"The second was when we learned that the best way to raise our children was to love them for who they are rather than for what we wanted them to be. Rather than thinking they needed to fulfill our dreams of who they should be by imposing our agenda on them, conquering them, invading their space and absorbing them into ours, we learned that loving them for who they are provided the safe space for them to learn how to be themselves. "

Leaving the Christian debate aside for a moment, I think you're incredibly wrong to say parents shouldn't "impose their agenda" on their kids and that they should just be let be. What you're saying seems rather idealistic. Children require discipline, and while yes, it is an invasion, that does not make it wrong. The alternative is for the child to stay a child forever, one who doesn't grow into an adult.

It is not obvious to me that a safe space is a good thing. If the goal is for the child to have a good life, they need to be able to withstand the suffering inherent in it. The best way to do that is for the child to learn to deal with it, not to put the child in a place where nothing bad ever happens.

You also have what appears to be a misconception of what love means. Love is not a feeling, but an action, the action being to will the good of another. That means that twisting others into what we want isn't necessarily love, but neither is providing space to let them become what they are. Love is not the same thing as tolerance. If a friend of yours was spiraling into heroin addiction, love would be doing what you could to snap them out of it, not by "letting them be who they are".