This sermon primarily addresses Ecclesial Covenant Life (2), with grounding in the Redemptive-Historical New Covenant (1), and a closing illustration from Family and Marriage Covenant Faithfulness (3).
Ecclesial Covenant Life (primary): The teaching centers on the church as a covenanted community of believers who bear one another’s burdens through Matthew 18, mutual accountability, and shared submission to the Word of God.
Redemptive-Historical New Covenant (foundational): The entire sermon flows from the prior teaching on reconciliation with God through Christ. Horizontal love among believers is made possible by and flows from the vertical New Covenant love God extended to us in Christ.
Family and Marriage Covenant Faithfulness (illustrative): Pastor Daren briefly invokes marriage as an example of enduring covenant fidelity, noting that a husband who abandons a wife under the guise of “a bigger calling” breaks covenant in the same spirit as a church member who exits fellowship without Matthew 18.
All three angles are worth learning and walking faithfully. This guide will primarily develop the ecclesial angle, noting where the redemptive-historical foundation and family covenant illustration enrich the whole.
Pastor Daren Mehl continues in a Spiritual Foundations series by teaching on what it means to walk in covenant love as the natural fruit of reconciliation with God through Christ. The core burden of the message is that agape love is not a warm feeling but a covenantal commitment to the genuine good of another person, even at personal cost, and that this commitment requires courage, humility, and the willing use of God’s Word and the Matthew 18 process as instruments of grace rather than weapons of control. The sermon warns against two counterfeit loves: a false tolerance that remains silent before sin, and a self-righteous correction that wounds to win rather than to restore. The call of the teaching is that the local church, constituted as a covenant body, possesses the relational and scriptural resources to pursue genuine peacemaking, walk the narrow road between legalism and lawless spirituality, and become a community whose visible unity bears witness to the truth that Jesus was sent by the Father.
Agape love, which God himself has first shown toward believers in Christ, is a covenantal commitment to the genuine and eternal good of another, expressed through the courage to speak truth, the humility to examine oneself first, and the faithfulness to pursue reconciliation through the gracious process Christ ordained in Matthew 18. Scripture, as the God-breathed and wholly sufficient Word, is not a weapon of control but an instrument of grace by which the covenant community teaches, rebukes, corrects, and trains one another in righteousness, thereby preserving the unity of the Spirit and bearing witness to the world. The local church, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, is the God-ordained context in which Matthew 18 has ecclesiological weight and in which love may complete its work of correction, repentance, and restoration.
The sermon explicitly acknowledges that “some of us have had the Bible used on us, not for us.” For members who have experienced pastoral abuse, cult-like control, or manipulative church discipline, this topic can be deeply triggering. Do not push for disclosure. If someone shares a painful experience, receive it with compassion, acknowledge the real harm done, and gently affirm that such misuse of Scripture does not reflect the heart of God or the proper use of Matthew 18. Do not rush to defend “the process” over the person’s experience. Point them, over time, to safe pastoral care.
Some group members may be in the middle of a conflict, a Matthew 18 process, or a situation of broken fellowship. This teaching may feel very personal. Avoid letting the group become a court of opinion on specific situations involving named individuals from the church. If someone is navigating an active conflict, encourage them to speak with the pastor or an elder directly. The group is a place for encouragement and prayer, not adjudication.
The teaching on going to a brother “in private” must never be applied to situations of physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse. If someone discloses abuse, do not redirect them toward Matthew 18 reconciliation as a first step. Safety must come first. Encourage them to speak with a pastor and, where legally required, to contact appropriate authorities. The Matthew 18 process is designed for sin within a community of mutually accountable believers, not for managing dangerous power imbalances.
The teaching’s use of marriage as a covenant illustration, and the comment about ministers who abandon spouses for “a bigger calling,” may resonate painfully with those who have experienced abandonment, divorce, or broken family covenants. Receive those who are hurting in this area with grace. The sermon’s point is not to condemn those who have been abandoned but to name covenant faithfulness as the biblical ideal. Do not turn this into a forum for judgment about specific family situations.
The teaching touches on the possibility that someone living in unrepentant sin may not yet be in genuine fellowship with God. For those wrestling with assurance, this can be unsettling. If a group member expresses fear that they are outside the covenant, respond pastorally. Assurance is grounded in the promises of the gospel and the witness of the Spirit (Romans 8:15-16), not in behavioral perfection. Point them to Christ crucified and risen,not to their performance.
Heavenly Father, we come before You as Your people, held in covenant love that You initiated before the foundation of the world. We did not love You first; You loved us. Teach us now, through Your Word and Spirit, what it means to carry that love into our relationships with one another. Lord Jesus, You are the way, the truth, and the life, and You prayed for us that we would be one as You and the Father are one. Grant us Your grace to pursue that unity with courage and with grief for sin, never with pride or self-righteousness. Holy Spirit, Spirit of truth, illuminate these truths to our hearts. Where we have hidden love that remains silent before sin, convict us. Where we have wielded truth as a hammer rather than offering it as grace, correct us. Make us hungry for what is true, humble in how we approach one another, and teachable under the authority of this Word. We ask all of this in the name of Jesus, who sanctifies us in the truth, the Word which is truth. Amen.
Think of a time when someone told you a hard truth in a way that you actually felt loved, not condemned. What made the difference? (About two minutes, no pressure to share anything personal.)
Pastor Daren opens the teaching by asking the foundational question: what is the love that believers are called to walk in? He distinguishes the world’s definition of love, which treats love as whatever any person wishes to define it to be, from the biblical definition rooted in the Greek word agape. Drawing on 2 Peter 1:5-7, he presents a ladder of virtues, beginning with faith and climbing through moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, and brotherly kindness, before arriving at Agape love. This progression reveals that biblical love is not a starting point but a destination reached through intentional and diligent growth in character. Agape, he declares, is not a feeling but a covenant commitment to the good of another even at cost to oneself, mirroring exactly what Christ did: he walked through abuse, slander, and crucifixion in a covenant of love with the Father so that we would have access to the Father. Pastor Daren then introduces two counterfeit loves that exist as a challenge to Christian community. The first is a false tolerance that remains silent before sin out of personal comfort or self-protection, which he identifies as “hidden love” condemned in Proverbs. The second is a self-righteous correction that wounds to establish moral superiority rather than to restore the fallen. The the way of the cross, he says, is “I love you too much to let you stay where you are, and I am not above you, because I know what my own sin has cost me.” First Corinthians 13 is critical to establish that love which rejoices not in unrighteousness but in the truth, and that it endures all things, making love both bounded and empowering.
“Agape isn’t a feeling, it’s a covenant commitment to the good of one another, even at the cost of yourself.”
“Biblical love is not silence when silence is actually harming their soul.”
“The third way, the way of the cross says, I love you too much to let you stay where you are. And I’m not above you because I know what my sin has cost me.”
“Doctrine without love is a hammer. But love without doctrine is also a fog.”
Understanding: Pastor Daren names two broken versions of love that challenge Christian community. In your own words, describe each counterfeit and explain what makes each of them fall short of agape.
Heart-Level Conviction: When you have chosen silence in the face of a brother or sister’s sin, what has usually been driving that silence: genuine care for their dignity, personal comfort and conflict-avoidance, or something else? Be honest with yourself before answering.
Relational Application: Think of a relationship in your life right now where speaking a hard truth might be necessary. What would it look like to approach that person with grief for the sin rather than personal grievance?
“Hungry, Humble, Teachable” Lens: The teaching describes agape as a love that is “costly because it risks discomfort for long-term healing.” What does it mean to be hungry for that kind of love in your own relationships, humble enough to not wield it as a weapon, and teachable enough to receive it when it is spoken to you?
Concrete Obedience Step: Identify one relationship this week where you could take one small step toward agape as defined in this teaching, whether that is naming your love plainly, listening more carefully, or beginning to pray about a hard conversation you have been avoiding.
In the second part of the teaching, Pastor Daren addresses the necessary prior work before any believer approaches a brother or sister in sin. Drawing on Matthew 7:3-5, he identifies a three-step sequence embedded in the text itself: self-examination (removing the log), clarity (being able to see clearly), and then restoration (going to the brother). He emphasizes forcefully that Jesus’ instruction does not end with self-examination but culminates in the command, “then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” The log passage is preparation for going, not permission to do nothing. He then identifies a common misuse of this passage in which a believer examines himself, concludes he is clean relative to the other person’s sin, privately decides to forgive, and then does nothing further. He warns that this pattern produces two destructive outcomes: the one who does nothing grows in bitterness as the other person continues in sin, and the person remaining in sin is left there without the intervention of love. Citing Galatians 6:1, he establishes that the command to restore is not suspended by personal fallibility but that one’s own fallibility becomes the posture with which one goes. He illustrates this from Paul’s second Corinthian letter: Paul’s correction of the church came not as a confident memo of religious authority but as a tear-stained letter of a broken-hearted apostle who loved the people he was rebuking. Brokenness over one’s own sin and grief for the sin of another are the twin postures that distinguish loving correction from Pharisaical condemnation.
Key Scriptures: Matthew 7:3-5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 2:4
Direct Quotes from the Teaching
“The log passage is preparation, not permission to do nothing. To leave your brother alone is to leave him to the works of the devil.”
“The difference is between coming with pride, I caught you in sin, and coming with grief, I have something that is hurting you.”
“Your own fallibility is not an exemption from going. It becomes the posture from which you go.”
Discussion and Reflection Questions
Understanding: What is the difference between using Matthew 7:3-5 as preparation for going to a brother in love and using it as a reason to stay silent indefinitely? What does the text actually conclude with?
Heart-Level Conviction: Have you ever used the “log in my eye” reasoning to justify not speaking to someone about a pattern of sin, telling yourself you were being humble, when in truth you were protecting your own comfort? What does that reveal about your heart?
Relational Application: What would it feel like to approach a friend or family member about a sin in their life while genuinely feeling grief rather than judgment? How does grief over someone’s sin change the tone and posture of the conversation?
“Hungry, Humble, Teachable” Lens: Paul wrote his corrective letter to Corinth “with many tears, not to grieve you, but to let you know the depth of my love.” How does this image reshape what it means to be hungry to do the right thing, humble enough to grieve your own sin alongside theirs, and teachable enough to let God use your own failures as the platform for your posture?
Concrete Obedience Step: Spend time this week in honest self-examination before God regarding one relationship where correction may be needed. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal any log in your own eye and to replace any personal grievance with genuine grief for the other person’s well-being.
The third and central section of the sermon unpacks Matthew 18:15-17 as the road of love that Christ has given the church, not a legal procedure or a complaint form but a discipleship mechanism through which the covenant community exercises love in four progressive steps. Pastor Daren begins with a textual observation: the earlier and more reliable Greek manuscripts omit the phrase “against you,” meaning the scope of the command is broader than personal grievance and covers any sin one observes in a brother’s life. The goal, stated plainly in the text itself, is “you have won your brother,” which is the language of relationship rather than litigation. The first step is private, personal, and protective of dignity: go to your brother alone, come with grief for the sin and love for the person, name your motive and desire plainly, and seek restoration rather than vindication. The second step, bringing one or two witnesses, is not the formation of a coalition or a mob but the gathering of intercessors and truth-witnesses who pray together and then witness the conversation fairly. Pastor Daren notes that without a covenanted community this step has no ecclesiological weight; you cannot call witnesses where there is no defined body. The third step involves the whole church, not for public shaming but so that every interaction the sinning member has with the community becomes an opportunity for love, prayer, and encouragement toward repentance. The fourth step, treating the unrepentant as a Gentile or tax collector, is not abandonment but an honest acknowledgment that fellowship has been broken, followed by an evangelistic posture of continued love, modeled on how Jesus himself treated tax collectors: he pursued them, ate with them, and went to them. Throughout, Pastor Daren emphasizes that the full arc of the Matthew 18 process is correction, repentance, and restoration, and that this arc is the gospel operating in the body.
