying and not reforming. It burns down the past which has nothing worth retrieving. Its goal is to end the liberal order and traditional rational deliberation. There is no transcendent structure. Essentialism in all its varied forms is denied. It offers materialism and a false messianic utopianism. The solution to what ails us is money and power instead of love and sacrifice as found in the Christian gospel. Don’t believe me? Read Judith Butler. Read Delgado, Steafancic, Diangelo, Kendi, and the like. It’s replete (and really weird if you read those like Butler, let’s be honest). Are there truths within? Yes. They understand the power of narrative, the reality of power dynamics, and that racism is more than discrete individual acts. We can, as Christians, truly say that Butler is mine, Delgado is mine, Kendi is mine, even Marx is mine. We can dig within their mines and find resources within. But the deeper we go without a canary the closer we come to death. The most radical works of Critical Race Theory regularly employ deceptive tactics, or at the very least, unwittingly dishonest ones. And the truth is we don’t need Critical Race Theory to understand many of these insights. It has no monopoly. Therefore, the plundering of these resources is best left to trained and convictional leaders. But their plundering is often akin to digging through a pile of manure for a speck of gold while sitting next to the untapped mine of treasure. For the trained miner, why expend the effort? For the untrained, why risk contamination?

3.4.3 Moscow

Third, can we plunder groups like those affectionately labeled “Moscow?” Probably not. Depending on who is reading, this may be obvious, scandalous, or evidence of the “regime.” I, myself, once thought Moscow was tremendous. I remember hearing Doug Wilson speaking of the sacrifice of the man willing to bleed for others. It inspired me. I remember reading his blog regularly, amazed at his rhetorical power. I still believe his call to sacrifice is true. But I was naïve. I thought the Moscow crew was simply a merry band as portrayed in Doug Wilson’s extended debate with Christopher Hitchens. I still see the shiny veneer of jovial friendship and winsome writing. Unfortunately, I didn’t know that Moscow was seriously deficient in crucial matters of Christian doctrine. They falter on the Trinity, justification, and practical pastoral theology (if not more!). It’s one thing to falter on matters of doctrine in non-ecclesial contexts. There is a space in the halls of (some parts of) the academy and at the community bars for doctrinal failure. It’s another matter to propagate false doctrine to the pews at length and with great harm because of the overarching narrative that leads the weak-minded with a siren song.

I do not intend to rehearse all the facts here. I’m not in the business of cataloging every possible receipt and balancing the checkbook each month so I can sell the latest intel (and let’s be honest, this essay is long enough as it is). I’m rehearsing well-known and documented facts that should lead us to judge rightly. Whatever excuses and distractions are offered (and they will be offered), the facts remain. Doug Wilson rejects traditional Trinitarian theology and posits relations of opposition within the Trinity that are unheard of within the tradition and Scripture. These relations relegate the Son to an inferior place. For a succinct summary from the horse’s mouth, you can listen for yourself here. The serious problem here is not only the rejection of classical orthodoxy but the smoke and mirrors that often accompany it. When seeking clear statements on what the Trinity is and when pressed for clarifications, we receive vagueness in return. What should be clear is that these revisions are the real “liberal drift.” Those intent on tinkering with the core Christian doctrine enshrined in the ecumenical deposits who then dance around legitimate criticism are the true troublemakers. Saving the culture while exploiting the foundation of the gospel is a recipe for eternal ruin.

Moscow has for decades also taught a deficient view of justification throughout their novel federal vision theology. For Protestants, this should be no small matter. And it hasn’t been for those with ears to hear. Read the definitive and detailed reports from the URCNA, PCA, or OPC. While Doug Wilson has attempted to parry these criticisms and claim he isn’t really that different (“my enemies want me to be different, but I’m not, I pinky promise!”), they remain empty sayings designed to distract. They lack a commitment to clarity and complete forthrightness. This is why clear and direct theological answers are entirely missing. Maybe, just maybe, if three entire denominations commission studies and reports on your teachings, there is something amiss. A non-Christian teaching blatant false doctrine is one thing. It’s easy to spot and isn’t as worrisome. It doesn’t normally lead to shipwrecking others faith. Christians doing so is another matter. It’s hidden. That is why Paul tells us, “the sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later” (1 Tim 5:24).

