Shepherds for Sale Vindicated

Opening Explanation for the Delay and Support

We're alive now in the conversations that matter podcast. I'm your host John Harris. It's a bit later than I wanted it to be. That wasn't an earthquake. That was Me bumping into the camera. Stand there.

It's a it's a beautiful day it's a hot day though. Let me tell you what I need to provide an explanation. Especially for those of you who support the podcast and I am thankful For all of you out there who pray and who also give as patrons.

I could not do what I do writing speaking this podcast even without your support. So I just want to acknowledge that and if you want to support podcast patreon .com forward slash worldview conversation, but I do owe you an explanation because I've been pretty Missing in action the last week and I've had several requests to talk about Megan's book again.

Of course, I did interview her that was over a month ago. Yeah before my daughter was Born knows it was two days two or three days after my daughter was born. So it was like late May I think when when I did the interview later part of May and I obviously I released it though at the beginning of last week and there was the backlash that I think everyone could have expected and now there's a lot of people weighing in on it and.

So.

I didn't feel the need to say a lot. But I couldn't say a lot and that's really what I wanted to let you know about. I Had a project I thought would take a day or maybe an afternoon my the roof of my garage was slumping a bit and.

So I went out there and I started taking the roof apart a little bit just so I could see. And I thought it might be replacing a board. Because it was a low point a little bit like the water was gathering there and I thought there's some water damage and then when I saw what it was and the carpenter ants my My heart just sank.

And this is I think the third time and I have a fixer-upper. It's important. It was born Built not born thinking of my daughter. It was built in 1920 and It's an older house. So what can I say? I grew up in a house that was from the 17 Probably 60s or 70s.

Yeah, it was that old it it. It predates the Constitution it probably most likely predates the Declaration of Independence. And my dad was always working on stuff and you get houses that are old like that in the Northeast.

Well, mine's not that old but it is 1920. So Carpenter ants so what I thought would take a day. Maybe has taken me about a week and I just got done this afternoon around 3 o 'clock.

So.

I've been keeping one eye open a little bit on what's been going on and I was aware of Gavin Ortlund stuff. I listened to actually both his podcasts about Megan's book last night so that I could Understand what the critique was.

I wasn't clear on what the critique was. That was part of the problem is I only had the capacity in the last week to pretty much go on X and I could Put a tweet out there real quick and then get to work and I there's so many things I wanted to do.

I couldn't and so I Didn't know exactly what the complaints were about. I saw that there was this big thing about Gavin Ortlund, but I was like What is it? Exactly? He says Megan Bash and misrepresented him.

But how and then I listened to his podcast and I thought oh, that's why I didn't see anything. That was Really specific because there really isn't anything. That's that specific Gavin Ortlund is. Well, we'll get into it.

We'll get into it. I don't want to jump ahead of things here, but It's more optics style. Feelings it's it's a I Think he thinks that he has legitimate point counterpoint but when you look at what he says and what he tries to use to Combat Megan's points about him that you're just left thinking.

Okay, you like you don't like the fact like she's mean that's basically it like you feel like she was mean. She summarized your points. You don't like the summary. You don't like. You want to come off as more winsome reasonable third way?

Let's just call it what it is. You want to come off as less political and Megan pegged you for what you are. You're more political you're more on the left on this issue and That's the bottom line and then some of the things that he was attributing that you know that she said about him.

She didn't really say about him. She was making general statements about a posture that exists in evangelicalism. So he took things way too personally in my opinion. But James Royals asked Ortlund's video made me much more nervous about the book.

He definitely brought up fair points and misrepresentation. I can understand why you might think that to be quite honest because When you're listening to it. And I listen to both of them in a row his podcast.

You think at the end you're like wow that seemed like he seems reasonable like he see it like the way he talks the way he comes across the words he uses the hushed tones the. He doesn't seem unhinged.

Even if he's boiling beneath the surface, which I think he probably is he doesn't come across that way clearly it really bothers him. But he seems cool calm collected and I think that in and of itself Makes you second-guess things when someone comes across cool calm and collected you just think well, they seem pretty confident I must be the one that's wrong then makes you second-guess yourself.

I Can tell you this though his podcast don't age well. Like there's something my wife and I talk about sometimes you see a movie you see you listen to a podcast you read a book or you have a conversation with a person and we'll say That didn't age.