“Matthew 18 is not a complaint problem. It is a discipleship mechanism to come together in the truth and seek the truth and have that power transform you.”
“Witnesses are the intercessors and truth witnesses. It’s not a mob or a coalition.”
“The goal is always restoration. The church prays, the church appeals, and bears the burden.”
“The full arc is correction, repentance, and restoration. Paul sent a hard letter, he wept over it, but it produced repentance. That isn’t cruelty. That is love completing its work.”
Understanding: Why does it matter whether Matthew 18:15 says “if your brother sins against you” or simply “if your brother sins”? How does removing the phrase “against you” change the motivation for going and broaden the scope of who is responsible to act?
Heart-Level Conviction: Have you ever witnessed the Matthew 18 process used as a weapon rather than as an act of love? Conversely, have you seen it done with tears and grief and genuine hope of restoration? What made the difference in each case?
Relational Application: Think about the role of the community in steps two through four. How does the presence of a covenanted body, people who know you and love you and share your commitment to Scripture, make Matthew 18 possible in ways that isolated individual correction cannot achieve?
“Hungry, Humble, Teachable” Lens: The teaching says that “godly sorrow produces repentance without regret, leading to salvation.” What does it look like to be hungry for that kind of transformation in yourself and in others, humble enough to trust the process Christ gave rather than shortcuts you prefer, and teachable enough to receive correction when you are the one in sin?
Concrete Obedience Step: If there is a situation in your life where Matthew 18 should have been followed and was not, or where you are currently avoiding a step you know you need to take, ask the Lord this week to give you the specific courage to take the next right step, beginning privately and prayerfully.
The fourth section of the sermon draws a sharp contrast between peacemaking, which Jesus blesses in the Beatitudes, and peacekeeping, which Pastor Daren identifies as a counterfeit that manages conflict to preserve personal comfort rather than pursuing the healing of relationship and soul. He provides a practical five-step framework for how to go to a brother with faith and courage: name your motive transparently, name your desire for reconciliation plainly, acknowledge the other person’s feelings and reality without rushing past the grief they carry, give an invitation to truth rather than an ultimatum, and end where you began, in love and in Christ, affirming that together is better than apart. He then illustrates the contrast between peacekeeping and peacemaking using a vivid diagram. In peacekeeping, the mediator functions as a controlling center, brokering all communication so that no direct relationship ever forms between the two parties; sin is managed but not healed, and peace is performed but not real. This is triangulation. In peacemaking, the mediator functions as a servant-reconciler underneath the two parties, facilitating their direct relationship, presenting Scripture, naming sin, offering repentance, and working toward the healing of the relationship itself. Pastor Daren shares a personal experience of secular mediation in a business lawsuit to illustrate the contrast between the courts of man, which solve problems without healing relationships, and the courts of God, which care about the relationship itself. The sermon is clear that peacekeeping chooses short-term comfort at the cost of long-term relational death, while peacemaking chooses short-term discomfort at the cost of short-term comfort for the sake of long-term holiness and unity.
Key Scriptures: Matthew 5:9; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Romans 5:1; Matthew 5:23-24
Direct Quotes from the Teaching
“The goal in peacemaking is to restore the relationship in the soul, not fix the current tension.”
“Give an invitation to relationship, not an ultimatum. Ask them to consider the truth. Ask them to reason with you in the Bible, and the door is open.”
Discussion and Reflection Questions
Understanding: In your own words, define the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking as Pastor Daren presents them. What is the goal of each, what method does each use, and what is the long-term result of each?
Heart-Level Conviction: Which tends to be your default response when conflict arises in a close relationship: peacekeeping (managing tension to restore surface comfort) or peacemaking (addressing what is broken to restore the soul of the relationship)? What drives your default?
Relational Application: Think of a situation where you served as a third party in a conflict between two people you know. Did you function more like the mediator-as-controller or the mediator-as-servant-reconciler? What would the second look like in that situation?
“Hungry, Humble, Teachable” Lens: Pastor Daren’s five steps to peacemaking begin with naming your motive. How does being hungry for genuine restoration, humble enough to listen and validate another’s reality, and teachable enough to let Scripture define the terms of the conversation shape each of those five steps?
Concrete Obedience Step: Is there a situation in your life that you have been “peacekeeping” when you know it needs peacemaking? This week, identify one specific next step toward genuine peacemaking in that situation, even if it is simply beginning to pray and name your own motive honestly before God.
In the fifth and final section, Pastor Daren draws together the whole sermon under the authority of the Word of God and the nature of the local church as the covenanted community that makes the preceding four topics possible. He cites Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together, says the LORD,” as the invitation that defines what the church is: a community of people who reason together under the authority of Scripture, with love as the rule. He then unpacks 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a fourfold description of how Scripture functions as grace, not as a weapon: teaching establishes what is right, rebuking exposes what is not right, correcting gives the path back to right, and training in righteousness builds the habits that make holiness sustainable. He then describes the two ditches that flank the narrow road of covenant love. On one side is legalism, which uses Scripture as a hammer, demanding obedience without love and stripping the conscience without restoring the soul. On the other side is lawless spirituality, which treats doctrine as a gray area where the Holy Spirit does whatever each person privately claims he has said, and where “God told me” replaces scriptural accountability and covenant faithfulness. The answer to the misuse of the Word is not to throw it away but to learn to receive and use it rightly. He closes with the picture of the one heart, one mind, and one spirit described in Philippians 2:2, Acts 4:32, and John 17:21, and ends with Jesus’s high priestly prayer that they all may be one so that the world may believe that the Father sent the Son. The visible unity of the covenant community, sustained by agape love and scriptural truth, is itself the witness to the world.
“These four things, a lot of us have experienced scripture as being a weapon against us. But that’s the work of the enemy. The actual grace of God is that we walk in this in love.”
“Doctrine without love is a hammer. But love without doctrine is also a fog. We need both. The Spirit of Truth uses truth. He wrote it down.”
“We are ending with the knowledge of how we walk in covenant love. Not the process, but the hope.”
Understanding: Name the four functions of Scripture as Pastor Daren presents them from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. For each one, describe how it functions as grace rather than as a weapon of control when received in love.
Heart-Level Conviction: Have you experienced Scripture used against you rather than for you? How has that experience shaped the way you receive correction or approach the Bible in relationship? Is there any healing or reframing that the Holy Spirit may want to do in how you relate to the Word?
Relational Application: The sermon argues that Matthew 18 has no ecclesiological weight without a defined covenant community. What does it look like for your life group or church community to actually function as that covenant body, sharing the same Lord, the same Word, and the same commitment to reason together under Christ?
“Hungry, Humble, Teachable” Lens: Jesus prayed that we would be one, even as he and the Father are one, so that the world would believe. What does it mean to be hungry for that kind of unity, humble enough to submit to the same authority of the Word rather than demanding your own interpretation prevail, and teachable enough to be changed by truth even when it is uncomfortable?
Concrete Obedience Step: In what specific way can you commit this week to contributing to the covenant unity of your church community? This might mean attending consistently, engaging transparently, reconciling a broken relationship, or simply praying John 17 over your church family by name.
Is there anyone willing to share one area of your life where you sense the Holy Spirit calling you toward agape love that costs you something this week?
Is there a relationship in your life where you need courage to go, or humility to receive someone who comes to you?
Is there bitterness, avoidance, or an old offense that needs to be brought to Jesus for reconciliation?
Pray for the courage to walk the narrow road between legalism and lawless spirituality, asking the Spirit of Truth to guide the group into all truth (John 16:13).
Pray over any specific relationships named in the group, that the Lord would give wisdom, grief rather than pride, and genuine love for the person in sin.
Pray John 17:21 over your church family: “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.”
Pray 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a positive declaration: “Lord, we receive Your Word as teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Use it for us, not against us. Equip us for every good work.”
Pray for any in the group who have been hurt by the misuse of Scripture or church authority, asking the Holy Spirit to bring healing and to restore their trust in the Word and in the body.
Pray for the transformation of thinking from the old self (peacekeeping, self-protection, false love) to the new life in Christ (peacemaking, sacrificial love, covenant faithfulness).
Father, we have studied Your Word today and we are grateful. You did not leave us to define love for ourselves; You showed us what love is in Christ. He walked the way of the cross as a covenant commitment to our good, and now we bear His image and carry His love. We ask that this teaching would not remain in our minds only but that Your Spirit would press it into our habits and our daily choices. Lord Jesus, sanctify us in the truth. Your Word is truth. Where we have been peacekeepers hiding behind false humility, make us peacemakers willing to enter the discomfort of honest love. Holy Spirit, make us hungry for genuine unity in the covenant community of this church, humble enough to submit our conflicts and offenses to Your process rather than our own wisdom, and teachable enough to be changed by what we have heard today. We go now to practice what has been preached. May the watching world see in us something they cannot explain apart from You. You are the source of agape, and we receive it by faith. In the name of Jesus, who prayed that we would be perfected in unity, amen.
This week, identify one relationship in your life where you have been a peacekeeper rather than a peacemaker, whether through silence, avoidance, or an unspoken offense you have not yet carried to the cross. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you what the first faithful step of agape love looks like in that relationship, even if it is only beginning to pray or to examine your own log first. Remember that love carries with it courage, and that the kindness of God, working through the truth He has given you, leads to repentance. Walk in that courage by faith, not by feeling, trusting that if you do what He says, His blessing will follow.
Agape love, as Pastor Daren taught, is not a warm feeling that avoids hard conversations. It is a covenantal commitment to the genuine good of another, even when speaking the truth is costly. The world tells us that love means accepting people exactly as they are and never introducing the discomfort of truth. But Scripture tells a different story: love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). If love rejoices with the truth, then love and truth are not enemies but partners. Faithful wounds from a friend are better than comfortable silence, because silence that lets sin destroy a person is not love but the abandonment of love. Today, reflect on whether you have confused kindness with agape, or tolerance with genuine care for someone’s soul.
Practical Challenge: Pray over one relationship today where you sense you have chosen comfort over truth. Ask God to show you whether your silence is love or the avoidance of love. Do not act yet; simply pray and listen.
Prayer Prompt: Lord, show me where I have confused tolerance for love. Give me a heart that rejoices with the truth, not with unrighteousness. Make me willing to be the kind of friend who loves faithfully, even when it costs me comfort. Amen.
Day 2: First, the Log
Before a believer goes to a brother or sister in sin, Jesus requires a prior act of humility: examine the log in your own eye. This is not an invitation to find yourself perfectly sinless before going; it is an invitation to approach the other person from a posture of genuine self-awareness and grief rather than moral superiority and judgment. The person who goes to a brother with a log still in their own eye will not help their brother; they will only wound and alienate. But the person who has done the honest, painful work of self-examination before God will arrive not with a verdict but with grief, not with an accusation but with an offer of grace. Galatians 6:1 is explicit: “you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” Your own fallibility is not a reason to stay home; it is the shape of your humility when you go.
