Sound like a typical modern churchian where feeling is all that counts.
But instead, you take her clear, honest, godly statements and twist them into an accusation of crude self-interest, without, BTW, a stitch of real evidence. Now if you are knowledgeable of how God wants us to live, and if that is really important to you, I urge you to recall the OT commandment which teaches us not to bear false witness against our neighbor, and its NT equivalent, which is not to spread false information about people in the form of gossip, innuendo, defamation, etc.
I subscribe to the view of direct confrontation with evil, where most churchians are too cowardly to say anything and have subscribed to the false liberal doctrine of non-judgementalism.
Fortunately the Ned Flander's churches of the world are dying out.
Presumably a “churchian” is one whose affiliation with an institution is more important than their personal relationship with Christ. While it is doubtless true there are such people, it’s quite a leap to say that about Sarah. Again, you do not know her heart before God,
Now you speak of the doctrine of non-judgmentalism as if it were a liberal invention. I guess that makes Jesus and his apostle Paul liberals, because they clearly did teach some form of it.
Now, to be fair to you, I agree there is a liberal *perversion* of said doctrine, and it is a devilish inversion of the truth. But like CS Lewis says, the devil is really lacking in creativity; all his perversions are based in some way on God’s own truth.
Here are the two forms as I understand them:
1) Liberalism’s Non-Judgmentalism: “There is no moral truth, so no act, no matter how vile, can be condemned. Except of course being a conservative.”
2) Christian Non-Judgmentalism: Don’t play God. Judge with righteous judgment. If you must judge at all, judge others the way you would want to be judged, because that is how God will judge you. The judging condemned by Christ and Paul is not “confronting evil,” but presuming evil where only God could possible know the truth, in the private thoughts and motives of a person.
So if a person does an evil act, such as sexual perversion, and there is good, objective evidence of that, then by all means confront that evil act. Or if a person does something apparently good, but openly reveals their motives as being evil, with sound, objective evidence to back it up, then by all means confront those evil motives too.
But nothing in Scripture permits you (or me or anyone) to just make up stuff out of thin air, out of what we, with our own evil imaginations, imagine about the inner workings of another person. That is exactly why Jesus and Paul focus on our own sinfulness. It blinds us to the hearts of those around us. It increases the risk we will simply project our own evil motives onto the acts of the innocent. The left does this all the time. We should not emulate them.
We must judge righteous judgment, yes, but it must be righteous. To be righteous it must first of all be based on truth. If we do not know something is true, and pronounce judgment on someone based our warped imagination rather than on truth, we violate the royal law of love, we violate the command of God to not bear false witness against our neighbor, and if we direct this malicious falsehood against a fellow believer, we do needless harm to a brother or sister for whom Christ also died.
So righteous judgment is good, but false judgment cannot be pleasing to God, and a wise person will avoid it at all costs.