Well, meaning in the moment you felt one way or you not even felt you had an impression you were Left with the idea that or at least you were open to the idea that you might be wrong about something or you're Starting to be convinced in a certain direction and then you upon thinking about it upon reflecting and digesting what was said.

It didn't age well, and that's how I felt about Gavin Ortlund's podcasts. It seems strong when you're listening to it, but it doesn't age well, and I would agree with coach Hardenbrook I watched both response videos and his clips from the original I think and hope he misrepresents.

He misrepresents Basham and lumps himself in with the wolves and not the duped examples. I think that's yeah part of it. I do agree with that. I think he sees himself as like. He takes it very personally like she's saying he's a shepherd for sale and Megan does make it clear and multiple points in the book as I remember that there are there's a spectrum of motivations and It's not like every single example is as egregious as every other example.

Gavin Ortlund. One of the things that surprised me honestly was Gavin Ortlund is probably one of the less Egregious examples in my mind from the book. In fact, I was having a hard time caring about what Gavin Ortlund thought about what Megan Basham said.

I when I saw I'm not joking or lying obviously, I'm not lying, but I'm not joking about this. When I read in the book and I read it, I read it pretty quick because a lot of the information I think I I'm more I'm familiar with it and I can do that with a book like this.

So I I went through it in one afternoon a few hours and when I got to that part and I saw Gavin Ortlund's name I remember thinking to myself why even bring him up like he doesn't see that significant.

Now, maybe he's more significant than I realize. He's a fellow at the Keller Center. He serves at a manual. I think it's called the manual church in Nashville and Russell Moore serves there there's I see him Albury serves there there's like a it's a kind of a Nest of Big Eva people at that church.

And of course his dad is pretty influential his brother Dane Ortlund wrote gentle and lowly. So yeah, I mean he's got some influence but I'm not like I don't know if I've ever critiqued him on the podcast because he's just not Generally someone who gets into a lot of political things and and he doesn't get into I would say a lot From what I know and I don't listen to him all the time.

But in fact, I've listened to him rarely. I pretty much only see him when it's when there is a controversy and and there was one about theistic evolution. I believe there was one about Obviously now climate change.

But I don't know. He just doesn't Because of his the way he comes across. He's not a huge bomb thrower in my mind and he's not someone that persuades a lot of people in my mind. So I was like, why is Megan talking about him?

But now that she now that she has talked about him. I've seen the reaction. I've seen how the wagons are circling around him. I'm thinking she knew something. I think I probably did it that he was there was definitely some influence there and.

And so I'm glad she did. Conceptual clarity says it seems like a big Eve big Eva has decided that Ortlin is one of the least Indefensible persons mentioned in the book. So therefore he needs to be the point man for the counter-attack.

That's probably I mean, I'll just put it this way if I was choosing from the book who I wanted to be Weak link who I wanted to be the one to go after Megan to say you misrepresented me. I would probably pick Gavin Ortlin aside from any facts just because of who he is just because he's you know, sweet little old me and it's not like Tim Keller or Russell Moore or I don't know any of the other big figures in there.

It's just.

He's just not someone that you're used to his name coming up and so When you see his personality, he just seems more like why would she go after him? And so that's why I If I was making a decision of who would be the respond man, I would pick him.

All right. Any other questions or comments get him in now because I'm gonna take you through a little bit of a slideshow here. Tom Carpenter says he didn't do this all about Gavin Ortlin, which is next week.

We're probably not gonna be talking about him. But he didn't do a good job honestly of pointing it out because he tried to be too nice to her in that chapter Chapter one. She's bad argumentation assume knowledge and outright lies.

I'm assuming that's critical of Megan. I don't know. There's a fight going on in the chat right now. I can't quite keep up with What's directed at me and what's directed at someone else here? All right, so let's just get into it a bit and We won't start with Gavin Ortlin.

I do have by the way. I do have the book pulled up on Kindle if anyone has References or things they want me to look at or respond to or my opinion on. I can always check it out in the book In real time and we'll do that and I think it'll be it'll be profitable.

So.

Let's start.

Where we want to start let's start here. I Think if I can pull it up on the screen. Let me it formats it weird for some reason when I put it up on stream yard, but it legitimate issues. Legitimate issues.

So let me just say there are two issues that I saw. When looking through all the attacks on Megan's book and the way there for admittedly the way this guy Ben Marsh frames. It is like super over-the-top dramatic in my opinion.