We should not uncritically promote and platform individuals and groups that falter in these ways, ignoring not only the errors themselves but the nature of the errors. Many of them are central to the Christian confession. But they are also held and propagated in ways that are not forthright and honest. Again, a Protestant will surely disagree with a Roman Catholic on justification but would not falter in moral judgment by working together on various shared civic projects. This is because the errors and differences are clearly known. They are not hidden.

But the Moscow men are also deficient of pastoral theology. This isn’t just a difference in optional “mood.” The beatitudes are replaced with an actual flamethrower. Take a gander through No Quarter November to see for yourself. A brazen callousness permeates their speech. Wilson doesn’t just use this language in casual ways. He has written an entire book defending it. Christians should use “biting, bitter, angry” language—the very language Paul uses as a warning to watch out for.¹² But it’s not just moody language—its words are traditionally understood as obscene. You can see for yourself in Denny Burk’s thorough cataloging. But the way of Christ, the way of true moral courage, is one of humility. It is one of kind conviction, gentle courage, and meek strength. It is neither “cowardly accommodation nor the lust for domination. It is not a call to limp wristed hopelessness or to blood thirsty valor. Rather, it is armed with courage and spiritual valor for the good of others.”¹³ The hurting people in our pews need the lowly way of Christ in their pain. The stories of abuse are not lacking if you have ears to hear, either. These victims in our communities need protection from those who unjustly—and devilishly—wield their strength.

3.4.4 Shepherds for Sale

Finally, should we plunder works like Megan Basham’s new Shepherds for Sale? It reviews major areas of concern and it doesn’t argue in favor of novel revisions of the Trinity or justification. Those Basham catalogs are what she calls “wolves, cowards, mercenaries, and fools” and we all agree these sorts of people should be exposed.¹⁴ Even so, I argue the book should be ignored for two reasons. First, because the areas of true concern are common knowledge. Second, and more importantly, the book should be ignored because it fails to reliably tell the whole truth which moral courage and proper moral judgment require. Where the book is true and accurate is where the book isn’t needed. Who here is unaware of Andy Stanley and Matthew Vines? These facts are decades old and well-known. Who missed the numerous blunders over COVID? They’ve been replayed ad nauseam on the internet. Who is still peddling Critical Race Theory in conservative evangelical spaces? Even all six Southern Baptist seminary presidents wrote that CRT is incompatible with the Baptist Faith and Message in 2020. Yes, we can recount those stories and expose the serious errors. But why do we need logical fallacies that are open to legitimate criticism to advance a narrative? Worse, why do we need mischaracterization and unreliable telling of events to do it?

Simply put, there are many areas throughout the book that are told in distorted ways, being argued via logical fallacies (e.g., post hoc, propter hoc) or what I can only surmise is intentional deceit. When exposed the author has doubled down on them. For example, she has even recently tweeted in response to disagreement that “it is dishonest to present disagreements in interpretation as errors. A difference of opinion is not an error.”¹⁵ She is right. Some interpretations are fair and valid to disagree on. However, a wrong interpretation is an error full-stop and some interpretations are also dishonest. There may be multiple plausible interpretations of an event. The event may even be complex with multiple aspects that are true. But there is only one interpretation that is the truth. Making something a matter of differing interpretation does not magically absolve one of error or dishonesty. Now, it’s true that an error of understanding or a bad argument is not the same as intentional deceit. We all make mistakes, many of which we overlook if the holes in our narrative ship aren’t completely sinking it. But the person committed to moral courage, moral judgment, and honesty, when presented with alternative explanations or additional facts should “gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story” and then be committed to “the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant” as the Society of Professional Journalist code of ethics would say.¹⁶ But based on her omission of crucial facts, her claims that are mischaracterizations and sometimes fabrications, her failure of proper reasoning, and her inability to admit error after the fact, I am forced to conclude that many of the errors in this book are those of deceit. I hope that is not true but without an admission of error, there seems to be no alternative. Whatever value there is in a book is destroyed by a lack of honesty. There are many books and ideas that are wrong but worthy of engagement but none that are told in deceptive ways that are worth our time. So, if the book regularly lacks argumentative rigor and what I can only conclude is a lack of integrity, why recommend it when the truths within are found elsewhere without the same lack of honesty? Reliability is essential for trust. Without a consistent and reliable commitment to the truth and well-formed augmentation, one does not possess the virtue of honesty. Spurgeon warns that “when a man once gives himself up to a deceitful heart he gets to be a destroyer of others.”¹⁷ A lack of honesty hurts not only the person without the virtue but also those on whom they set their targets.

