Platform Grifters Case Study: The Hardings

We try very hard at Protestia not to punch down – that is, publish articles targeting those who carry little or no actual influence in evangelicalism. Yet occasionally we witness behavior and theology from online characters that is worth discussing as a demonstration of a growing or novel problem affecting the church.

In this case, the problem is platform grifters.

A grifter (combination of grafter and drifter) is a person who steals (grafter originally meant thief) and when exposed or thwarted drifts to another camp or group. The internet, with its ability to create any reality, is a fertile ground for ideological grifting – in this case grifting that involves theological influence. An idea or teaching can be advanced online without any of the traditional barriers to entry that historically muted the unqualified or uncommitted.

The platforming of regular people resulting from the internet’s flattening of public discourse, while a win for equality and individualism, also encouraged a new breed of small-time “ministers” – false teachers motivated by the desire for influence as much if not more than the desire for money. In contrast to the televangelist of yesterday feeding on check-mailing insomniacs, platform grifters feed on likes, comments, and online engagement with strangers – preferably those in positions of real or perceived influence (platform evangelicals). Grifters create digital kingdoms where they are free to declare themselves experts, influencers, victims – anything that will keep their supposed support flowing – no matter how superficial or limited the “support” actually is.

They imagine that every like, supportive comment, or retweet represents a faithful and loyal subject (and likely hundreds more who just didn’t engage this time). Their influence – real or perceived – is what validates every action taken, allegiance formed, or proclamation made from their virtual throne. And this virtual throne sits on top of dopamine-pushing social media software designed to assure them that every time they post they are actually issuing a royal edict.

Yet absent any actual influence, real-world institutional framework, or solid doctrinal conviction, the platform grifter’s perceived support dries up. Viewers who initially offered enthusiastic but cheap ovations of support shift their attention elsewhere, and the initial splash of attention the grifter hoped would lead to their big platform arrival turns out to be nothing of the sort. They discover (although rarely accept) that people’s attention is limited, and the internet’s ability to offer limitless content does not come packaged with limitless audiences.

So much like a 10-year-old simply starts a new Minecraft world, the platform grifter changes positions and begins the platforming cycle anew knowing that the internet is huge and new followers will either be ignorant of or be happy to ignore prior positions. Receiving praise from the opponents of their prior position, they resume their quest for influence with new enemies and allegiances. This cycle of grift invariably moves leftward as emotionalized subjectivity is required to cover for the shifted views of the grifter and objective, revealed biblical truth is jettisoned to avoid charges of hypocrisy.

My Case Study

Out of all the online examples of platform grifters I could discuss (and at the risk of providing the platforming and legitimacy they so desperately desire), the case of Erin and Todd Harding has intrigued me more than most. This was because Erin’s relatively inconsequential bachelor’s degree in Pastoral Ministry from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in the wake of her and Todd’s precipitous downgrade in theology was such a prominent marker of the liberal downgrade within the Southern Baptist Convention. Yet at the same time, I suspected that if John MacArthur offered Erin a position teaching at The Master’s Seminary, she would gladly abandon her woke ways and return to advocating her prior conservative positions. Allow me to explain.

The Hardings demonstrate all of the characteristics typical of platform grifters:

• Shifting alliances and friendships, seemingly changed based on personal support and/or platforming from a person or group.
• A preoccupation with personalities and tribes over biblical doctrine.
• Vocally and aggressively bandwagoning with the shifting winds of cultural concern (survivor advocacy and its theological puppetmaster egalitarianism, for example).
• A narcissism that frames every issue as being about the grifter (which of course promotes support of their platform).
• A tendency towards the extremes of personal interactions (“I love this guy!” or “I hate that guy!”) absent substantive doctrinal concerns.
• Willingness to toe the line or carry water for anyone influential they believe will endorse them.
• An obsession with status (those they’re trying to impress are wonderful, others are “nobodies.”)

Note: While these behaviors manifest across a variety of online personalities and backgrounds, platform grifting can be especially tempting for intelligent and capable adults who profess Christ later in life, are excited about their faith, and are able to capably debate and express theological ideas. They engage under the belief that Christian theology is to be navigated via personalities and tribes, and their desire for influence and respect (platform) encourages tribal conflict rather than doctrinal conviction as their standard for public discourse.

The Hardings have – within a few short years – promoted positions and teachers all over the doctrinal spectrum. In less than four years, they have expressed undying love for John MacArthur, podcasted with reformed patriarchalists, rebuked Beth Moore and Lysa TerKeurst for teaching men, cooperated with Tom Buck, attacked Todd Friel and those who thought the Dallas Statement was helpful in defining where Christian leaders stand on social justice, ripped John MacArthur, engaged in an ongoing feud with and anathematized Tom Buck, lauded Beth Moore, and (in a final theological faceplant and rejection of God’s immutable design) declared that a “transgender woman” (a male) reflects Jesus and is definitely saved.

They loved JMac and decried women pastors like Beth Moore:

Later they decry JMac, express approval of woman pastors, and cozy up to false teacher Beth Moore:

They claim being blocked on social media is evidence that they are right, yet routinely block others:

When Erin and Todd thought expressing conservative views and orthodoxy would provide them with the platform they admittedly wanted, they were more than happy to affirm biblical principles on gender, yet within a few short years both had done a theological 180, completely replacing the biblical definition of love with subjective emotion, claiming “transgenderism” is compatible with regeneration, that a male living as a woman is a “sister in Christ” (a double lie), and redefining age-old biblical teaching on sin to cast their opponents out of the kingdom:

In truth, the Hardings hate “Natalie.” Affirming abject rebellion against the Creator is the essence of hatred – both for “Natalie” and more importantly God Himself.

The Hardings are an interesting example not because platform grifting is uncommon (to an extent, platforming oneself is the purpose of social media), but because they are such a clear example of the theological wasteland platform grifters occupy and how this wasteland entangles those who are foolish enough to mistake self-promoting platforming for principle.

After bouncing around theologically for years, the Hardings continue to advance obvious theological errors that wouldn’t make it past Awana Cubbies, and uncritically yoke themselves to anyone willing to give them credibility. This behavior is entirely disqualifying of serious engagement, much less ministry in the name of Christ.

Bonus: Since Todd thinks we’re clowns, here’s a little clowning… Todd has a chance of being the spokesperson for his suggested Theobro sponsor:

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us

Save

About Author

David Morrill

See author's posts