Scripture Focus: Matthew 7:3-5; Galatians 6:1; Psalm 139:23-24
Practical Challenge: Spend fifteen minutes in honest self-examination before God today about one relationship in your life that needs attention. Ask God to reveal any log in your own eye, any self-righteousness, any personal grievance that has nothing to do with love, before you take any further steps.
Prayer Prompt: Search me, O God, and know my heart. Try me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any hurtful way in me. Remove the log from my eye so that I may see clearly to love my brother or sister well. Amen.
Day 3: The Road of Love Is Matthew 18
Matthew 18:15-17 is not a legal procedure or a complaint form. It is a road of love that Christ has given his covenant community so that when sin enters the relationship between believers, it does not have to destroy the relationship permanently. The goal stated explicitly in verse 15 is “you have won your brother,” which is the language of relationship, not litigation. The entire process, from private conversation to witnesses to the whole church, is designed to surround a sinning member with increasing layers of love, truth, and prayer until either repentance and restoration occur, or the community must honestly acknowledge that fellowship has been broken. What makes this process distinctive is that it requires a covenanted community: people who share the same Lord, the same Word, and the same commitment to one another. Where that covenant exists, Matthew 18 is possible. Where it does not, correction drifts into either isolation or public shaming, neither of which is what Christ ordained.
Scripture Focus: Matthew 18:15-17; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Corinthians 7:10
Practical Challenge: Read Matthew 18:15-20 slowly today. Write down what the goal of each step is, not the method but the goal. Ask God to show you whether your understanding of this passage has been shaped more by your experiences of its misuse or by its actual purpose in the hands of a loving community.
Prayer Prompt: Lord Jesus, you gave your church a road of love for when sin breaks our fellowship. Teach me to walk that road in faith rather than fear, with your grief rather than my pride, and in the hope that you are able to restore what is broken. Amen.
Day 4: Peacemakers, Not Peacekeepers
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). A peacemaker is not someone who eliminates conflict from the surface of a relationship; a peacemaker is someone who does the costly work of addressing what is actually broken so that genuine peace can be established. The difference is profound. A peacekeeper manages tension to keep the current moment comfortable, avoiding sin rather than addressing it, protecting the relationship from discomfort at the cost of allowing sin to grow in the dark. A peacemaker steps into the discomfort precisely because they believe the long-term healing of the relationship and the soul is worth more than short-term ease. Jesus is the ultimate peacemaker: he did not manage the tension between God’s holiness and humanity’s sin; he entered it fully, at the cost of his own life, and made a way for genuine reconciliation. In Christ we are both recipients and agents of that kind of peacemaking.
Scripture Focus: Matthew 5:9; Romans 5:1; Hebrews 12:14; Ephesians 4:3
Practical Challenge: Identify one area of your life today where you have been a peacekeeper, tolerating or managing a situation rather than doing the harder work of peacemaking. Write down what genuine peacemaking would look like in that situation. You do not have to take action today; begin with clarity.
Prayer Prompt: Father, you made peace with us through the blood of the cross. Make me a person who carries that peace outward, not as a manager of conflict but as a maker of genuine reconciliation. Give me courage to pursue what is real rather than what is comfortable. Amen.
Day 5: The Word Is Our Safety and Our Hope
The sermon closes with a conviction that the Word of God is not the problem; it is the answer. Many people have experienced Scripture wielded against them as a weapon of control or condemnation, and the wound of that experience is real. But the answer to the misuse of a gift is never to throw the gift away; it is to learn to receive and use it rightly. Second Timothy 3:16-17 describes Scripture as profitable for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. These four functions are not a curriculum of judgment; they are the fourfold shape of grace by which God equips his people for every good work. Teaching shows us what is true and right; rebuking identifies what is not; correcting shows us the path back; and training in righteousness builds the habits that make ongoing faithfulness possible. The community that receives the Word together in love, reasoning together under its authority as Isaiah 1:18 invites, is a community being built into the unity that makes Christ visible to the world.
Practical Challenge: Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Hebrews 4:12 together today. Spend time writing a brief prayer or declaration that receives the Word as the grace it is, acknowledging any specific ways it has exposed sin in your life recently, and thanking God that the exposure is an act of love rather than condemnation.
Prayer Prompt: Lord, sanctify me in the truth. Your Word is truth. I receive it not as a weapon against me but as the gracious gift of a God who loves me too much to leave me as I am. Teach me, rebuke me, correct me, and train me in righteousness, all for the sake of love. Amen.
Part 1: Read, Meditate, and Reflect (About 15 Minutes)
Read the following passages slowly, one at a time. After reading each one, pause and ask: what does this tell me about how God defines love?
1 Corinthians 13:1-13
Matthew 18:15-20
Galatians 6:1-5
2 Timothy 3:14-17
John 17:14-23
Romans 5:1-5
Write Short Reflections on these two prompts:
What one thing from these passages surprised or challenged me most about the nature of love?
Where do I see the difference between how the world defines love and how God defines it?
Part 2: Prayer and Declaration Practice (About 15 Minutes)
How to Pray: Begin by reading Psalm 133 aloud slowly. Then pray using this structure: (1) Thank God for at least one person in your church community whom He has used to show you grace. (2) Ask the Holy Spirit to show you one relationship where you are being called to agape love this week. (3) Confess any tendency toward peacekeeping rather than peacemaking. (4) Ask for courage and grace to take one faithful step.
Written Declaration: Write out this declaration in your own handwriting and keep it somewhere visible this week:
“Because God loved me first in Christ, I am called and empowered to love others with a covenantal commitment to their genuine good. I will not let comfort be my master or silence be my cover. I walk in the truth, in love, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the covenant community of the church.”
Psalm to Read: Psalm 133. Reflect on how the unity described there is described as life-giving and as flowing downward, like the oil on Aaron’s head and the dew on Mount Hermon.
Part 1: Read, Meditate, and Reflect (About 15 Minutes)
Read these passages with attention to their ecclesiological and theological weight. Consider the covenantal presuppositions embedded in each text.
Matthew 18:15-20 (Note the binding and loosing language in vv.18-20)
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and 2 Corinthians 2:1-11 together (the full arc)
Galatians 6:1-10
Ephesians 4:1-16
John 17:11-26
Hebrews 12:5-17
Write Short Reflections:
How does the 1 Corinthians 5 / 2 Corinthians 2 arc demonstrate the proper functioning of church discipline as grace rather than punishment? What does this teach about the role of the church body in restoration?
What does Ephesians 4:1-16 reveal about the relationship between doctrinal unity, love, and the maturity of the body? How does speaking the truth in love (v.15) relate to the full passage?
Part 2: Study of Christian Thought (About 15 Minutes)
Recommended Resource: “Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus” by Jonathan Leeman (Crossway, 2012). This brief but theologically substantial book presents a compelling biblical and covenantal case for formal church membership as the ecclesiological foundation that makes Matthew 18 possible. It is written from a Reformed Baptist perspective and engages the questions of ecclesial covenant in depth.
Writing Assignment: Write a one-paragraph summary of the ecclesiological argument for why a defined covenant community is necessary for the Matthew 18 process to have genuine weight. How would you explain this to a person in your life who is resistant to church membership?
Application: Write a second short paragraph describing one way you could help strengthen the covenant culture of your local church community. What specific contribution, whether in relationships, in faithful attendance, in honest conversation, or in prayer, could you make?
Part 3: Theological Reflection (About 15 Minutes)
Recommended Resource: “Redemptive Church Discipline” (chapter or section) from “The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love” by Jonathan Leeman (Crossway, 2010), or alternatively, the relevant chapters in “The Deliberate Church” by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander (Crossway, 2005). Both engage the theological rationale for discipline, love, holiness, and the gospel witness of the church.
Writing Assignment: Engage this question in writing (at least one page): “The sermon argues that ‘doctrine without love is a hammer and love without doctrine is a fog.’ How does this principle apply to the church’s practice of fraternal correction and formal discipline? What goes wrong when doctrine without love is used, and what goes wrong when love without doctrine is practiced? What does the narrow road look like?”
Teaching Application: Identify one person in your life, a younger believer, a family member, or someone in your life group, with whom you could share the distinction between peacemaking and peacekeeping. Write out two or three sentences you could use to explain this distinction in a natural conversation.
Part 4: Prayer and Declaration Practice (About 15 Minutes)
How to Pray: Read John 17:11-26 aloud as a prayer, pausing after each verse to apply it personally and corporately to your church community. Then pray through each of the five peacemaking steps from the sermon, asking God to equip you in each one: naming your motive, naming your desire, acknowledging another’s feelings, giving an invitation rather than an ultimatum, and confirming the Spirit.
Written Declaration: Write a personal covenant declaration of your commitment to agape love in your church community. Include your specific commitment to self-examination before correction, to following Matthew 18 rather than gossip or avoidance, and to receiving correction when it comes to you with the same humility you wish to bring to others.
Psalm to Read and Meditate On: Psalm 141. Note especially verse 5: “Let the righteous strike me; it shall be a kindness. Let him rebuke me; it shall be excellent oil; let my head not refuse it.” Reflect on what it means to receive correction as a gift rather than an attack.
Key Verses (NASB95) footnotes
2 Peter 1:5-7 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
Leader Note: This passage anchors the teaching’s definition of agape as a virtue that is grown into through progressive diligence rather than a feeling that arrives spontaneously. It establishes that love is the culmination of a ladder of graces, making clear why genuine agape requires the spiritual formation described throughout the sermon.
1 Corinthians 13:4-8a Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.
Leader Note: This passage is the definitional center of the sermon’s argument that love has boundaries and content. The line “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” is the hinge on which the entire teaching on truth-speaking rests: genuine love is not silent before sin but rejoices when truth is brought to bear.
Matthew 7:3-5 Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Leader Note: This passage provides the posture requirement for all correction: self-examination must precede approaching a brother. The leader should note, as Pastor Daren emphasized, that the text does not end with self-examination but concludes with the command to then go and help the brother, making self-examination preparation rather than an exemption from action.
Matthew 18:15 If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
Leader Note: This is the gateway verse for the central section of the teaching. The leader should note the textual observation the pastor raised: the phrase “against you” is absent in earlier manuscripts, broadening the scope from personal grievance to loving concern for any sin in a brother’s life. The goal stated in the verse itself, “you have won your brother,” defines the entire spirit of the Matthew 18 process.
2 Corinthians 7:10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Leader Note: This verse provides the theological rationale for why hard and honest correction, done in love, is an act of grace rather than cruelty. It distinguishes godly sorrow, which produces genuine repentance and life, from worldly sorrow, which produces guilt management and death. It is the lens through which the entire arc of correction, repentance, and restoration is understood.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Leader Note: This passage anchors the final section of the teaching on Scripture as grace rather than weapon. The four functions described (teaching, reproof, correction, training) are presented by Pastor Daren as the fourfold shape of God’s gracious provision for his people, equipping them for every good work when received in love.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
Leader Note: This verse from Jesus’s high priestly prayer appears both as the theological ground for the sermon’s conviction that the Spirit of Truth uses truth written in Scripture, and as a petition that frames the whole teaching: God’s desire for his people is their sanctification in truth, which is both Word and Son.
Explicit: verses directly cited or quoted in the teaching.