But the these are two issues that I thought this is legitimate like this is an actual issue. So let me start there. These are the strongest arguments against Megan's book in my opinion. Wesley Hill who?

He's a like a side B gay Christianity kind of advocate. I don't know what term he would use. He might think that that's not a fair representation. I don't because there's like three terms or four terms they use but he.

He's like on the same-sex attraction is okay or not. Sinful train. And he said taking a look at Megan Basham's book, which says I graduated from a PCA seminary. I didn't and there's only one as a specialist.

I judge generalist books by how they treat what I know something about when I know something about it. If they don't get that right, I doubt the reliability of the rest. So, I don't think that's completely unreasonable to say like, oh they're like if you get this wrong.

What else did you may you have gotten wrong?

I.

Will generally give the benefit of the doubt whether it's an article or even a book because I am someone who has published a few books and I also am pretty involved with true script and so I see the articles that come in and even sometimes after editing there will be things that slip through the cracks and I.

I'm not aware of anything like this in my books, but I do remember the last book that I published on social justice Christianity and social justice religions and conflict I.

I.

Had to contact the publisher and Who's a friend of mine? I decided to scale down because I was sick of I didn't like dealing with I shouldn't say sick. I wasn't sick, but I didn't care for dealing with a brick-and-mortar publisher as much it just I Wanted to be able to talk to someone and you know Get them with the first phone call and really get issues resolved and I remember he got it resolved quick.

Because it was just like a few grammatical things and I'm like, how did this slip through the cracks? So I understand sometimes that kind of stuff happens with a book like this. When you have lawyers going through it when you have a major publishing company, this shouldn't happen.

But somehow it did because Wesley Hill did not go to a PCA seminary and Neither did Collins. The the other guy described here as being part of revoice Nate Collins. He went to the SPC. He was very famously an adjunct at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Russell Fuller talked about how Al Mohler even knew about his dissertation where he talks about the Unix in the Bible as being kind of like a category that we can place same-sex attracted Christians in and You know seemed fine with it so so yeah, this is I'm gonna just say this is legitimate but like I wouldn't dismiss the whole thing because Someone overlooked it was it wasn't a PCA seminary.

I'm not sure what she what Megan was trying to say there or what like what the thought was. I'm sure there was something they probably held an event at a PCA seminary or there was support from a PCA seminary.

There's probably a connection there. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but they didn't go there and then you got this guy Ben Marsh. I'm gonna summarize this because he just it's like it's a wall of words that he takes a lot of time to say something very simple and What he's trying to say.

Is that world relief? Received two hundred fifteen million dollars over a ten-year period from 2008 to 2018 from The government I guess is what it is. So world relief gets this money from the government for things like refugee resettlement over a ten-year period.

Well in the book Megan apparently mentioned only one year. I think she mentions 2018 alone and she attributes that figure to 2018 instead of 2008 to 2018. This is what I would consider to be a typo. This isn't even necessarily a contact a content problem, this is just a Number was left out and because of that he reads into this all kinds of motivations.

She's trying to make it look worse than it is.

Well.

This is a something that happens with articles and with publishing every now and then that's why generally you have retractions. That's why you have second editions. I'm sure the Kindle edition is probably already either being corrected or corrected so.

These are the kind of things that happen and so I wouldn't fault the book or fault the content of the book for these two Errors, I wouldn't say like oh you can you just dismiss the whole book because of these two things.

These are very minor things one's a typo and one is a slight mistake. That doesn't really take away from the content that she's trying to put out there so those are legitimate issues and and you know I should probably just emphasize because there might be some people that think like I'm just I'm out there and all I'm trying to do Is vindicate her and that's it and I doesn't matter what people say.

I'm not gonna take it into account. Yeah, I mean I'm gonna vindicate her because I think she's on to something with this stuff I've been covering for years, but I can see legitimate issues when they arise and I think Megan would be the first to admit that some of this stuff is The two things I at least just mentioned that yeah, these these were Mistakes typos things like that, but to read all kinds of nefarious things into it like, you know, give me a break.

Alright, so let's go to the next thing That I saw on Twitter. Or X Phil Vischer. Hey. Hey, I'm Megan Basham's new book.

That's.

Yeah, I I confess I have to read Phil Vischer in my head sometimes in a Bob the Tomato voice. I just don't know why I just do though, but he says I'm in Megan Basham's new book shepherds for sale. I made the introduction.

