Megan Basham regarding SEBTS Hosting Cornwall Alliance Speaker, E. Calvin Beisner

Megan Basham's "Shepherds for Sale" provides a mixture of good stuff (like identifying the funding for various organizations that have "Evangelical" in the title) and errors (both minor and serious).  

Basham claims: "In fact, I could not find that SEBTS has ever hosted a speaker who has challenged climate change catastrophizing, though the school regularly welcomes those who promote it." (p. 17)

On the other hand, SEBTS's website mentions "A colloquium, Perspectives in Dialogue, will be August 28 [2009?] and will feature two speakers--E. Calvin Beisner and Michael Northcott." Answers in Genesis has posted what Beisner presented here (link).  The website is dated with "2017," but this seems to be an error, perhaps due to a refresh of the website at some point.

Beisner is cited favorably by Basham (on multiple pages) as an opponent to the "efforts to turn evangelicals into environmentalists." (p. 15)  Moreover, Basham says she had a Zoom meeting with him that went "more than thirty minutes past the time I requested" (p. 12).  So, it is mystifying how she overlooked the fact that Beisner was platformed at SEBTS specifically to have interaction on Environmentalism and to respond to Michael Nortcott's book: "A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming." Indeed Basham says that Beisner founded the Cornwall Alliance, which she praises in her book:

(p. 12)

The "Climate Change Awards" identifying Dr. E. Calvin Beisner as winner of the "Outstanding Spokesperson on Faith, Science, and Stewardship Award," in 2014 wrote:

Dr. Beisner has spoken recently on environmental ethics and policy at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Talbot School of Theology, Charleston Southern University, and Biola University, as well as at churches, and at The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council, and was a guest on Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck hour-long special program discussing how the Green movement is infiltrating churches and targeting youth and on MSNBC discussing evangelicals and the environment.

This is not a comprehensive study of the folks that have spoken at SEBTS.  This is just the result of spending a few minutes checking whether one of the main heroes of Basham's chapter 1 had, in fact, been invited to speak at SEBTS.  

Here's a screenshot of SEBTS' website from August 2009:

And here's a screenshot of the first page of the chapter published by AIG:

Here's a screenshot of the CFC website:

Here's a screenshot of the event page:

SEBTS described the event, thus (Here's a link to a report of the event):

On Friday, August 28, 2009 the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture hosted a colloquium titled Creation Care: Perspectives in Dialogue. The colloquium featured Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, a founder and the national spokesperson for the Cornwall Alliance for the stewardship of creation and Dr. Michael Northcott Professor of Ethics at University of Edinburgh. Both men are influential voices in the subject of creation stewardship and have contributed much to the ongoing discussion on this topic.

The colloquium's first session opened with a welcome and introductions given by moderator and senior fellow, Dr. Mark Liederbach. Dr. Michael Northcott followed, giving the first lecture, 'Behold I have set the land before you' (Deut. 1:8) Landcare in the Bible and Today. Dr. Northcott's lecture focused on humanity's special relationship to the land  and our responsiblity to replenish the earth as evidenced throughout the Old Testament. He concluded his lecture by applying the Old Testament agricultural principles and practices to today's American farming industry and bringing to light some of today's most critical issues regarding the current food economy. Dr. E. Calvin Beisner gave the second lecture of the afternoon titled, Biblical Foundations for Creation Care. Also, basing much of his argument from the Old Testament Dr. Beisner also contended that humanity has a unique responsibility to creation as image-bearers of God, but emphasized the producer role of humanity. Dr. Beisner, while positing humanity's responsibility to care for creation, also posited the earth's resilience to humankind's use of its resources. The afternoon session concluded with a lively dialogue between the speakers and a question and answer time with the audience.

Following the break for dinner, the Creation Care Colloquium reconvened with Dr. Northcott again commencing the lectures and Dr. Beisner following. The topic for the evening session centered around the issue of global warming. Dr. Northcott made a case for the reality of global warming while Dr. Beisner contended against it. Again the speakers engaged each other regarding the topic at hand and then received questions from the audience.