Implicit / Allusion: passages clearly underlying the theology of the teaching without explicit citation.
[Explicit] Ephesians 4:15 The command to speak truth in love as the means of corporate growth into maturity in Christ; cited directly by Pastor Daren as the framework for truth-telling within the body.
[Explicit] John 3:21 The “on-ramp” verse of the sermon: those who do what is true come to the light so that their works are clearly seen as carried out in God. Coming to the light is not shame but what believers do.
[Explicit] 1 John 1:7 Walking in the light creates fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin; connects the vertical reconciliation with God to the horizontal fellowship among believers.
[Explicit] 1 John 4:19 We love because He first loved us; the theological ground for all horizontal love being derivative from and dependent upon vertical reconciliation with God.
[Explicit] Galatians 6:1 The command to restore the one caught in sin gently, while watching oneself; establishes personal fallibility as the posture of going rather than an exemption from it.
[Explicit] Proverbs 27:5-6 Open rebuke is better than hidden love, and the wounds of a friend are faithful; the biblical warrant for truth-speaking as an act of love rather than hostility.
[Explicit] 2 Corinthians 2:4 Paul describes writing his corrective letter to Corinth out of great distress and anguish of heart with many tears; illustrates the posture of grief rather than pride with which correction is to be given.
[Explicit] 1 Corinthians 5:6 A little leaven leavens the whole lump; the rationale for why unaddressed sin in the community is itself a harm to the whole body and must be addressed out of love for the whole.
[Explicit] Romans 5:1 Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; the peace that works outward from vertical justification is what drives horizontal reconciliation in the body.
[Explicit] Isaiah 1:18 “Come, let us reason together,” says the LORD; the invitation that defines the church as a community of people who reason together under the authority of Scripture with love as the rule.
[Explicit] Ephesians 4:3 Being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; the active work required to maintain Spirit-given unity through peacemaking.
[Explicit] Philippians 2:2 Be of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose; describes the “one mind” that is the fruit of agape seasoned by truth.
[Explicit] Acts 4:32 The congregation of believers were of one heart and soul; the early church model of covenant community life that the sermon holds up as the vision for the body.
[Explicit] John 17:21 That they may all be one, even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You; Jesus’s prayer for the unity of his people that the world might believe He was sent.
[Explicit] Matthew 5:23-24 If you are at the altar and remember your brother has something against you, go and be reconciled first; the call to action that closes the sermon.
[Explicit] Romans 2:4 The kindness of God leads to repentance; cited in connection with the story of Elder Tim and the power of tangible love to draw people toward God rather than away from Him.
[Implicit/Allusion] Hebrews 4:12 The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the division of soul and spirit; alluded to in the teaching on Scripture as the instrument God uses to reveal the intents of the heart.
[Implicit/Allusion] James 5:16 Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another; alludes to the mutual accountability and transparency that the covenant community requires for genuine healing.
[Implicit/Allusion] Colossians 3:13-14 Bearing with one another and forgiving one another; underlying the teaching on love that endures through the full process of correction and restoration.
[Implicit/Allusion] 1 Peter 4:8 Love covers a multitude of sins; implicitly addressed in the tension between covering sin in love versus remaining silent when confrontation is needed.
[Implicit/Allusion] Hebrews 12:14-15 Pursue peace with all men and holiness; and see to it that no root of bitterness springs up; alludes to the warning that unaddressed sin and avoidance grow into bitterness that destroys community.
[Implicit/Allusion] Luke 15:11-32 The Prodigal Son; alluded to in the closing when Pastor Daren notes the Father is always watching and always ready to run to the returning son, and that the door of repentance is never closed.
Agape love is not an emotion but a covenantal commitment to the genuine good of another person, including at personal cost to oneself (1 Cor. 13:4-8; 2 Pet. 1:5-7).
Both false tolerance (silence before sin) and self-righteous correction (rebuking to establish superiority) are corruptions of agape and must be rejected (Prov. 27:5-6; Eph. 4:15).
Genuine love speaks the truth in love, risking the discomfort of honest confrontation for the sake of long-term restoration and holiness (Eph. 4:15; 1 Cor. 13:6).
Before approaching a brother or sister in sin, the believer is commanded to examine the log in his own eye, not as an exemption from going but as the preparation and posture for going (Matt. 7:3-5).
Personal fallibility does not exempt one from the command to restore; it becomes the posture of grief and humility with which one goes (Gal. 6:1; 2 Cor. 2:4).
Indefinite silence, rationalized as humility, leads to bitterness in the silent party and continued sin in the unaddressed party, harming both (Matt. 7:5; Heb. 12:15).
Matthew 18:15-17 is not a legal procedure but a grace-ordered discipleship mechanism given by Christ to his covenant community for the purpose of winning a brother, not winning an argument (Matt. 18:15).
The scope of the command is broader than personal grievance; it extends to any sin one observes in a brother’s life, flowing from love for the person rather than personal injury (Matt. 18:15 without “against you”).
The full arc of Matthew 18, when followed in love, is correction, repentance, and restoration, and this arc is the gospel operating in the body (2 Cor. 7:10; 2 Cor. 2:4-11).
Peacemaking, which Jesus blesses (Matt. 5:9), addresses the root of broken fellowship through truth, love, and courage in order to restore the relationship and soul, not merely to resolve surface tension.
Peacekeeping is a counterfeit that manages conflict to preserve personal comfort at the cost of long-term relational death and continued unchecked sin.
Godly sorrow, produced by loving truth-telling, leads to repentance without regret and to salvation; worldly sorrow, produced by mere behavior management, leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).
Scripture, as the God-breathed Word of truth, functions in four gracious modes within the covenant community: teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
The local church, constituted as a covenanted body of baptized believers, is the God-ordained context in which Matthew 18 has ecclesiological weight and in which the Spirit works through truth to produce unity (BFM2000, Article VI; Eph. 4:3).
The church walks a narrow road between the ditch of legalism (doctrine without love as a hammer) and the ditch of lawless spirituality (love without doctrine as a fog), with Scripture and the Spirit together as the guide (John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Confessional Alignment Table
Strength of Match key: 5 = strong and explicit alignment; 4 = clear alignment with minor differences; 3 = partial alignment or implicit; 2 = minimal or indirect; 1 = little relevant content; 0 = no matching statement found.
Soli Deo Gloria
Made Free Ministries | Agape First Ministries | Pastor Daren Mehl
Confession / Statement
Closest Statement(s) (cite and summarize)
Topics Matched
Strength (0-5)
Match Notes
Made Free Ministries Statement of Faith
MFM’s Core Beliefs affirm Scripture as the final authority on all matters of life, and the Holy Spirit as enabling believers to live a fruitful, holy, and spirit-filled life. The Statements of Faith affirm covenant relationship in Jesus Christ, unity of the body of Christ, agape love, and explicitly commit to walking out Matthew 18:15-20 in love, pursuing righteousness, practicing repentance and reconciliation, and functioning as peacemakers. (Made Free Ministries Statements of Faith)
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5
5
This teaching is deeply consistent with MFM stated values. The statement of faith provides the scriptural authority and Spirit-filled life framework that undergirds every topic. No meaningful divergence is present.
Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000)
Article VI (The Church): “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel… Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ.” Article IV.C (Sanctification): believers are “enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.” Article XV (The Christian and the Social Order): Christians should oppose sin and work toward righteousness in love. (BFM2000, Articles IV, VI, XV)
T1, T3, T5
4
BFM2000 strongly supports T3 (ecclesial covenant) and T5 (Scripture as authority) through its church and sanctification articles. The language “associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel” is explicitly cited in the sermon. T1 (agape love) and T4 (peacemaking) are implicit in Articles IV and XV but not explicitly developed as fraternal correction or peacemaking theology. T2 (self-examination posture) is consistent with BFM2000’s anthropology and sanctification teaching but not explicitly addressed.
LBCF 1689 (London Baptist Confession of Faith)
Chapter 26, Paragraph 6: “The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing their obedience to that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ.” Chapter 13 (Sanctification): believers are “enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.” Chapter 15 (Repentance): “men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance… but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.” Chapter 26, Paragraph 12 addresses the power of churches to admit members, administer censures, restore the penitent, and excommunicate the obstinate. (LBCF 1689, Chapters 13, 15, 26)
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5
5
The LBCF 1689 provides the strongest confessional alignment with this teaching’s ecclesiology. Its articulation of the local church as a body of saints who willingly covenant together under Christ, combined with its robust treatment of church discipline, repentance, and sanctification, closely mirrors the sermon’s vision of covenant community as the context for Matthew 18. T3 (Matthew 18 as discipline of grace) and T5 (Scripture’s authority) are especially well-supported. The LBCF’s emphasis on the Word as the instrument of sanctification and the church as the community of accountability aligns precisely with the narrow-road teaching.
Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) Statement of Faith
“Christian Living: We believe that God’s justifying grace must not be separated from His sanctifying power and purpose. God commands us to love Him supremely and others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed.” The Church article affirms that local church membership “should be composed only of believers.” (EFCA Statement of Faith, The Church; Christian Living)
T1, T4, T5
3
The EFCA statement aligns well on the inseparability of justification and sanctification (T1, T5) and on sacrificial love for one another (T1, T4). The EFCA document is intentionally brief and does not address fraternal correction, Matthew 18, or church discipline explicitly. The absence of formal church covenant language means T3 (ecclesial covenant as the basis for Matthew 18) is not directly supported, though the ecclesiology is not contradicted. The EFCA has historically allowed more doctrinal latitude (notably on eschatology) and its brevity leaves T2 and T3 underaddressed.
Assemblies of God (AoG) Statement of Fundamental Truths
Article 10 (The Church and Its Mission): The Church is the body of Christ, redeemed by His blood. Article 15 (Divine Healing) and the broader framework affirm the Spirit-filled community. The AoG community life emphasis on Spirit-empowered relationships and accountability is present in practice but is less formally codified in the Fundamental Truths themselves regarding fraternal correction and ecclesial covenant. (AoG Statement of Fundamental Truths, Articles 10, 14)
T1, T5
2
The AoG Fundamental Truths are primarily doctrinal in focus (Scripture, Trinity, salvation, Spirit baptism, gifts) and do not address ecclesial covenant, Matthew 18 discipline, or peacemaking theology explicitly. T1 (love) and T5 (Scripture) find some resonance in the broader AoG community emphasis on Spirit-filled living and the authority of Scripture, but these are not developed in ways that directly address the sermon’s ecclesiological concerns. T3 and T4 are essentially unaddressed in the formal confession. AoG’s emphasis on the Spirit’s empowerment does undergird T1’s call to supernatural love, but the formal document leaves T2, T3, and T4 without confessional grounding. A notable area to observe: the sermon’s warning against lawless spirituality (“God told me” replacing Scripture and accountability) speaks gently but directly to a pattern more common in charismatic communities.
Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord / Triglot)
Augsburg Confession, Article VI (New Obedience): “faith ought to produce good fruits and good works… for the sake of God’s will.” Article XII (Repentance): “proper repentance consists of contrition… and faith.” Article VII (The Church): “the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” The Smalcald Articles, Part III, Section IX address excommunication. Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article VII-VIII: addresses the nature of the church and mutual admonition among members. (Augsburg Confession, Articles VI, VII, XII; Smalcald Articles III.IX)
T1, T2, T5
3
The Lutheran confessions strongly affirm T5 (Scripture as the norm for all doctrine and life) and T2 (repentance as a genuine work of grace). The Law-Gospel distinction is the key lens through which Lutheranism addresses correction: the Law reveals sin (rebuking) and the Gospel restores (correcting). This maps broadly onto T1 and T4. However, the Lutheran confessions do not develop a covenanted local church ecclesiology in the sense the sermon envisions; the church is defined by the pure preaching of the Word and right administration of sacraments rather than by a covenant of believers. T3 (Matthew 18 as ecclesial discipline within a covenanted body) is present in Article XII on excommunication but the confessional ecclesiology differs meaningfully from the Baptist covenantal framework. Lutheran emphasis on justification by grace through faith alone is fully consistent with T1 and T4’s emphasis on love flowing from one’s justification.
Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)
WCF, Chapter 13 (Sanctification), Paragraphs 1-3: believers “through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection… are more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness.” WCF, Chapter 30 (Church Censures), Paragraphs 1-4: “The Lord Jesus… hath given the keys of the kingdom of heaven to his Church… to retain or remit sins… to admonish, to suspend from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and so to excommunicate from the church.” WCF, Chapter 1 (Scripture): Scripture is “the only rule of faith and obedience.” (WCF, Chapters 1, 13, 30)
T1, T2, T3, T4, T5
4
The WCF provides strong doctrinal alignment, particularly on T5 (Scripture as the sole rule of faith) and T3 (church censures/discipline as an instrument of Christ’s authority). Chapter 30’s treatment of church discipline as a gracious instrument for the correction of offenders and the deterring of others maps closely onto the sermon’s theology of Matthew 18 as love completing its work. T1 and T2 are supported through Chapter 13 on sanctification. T4 (peacemaking) is implicit throughout. The key difference from the sermon’s framework is ecclesiological: the WCF operates within a Presbyterian polity with session-based authority, while the sermon operates within a congregational covenant model. The substance of the discipline theology is closely aligned; the polity differs.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
CCC 1822-1829 (Charity): “Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.” CCC 1829: “The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction.” CCC 2845 addresses forgiveness. CCC 1435-1438 on penance and conversion. The CCC addresses fraternal correction as an act of love in paragraph 1829. (CCC, paragraphs 1822-1829, 1435-1438, 2845)
T1, T2, T4
3
The CCC explicitly names “fraternal correction” as a fruit of charity, which aligns well with T1 and T4. The Catholic emphasis on conversion, penance, and the communal life of the Church resonates with the sermon’s arc of correction, repentance, and restoration. However, significant divergences are present: the CCC grounds ecclesial authority in the hierarchical magisterium and sacramental system rather than in the covenanted local congregation and congregational discipline described in the sermon. T3 (Matthew 18 as the mechanism of the covenanted body) is absent as a formal framework. T5’s emphasis on Scripture alone as the authority differs from the Catholic position, which holds Scripture and Tradition as co-equal authorities under the Magisterium. The sermon’s warning against lawless spirituality and its grounding of all correction in the written Word reflects a Protestant principle that stands in contrast to Catholic ecclesial authority structures.
From Mortification to Sanctification: A Conversation on Grace, Freedom, and the Power of Jesus
✨✝️ In Episode 153 of the Love & Truth Network podcast, Garry Ingraham sits down with Pastor Daren Mehl (Made Free Ministries) for an honest, Scripture-saturated conversation about what Jesus does with real sinners: He saves, He cleanses, He changes, and He keeps changing His people.
This episode is not “self-help Christianity.” It’s a reminder that the gospel is power—not merely permission, not mere behavior-modification, and not a life sentence of white-knuckled management. It’s Christ Himself, working by His Word and Spirit, in His Church.
The Big Doctrines They Kept Returning To
1) Grace is not only pardon—it is power for transformation
Garry summarizes a crucial biblical theme: grace is not merely God “letting it slide,” but God empowering us to do the Father’s will and truly change. That aligns directly with passages like Titus 2:11–12 (NASB 1995): the grace of God brings salvation and “instructs us” to deny ungodliness and live godly lives. In the conversation, this point becomes intensely practical: grace doesn’t just say “you’re forgiven,” it trains the believer to live as one who has been forgiven.
2) Repentance is more than agreeing—repentance is turning
A repeated emphasis is that repentance isn’t simply admitting sin is sin; it’s a changed heart that turns toward Christ. That’s the difference between mere moral awareness and genuine conversion-driven obedience. Scripture consistently holds repentance and faith together (cf. Acts 20:21).
3) “I’m not just a sinner saved by grace”—identity reshaped in Christ
Garry challenges a common Christian slogan by insisting the Bible gives believers a deeper identity: not merely “sinner,” but saint—made right through Christ, while still contending with the flesh. Daren immediately connects this to the believer’s security in Christ—“no condemnation” (Romans 8:1).
This matters profoundly for anyone coming out of sexual sin or identity confusion: shame-based identity keeps people stuck, but gospel identity produces humble confidence, quick repentance, and steady growth.
4) Mortification and sanctification: killing sin to live
Garry puts it plainly: mortification (putting sin to death) isn’t “spiritual misery,” it’s removing what blocks us from the life Jesus wants to give now, not only in eternity. That resonates with Romans 6 and Colossians 3:5— Christians fight sin because they’re alive, not to become alive.
Daren also warns against a false “grace” that is only about avoiding outward behavior while leaving the heart unchanged—what he describes as a functional, exhausting “white-knuckle” spirituality.
5) God’s grace often comes through the “conduit of community”
One of the most helpful pastoral takeaways: both men insist that while forgiveness flows from God directly, there is a kind of healing God regularly gives through the body of Christ—confession, prayer, encouragement, and being truly known. They explicitly connect this to Scriptures like James 5:16, 1 John 1:7, and Hebrews 3 (mutual encouragement so hearts aren’t hardened).
This is discipleship that is more than information. Daren critiques “infotainment Christianity” (sermons consumed without real relational obedience) and presses for determined discipleship in relationship.
Key Testimony Moments from Daren (and Why They Matter)
Daren’s story is not shared as spectacle, but as a witness to Christ’s patient sanctifying power:
Coming to Christ as a teenager, desperate for rescue, and discovering Jesus is not theoretical—He is Lord and Deliverer.
Learning (slowly, and with real gaps in discipleship) to interpret his life through Scripture rather than through identity labels or subcultures.
Describing how he once sought belonging and male connection in counterfeit ways, and how the Lord used godly men, pastoral care, and real brotherhood to reshape what he believed love was.
Celebrating the fruit of God’s work in ordinary faithfulness—marriage, fatherhood, and service in the church—while making clear the process was not simplistic or instant.
In other words: this isn’t “try harder.” It’s Christ’s workmanship on display—often slow, often painful, but real. Ephesians 2:10.
What Stood Out to Garry (and Why It’s So Helpful)
Garry repeatedly highlights what many strugglers assume is impossible:
You don’t need a niche expert to disciple you. You need believers who will love you, affirm you (not your sin), and keep pointing you to Jesus. Garry calls Christians to become spiritual fathers/mothers, older brothers/sisters, not spectators.
The church is not Plan B—it’s God’s plan for discipleship. Both men insist sexuality and identity struggles are not “special category problems” that exempt a Christian from basic discipleship. They are discipleship issues—worked out by surrender to Christ in the context of His people.
Freedom includes being known. Garry describes the relief and freedom that comes when you’re no longer living with a “lid on,” terrified of being found out. This is deeply aligned with walking in the light (1 John 1:7).
How Scripture Affirms the Heart of This Conversation
If someone asked, “Is this biblical—or just personal experience?” the answer is: the themes are thoroughly biblical.
New identity in Christ: Romans 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17 (no condemnation; new creation)
Grace that trains us: Titus 2:11–12 (grace instructs)
Put sin to death: Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5 (mortification)
Community and confession: James 5:16; Hebrews 3:13; 1 John 1:7
Persevering discipleship: John 8:31–32 (abide in My word… truth sets free)
Why This Episode Helps People Learning Spiritual Truths
This conversation is useful because it refuses two common lies:
Lie #1: “If I’m tempted, I’m disqualified.” No—temptation and weakness drive us to Christ. The issue is whether we will live in secrecy, self-justification, and isolation, or in repentance, faith, and community.
Lie #2: “The best I can do is manage.” No—sanctification is real. Not always quick, not always tidy, but real. The gospel doesn’t merely re-label us; it re-forms us.
Made Free Ministries exists to say what Scripture says: Jesus sanctifies. Jesus transforms. Jesus gives real hope—and real help—through His Word, His Spirit, and His people.
Want to Go Deeper?
Daren shares that his ministry hub is madefreeministries.com, and he’s developing a 12-session Bible study titled From Conformed to Transformed, aimed at equipping the church with doctrinal clarity and practical discipleship in this contested area.
If you’re a pastor, leader, parent, or Christian who wants to walk in truth and love—this episode is worth your time.
Study & Prayer Assignment (45–60 minutes)
1) Scripture Reading (20 minutes)
Read slowly, with a pen:
Titus 2:11–14
Romans 8:1–14
1 Corinthians 6:9–11
James 5:13–20
John 8:31–36
2) Prayer (10 minutes)
Pray:
Confession: “Lord, where have I substituted management for repentance?”
Petition: “Give me courage to walk in the light with wise believers.”
Thanksgiving: “Thank You that grace not only forgives me—it trains me.”
3) Reflection Questions (10–15 minutes)
Where do you most tend to “white-knuckle” instead of abiding in Christ?
If your identity language is mostly “sinner” and rarely “saint,” what effect does that have on your hope and obedience?
Do you have any “band of brothers/sisters” relationships where you’re truly known? What is one concrete step toward that this week?
In what ways have you treated the church like information instead of covenant community?
In this episode, Pastors Nate and Daren discuss the role of spiritual warfare and demonic influence in contributing to unwanted same-sex attraction. They unpack the unseen battles behind these struggles and offer insight, discernment, and hope for those seeking freedom and healing. Visit our YouTube channel playlist for the whole Origins series!
Podcast Summary: In this episode, Pastor Nate and Pastor Daren remind us that spiritual warfare is real, but that freedom is not mainly found in “a magic prayer” or a one-time deliverance moment—it’s found in relationship with Jesus, His Word, and His people over time. They trace the battle back to Genesis 3, emphasizing that the enemy lies and sows deception, especially around identity and desire, and that those lies can become “strongholds.” The heart of the fight is often belief warfare: bringing our thoughts and agreements under Christ’s authority and letting truth reshape our desires. As we stay Hungry, Humble, and Teachable, we learn to walk out sanctification with patience, honesty, and deep connection in the church family.
Opening Prayer
Father, we come hungry for Your Word and Your ways, confessing that we often settle for surface answers when You call us to truth. Jesus, thank You for loving sinners like us, drawing us near, and setting captives free—teach us to abide in You and trust You with the work of sanctification. Holy Spirit, convict us where we’ve believed lies, strengthen us where we feel weak, and lead us into humble, teachable repentance and real hope. We ask for unity, gentleness, and courage to speak truth in love as a church family. Amen.
Study Guide
“I want to say on the very front end, we are not in any way saying that demonic deliverance alone is enough to set somebody free from a struggle with same-sex attractions… So it’s not a magic prayer. one, two, three, go be free. There really is a process.” – Pastor Nate Oyloe
Key Verses
Genesis 3:14–15 – This was used to show the origin of the conflict and how the enemy works against humanity—especially aiming at “seed/children.”