My sin the reason I'm a leader. Pimping their pulpit, which isn't something I I don't even think she said that in the book. I think that was a tweet but Is her claim that I started arguing for evangelicals to be more nuanced about abortion?

I was curious what talk I gave that she was referring to and then he says that Basically, there's no source for this. She's just making stuff up about me. That's the bottom line. And so then Megan posts a screenshot from Phil Vischer.

And.

It's Phil Phil Vischer saying on next week's show is in 2022. We talked about our conservative Christians inability to bring nuance to conversations about abortion as opposed to other life-and-death issues.

Where we find nuance aplenty. It's a real interesting conversation. It's a really interesting conversation. And so he like make it immediately says here's a source right here. This is where you said it.

And then you know, and I remember this interaction. I do remember this from 2022. I seem to remember too and and I didn't go back and look for it. But I see remember I think it was woke preacher clips cut a snippet where he he makes this same point on camera where he talks about.

Evangelicals I.

Don't know if he uses the word nuance, but their lack of nuance on abortion and that kind of thing. But anyway, well William Wolfe found Him saying in response to William Wolfe Phil. Do you support legal abortion in it?

Instances of pregnancy resulting from rape. Phil Vischer says I don't have a specific position but probably if it's early in the pregnancy, so There you go. Phil Vischer Does have. I wouldn't call it nuanced.

I would call it incorrect, but he has a Somewhat Soft is even too nice. He's got a liberal bent to his abortion position. Let's just call it what it is. He's got a liberal bent and He wants exceptions.

I believe the exceptions were rape and incest but he he has he hasn't thought through it very deeply apparently because he can't give a straight answer on that or he couldn't at the time and There he is saying that evangelical conservative ones specifically have a problem Nuancing this issue and that's really all that Megan said about him.

So I would just say that's there's nothing here. This is a big nothing burger and then you have Samuel James, I don't even know who this is to be honest I probably interacted with him on X at some point.

But because I recognize the name. But I'm not sure what the significance is except that he was one of the first to get I guess a critical review out there and you know, I went through it and so many of the claims are just so minor or they're just So slanted.

I didn't think it was worth it to really Go over every single one of them and we'd be here forever with all the information I'm trying to give so I just went through two of them that I thought were representative and maybe even a little stronger.

He says there are multiple claims in this chapter of the book. One of which is true one of which is false one of which is a sheer speculation. So I want to just talk about these first. So he says the first claim is true that George Soros foundation is about the immigration chapter.

George Soros his foundation Does donate to the National Immigration Foundation? With which the Evangelical immigration table and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission both freely acknowledge. I don't think they've always.

Have they always freely acknowledges? I know Baptist Press denied it at one time that there was any Soros connection there, but all right like fine. So that's true. She goes the second claim. Is that rank-and-file Southern Baptists are being misrepresented by their leaders on this issue.

This is not true. And what's his evidence the resolution that Bastian mentioned mentions was over passed overwhelmingly from the floor of the convention. So she mentioned mentions a resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention on immigration that pushes the needle left.

I've made this point many times. You can look at immigration resolutions that have been made over the last 20 years in the Southern Baptist Convention and They go from a very law and order let's apply let's a Enforce the laws that are there to we need an option.

That's not apparently on the table right now. We need to as Christians come up with some kind of a compassionate option to deal with the people who are here and it Really does start shifting left. I did a whole podcast on this.

I don't know a year ago.

So.

So she's talking about that and his evidence that she's wrong is to say that rank-and-file Southern Baptists are. They are out of step with the leaders is that look they voted for it from the convention floor and stuff like this is just.

It's ignorant. Like I don't know what to say like the Southern Baptist Convention. When they meet in their convention meetings, it's not like you have everyone. There's rank-and-file Southern Baptist.

Rank-and-file Southern Baptist overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump well more than 80 You have at the convention and and I'll just say this about that. I guess um a Vote for Donald Trump, especially in 2016 and then in 2020 and then again this year.

The issue he primarily runs on is the immigration issue. So the people who vote for him it would be very odd if the rank-and-file Southern Baptist out there who vote for Trump They disagree on his immigration policies or something.

No, they they want his immigration policies. They're concerned about those issues. Anyone who goes to a Southern Baptist Convention meeting? Knows that the people in that room don't all represent rank-and-file Southern Baptist there is a very very large and I would say they control the convention contingent there that is part of the The industry for lack of a better word, you know, they it's NAM people.