Let me give you two examples of what I conclude is dishonesty (and poor reasoning to go with it) to prove this point. This is a point that I understand is not a light charge, which is why I develop these at length to allow for criticism of my own understanding of the facts. If I am wrong, then I too must be willing to admit error and update my own understanding of the broader narrative. But given the evidence I share here, I am confident this charge is neither uncharitable nor unreasonable. If it turns out that these are genuine errors and not lies, we should rejoice. But proper moral judgment and moral courage still require us to avoid works that contain errors of this level. As Neil Shenvi has accurately pointed out, this is following Basham’s own advice where she argues that if someone has “failed to accurately represent” one thing then “there’s reason to doubt” the “framing of all.”¹⁸

First, she recounts a conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2021 entitled the Goodness of Creation and Human Responsibility. She calls it a “conference dedicated to the subject” of “climate change activism” held by Danny Akin. She explains how “all six speakers took the position that climate change is a problem of catastrophic proportions and that Christians have a duty to take up the issue.” This is why she earlier claims that Christian institutions are smuggling ideas about climate change “through shallow religious manipulation and a demand for consensus that Scripture does not require.”¹⁹ She then claims that Oxford Professor Alister McGrath argued that “believers who do not view climate change as an existential crisis possess less love for God’s creation.”²⁰ On its face, this likely sounds like a fair and benign retelling of events. Many reading the book are already suspicious of Southern Baptist organizations so this would seem to track.

The problem is that there are several falsehoods within even this small paragraph that misleads readers. First, Danny Akin did not organize this conference. That’s a small error, so we can generously assume she simply didn’t know. But it matters given the number of errors and the ultimately serious conclusion. Second, the conference featured nine speakers over the course of the event rather than six. Third, the conference was not dedicated to climate change activism. Fourth, Alister McGrath did not argue that “believers who do not view climate change as an existential crisis possess less love for God’s creation.”

How do I know this? I was invited to be one of the nine speakers myself. My talk was a defense of gender essentialism. I did not even mention climate change in my talk nor in the Q&A that followed it. If the conference was dedicated to the subject, why allow me to give a lecture? If the conference only featured six speakers, why invite nine total to give lectures and post all nine to the website as part of the conference? To be fair, Basham in later interaction has admitted to not knowing about these additional three speakers, so this is not deceit but a failure of due diligence.²¹ Some may also quibble, as she has herself after learning of these additional speakers, that my lecture, along with two others, was not “advertised” initially and was included through a paper competition organized for the conference.²² But anyone aware of how academic conferences work understands that this is normal. Even if it was abnormal, if someone gives a lecture with a Q&A during a conference event, is recorded as a lecture, and then is labeled as such by the conference itself, they are a “speaker.” Any attempt to obfuscate this is taking a page out of the Bill Clinton “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” playbook.

