Hold on, here.
I’m not 100% sure if this is what you’re saying, or not... but there would be a fundamental error in seeing a criticism of the “LGBQ[etc.]” labels, and immediately assuming that the critic is violating kindness, or charity, or any other Biblical requirement for the virtuous man. The common “canonical” usage of the LGB[...] term is one of granting that these are “alternate versions of normal”... which is about as antithetical to Christian morality as you can get. When the author of the article decried the ostracization of, quote, “LGBTQ persons”, and when a FReeper immediately saw that as a red flag, no one would have any basis for running up to that FReeper and saying, “Hey! You just ran afoul of James 2-3!!” Nonsense. You might as well say that St. James is not being “gentle, merciful and full of good fruits” when he calls his listeners “adulterers” (James 4:4) in the very same letter!
No... the author of the article was steeped in moral relativism, and that’s one of (perhaps) many reasons why the Gospel tastes sour in his mouth. I don’t doubt that many millenials (and others) have had bad experiences; no sane person wants to minimize that, as a rule. But the reasoning in the article is puerile and self-centered, and it’s neither unbiblical nor unkind to point that fact out.
Nice cite!
It wasn't the label (which I loathe, due to reasons you state) per se, but the dismissal of everything said/presented because the author used it.
The common “canonical” usage of the LGB[...] term is one of granting that these are “alternate versions of normal”... which is about as antithetical to Christian morality as you can get.
Yes, that tends to be the common usage; however, if one is speaking from a culture where the term is oft used there is a tendency to use the term as well... perhaps disregarding the implicit canonical connotation (perhaps for expediency's sake).
When the author of the article decried the ostracization of, quote, “LGBTQ persons”, and when a FReeper immediately saw that as a red flag, no one would have any basis for running up to that FReeper and saying, “Hey! You just ran afoul of James 2-3!!” Nonsense. You might as well say that St. James is not being “gentle, merciful and full of good fruits” when he calls his listeners “adulterers” (James 4:4) in the very same letter!
I see your point; however, my concern wasn't the author but the poster I was replying to who seemed to me to be dismissing the person based solely upon their usage of the LGBQ[...] label. As evidenced by their own post.
No... the author of the article was steeped in moral relativism, and that’s one of (perhaps) many reasons why the Gospel tastes sour in his mouth.
Oh, I can see that; I'm not agreeing with the conclusions, or even all of his points.
It just seems to me that utterly dismissing him because of the term's usage is harsh, without mercy... and, much like confronting an authoritarian the slightest imperfection used to deem your entire problem/issue/argument moot.
I don’t doubt that many millenials (and others) have had bad experiences; no sane person wants to minimize that, as a rule. But the reasoning in the article is puerile and self-centered, and it’s neither unbiblical nor unkind to point that fact out.
And I grant all those as possible, probable even; it just seems counter-productive to slam the door in their face
because they use a particular term. Nowhere am I saying we should smile, hug, and accept LGBTQWERTY as normal and good — but if you drive them away, how can they be introduced to the God Who Heals? Like one of my FRiends who commented "they're still a bunch of perverts" to an article describing Signs of Spiritual Awakening in Japan, it denies the transformative power of our God.