You can tell a lot about people's sympathies by their alliances. Notice Scot McKnight siding with Jonathan Merritt:
Each has an unspoken agenda that coincides at this point.
Jonathan Merritt is an outed "gay Christian" propagandist. McKnight is an Arminian feminist. Somehow I don't think that's coincidental to their criticisms.
Because TGC participates in the culture wars, defending gender binaries and heteronormativity, Merritt views TGC as an obstacle to his social agenda.
McKnight's theology predisposes him to be hostile to a complementarian, Calvinistic site like TGC. That, in turn, motivates him to side with Merritt's attack on TGC.
McKnight becomes a tool of Merritt. Is he simply unaware of Merritt's social agenda? Or do his own priorities line up with Merritt's at this juncture?
I'd add that that Twitter is not a serious medium for substantive debate.
This doesn't mean TGC, or individual contributors thereof, should be above criticism, by any means. But a social vandal like Merritt is the wrong vehicle.