I also know these are not merely research failures but are misleading claims because I’ve re-listened to the talks by Mark Leiderbach (The Great God, the Good Creation, the Grand Story, and our Glorious Response) and Alister McGrath (Creation, Redemption, and Wonder). Nowhere do they engage the topic of climate change, much less denigrate Christians who have differing views. They are rather standard lectures dealing with basic Christian themes like creation, fall, and redemption. For example, McGrath repeatedly explains that science is not at odds with Christianity nor does it have all the facts. He explains how “the Christian gospel heals our eyes to see the world as it really is.” He details how God entrusted creation to us to steward and that science has its limits. He belabors how an appreciation of God’s works in creation leads to enhanced appreciation of God. These are hardly claims about climate extremism. They sound like traditional conservative statements to me. If he said anything about an “existential crisis,” I completely missed it. I even pulled the transcript to make sure and couldn’t find a single reference to climate. Surely one of the most prolific theologians and apologists of the last century, who helped dispose of the “new atheists” as quickly as they formed, deserves at least the honor of having a footnote to find his apparent quote. Yes, she is right that some mention the climate, and some did so in an “alarmist” type way. But to suggest the entire conference was dedicated to this is not merely a factual error. It is a dishonest retelling of events, whether intentional or not.

Recognizing this is not an attempt to be “silly and petty” or anything else. Instead, it is a call to be consistently committed to integrity and the faithful retelling of events. It is to have the moral courage to speak against those who may think like us yet have more power and influence. It is a call to tell the truth even if it negatively impacts a narrative we want to believe or convey. It is a commitment to honesty even if it financially impacts us, whether through fewer book sales because of a more ordinary book with fewer sinister villains, or not. Those that lack the commitment to telling the full truth are unreliable and ultimately untrustworthy. They lack moral courage and moral judgment—the moral virtues we need for our time. Furthermore, the idea that it is a minor issue to misrepresent people and call them wolves is absurd. It’s not minor in the slightest. It’s not a mere misstep that can be safely ignored and swept under the carpet. It’s called bearing false witness and it’s a violation of the second table of the law. Partnering with and platforming those who lack such virtue is a recipe for disaster in the long term. What may be gained in the short-term (ignoring the innocent collateral damage, certainly it is morally injurious to bear false witness!) is lost tenfold in the long-term.

But her misleading narrative in this instance doesn’t stop here. She even casts the school’s L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture as a “temple” that has fallen “prey to moneychangers.”²³ What was their crime to be likened to apostate hypocrites seeking financial gain? According to Basham it is an invitation offered to Jonathan Moo to deliver a lecture to a small group of students entitled Loving God and Neighbor in an Age of Climate Crisis. An invitation she thinks goes against the vision of the late founder Russ Bush (though, had she consulted the works of Russ Bush or interviewed his students, friends, and co-faculty members, she’d realize otherwise. Bush was no fearful fundamentalist.). She spends over five pages recounting this lecture, which leads us to naturally assume this indicates the views of every student and faculty member.²⁴

Why is this all deceitful, or at best a failure of basic argumentation? Because it’s framed in a narrative leading one to think our institutions like Southeastern are corrupt and profiting from it. They are wicked money changers that need to be driven out. But is this really true? Should we really think an entire institution is corrupt because it had Jonathan Moo give one lecture to a small group of students in a controlled environment where faculty could (and did!) discuss before and after? Did she bother to include the esteemed Drummond Bush series of lectures from Fall 2021 between these two events she describes? No. Why not? I can only surmise that it is because Carl Trueman was invited to deliver these lectures where he also delivered talks at faculty and student meetings. And we know that Carl isn’t for sale (though, maybe he is based on the stories from this book given his previous book Republocrat). Ironically, his keynote lecture was entitled “The Freedom of the Christian and the Bondage of the Shrill.” His was a lecture I attended myself and has much in common with what I argue here. He explained how “technology tilts us towards ‘gotchas,’ not towards truth…. Twitter allows for the ripping out of context of what people say. And when you take something out of context, you destroy its meaning.” He argued that “the purpose of polemics in the church is not the gotcha, the destruction of the other person; it’s the pursuit of the truth.” Indeed, the pursuit of truth is the very end for which I write.