The colloquium presented an opportunity for an increased and clearer understanding of the issues and concerns embedded in this much debated subject. There were two sessions with each concluding in a Q & A time. This event was the second of three creation care initiatives with funding provided by The Energy Foundation.

Megan Basham and the 2022 NAE Report

Chapter 1 of Basham's book is "Climate Change."  After an anecdote about a CRC pastor talking about climate change at Christmastime, Basham offers the cases of Sri Lanka, Holland, and Ghana (pp. 2-3)

Then, she makes her first concrete claim (p. 3): 

Meanwhile, in the United States, the National Association of Evangelicals released a 2022 report telling American Christians that supporting the very policies responsible for all this is what it means to love "the least of these."11

The report itself can be found here (link to report).

The policies identified by Basham for Sri Lanka were "a 2021 green policy banning imports of chemical fertilizers and pesticides." For Holland, she mentioned: "a 30 percent reduction in livestock...." For Ghana, "transition away from 'polluting and expensive oil-burning electricity' and toward solar and hydropower" and "less-effective organic fertilizers mandated by Paris Accord climate commitments." 

You may share my disappointment that the report contains not a whisper regarding "the very policies" Basham mentions, particularly as to the food and farming regulations.  The closest thing I could find was the "Real World Example" bridging pages 74-75 of the report, which states: "The church planted a community garden and discussed the importance of stewarding their bodies with healthy food and keeping food safe from chemical contamination."  

Basham is closer to the target on oil regulations.  The report argues: "To prevent the problem of a heating globe from getting worse, we need to stop emissions from burning coal, oil and gas." (p. 62).  Again, at page 71: "We need to severely cut greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane and switch to non-fossil fuel energy sources. ... Mitigation means using more efficient appliances, shifting to public transportation and renewable energy-powered vehicles, prioritizing energy savings, eating more plant-based diets, and passing legislation that helps speed up the transition to renewable energy." 

The authors of the NAE report might support all the policies that Basham blames. They are certainly broadly supportive of reducing reliance on oil, which is one of the policies that Basham blames in Ghana.  Nevertheless, Basham levels a false assertion when she claims that the report tells American Christians that supporting "the very policies" is what it means to love the least of Christ's brethren. 

Additionally, it is not at all clear from the report that the authors of the NAE report would support the "very policies."  They certainly support the broad aim of reducing man-made pollution.  Nevertheless, considering the report's emphasis on the duties of those who have helping those who do not have, it is hard to imagine them supporting relatively poor countries, like Sri Lanka or Ghana, attempting to mitigate issues entirely unsupported. 

The kinds of solutions emphasized by the report are reflected by this screenshot from p. 65:

Notice the recognition of the inability of "poorer communities" to do unilateral mitigation and the suggestion of churches as doing the work of charity to support those in need.

Basham could have accurately claimed that the report was based on an acceptance of the "climate change" narrative.  Such a claim, however, would lack the emotional impact that the quoted material from Basham offers.  Nevertheless, truth - not emotional impact - should be our guide.

Just because we disagree with the NAE regarding climate change does not mean we can blithely slander them.

Megan Basham and King James

A quick caveat for those readers who are wont to see everything even seemingly critical of Basham as an attack on "our side" (note the absolutely mindless blowback that Richard Barcellos got): that's not what this post is.

Megan Basham's book, "Shepherds for Sale," has elsewhere been answered as to Gavin Ortlund (first video, follow-up video) and as to JD Greear (link to Neil Shenvi's tweets) and more generally as to quality (link to Rev Reads video).  I myself highlighted an odd claim by Megan that she reached to out to Keller in advance of publishing her book (Keller was dying of cancer when Megan was still researching Keller's views, and passed away more than a year before she published).

