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.
Well... okay, but: who said anything about driving them away? When we point out that even the uncritical, unqualified USE of the “LGB[etc.” term is a tacit admission of “legitimacy” for those categories (and “sexual sin, mental illness, sexual disorder” would be the true descriptors of those conditions), then anyone who uses them in such a manner is definitely “tipping his hand” in regard to the thoughts of his mind and heart. The plaintive cry of “Don’t drive me away because I’m gay!” is very often their OWN rendering/hearing of someone who, in reality, said, “Your choices are diseased and sinful, and they will lead you to spiritual death! I love you too much to let you continue on that path unchallenged... and no, we’re not instituting any “programs” which would confirm you in your disordered lifestyle. We want you to stay; but we hate the sin you love, with a passion, and we won’t rest until it’s dead!”
Loving the sinner does not mean “playing nice” or “watering down one’s words” for them... much less soft-pedaling the Gospel for the sake of sin-sensitive ears. Someone who’s dying of snakebite needs an injection of antivenin (and possibly a very painful cut and extraction of the poison), not a misplaced mercy which allows them to die without being offended or cut or stuck with a needle.
To let someone hear a Christian “confirm” a sinful stance (for the sake of being “sensitive” and “pastoral”), or even refuse an opportunity to condemn it (while making a clear distinction between sinner and sin) is NOT loving. It’s as good a working definition of “hate” as I can imagine. It’s tantamount to saying to them, “I’m willing to let you die, rather than suffer through the unpleasantness of having you be angry with me, hate me, let people think that I cruelly drove you away from the Church, etc. I’d rather see you damned than to see myself suffer.” That’s hatred, friend.
Matthew 22
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.