Dissecting My Interaction with @TheScatteredSheep Podcast
1. How the Exchange Even Started
My first encounter with Anthony Wade of @TheScatteredSheepPodcast (TSSP)—a very small discernment ministry focused on exposing theological compromise—came about when one of his videos popped up in my YouTube recommendations. (along with everything else about Charlie Kirk). He drew me in with a sharp critique of Troy Black’s false prophecy. (I had only first heard of Troy Black two days before and I was annoyed by his 'prophecy claims'.)
At first the exchange between myself, Wade, and the other commenters on his video was very lighthearted and supportive—mostly jokes about the ridiculousness of Troy’s prophetic claims. Wade was friendly and even appreciative at first, even if some of my humor seemed to confuse him a bit.
2. Where the Conversation Turned
However, when I tried to point out
what I
thought Tucker Carlson
meant in the memorial
speech, a key tension emerged.
-
I treated Tucker’s point as a political analogy about silencing speech (a Gamaliel principle).
-
Wade treated it as if it were a theological exaltation of Charlie Kirk—directly comparing Charlie’s death to the Crucifixion.
He interpreted Carlson’s analogy (and my reference to Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-38) literally, as if we were comparing Charlie Kirk directly to Jesus or Peter.
In short:
I was exploring an
analogy.
He was refuting what he thought was a doctrinal statement.
I saw it as a general premise about killers and motives, with no theological equivalence implied.—someone allegedly disliked what Kirk said and acted violently. I eventually ventured into a nuanced disagreement about the Kirk assassination motive and how religious vs. political identity should be interpreted, which went beyond the video’s original scope. He wasn’t dismissive, but he didn’t engage deeply with the theological or philosophical layers I tried to raise.
3. Early Misalignment Points Between Us
-
Humor vs. Literalism: Early on he enjoyed the playful banter, but as the discussion grew weightier, my sarcasm and analogies increasingly met with his literal, earnest interpretations, creating a tonal gap.
-
Exploratory vs. Declarative: I raised hypothetical and multi-layered questions; he focused on asserting conclusions from public reports.
-
Faith vs. Politics: I questioned the relationship between religious and political motives; he consistently emphasized a political reading of Kirk’s identity and actions.
-
Epistemic Modesty vs. Certainty: I highlighted ambiguity and limits of inference; he spoke with confidence about the likely motives based on reporting.
4. Why I Watched the Second Video
A few politically charged comments—such as referring to Charlie Kirk’s hate as an established fact—made me curious about where Wade was actually coming from. That ultimately shaped my engagement with the second video I picked from his channel, titled:
“NAR Dominionism Teaching – How Carnal Narratives Exploit Tragedy for Political Ends.”
In the second video, I stayed focused on extreme political framing and logical consistency. I noticed a disconnect between criticizing Kirk for conflating politics and Christianity while relying solely on political examples to illustrate the point that Kirk shouldn’t be deified.
Across both videos, my lens remained the same:
-
analyzing how political and religious claims are presented
-
questioning extreme readings
-
tracking logical coherence
Why? Because in the first video, I already saw Wade:
-
interpreting analogies as literal claims
-
stating unproven motives as established fact
-
jumping to theological conclusions where I saw a simpler explanation
So in the second video, my focus naturally shifted toward examining:
-
whether he was again overstating certainty
-
whether he was again mixing political framing with theological claims
-
whether he was again reacting to rhetoric more intensely than the rhetoric required
This time, I wasn’t evaluating the topic — I was monitoring the pattern.
At this point, the disagreement was no longer about Charlie Kirk at all — it was about how discernment itself should function.
⭐ 5. Key Takeaways from the Exchange with Wade @TheScatteredSheep Podcast
1. Wade's method seemingly
undercuts his own Standards for Christians and the
Church
Observation:
When someone
claims to be doing theological correction, or "Discernment
ministry," but uses political material as their primary
evidence, they inevitably muddle the message. The form contradicts
the content. If Wade wants that to be persuasive, grounding critiques
in theological/scriptural argument rather than primarily political
examples would be more consistent with that framing.
Why it stood out to me:
This
was my first exposure to Wade. His channel (TSSP) surfaced via
algorithm
because he was responding to the controversies around Charlie Kirk’s
murder. That context amplified the inconsistency: he was reacting to
cultural/political events, but critiquing CK for allowing the same
kind of entanglement.
Why it matters:
Wade strongly critiques Christians who allow their politics to shape
their
religion rather than letting theology shape their politics. So in
this specific instance, when he critiques CK by using the same
politically charged quotes commonly used by CK’s political
opponents, his argument becomes less distinct, less theological, and
less consistent with his own standards.
Effect:
By
using politically charged examples to demonstrate CK’s failings, Wade
blurs his own theological framing. His point might still be
valid, but the rhetorical method makes his theological critique less
clear — and that’s where my “quiet” insight came through.
Lesson:
If a
channel presents itself as a discernment ministry, critiques of
Christian figures land more consistently and persuasively when
they’re grounded in Biblical/theological reasoning rather than
political evidence.
Result of the Exchange:
✅ I believe my point did come through
subtly in my
original exchange with Wade.
✅ I hinted at it
without accusing him.
✅ He did not reject my final framing,
but stated why he spoke about Charlie Kirk in the first place: "The
Church is actively deifying CK."