As someone who has often advocated for improvements to the King James version, I was naturally curious about Basham's discussion of "King James."  The two references have virtually nothing to do with the central point of Basham's tome.  Nor is this post intended to address the central point of Basham's tome (just repeating this so that the ignorant folks can ignore it a second time).

Basham's reference to "King James" is found in two portions.  The first portion comes from a passage bridging pages xiv and xv, with the second portion constituting a call-back reference at page xviii.  In both portions, Basham refers to "King James." Her index refers to this person as "James, King of England." (As a side note, you will note other issues in her citations including her bizarre citation chapter 171 of John as well as her more understandable error of noting chapter 1 in her citations of Jude.)   

Let's consider Basham's claims:

• A couple of years ago, my husband and I took an anniversary trip to Boston and visited the King's Chapel.

There is no reason to doubt this particular claim.  The only thing of interest for our discussion purposes is that it sets the stage for which King's Chapel she has in mind.  It is this one (link to page, link to Wikipedia page).  As a minor point of historical interest, the building they presumably visited is the stone church that was built from 1749-54 around the previously constructed wooden church.  The previously constructed wooden church was then shipped to Nova Scotia, where it was rebuilt.

As of the preparation of this blog post, the church lists its clergy as "The Rev. Joy K. Fallon" as "Senior Minister" ("she/her/hers") and "The Rev. Sam Holland" ("they/them/theirs").  The website also provides some historical background (link to page).

• As our guide explained, the "King's" part of that moniker is noteworthy.

 Again, I have no beef with this claim.  I would note that tour guides are great starting points for research, but that they have a tendency to create or at least perpetuate legends.  As Basham only cites this anonymous guide for the moniker being noteworthy, it's hard to tell how much she was reliant on this source for her claims.

• The Lord Bishop of London established America's first Church of England congregation in 1686, in part to shore up the Crown's authority over belligerent Puritan colonists who had a penchant for defying English law.

Here's where we begin to diverge sharply with Basham.  

According to the Chapel's page: 

In response to petitions from a small group of Anglicans in Boston, the Church of England sent Reverend Robert Ratcliffe to Massachusetts, where he, Royal Agent Edward Randolph, and Royal Governor Edmund Andros established King's Chapel as the first official Anglican church in the Dominion of New England. 

(source)

We can certainly concede that the Bishop of London had some kind of jurisdiction over the colonies from the Church of England perspective.  The Episcopal Dictionary of the Church explains:

On Oct. 1, 1633, the Privy Council ordered with regard to the colonies that “. . . in all things concerning their church government they should be under the jurisdiction of the Lord Bishop of London.” In 1638, when Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury, he proposed sending a bishop to New England. 

(see more here)

As you may have guessed from reading between the lines, one glaring problem with Basham's characterization is that the first Anglican parish was founded in Jamestown in 1607 (William Sydnor, Looking at the Episcopal Church, p. 72).  The original Jamestown church building apparently burnt down the next year.  Nevertheless, a church tower dating to the 17th century still remains as a tourist attraction (see here). So, no.  King's Chapel was not America's first Church of England congregation.

Francis William Pitt Greenwood, in 1833, actually wrote the book, "A History of the King's Chapel in Boston." (link) As the subtitle explains, it was the "Introduction of Episcopacy into the Northern Colonies."  So, someone hoping to rescue Basham's claims might note that although not America's first, it was New England's first (as also noted on the Chapel's page, cited above).