James 1:14–15 – This was used to clarify that we should not reduce sin to “only demonic activity.” Temptation also connects to the desires within us, and we need union with Christ in the whole battle.
John 8:31–32 – This was used to emphasize that freedom grows from abiding/continuing in Jesus’ Word, not from surface-level spirituality.
John 8:36 – This verse anchored the idea that Jesus—not techniques—brings real freedom, and that freedom includes our minds and desires.
2 Corinthians 10:4–5 – This was used to describe “belief warfare”—submitting interpretations, identity claims, and mental agreements to Christ.
Romans 12:2 – This supported the idea that sanctification includes renewed thinking—new patterns of truth replacing lies.
1 Timothy 4:1 – The phrase “doctrines of demons” was repeatedly used to describe lies that shape identity and behavior; this verse gives the biblical wording behind that phrase.
Malachi 4:5–6 – This was used as a closing hope: God restores families and turns hearts in love, which strengthens spiritual health and discipleship across generations.
Supporting Verses
Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39 – Jesus’ authority over demonic oppression (also clarifies the “pigs” story). [Referenced indirectly]
John 10:10 – “Steal, kill, destroy” language used to describe the enemy’s aims. [Allusion]
Ephesians 6:10–18 – Armor of God: truth, righteousness, faith, and Scripture in spiritual battle. [helpful for balance]
Philippians 1:6 – Sanctification is ongoing; God finishes what He starts. [helps avoid “instant change” expectations]
Galatians 5:16–17 – Flesh vs. Spirit conflict in sanctification. [supports “whole war” language]
Romans 8:13 – Mortification by the Spirit. [supports holiness in the fight]
Topic 1: The war begins in the garden—God names the conflict
Summary: Our Pastor Nate starts by grounding spiritual warfare in Genesis 3. The serpent’s deception brings devastating consequences, and God declares “enmity” between the serpent and the woman, and between “your seed and her seed.” This applies to the way lies spread through generations and culture, and to the responsibility of God’s people to stay alert, protective, and anchored in Scripture—especially for the sake of children and families.
Scripture used here: Genesis 3:14–15.
Quotes (from the transcript):
“This is the beginning of the war.”
“The enemy from day one has had his sights on our kids.”
Discussion questions:
Why is it helpful to start conversations about spiritual warfare in Genesis rather than jumping straight to modern examples?
When you hear “enmity” (conflict) in Genesis 3:15, what does that teach you about living realistically—but not fearfully—today?
Where do you see “seed” language (influence, legacy, discipleship) showing up in your home or relationships?
How can we help one another become more Hungry for God’s Word when culture is loud?
What’s one practical way we can support parents, kids, and students in our church family right now?
Topic 2: The battle is “whole”—world, flesh, and devil, won only by union with Christ
Summary: Pastor Daren emphasizes balance: Scripture doesn’t reduce sin to demons, and it also doesn’t reduce spiritual warfare to “it’s all in your head.” He points to James 1 to show temptation connects to the desires within us, while still acknowledging real demonic deception in the world. He then brings the focus to union with Christ: Jesus frees us from sin and death, renews our mind, and gives us the Holy Spirit who teaches truth and shepherds us back to the “origins” where lies first took root.
Scripture used here: James 1:14–15 (explicit); Romans 12:2 (explicit).
Quotes:
“It teaches a whole war… the world, there’s the flesh, the devil, and it’s only won by union with Christ.”
“We do have an advocate, the Holy Spirit, who teaches us and reveals all truth.”
Discussion questions:
Where do you personally drift toward extremes: blaming everything on demons, or blaming everything on psychology?
How does James 1:14–15 humble us about our own responsibility in temptation?
What does “union with Christ” look like in ordinary weekly life (not just in crisis)?
In what ways have you experienced the Holy Spirit using Scripture to expose a lie and bring peace?
How can our group help one another practice “whole-war discipleship” with compassion and clarity?
Topic 3: Strongholds are often “belief warfare”—Jesus replaces lies with truth
Narrative summary: A major theme is that strongholds can form when a person suffers pain, rejection, or confusion and then accepts an interpretive “story” that explains the pain—especially about identity and belonging. Pastor Daren describes this as “belief warfare”: taking speculations and lofty thoughts captive to Christ (2 Corinthians 10). He describes sanctification not as endless “demon chasing,” but as Jesus steadily replacing lies with truth, and truth reordering desire. This frames growth as discipleship—continuing in Jesus’ Word so truth leads to freedom.
Scripture used here: John 8:31–32, 36; 2 Corinthians 10:4–5.
Quotes:
“The spiritual warfare has been really a belief warfare.”
“Sanctification isn’t just demon chasing. It’s Christ replacing lies with truth.”
“If you remain my disciple and in my word, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
Discussion questions:
What are some “common lies” Christians are tempted to believe about themselves when they feel rejected or ashamed?
How does 2 Corinthians 10:4–5 shape the way we think about intrusive thoughts, compulsive patterns, or identity confusion?
What does it look like to “continue” in Jesus’ Word (John 8:31) when you feel stuck?
What’s one belief you want to bring to Jesus this week and ask, “Lord, is this actually true?”
How can we practice being Humble and Teachable when someone lovingly challenges our assumptions?
Small correction: A story was referenced as “Jesus cast out 3,000 demons… into pigs.” The Gospels describe a demonized man and a herd of pigs “about two thousand,” (Mark 5:13 notes ~2,000 pigs.) This doesn’t change the main point—Jesus has total authority—but it’s good to keep our details tight. 😊
Topic 4: Healing is relational and often gradual—Jesus restores through love and the church
Narrative summary: The hosts stress that growth is usually a process, not a shortcut: “no wand,” not “one, two, three, be free.” They describe how unmet needs and trauma can shape beliefs and desires, and how Jesus heals relationally—through secure attachment to Him and through supportive, wise relationships in the body of Christ. This is a call to patient sanctification: telling the truth, receiving love, and learning healthy patterns over time.
Scripture used here: John 8:31–36 (truth/freedom); Romans 12:2 (mind renewal).
Quotes:
“It’s not a magic prayer… There really is a process.”
“Jesus… draws us into a relationship where he can hold us and hug us and love on us. And over time… that brings about life change.”
“In him, we’re safe to admit our needs.”
Discussion questions (5):
Why do we sometimes prefer “quick fixes” instead of the slow, steady path of discipleship?
What’s the difference between shame-driven secrecy and humble honesty before God and trusted believers?
How can our group be a safer place for people to admit needs without fear of being labeled?
What would patient sanctification look like for someone you love (not demanding instant change)?
Where do you need to receive Jesus’ love more deeply—through His Word, prayer, and the church family?
Topic 5: The church must go deeper—truth, discipleship, and hope for families
Summary: Pastor Nate and Pastor Daren warn against staying “surface level” and call the church to get back to the “meat” of Scripture—digging beneath the surface so people are actually helped. They connect cultural confusion to widespread deception (“doctrines of demons”) and urge believers to build a strong foundation in truth. The episode closes with hope from Malachi: God turns hearts in families, restoring love across generations—an encouraging vision for long-term discipleship.
Scripture used here: John 8:31–32; Romans 12:2; Malachi 4:5–6; 1 Timothy 4:1 (concept/phrase).
Quotes:
“We could all take a lesson from the aardvark… we got to dig down.”
“I spent many years as a surface level Christian who only opened his Bible on Sunday…”
“There’s a restoration of the family… Malachi 4:5-6”
Discussion questions (5):
Where do you most feel tempted to settle for “spirituality light” instead of depth?
What would it look like for you to become more Hungry for Scripture this month (specific plan)?
How do we speak truth in a way that is both clear and compassionate—especially with sensitive struggles?
What are some ways we can strengthen intergenerational love in our church (older/younger)?
How does Malachi 4:5–6 shape the way we pray for our families and our church family?
Discipleship Prayer
Determined Discipleship Through Relationship
Pray to be Hungry for God’s Word—continuing in Jesus’ teaching so truth reshapes our thinking and desires.
Pray for Humble honesty: confessing where we’ve believed lies, excused sin, or hidden pain.
Pray for Teachable hearts: receiving correction and counsel from Scripture and trusted leaders without defensiveness.
Pray for those walking through deep battles of temptation, identity confusion, or shame—ask Jesus to replace lies with truth and bring wise relationships around them.
Pray for our families—marriages, parents, children, and spiritual mothers/fathers—asking God to restore hearts in love and unity.
Pray for the church to be faithful: deep in Scripture, gentle in care, bold in truth, and patient in discipleship.
Closing Prayer
Father, thank You for naming the battle clearly in Your Word and for not leaving us alone in it. Make us a people who live in the light—quick to repent, quick to forgive, and eager to build one another up. Jesus, thank You that You set captives free. Help us abide in Your Word and follow You as true disciples, trusting that Your truth will bring freedom in real places of pain and temptation. Holy Spirit, renew our minds, expose the lies we’ve accepted, and empower us to walk in holiness with hope. Make us Hungry, Humble, and Teachable—and make our church a safe, faithful place of determined discipleship through relationship. Amen.
Challenge For The Week
Choose one “belief” you tend to assume when you’re stressed or tempted (for example: “I’m alone,” “I can’t change,” “God is disappointed in me”). Write it down, then place it next to one of the Key Verses (John 8:31–32, Romans 12:2, or 2 Corinthians 10:5) and pray daily, asking Jesus to replace that lie with truth and to reshape your desires.
Daily Devotionals
Day 1: The battle is real—but God speaks first
Read: Genesis 3:14–15 Reflection: God doesn’t ignore evil or pretend there isn’t conflict. He names it—and He also promises victory. Challenge: Pray for one family (yours or someone else’s) by name, asking God to strengthen love and truth in their home.
Day 2: Freedom grows where we continue in the Word
Read: John 8:31–32 Reflection: Jesus links discipleship to continuing—staying close, staying steady, staying teachable. Challenge: Spend 10 minutes reading Scripture slowly (no rushing). Write one sentence: “Today, the truth I’m holding is…”
Day 3: Take the thought captive
Read: 2 Corinthians 10:4–5 Reflection: Some battles are won by refusing to let a thought become an agreement. Challenge: When a tempting or condemning thought shows up, pause and pray: “Jesus, I bring this under Your authority. What is true?”
Day 4: Sanctification is relational, not mechanical
Read: Romans 12:2 Reflection: Renewing the mind is more than “trying harder.” It’s a transformed pattern of thinking shaped by communion with Christ and His people. Challenge: Reach out to a trusted believer and ask for prayer in one specific area—practice humble community.
Day 5: Hope for families and spiritual generations
Read: Malachi 4:5–6 Reflection: God’s plan includes turning hearts toward one another in love. Restoration isn’t only personal; it’s also relational and generational. Challenge: Encourage someone older or younger in the faith with a meaningful note or conversation.
GOING DEEP IN THE WORD!
1) Starting with a biblical map: three enemies, not one
If you don’t name the categories, people will collapse everything into “a demon did it” or “I’m just wired this way.”
A. The world
A fallen system that catechizes through stories, praise, shame, and identity labels.
Romans 12:2 — the battleground includes conformity vs. renewal.
Ephesians 4:17–24 — old patterns of thinking, new mind in Christ.