It's people that are connected to the institutions and the entities in the Southern Baptist Convention. You definitely have your pastors coming out, but there's a lot of megachurch pastors also that bring their staff.

They have the budget to do that. It's it's not a representative Picture of the Southern Baptist Convention and I just thought everyone knew that but He also says however one is again a part of the article critiquing Megan Basham.

One figure that does not receive any criticism whatsoever in Shepherds for Sale is Russell Moore's predecessor the RLC Richard land. It was land who pioneered the SPC efforts through the URL see to advocate for these issues and then Megan Basham Posts on X the part of her birth book where she says I can barely read it.

This was not a small matter because Largely under the direction of first Richard land and then Russell Moore the ERL sees ethics. Their their Commission had become a that came and read it basically compromising on immigration joining the evangelical immigration table and Pushing the message of the evangelical immigration table.

Shows she does blame Richard land. It's just that Richard land wasn't there for a lot of this. Russell Moore was there for a lot of this and he pushed the needle very far left when he was in it. So like It's not like Richard lands not mentioned but like these are the kind of takedowns you get there is supposed to be so Overwhelmingly accurate and show the complete distortions that Megan Basham is putting out there and I am very very unimpressed with this kind of thing.

Gavin Ortlund, Climate Change, and the Charge of Misrepresentation

Here's Oh Gavin Ortlund, so let's get into Gavin Ortlund. Shall we a little bit? I know everyone's seeing in the chat seems to want to talk about Gavin Ortlund.

Um.

All right, I'm not gonna take any questions. It looks like there's a healthy I think it's healthy discussion going on. So if you're on the fence and wanting to join the chat, I'm gonna look for those question marks.

That's what I look for if I'm gonna Put your your common out there. So let me know. All right. Let's talk about this. Gavin Ortlund.

So.

Compliments of enemies within the church. Kyle wit he sent this to me and I thought good work Kyle. This is from Gavin Ortlund's discord channel this gourds is just another social media website those who don't know and I'm not gonna read you this whole thing, but from 2022 Gavin Ortlund says that I Personally don't think Megan Basham is a good Argues in good faith.

Basically, I think she is a relentless troll. That's what he calls her a relentless troll. This is in 2022. I Didn't know this but Gavin Ortlund apparently has had a problem with Megan Basham for some time.

Here's some more from Gavin Ortlund. If I can I know that's so small most of you probably can't read it. He's saying That People definitely have their wheelhouse. So someone says this to him All right, so they say Megan Basham is fine in the political area, but she doesn't understand theology basically and so Gavin Ortlund responds and says One thing just to clarify I couldn't agree Megan is Fine in the political arena.

It's usually her comments in that arena that concerned me the most even though I'm more conservative than not.

So.

He doesn't seem to like Megan.

Then.

Someone there's another area here where someone says I can only imagine the field day Megan Basham will have. With a interview that Gavin Ortlund does with Bill is it Bill Watkins? Or Chris Watkins. I'm trying to remember Christopher Watkins.

Yes, biblical critical theory. I started reading that book. By the way, I was gonna do a review on it. Maybe I still will but I was like this is not What I I was anticipating. I think a lot of people thought that it was.

I mean I don't wanna get sidetracked on a biblical critical theory. I'll say this I think a lot of people thought that this was critical theory and trying to pigeonhole it into like a biblical framework.

It's not really that it's trying to take the Bible and use it to critique the culture supposedly. I think it's lacking in many ways. It makes actually some decent points, but it's Overall, it's just redundant in my mind.

Like it's just a lot of information that I Don't know. I like seemed obvious to me or you could pull it from a lot of other sources and I don't know I think it was a very helpful book. But Anyway that that being said.

You know, they're both Keller Center folks, maybe that's why someone's saying this I don't know. But the response of Gavin Ortlund is oh wow didn't even consider that he let's see. Because he's using the term critical theories.

Then he says yeah.

Okay.

Because he says I would have thought that using the Bible to develop a critical theory of culture would be something even someone like Megan Basham could agree to. So, there you go. Gavin Ortlund not a big fan of Megan.

He doesn't like Megan Basham. So whatever you heard in that video Gavin Ortlund coming across is like he says things like you know, I have no ill will for her. I prayed for her family and I just. He wants to get to the point at some point I guess of being able to have a conversation.

It's just like that's the impression you get from his video. It's first one, especially like he just wants to have a conversation. That's what he's saying about Megan on social media two years ago. So I I'm not getting the like the third way.