2. Wade interprets divergence
as off-topic and collapses disagreement into NAR
influence
Observation:
In the
video itself Wade talks about his talk with a friend and claims he had
been corrupted by NAR influence without knowing it. During the
exchange with me, Wade steered the conversation back to his intended
focus — protecting the Church from theological error. He often
treated any attempts to nuance or question his framing as a
digression. Points I raised about context, political framing, or
extremes in reactions to CK were often interpreted as evidence of NAR
(New Apostolic Reformation) influence rather than addressed directly.
Lesson:
A
speaker who frames deviations as “off-topic” and collapses
nuanced disagreements into a broad category like NAR influence can
subtly control the conversation and limit scrutiny of their own
logic. Recognizing this dynamic allows a respondent to maintain
clarity in their reasoning without being pulled into the imposed
framing.
3. Using politically loaded
examples guarantees political interpretation — even if the speaker
insists otherwise
Observation:
Throughout
the exchange, Wade relied on politically charged examples to
illustrate CK’s failings, such as CK’s statements about DEI
initiatives, racial quotas, and pilots. These examples naturally
provoke strong emotional reactions from observers, making it
difficult to isolate the theological critique from the political
outrage.
If Wade truly wanted a message about the church, he could have stuck with:
-
Biblical examples — such as warning against idolatry, misplacing loyalty, or valuing reputation over character.
-
Historical Christian distortions — pointing to past cases where political entanglement led the Church astray.
-
Pastoral warnings — discussing how leaders should model discernment rather than focus on cultural battles.
-
Intra-church patterns of hero-worship — highlighting where church figures were elevated for political rather than theological reasons.
Type of discussion that
highlighted the disconnect:
I was trying to discuss
CK’s comments in context, emphasizing intention, societal reaction,
and moral nuance. Wade repeatedly pivoted back to examples of
political controversies, effectively interpreting my questions about
context and nuance as deviations or evidence of corruption.
Lesson:
Using
politically charged material as primary evidence for theological
correction will inevitably trigger defensive reactions. A clearer
distinction between theological critique and political commentary
would help maintain focus on the stated mission.
4. Wade inadvertently
reproduced the dynamic he condemns
Observation:
He
implied CK’s followers “deify” him when they defend him or
nuance his comments. But:
-
Wade used highly charged political material → which predictably provoked defensive reactions → which he then would likely interpret as “deification.”
-
Wade’s critique of CK depends on imputing CK’s intent while dismissing how people might read CK’s intent.
-
“He says these things because his politics inform his faith.”
-
“He knew he was lying when he said that.”
-
“He was either racist or pandering to his audience who are largely racists.”
-
-
Wade rejects the idea that his own highly political framing might shape how people interpret his motives.
Lesson:
If you
create the conditions that produce the behavior you condemn, that’s
not insight — that’s circular logic. If intent matters for moral
evaluation, it matters for everyone, not just the person being
criticized.
Result of the Exchange:
I believe my
responses indirectly highlighted that asymmetry.
5. A more consistent form of
critique was available to him — and he didn’t take
it
Observation:
Had Wade framed
the issue Biblically:
-
Idolatry
-
Misplaced loyalty
-
Prophetic correction
-
Discernment
-
Speech ethics
-
Shepherding responsibilities
…then his point would have been stronger, more consistent, and unassailable on the grounds I pointed out.
Lesson:
If
your stated aim is theological correction, choose theological tools —
not political ones. This aligns tightly with my sense of “he could
have said this better and without triggering political
interpretations.”
6. My approach highlighted
the asymmetry without escalating
Observation:
Where Wade foregrounded political examples and imposed broad
interpretive
categories (e.g., NAR influence) to frame CK’s actions, I focused
on context, nuance, and intent — applying interpretive generosity,
avoiding absolutes, and keeping the discussion grounded in logic
rather than loaded rhetoric.
Lesson:
A
careful, context-aware approach can reveal asymmetries in someone
else’s critique, highlighting where methodology undercuts stated
principles, without escalating conflict. Choosing interpretive
clarity over rhetorical provocation allows the underlying argument —
or its inconsistencies — to surface naturally.
Effect:
This
method ensured that even subtle observations about framing, intent,
and double standards landed without triggering defensiveness,
allowing the conversation to end with mutual acknowledgment rather
than escalation.
7. MY
message conveyed all of this — quietly, without
sounding combative
Observation:
My
actual replies had a tone of:
-
“I understand your stated purpose…”
-
“…but I’m not sure your method achieved it.”
-
“Because the examples you chose came from a different rhetorical world.”
Result of the Exchange:
I did
communicate the hypocrisy/contradiction — but in a way that allowed
Wade to remain non-defensive. That’s why he responded well in the
end.
⭐ 6. Navigating the Underlying Discernment Issue
When one person
approaches an issue through an impact-first moral
framework and the other approaches it through an
interpretation-first framework
(intent + context + linguistic precision) — discussions risk
semantic drift and
unproductive conflict. Understanding why
this drift happens matters: different frameworks answer different
epistemic questions: One
asks, “What harm did this cause?” The other asks, “What did the
speaker mean, and how can
we know?” Without recognizing that difference, even good-faith
discussions can slide into confusion.
Strategically,
framing subtle critiques through context, intent, and interpretive
generosity allows a respondent to reveal inconsistencies and
methodological asymmetries without provoking defensiveness. In
contrast, relying on overtly political or emotionally charged
examples will predictably trigger resistance and obscure the core
argument.
This entire exchange raised an unavoidable question: if Wade was so confident that Charlie Kirk’s statements were racist or pandering to racists, do we actually have enough evidence to make that claim? That question deserves its own treatment. The next post addresses it directly.
