I just re-read the article and while I still believe what the article said is valid. I have some misgiving about how the author worded some of it. In fact, some of it might cause some to get their dander up and as a result miss the whole point of what the author was trying to say.
For example, in the opening paragraph the author uses the words "completely oblivious..." that sounds too much like an absolute in every case and as a result sounds disrespectful. He might have worded that a little better as not to try to make the reader feel like an idiot.
Also in the very next paragraph; where he lists 3 points. Number 2 he uses the words "...uttered from his own lips."
Thinking about this, it sounds a little sarcastic, so perhaps if the word "spoken" or something similar replaced those words, it would be nicer.
I could cite other examples, but I think you get my point.
I will say this however. Although it definitely is not excusable; I have written a few articles over the years and sometimes when the issue is something I am passionate about, I find it hard to guard against getting personal. That is not to say that strong language is not needed sometimes; but strong language doesn't need to be offensive. The goal is to make a point, without making the reader get distracted away from the point.
Hope that make sense.
Looking back at transitioning out of the Charismatic Movement, I can tell you that I got it from both sides. From Charismatic family and friends, their mindset was that I was backsliding. From articles against the Charismatic Movement, often when reading them I had to have thick skin just to get through many of them; their wording often was unnecessarily offensive.
Tom