Speaking of Carl Trueman, one could simply peruse his Histories and Fallacies to find wisdom for carefully reporting facts and reconstructing narratives—wisdom that would have aided a book like this. He thoroughly explains the task of the historian, and by extension anyone seeking to describe views from the past, whether one day or one century. One of the most nascent sections is where he explains how intentions are almost never single. He says:

Within the sphere of publicly recoverable intentions, there is a need for the historian to have an awareness of the status and basis of historical claims about these intentions and thus to be conscious of their relative provisionality. Some are easily verifiable; others less so. As always, the historian needs to be aware of the limits of evidence and to be appropriately modest in the claims to certainty that he makes.²⁵

The lessons here are multiple. One of the key lessons is that anyone reporting and describing someone else should be committed to properly describing authorial intention and not what one wants, hopes, or imagines might be the case. Another key lesson is that authorial intention is “restricted to that which is recoverable from public action.” This means we need documented sources and not interpretations of them, or worse, conjectures on what might be the case given assumptions not explicitly documented from the author, to understand what someone means. We must read them in full context, read each source, and only then are we able to offer a reconstruction. History, whether it be a monograph on a fourth-century theologian or a book by a journalist about sell-out religious leaders, must never be done on “vibes.” Without documented evidence and without a clear chain of reasoning, conclusions and criticisms must be withheld. To do anything else is to lack basic integrity. If one cannot commit to doing the proper research to avoid making unsubstantiated or unsupportable claims, it is best to stop speaking.

But even if this were all true—even if an institution like Southeastern was sold out to climate change activism—painting them as wolves speaks of a broken compass on what matters for faithful Christian doctrine and witness. If we suggest a Christian is for sale, corrupt, or apostate, it should be related to matters of creedal orthodoxy—not matters of political activism which are matters of Christian liberty and prudence. To think otherwise is to devolve into a crude American fundamentalism instead of a robust creedalism and confessionalism. It is to destroy the liberty of conscience the Reformed confessions defended. As the Second London Baptist Confession 21.2 says: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience.” The beauty and safety of creeds and confessions is that you know what matters and what doesn’t, and you know how much something matters. It removes the temptation to set up our own personal doctrinal or political shibboleths. Cue the Bernie Sanders meme: “I am once again asking you to become confessional.” Ironically, Basham appears to agree with me as she concludes her chapter. She says, “It is wrong …. To make agreement on environmental policies a test of biblical faithfulness. It is wrong to make climate change activism a measure of one’s commitment to the Gospel.”²⁶ In this, she is right. If only she was consistently committed to it.

The second example comes from chapter seven of her book where she discusses what she describes as attempts to implement abuse reforms in “the largest Protestant denominations” that “mirror the Title IX policies that have unleashed a storm of false allegations and unjust investigations on college campuses.”²⁷ Basham then demurs from journalistic reporting, as she often does throughout the book, and takes on the tone of a theologian or pastor as she cautions against these reforms, seeing two related issues: (1) the secular media and activists within the church have far overstated the extent of the problem of abuse, and (2) the implementation of these unbiblical and unjust systems opens the door for reckless and unchecked allegations of abuse.²⁸

Fine and good. Maybe this is the case. But a centerpiece of Basham’s argument rests on her presentation of the findings of a 2022 report conducted by the investigative firm Guidepost, a report that was commissioned by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Basham cites media headlines about this report, which called it a “bombshell,” a “reckoning” or, in the words of Russell Moore, an “apocalypse.” Basham then asks, “What does an apocalypse look like in hard numbers?”²⁹ It looks like the 409 accused abusers over the course of a 21-year period that she claims investigators identified. Basham places this figure next to the “extremely cautious” estimate of “over a million people” in the SBC and concludes: this is “an astonishingly low rate” of abuse.³⁰ Indeed, it is! That’s less than 1%. Even more surprising, writes Basham, is that Guidepost only “turned up” two current cases during their investigation. Surely anyone describing this as a “reckoning” has an agenda to push and not righteous indignation. She concludes her case by citing a demographer who reports that the Guidepost report fails to show “an endemic problem of sexual abuse.”³¹