Romans 1:25 — “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (the essence of modern identity religion).
B. The flesh
Not merely “the body,” but indwelling sin and disordered desires that remain in the believer’s mortal life.
Romans 7 (especially 7:14–25) — real conflict inside the regenerate man.
Romans 8:13 — sanctification is not “ignore the flesh,” but putting to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit.
James 1:14–15 — temptation is “carried away and enticed by his own lust… lust… gives birth to sin… brings forth death.”
C. The devil and demons
Real personal evil that deceives, accuses, tempts, and exploits.
John 8:44 — Satan is a liar; his native language is deception.
1 Peter 5:8–9 — he prowls; we resist by faith.
2 Corinthians 11:14 — counterfeit “light” and plausible spirituality.
Ephesians 6:11–12 — our struggle includes “spiritual forces of wickedness.”
Scripture doesn’t reduce sin to demons, and it doesn’t reduce spiritual warfare to psychology. It teaches a whole-war—world, flesh, and devil—won only by union with Christ.
2) Make the distinction “demonic influence” vs “demonic cause”
This avoids “demon of homosexuality” framing while still taking spiritual warfare seriously.
What demons commonly do (biblically)
Deceive (lies about God, self, love, identity)
Genesis 3:1–6 (the pattern), 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Timothy 2:25–26
Accuse/condemn (drive to despair or hypocrisy)
Contrast with Romans 8:1 (no condemnation in Christ)
Entice and bait (weaponize circumstances and imagery)
Matthew 4:1–11 (temptation via suggestion; Jesus answers with Scripture)
Oppress (burdens, fear, confusion) — without requiring “possession” language for believers
Still, the believer’s basic posture is: submit to God, resist the devil (James 4:7–8)
What James makes explicit: the devil is not the root-cause of lust
James refuses to let us outsource responsibility:
James 1:13–15 — the internal “lust” is the engine. So you can say:
The devil can train, tempt, and deceive, but he cannot make you righteous by blaming him, and he cannot sanctify you by leaving. The root issue is the heart’s disordered desires—and the remedy is Christ’s renewing grace.
3) The heart-belief layer: “strongholds” are often lies we’ve agreed with
This is where you separate spiritual warfare from belief warfare without severing them.
A. Scripture treats lies as bondage
John 8:31–36 — abiding in Jesus’ word brings truth; truth brings freedom; the Son liberates.
2 Corinthians 10:3–5 — strongholds include “speculations” and “lofty things raised up against the knowledge of God”; warfare includes “taking every thought captive.”
B. Name the pattern: wounds → interpretations → vows → identities → desires
Not as pop-psych determinism, but as a discipleship framework:
Wounds and shame often become interpretations (“I don’t belong,” “I’m not a real man,” “I can’t be loved rightly”).
Those interpretations become agreements with lies (compare Romans 1:25).
Agreements become habits of thought (compare Ephesians 4:17–23).
Habits of thought feed habits of desire (compare James 1:14–15).
The gospel doesn’t merely demand behavioral change; it brings renewal (compare Romans 12:2).
Simple line you can repeat:
Sanctification is not mainly demon-chasing. It is Christ replacing lies with truth and reordering desires by His Spirit.
4) The Anchor of Romans 6–8: sanctification as warfare in union with Christ
Romans 6–8 is the “battle sequence” that stays Christ-centered:
Romans 6: Your position and your new master
You are united to Christ in His death and resurrection (6:3–11).
Therefore: “consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (6:11).
Therefore: present yourself to God, not sin (6:12–14).
The first weapon is not casting out—it’s counting true what God says is true: I’m not in Adam; I’m in Christ. Sin is not my lord.
Romans 7: The realism of remaining corruption
The believer still experiences conflict.
This guards you from false promises (“if you had enough faith, you’d never feel temptation again”) and from despair (“if I’m tempted, I’m not saved”).
Romans 7 is not permission to make peace with lust. It is permission to be honest about the battle while you refuse surrender.
Romans 8: The decisive difference—Spirit life
Romans 8:1 — no condemnation for those in Christ.
Romans 8:5–9 — mind set on flesh vs mind set on Spirit.
Romans 8:13 — the method: “by the Spirit you are putting to death…”
Romans 8:15–16 — adoption: you fight as a son, not as an orphan.
Freedom is not merely subtraction (removing temptation). It is a new power and a new affection—the Spirit of adoption and the work of sanctification producing new desires.
5) How to talk about deliverance without making it the center
You can affirm spiritual warfare strongly while keeping sanctification central.
Explicit Guardrails
We do not preach a “demon-of-SSA” model because Scripture locates temptation chiefly in the flesh (James 1; Mark 7:20–23).
We do not deny demonic involvement because Scripture commands resisting the devil and putting on armor (Ephesians 6; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8–9).
We preach Christ’s lordship over the whole person: mind, body, desires, identity (Romans 6–8).
We aim for maturity, not spectacles: repentance, faith, renewed mind, mortification, walking by the Spirit (Colossians 3:1–10; Galatians 5:16–24).
If a demon left today, but you kept the lie tomorrow, you would walk back into bondage—because bondage is sustained by deception and desire, and freedom is sustained by truth and the Spirit.
6) Weapons of this war:
Warfare is the work of ordinary means of grace with disciplined obedience.
A. Truth (Word-centered)
Ephesians 6:14–17 — belt of truth, sword of the Spirit (Word of God).
John 17:17 — sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
B. Repentance at the desire-level (not only behavior)
Matthew 5:27–30 — Jesus goes after lust, not only the act.
James 1:14–15 — cut it off at conception.
C. Mortification and replacement
Romans 8:13, Colossians 3:5 — put to death what is earthly.
Philippians 4:8 — replace patterns of thought.
Galatians 5:16 — walk by the Spirit; you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
D. Community and confession
James 5:16 — confession and prayer.
Hebrews 3:12–13 — exhort one another daily to avoid hardening by sin’s deceitfulness.
7) Final Thoughts
The Unseen War Is Real — Ephesians 6; 1 Peter 5
But James Names the Root — James 1: desire births sin
The Devil’s Primary Weapon Is the Lie — John 8:44; Romans 1:25; 2 Cor 10
Freedom Is Union With Christ — Romans 6 (new master), Romans 7 (real fight), Romans 8 (Spirit power)
Sanctification Is Truth + Spirit + Mortification — John 8; Romans 8:13; Col 3; Gal 5
Hope for the Struggler — Romans 8:1; adoption; perseverance (cf. Romans 8:28–39)
Genesis 3:14–15; John 8:31–36; Romans 12:2; James 1:14–15; 2 Corinthians 10:4–5; Malachi 4:5–6 Write Short Reflections:
What lie do I most often believe when I’m afraid?
What truth from these passages speaks directly to that lie?
What’s one next step of obedience?
Part 2) Study of Christian Thought (15 min)
Resource: Ligonier article: “What Are Justification and Sanctification?” URL: https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-are-justification-and-sanctification [NOT AVAILABLE: Link could not be opened/verified with available tools] Writing assignment: In 5–7 sentences, explain the difference between being declared righteous and being made more holy, and why that matters when you feel stuck.
Part 3) Theological Reflection on a key topic (15 min)
Resource: John Owen, Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers URL: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/o/owen/mort/cache/mort.pdf [NOT AVAILABLE: Link could not be opened/verified with available tools] Writing assignment: What does it mean to fight sin “by the Spirit,” and how is that different from self-powered willpower?
Part 4) Prayer & Declaration Practice (10 min)
Pray: “Father, show me the lie. Jesus, speak Your truth. Spirit, give me power to obey.”
Write out a simple declaration (in your own words) using John 8:36 and Romans 12:2.
Read Psalm 139 and pray verses 23–24 slowly.
MATURE BELIEVERS (≈60 minutes total; 4 parts)
Part 1) Read & meditate on (20 min)
2 Corinthians 10:3–6; Ephesians 6:10–18; Romans 8:13; John 15:1–11 (abiding); Psalm 51 Write Short Reflections:
Where have I confused “information” with “transformation”?
How do Word, Spirit, and church community work together in sanctification?
Who am I intentionally discipling toward freedom and maturity?
Part 2) Study of Christian Thought (15 min)
Resource: J.C. Ryle, Holiness (classic Reformed pastoral theology) URL: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/ryle/holiness.html [NOT AVAILABLE: Link could not be opened/verified with available tools] Writing assignment: Summarize Ryle’s view of practical holiness in 8–10 sentences, then list 3 ways you can teach it gently to others.
Part 3) Theological Reflection on spiritual warfare and truth (15 min)
Resource: A Reformed devotional on strongholds (Ligonier) URL: https://learn.ligonier.org/devotionals/strongholds-and-supremacy [NOT AVAILABLE: Link could not be opened/verified with available tools] Writing assignment: Build a “thought-captivity” plan: (a) identify a recurring lie, (b) list 3 Scriptures that answer it, (c) outline how you’ll practice renewal daily for 2 weeks.
Part 4) Prayer & Declaration Practice (10 min)
Pray through Ephesians 6:10–18, naming each piece of armor slowly.
Write a short “mentoring script” you could use with a younger believer: how to confess temptation, reject lies, and run to Christ.
Read Psalm 27 and turn its phrases into prayer for courage and clarity.
Below is an article presented by a “Mehl Christian GPT Professor” created by Daren Mehl which analyzed his forthcoming book, “From Conformed to Transformed: 12 Sessions on Biblical Sexuality and Transformation in Christ” and a testimony by his friend and fellow “ex-gay” (former homosexual) testifyer who has spoken across the country several times in the year and has a large Catholic following. Dawn is a pseudonym and slight details have been chagned to protect the individual. (Their presentation was provided online and is publicly available.) Daren highly respects this individual and loves them as a sister in Christ. Daren created the GPT prompt for analysis of his testimony and hers through ChatGPT v5.1 and v4.o. The GPT is configured by Daren in a Reformed (WCF) tradition of Christian faith. Note Daren does not get hung up on Catholic vs. Protestant discussions. Daren has many people he loves in the Catholic tradition and call them brother’s and sisters in Jesus, including Dawn. The GPT did mention these differences and Daren left them in for reflection, not conflict. The views are Daren’s own, as Dawn has hers, and GPT work is not a netural response. This article does not exist not to generalize Protestant vs. Catholic, but to use two individual’s testimonies and teachings and comparing and contrasting them related to LGBTQ doctrines being taught while using a “biased” Protestant GPT created by Daren. Check out AFM LGBTQ Doctrines for more info.
GPT Professor Reviews Dawn’s Message and Compares to Daren’s Teachings
GPT Professor: I’ll start with brief summaries of each story and the four-sides framework, then walk doctrine by doctrine comparing Daren with Dawn, classifying each within Side A/B/Y/X (graphic above), and then evaluating both against a Reformed Protestant standard. I’ll finish with a “Potential Heresy / False Teaching” section and a few areas where Dawn raises issues you could incorporate more explicitly.
A. Daren’s testimony (Side X – “Rebuild / Transformation”)
From your written testimony and curriculum, your story is:
Wounds and confusion: bullying, emasculation, body shame, and a mocking incident where girls told you no girl would ever date “a gay boy like me,” which became a lie you internalized about your masculinity and lovability.
Occult and conversion: you came to Christ in high school under demonic attack, knowing little doctrine but crying out to Jesus for rescue, then being filled with the Holy Spirit and beginning to read Scripture seriously.