Greenwood provides a more thorough background of the political machinations that motivated Ratcliffe's arrival and the establishment of an official Anglican church in Boston.  Greenwood suggests that Edward Randolph aimed to "destroy the ancient civil rights of the colony by taking away their charter, and setting them a governor appointed by the crown." (p. 20)  Moreover, Greenwood indicates that the funding for this church was proposed to be obtained by diverting funds that were intended to be for missionary work to the American Indians ("He then repeats his favorite project of laying hold of the money designed for converting the Indians; calls it a 'bank of money,' and doubts not that it amounts to at least two thousand pounds..." p. 30)

Basham doesn't explain the accusation that "belligerent Puritan colonists" had a habit of "defying English law." Greenwood, by contrast, notes that "the general court had declared in 1677, that no persons should be hindered from performing divine service according to the church of England." (p. 16) Greenwood's book provides the following contrasting account:

Having advanced thus far in our history, it is easy to perceive that episcopalianism in New England was in a great measure indebted to the efforts, official and personal, of Edward Randolph. Though he was not so bad a man as the colonists represented and believed him to be, yet he was arbitrary, selfish and grasping, and not a champion for a religious denomination to be proud of. But a cause cannot always choose its promoters and many promoters of this cause were highly respectable members of the community, fairly entitled from the first to the liberty which they won at last. 

(p. 32)

Moreover, reading through the background material provided in Greenwood's introduction, it seems that the issue of whether the religious services and practices of the Church of England would be permitted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was one that was sparked by the fall of Cromwell's Commonwealth and by the ascension of Charles II.  It was in 1683 that Charles II sent Edward Randolph with a quo warranto against the colony's charter (pp. 11-12).  In 1685, Charles II died and was succeeded by his brother James II of England (aka James VII of Scotland). In 1686, the "Rose frigate" arrived with a commission to Mr. Joseph Dudley as the president of Massachusetts and the colonies to the north thereof (p. 13).  

The "Dominion of New England in America" established in 1686 upon the annulling of the Massachusetts charter was vigorously resisted by the colonists, in various ways, and only lasted three years (for more discussion).  It seems unfair, therefore, to cast the New England Puritans as the lawbreakers, rather than the Roman Catholic monarchs, Charles II and James II.

• Today, the media and publishing industries insist that the political right is playing the role of King James, leveraging churches to fulfill political aims.

Above all, it is confusing at best to refer to James II as "King James." The sovereign that is usually referenced this way, because of the King James Version, is King James I of England (aka King James VI of Scotland).  

More to the point of the attempt to springboard from the anecdote, neither Charles II nor James II was trying to "leverage churches to fulfill political aims."  It would be much more accurate to say that both of these Roman Catholic monarchs (the last two in England's history) attempted to leverage political power to achieve their religious aims.  Even on Basham's account, there was not a pre-existing Church of England congregation to leverage in Boston.   

Basham's final reference to "King James" (p. xviii):

• Keeping alive the spirit of American resistance to the agendas of the powerful that so vexed King James, evangelicals just won't get with the program.

James II was an unpopular king (with Protestants in Great Britain, especially), and was deposed in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, an action with which the colonies could not reasonably be blamed.  In November 1685, James II dismissed the English Parliament for its refusal to pass measures granting greater religious liberty, and he did the same to the Scottish Parliament in 1686.  James II presented the question in terms of allowing Roman Catholics and Non-Conformists greater religious liberty in England and Scotland, but the action in New England can be seen largely as an extension of his and his brother's attempts to reduce the Protestant establishment.  Resistance to Roman Catholic monarchs was hardly unique to America at the time.

Just so it can be ignored for a third and final time, this post does not aim to (nor does it) contradict the main point of Basham's book.  The main point of her book is sufficiently vague and general as to be indisputable, namely that there are some "evangelical leaders" who share in at least a part of the "leftist agenda."

Rather this post points out a few errors.  Basham, in a recent interview, suggested that they would be fixing "a few little errors" for a second print run (link to a few seconds before this assertion).  We will see if even the fairly non-controversial errors are fixed:

1. Definitely not first CoE congregation in the American colonies.
2. King James II should be differentiated from the famous King James.
3. There is no chapter 171 in John's Gospel
4. Jude should be cited by verse, not chapter/verse.

To which we could also suggest at least one trivial error in the formatting of 2 Corinthians and Genesis in the index (surely these are not too controversial to fix).  

Screenshots as "receipts" follow:

...