Again, if the only evidence we are given is Basham’s retelling, this sounds rather fair. It sounds like we should be suspicious of the cast of villains she has assembled in this chapter like Philip Bethancourt, Rachael Denhollander, and the apparent Sith lord Russell Moore. But again, there is either a striking inability to read primary source documents and properly report on events or intentional deceit since her narrative grossly misrepresents the Guidepost report. Guidepost was not directed to investigate the extent of sexual abuse in the SBC’s approximately 48,000 churches, and thus roughly 1,000,000 (by her estimation) people serving and working in SBC churches. Rather, the messengers of the SBC voted by an overwhelming majority to create a task force that would be responsible for hiring a firm to investigate how members of the SBC’s Executive Committee (EC)—a group of around 80 people at any given time—had handled reports of abuse they had received over a period of 21 years. As the report itself clearly states, the motion made by the messengers directed Guidepost to investigate the following:

Allegations of abuse by EC members
Mishandling of abuse allegations by EC members between January 1, 2000, to June 14, 2021
Allegations of mistreatment of sexual abuse victims by EC members from January 1, 2000, to June 14, 2021
Patterns of intimidation of sexual abuse victims or advocates from January 1, 2000, to June 14, 2021
Resistance to sexual abuse reform initiatives from January 1, 2000, to June 14, 2021³²

Basham spent several pages reviewing the math for this investigation. How then could she have missed these basic facts? Maybe she didn’t read the report. If she did, there is no way she could have been under the impression that it was an investigation into the extent of abuse in the SBC at large. Yet, this is exactly how she presents it and analyzes it. It is not progressive to recognize that there has been a massive mistake here that undermines her entire argument. Her presentation of these figures forms the basis for many of her criticisms of the reports’ supposed omissions. But the report is not about the SBC having an unusually large number of abusers compared to other groups. It’s about how these reports of abuse have been received by the EC. By giving the impression that Guidepost was tasked with investigating and verifying the number of cases, however, Basham misleads her readers to believe that even after looking into it, investigators were not able to find many cases. But the truth is that the number of 409 abusers was not even “uncovered” by investigators at all. Rather, the number came from the EC itself, which had been keeping a secret internal database of its own that came to light in the course of Guidepost’s investigation. This information isn’t tucked away deep within the report, either. It’s at the very beginning. On pages 4 and 5, it reads as follows:

Over the years, the existence of these reports of abuse were not shared with EC Trustees. Nor was the fact that, since 2007, an EC staff member working for Mr. Boto was maintaining a list of accused ministers in Baptist churches, including the minister’s name, year reported, relevant news articles, state, and denomination. In a May 2019 email to Dr. Ronnie Floyd, the then-EC President, EC Vice President Dr. Roger “Sing” Oldham acknowledged that “[f]or the past decade, I have been regularly sending Augie news reports of Baptist ministers who are arrested for sexual abuse, for his awareness. It hasn’t slowed down since the [Houston] Chronicle articles started on February 10.” Mr. Botoresponded that: “Yes. We are collecting them, and may even post them in some way, but we’d have to really examine the potential liabilities that would stem therefrom.” Despite collecting these reports for more than 10 years, there is no indication that Dr. Oldham, Mr. Boto, or anyone else, took any action to ensure that the accused ministers were no longer in positions of power at SBC churches. The most recent list prepared by the EC staff member contained the names of 703 abusers, with 409 believed to be SBC affiliated at some point in time.³³

