Wolves and Scarecrows

Someone sent me an article, purely with the intention of highlighting to me that sometimes I wallow too much in my own pain, resulting in the hubris that my pain enlightens me to truths that the common man cannot see. 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/beware-of-broken-wolves

I can totally understand her good intentions, but I must admit feeling even more dismayed after reading the article. Here are some statements/points I take issue with:

"But there is a particularly nasty breed that often goes unnoticed, a type that we might call the “Broken Wolf.”"
Why is the "Broken Wolf" seen as being "particularly nasty"? I've met bitter people who have twisted the gospel to suit their own worldview, for sure. But I've also seen power hungry church elders who have no qualms about tearing a person down in order to ensure that their own agendas are met. And of course by now we've also seen successful pastors who are involved in massive cases of financial fraud, while hiding behind their facade of "doing God's work". How does the "broken wolf" come across as being "particularly nasty"?

"But what separates Broken Wolves from Broken Sheep is the former believe their brokenness provides them—like the Gnostics of previous eras—with secret knowledge, such as fresh insights into the human condition."
 I can see where the writer is heading with this point. Yet once again, the writer does not further elaborate after that, on how one should differentiate the genuine epiphanies that come with suffering, from the self aggrandizing hubris of the "Broken Wolf". And so the reader is left with a warning to beware anyone with a posture of suffering, and to be wary of what they share. The reader therefore builds even more walls between themselves and those they are trying to reach out to, leaving the church an even lonelier place to the broken.

Besides, there are plenty of books written about how suffering is one of the well-tested highways to God. Surely therefore, there are insights gained from the experience of suffering, insights which would not be available to those who have not walked the rocky paths. To generically equate such experiences to those of the gnostics is both insensitive and thoughtless. 

The brokenness of Broken Wolves often act as a shield that protects them from any legitimate criticism because we fear being viewed as harsh or unloving"
Actually, the reality is that the church is usually very quick to criticize behaviour that seems "ungodly". Even my own experience has shown me that far from what the writer is saying, the church has no qualms about appearing harsh. Everyone is quick to cut ties with a sinner who has been outed. Those who seek to go easy are those who themselves have a rather tenuous grip on theology, and feel that sins are not a big deal. So one might say the fault lies more with the lack of robust teaching in the church, instead of attributing it to the emotional manipulations of the "Broken Wolf".

"The gospel tells brokenhearted sinners to repent (Mark 1:15). The Broken Wolf says, “Don’t worry, God is not so old-fashioned that he still thinks that behavior is a sin.” The gospel says to believe in Jesus to be justified (Rom. 10:10). The Broken Wolf says, “You are justified in believing in yourself.” The gospel says to confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (Rom. 10:10). The Broken Wolf says, “Jesus doesn’t want to rule over you as King, he only wants to be your non-judgmental friend.” The gospel says be transformed by the renewal of your mind (Rom. 12:2). The Broken Wolf says, “You can’t change. Embrace who you are.”"
Whoa. Last I checked, false teachers did this. Populist preachers do this. Broken people don't go around preaching a dilluted gospel. To associate this kind of talk particularly with "Broken Wolves" is actually deeply offensive to me. The dilluted gospel has been a hallmark of the church today, and is heard from all walks of life. Why single out the "Broken Wolf" as being responsible?

In Short
Of course, I'm not saying that the writer is wrong. Far from it. But he has only raised fears without citing any tangible means to differentiate. He has raised a few scarecrows to reinforce his point, that "broken wolves" are a menace to true teaching, then used very generic statements to beat down those scarecrows. His summary seems to be a battle cry instead, to call the bluff of those perceived as being in suffering. "Like all wolves in the church, the Broken Wolf is leading the sheep into the valley of hell, away from the Good Shepherd. What then will we do? Will we suffer the scorn of “attacking the vulnerable” for the sake of protecting our sheep? Or will we stay silent because we’re too cowardly to cry, “Wolf!”?" 

Anyone ready to go on a witch hunt?