Nuance winsome. I'm just kind of here for the conversation and the journey of it all. Not that's not really what Gavin Ortlund has been doing. So keep that in mind when you if you haven't listened to his stuff yet, and if you plan to just keep that in mind.

All right.

So let's keep going here. Zack Terry points this out. Okay, so actually first let me point this out truth unites, which is Gavin Ortlund's page on YouTube Starts and his organization's name. I guess he starts going on YouTube comments and like this is one on the Alyssa Childers.

I think it's Childers show where he says Alisa. I think it's Alisa Alisa Childers. The misrepresentations in Meg's book are clear and in some cases simply matter-of-fact and Biography that has nothing to do with Big Eva trying to discredit her it has to do with me an individual person responding to specific claims made about That are actually factually and verifiably incorrect.

I gave page numbers in my video so that you can confirm for yourself. So he's saying I got the receipts. She's coming after me and I guess he was doing this. I don't know to what extent I didn't check my youtube channel.

I don't know. He probably wouldn't bother on mine. Probably knows the answer but this guy named Zach Terry goes I've heard from guys who haven't reached out since seminary to get me to pull my interview so he interviewed Megan Basham and There's people are freaking out about this.

They really are freaking out. Let me take a question and then we'll get back to The podcast here John. Do you think Basham should have or should in the future do some work on her first chapter? Work is in what like issuing some edits or like I'm not sure what work You would mean by that.

I don't know. I mean, I think I One of the things don't post this on X earlier today. That was a great point. One of the things that's happening here is you got people who are Who would not be aware of Megan's book, but they're now aware because There's people that they follow in the Christian world who are responding to What they see as attacks and it's causing them to go down a rat the rabbit hole and even her first chapter I guess the assumption there is that's a weaker chapter.

I don't know but even in that chapter I think it's helpful because it I think she would say this to anyone who wants to check her sources. Do it go ahead. Look at the speeches that she quotes. Look at the tweets.

She quotes whatever. She's quoting the books go check them out and You're gonna find out things about the evangelical world. You may never have known. You know, you might not be someone who's on Twitter or X and in the political realm you might not be listening to my podcast or 80 Robles was podcast.

You you may have you don't read protest. Yeah, right. Like you're just totally off the grid on these things. But now all of a sudden there's a problem that you're seeing for the first time and so for that reason, I think this book including the first chapter is super important and It's yeah, is any book a perfect book?

I'm pretty hard on books. So I would say no and Megan's isn't a perfect book, but it is a very helpful book. So let's keep going with Gavin here. So Gavin Ortlund. No, this is maybe maybe my slides are out of order.

Let me just check here because I thought I had is that all I have on Gavin Ortlund. All right. Well, let me play the clip from Gavin Ortlund then because that's the last slide I have on Gavin Ortlund so I have a clip that I want to play for you and This is the podcast that Megan Basham is talking about in her book where Gavin Ortlund.

It's one of the sources where Gavin Ortlund Talks about climate change. I want you to listen to his words himself and see what you think. And then you can compare what Megan said to what Gavin Ortlund said, so here we go.

Have been misrepresented before my youtube channel is mainly focused on apologetics and theology and things like that. So I want to talk about climate change and I have five things to say from a Christian perspective.

Particularly I care about it so much. I think we can't not talk about it. It's just too important the climate affects everything now it is true as people often point out that climate change is extremely common and kind of it kind of Severe throughout Earth's history so you can go back to times.

I think it was like around 50 million years ago. There's basically no ice anywhere and you've got you know islands near the North Pole with huge trees and the Annual mean temperature at the North Pole 50 million years ago is 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

And then you can find other times where the there's ice ages and it's really really cold. So the temperature does vary naturally it's just good to observe first of all that there is pretty much a scientific consensus or a Very close to a scientific consensus on human caused climate change as a very real problem.

If you're gonna go against a near consensus in the scientific community Study it and make sure that that's a wise thing to do because I see a lot of people reacting Instinctively rather than really hitting the books and I don't think that that's a responsible posture for Christians to take basic idea of climate change is not only Extremely well supported in the scientific community.

It's also very intuitive and commonsensical and basic. You've got a lot more people alive today going back to the principles of just basic wisdom and planning. We have to think about how do we do that?

How do we manage that? You know, where might that put a strain on resources and so forth? And here's the main problem it's not the number of human beings so that can contribute to what is the main problem and that's the technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.