How else should we interpret Basham’s narrative and mathematical calculations given that the report, in no uncertain terms, explains that this figure came from the EC itself? It is either intentional deceit or a grave misreading of the document that discredits the entire chapter. Indeed an error of this proportion should discredit her ability to reliably report on events in any capacity. It is one thing to suggest a false claim without knowledge, another even to share a false claim publicly. Additionally, it is one thing to incorrectly publish the batting average of a baseball player, but another to incorrectly publish the handling of sexual abuse. To publish a false claim of this magnitude in a book claiming to uncover the real truth is unacceptable. No one committed to truth should stand for errors of this level. Guidepost was not tasked with investigating any additional cases. Instead, they were tasked by the messengers with examining the EC’s handling of the cases they were aware of (the 409 they self-reported). What Guidepost did uncover was (1) that the EC took no action to ensure that these ministers were not in positions of power in SBC churches,³⁴ (2) that EC members engaged in a pattern of intimidation of victims and advocates,³⁵ and (3) actively resisted sexual abuse reform initiatives.³⁶ Furthermore, the alleged abuse of a pastor’s wife by former SBC president Johnny Hunt was also revealed in the course of this investigation.

The fact of the matter is that we simply do not know exactly how many cases of sexual abuse are ongoing in the SBC because there is no reliable way to track, collate, or gather these reports. This is unlike the Department of Education or the Chicago Public School system, whose statistics on abuse in their respective systems Basham takes at face value. But her retelling of events leaves her readers with the impression that present cases involving SBC churches are vanishingly small. The fact is that even after briefly searching and cross-referencing to ensure accuracy, I was able to find at least seven cases of SBC pastors and deacons who are currently being prosecuted for sex crimes involving children.³⁷ This does not include the reports involving volunteers in other capacities within SBC churches, nor does it include any potential ongoing allegations of adult sexual abuse. As an aside, one of these pastors who was publicly opposed to the work of the SBC’s Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF), tweeted in 2023 that their recommendation would “be the end of the SBC,” has since been charged with eighteen felonies for child pornography, including two counts of capital sexual battery of children under 12.³⁸ One wonders what SBC he had in mind when he tweeted those words. But yes, we should just ignore the actual statistics and assume the numbers are astonishingly small. This isn’t to say the SBC is far worse than other groups. But it is to suggest we do not know its extent and therefore cannot make pronouncements on the magnitude. Further, we can say there has been a mishandling and ignoring of current known cases. Given these egregious errors and misleading claims, moral courage and moral judgment demand clarity and integrity: While there may be problems in our midst, we needn’t rely on false reporting to determine them. Our plundering, partnering, and platforming is best done elsewhere.

4. True Courage for Our Times

If you’ve read this far you either agree, are mulling it over, or entirely reject it (with a piece like this, I’m sure there are plenty of “hate” readers—that’s okay, we can be friends even as we dispute and disagree. Surely you respect my own frankness). If you’re in the final category, maybe you see this as another liberal hit piece from Big Eva (or mid Eva? I can’t keep up with the latest ad hominem tropes). It’s an attempt to poison the well of like-minded—and even non-like-minded groups. But may I suggest that you pause and ask “what if he’s right? What if many of these groups and individuals really do regularly employ the tools of the enemy?”

Think about it. Because the tools of the enemy are there to see. The fruit from groups like Moscow is infected (and yes, from groups like American Reformer too. While they have a robust mission statement and quality content and trustworthy contributors at various times, this cannot mask the regular promotion of the tools of the enemy). It’s time we exercised proper judgment regarding groups that consistently and intentionally traffic in deceit, discord, and division. Our unbridled promotion leads to ruin. Saint Paul wasn’t wrong.

Romans 16:17: Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

1 Timothy 6:3-5: If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

The fruit is on display. The constant friction, dissension, slander, and evil suspicion are there. It’s not fragile to recognize this. It’s not employing the “eleventh commandment” to expose it. It’s not deploying the tools of the regime to demand adherence to Christian doctrine and the moral life. It’s true courage. It’s what we need now. We can and should recognize departures from the Nicene Creed. We can and should recognize deceitful and underhanded ways. We can and should recognize the blinded zeal of youth. We need fewer groups set on division and quarrels and more dedicated to moral formation and prudent Christian courage. Those in positions of authority ought to exercise prudent moral judgment and guide those under their care toward more consistently faithful voices. Voices that sometimes frustrate us and disagree with us precisely because they have the moral courage to defend unpopular views.

5. Conclusion

The good news is twofold. First, many of those taken by these various groups that lack true moral courage and moral judgment can be redeemed in time. Many involved in supporting these groups can be persuaded, too. But it will not be overnight. It will not happen through cowardly anonymous online accounts hurling childish insults. It will often be through patient friendships where disagreements can be shared. It will sometimes occur through lengthy essays, books, and podcasts. It will especially happen through the ordinary means of grace and God’s spirit working in their midst.

Surely everyone’s story includes following an unwise path for a time, only to be shown a better way by a more trustworthy guide. I too have friends who support and invest in some of these groups. I learn from these friends. I respectfully disagree with many of them. But it is not mere intellectual disagreement that I am arguing against. Those involved in these organizations who remain committed to upstanding moral standards are not those I warn against. They are those I hope to persuade to a more consistent vision of the moral life. Those I warn against are those who intentionally and repeatedly engage in immoral modes of disputation. It is those who are unable to engage in rational discussion but devolve into shrewd dishonesty. It is those who promote doctrine contrary to the way of Christ. These are not matters we should so quickly ignore even if many of these skirmishes take place online because those involved are present (hopefully) in our churches on Sunday. For those rightly concerned by the tactics of these groups, stay the course. Do not compromise on Christian moral theology.

Second, there are other groups we can turn to for inspiration, imagination, and renewal. We needn’t lock arms with the mercenaries and imbibe their misshapen vision of the moral life. We can return to the civic vision of the American founders. We can join, partner with, and support the exciting and growing civic study centers like the Hamilton Center at the University of Florida or the honor’s college at the University of Tulsa. We can link arms with newer free-standing institutions like the Davenant Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, and of course, we can double down on our own local church and its association of churches, as we pursue cultural renewal. Hope remains. We needn’t sacrifice moral courage or moral judgment for its sake. We can remain committed to the moral vision of Scripture and the Christian tradition.

So, what time is it? Yes. It’s time for courage. But not at the cost of Christian virtue. Or worse, the gospel itself.

Author

Jordan Steffaniak

Jordan L. Steffaniak is President of the London Lyceum and Publisher for Hanover Press. He is a PhD candidate in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, UK, and teaches at several institutions. He has a wonderful wife and three sons. He also works in the financial industry.
View all posts

Recent Posts

Plundering the Mercenaries: On Knowing What Time It Is

Baptists and Confessions: In Defense of Subscription

Creeds, Confessions, and Carroll: An Essay in Defense of Baptist “Creedalism”

Which Plato? Whose Platonism? Summarizing the Christian Platonism Symposium

Natural Theology and the Uneasy Conscience of Modern “Calvinism”

Connect With TLL

Podcast Channels

Tweets by LondonLyceum

Plundering the Mercenaries: On Knowing What Time It Is

1. New Methods for New Times?

2. The Vacuum of Courage

3. Moral Courage, Moral Judgment, and the Plundering of Mercenaries

3.1 Defending Free Thinking Amid the Abyss

3.2 Should We Trust Crooked Sticks?

3.3 On Augustinian Plundering of the Culture Wars

3.4 Where Should We Plunder?

3.4.1 Aristotle

3.4.2 Critical Race Theory

3.4.3 Moscow

3.4.4 Shepherds for Sale

4. True Courage for Our Times

5. Conclusion

Author

Connect With TLL

Categories

Podcast Channels

You might also enjoy

Retrieving Temptation

On Zombies, Heath Lambert, and Gatekeeping in the Biblical Counseling Movement

A Change of Field: Wisdom from the Past on If/When It’s Time for a Pastoral Transition

Analytic, Baptist, & Confessional Theology

Navigation

Resources