Conviction about homosexuality: through Scripture (Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11) you came to see your same-sex desire as “not neutral—they were lustful and sinful.”
Side A “gay Christian” phase: you embraced a “gay Christian” identity, entered a sexually active gay relationship, even while attending church, describing it as “a movement that believes it is morally proper to identify as a Christian and as a homosexual simultaneously.”
Deep sin and trauma: hookup culture, rape while intoxicated, and finally giving up on celibacy and deciding “I’m gay,” not with joy but defeat, believing this was how God made you.
Cheap grace and superficial repentance: you describe your early “repentance” as shallow—focused on actions but not the heart—and recognize it as “cheap grace,” quoting Bonhoeffer and Jesus’ warning about plucking out the eye that causes you to stumble (Matthew 18:9).
Cry for a clean heart and transformation: in Psalm 51 terms, you came to see you needed a “clean heart” (Psalm 51:10–12), not just behavior management; you realized you had been “white-knuckling it” while still feeding lust through pornography.
Prayer and decisive break: you prayed, “God, if I’m not supposed to be gay, break me up with my boyfriend,” and “if I’m not supposed to be gay, work it out so Rhoda and I can get married.” The next day, your boyfriend ended the relationship, which you interpret as God’s intervention.
Marriage, transformation, and Side X: over time, you testify to a real reordering of desire: “I very much was [a] homosexual practicing gay person, and now it’s not the way that I see men. There is no romantic or sexual attraction to men… I’m rightly ordered in my relationship with men.” You summarize your stance as: “we amplify the voices of people who have left the LGBT lifestyle to follow Jesus, pursue holiness, and, therefore, to pursue heterosexuality as well.”
Doctrinally, you now explicitly identify with Side X: rejecting LGBT identity, treating homosexual desire as sin (concupiscence), and insisting that sanctification includes the possibility and expectation of transformation in desire, not only behavior.
B. Dawn’s testimony (Resist / Side B, with Side Y elements)
From the Manitoba 2025 talk:
Catholic upbringing and double life: she grew up Catholic, knew Jesus in some sense, but lived a double life, in secret then open lesbian relationships for many years (5–7 years hidden, then about 10 years openly).
Subjective experience of safety and “love”: she describes her lesbian relationship as feeling safe and like love, even while acknowledging she had no peace and deep down knew it was sin.
Mis-counseling: she sought counsel from a Catholic therapist as a young adult; the therapist told her, “God makes no mistakes. You just love who you want to love. It’s OK. You just be who He created you to be.” She now cites this as false assurance and a reason she continued in sin.
Conversion / surrender: on December 25, 1997, she reached a breaking point and prayed, “I’m done playing God. I know I’m not good; I need You to show me You are good.” She describes this as the moment of surrender and encounter with Christ.
Ongoing struggle: she is very explicit that her desires did not disappear: “I did not become perfect. All my desires did not go away. But I tasted something greater and wanted more.” She speaks of the last eleven years as “messy,” with mistakes and ongoing struggles, but in that context highlights God’s faithfulness, not her perfection.
Catholic doctrinal anchor: she frames her talk around Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358, stressing: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible… This inclination which is objectively disordered constitutes for most of them a trial.” She insists the inclination (not the person) is “objectively disordered,” and that all humans have “disordered desires,” so those with same-sex attraction are not uniquely broken.
Her praxis is Side B / “Resist”: she sees same-sex acts as sin and rejects affirming theology, but treats the deep-seated inclination as a non-chosen, ongoing “trial,” calls SSA people to chastity rather than to expect change in orientation, and accepts LGBT-type language for people (“gay people,” “LGBT people”) while trying to preserve their dignity and belovedness.
She also has some Side Y flavor: strong emphasis on repentance, confession, the cross, and personal surrender to Jesus, combined with a call to chastity and obedience. But her doctrinal framing about orientation and language squarely align with Side B’s “gay identity + celibacy” model.
C. The four columns / sides framework
From the Differingviews and Clarity documents:
Side A – Revel / “Gay-Compelled”: homosexually-affirming theology; same-sex relationships are good; “being gay is a God-given identity;” sexual acts not sinful.
Side B – Resist / “Gay-Constrained”: accepts LGBTQ identity as an enduring orientation, but calls for celibacy and “spiritual friendships” instead of sexual relationships. Change of orientation is not expected; focus is on living chaste as a “gay Christian.”
Side Y – Renounce: rejects “gay” as a positive identity, stresses repentance from homosexual behavior and identity, but often expects lifelong SSA; emphasizes obedience and holiness, but less explicit about transformation of desires.
Side X – Rebuild / “Proclamation”: rejects gay identity, calls both acts and desires to repentance as sin, and actively teaches that God can and does reorder patterns of attraction for many, stressing testimonies of transformation and the pursuit of heterosexual marriage as a natural fruit for many.
Your curriculum explicitly explains that your ministry is Side X and distinguishes Side Y as “between” Side B and Side X.
Dawn’s teaching, as presented at Manitoba, maps most naturally to Side B/Resist: deep-seated tendencies as an ongoing trial; orientation taken as real and enduring; call to chastity; no substantial expectation of change in orientation.
Doctrinal comparison – Daren vs Dawn (with Reformed evaluation)
I’ll structure the “table” as doctrine-by-doctrine blocks. For each:
Daren’s teaching (with quotes)
Dawn’s teaching (with quotes)
Side classification
Reformed evangelical evaluation (where each aligns or diverges)
Doctrine 1: Authority of Scripture and Church teaching
Daren
You ground your teaching explicitly in Scripture, with a Protestant, sola Scriptura instinct. You use confessional language (antinomianism, sanctification) and contrast biblical personhood with Freudian anthropology.
You appeal to Scripture as the decisive authority against Revoice and Side B: “Revoice theology is tribal in its use of Freudian anthropology over biblical personhood… In contrast, Scripture teaches us to ‘repent and turn back’ (Acts 3:19). Because I choose Truth over tribe, I reject the false teaching of Revoice/Side B Theology.”
In your CNN letter, you treat Scripture as the final standard: 1 Corinthians 6:11 is not “an empty metaphor” but a lived reality that proves change is possible.
Dawn
She affirms Scripture but explicitly locates doctrinal authority in the Catholic Magisterium and Catechism: “We have a thing called the catechism and it’s beautiful. It breaks down… the teachings of the Catholic Church that is derived from the Scriptures, and from sacred tradition which was passed down from the early church.”
She emphasizes the stability of Catholic doctrine: “We don’t need doctrine that changes with a president or doctrine that changes when the pastor changes… We need doctrine that is from Jesus Christ and his church.”
Side classification
Daren: Side X, Protestant/Reformed instinct (Scripture as final norm).
Dawn: Side B within a Roman Catholic framework (Scripture plus Tradition and Magisterium).
Reformed evaluation
The Reformed tradition confesses Scripture alone as the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF] 1.2, 1.6). On that point, your basic stance is sound.
Dawn’s appeal to Catechism and Tradition as co-authoritative is, from a Reformed perspective, a serious doctrinal error (though not necessarily touching the gospel directly in this talk). It places human magisterial interpretation alongside Scripture instead of under it.
For your Protestant vs Catholic handout, this is a core axis:
Protestant (Reformed): Scripture alone; all human teaching (including confessions and catechism) is normed and corrected by Scripture.
Catholic: Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium; Catechism 2357–2359 is taken as the normative exposition of Christian teaching on homosexuality.
Doctrine 2: Homosexual practice (acts)
Daren
You are unambiguous: homosexual acts are sin, inherently disordered and incapable of being sanctified even in “marriage.”
You describe Side A as “a movement that believes it is morally proper to identify as a Christian and as a homosexual simultaneously,” that “reject[s] any notion that homosexual activity is sin” and “reject[s] any notion that God sees homosexual relationships as morally deficient compared to heterosexual relationships.”
You cite 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and Romans 1:26–27 to condemn both the behavior and the underlying desires.
Dawn
She agrees that homosexual acts are sin and that same-sex unions cannot be blessed by God. She recounts a Catholic priest who told her “love is love” and that God blesses her relationship; she now recognizes that as false and attributes her lack of peace to the fact that she was in sin.
She explicitly calls same-sex union something God does not bless and grounds this in Catholic teaching rather than personal opinion.
Side classification
Both: Side X and Side B agree that homosexual acts are sin and that “gay marriage” is not valid before God.
Reformed evaluation
Here you are in substantial agreement. Biblically, “for this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men…” (Romans 1:26–27).
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 includes “homosexuals” and “sodomites” (depending on translation of malakoi and arsenokoitai) among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Both your teaching and Dawn’s rejection of affirming theology are orthodox at this point. This is not where the major Protestant–Catholic divide lies.
You clearly teach that the desire itself—what classic theology calls concupiscence—is sin, not morally neutral:
You appeal to Matthew 5:27–28 (“everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart”) to establish that illicit desire is itself sinful.
You explicitly pray, “Keep me from the temptation to believe that evil desires can bring forth anything else but evil.”
You argue that Side B and Revoice treat homosexual orientation as morally neutral “feelings,” whereas Scripture treats both feelings and practices as sin when directed against God’s commands.
You align with the Westminster Confession: “Both this corruption of nature… and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin” (WCF 6.5), and you explicitly name antinomianism as any belief that downplays the law of God.
Dawn
She reads Catechism 2358: “This inclination which is objectively disordered constitutes for most of them a trial… It’s not saying this person is disordered… It’s saying this inclination is objectively disordered.”
She then generalizes: “We all have disordered desires… We all have disordered inclinations… We all need a Savior.”
However, she does not call the inclination itself “sin”; she uses “disordered” and “trial.” In the Catholic system, concupiscence in the baptized is viewed as an inclination to sin but not “sin properly so called” unless consented to. Her language follows that pattern: disordered, heavy, cross, but not itself confessed as sin until acted upon or embraced.
Side classification
Daren: Side X, Reformed/Protestant concupiscence = sin position.
Dawn: Side B / Catholic concupiscence-as-inclination paradigm: disordered but not explicitly “sin” until acted upon or willed.
Reformed evaluation
Classic Reformed doctrine is closer to your side:
Romans 7:8 speaks of “sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind.” Coveting (a desire) is called “sin” that dwells in the believer (Romans 7:17).
WCF 6.5: “This corruption of nature… and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”
Catholic teaching on concupiscence as merely an inclination that is not sin in itself is a significant divergence from Reformed anthropology. It tends to soften the gravity of internal desires and allows a conceptual space where one might “have gay feelings” but believe those feelings are morally neutral so long as one does not act. That is exactly the Side B pattern you are pushing back against.
That said, pastorally, Dawn tries to universalize the category (“who here does not have disordered desires?”) to avoid singling out SSA people, which is good. But from a Reformed standpoint, the missing step is naming the desire as something to be repented of and mortified, not just endured as a trial.
Doctrine 4: Identity – “LGBT people” vs “people who identify as”
Daren
You strongly reject ontological “LGBT people” language and insist on identity in Christ and in male/female creation:
“When you say ‘our LGBT friends and family,’ you’re making a faith statement in an ontological statement that they are LGBT. I say use the language that I have friends and family who identify as LGBT.”
You say you “used to identify as LGBT,” but now live “in the lifestyle of holiness and righteousness, by the grace of God.”
In your CNN letter you affirm that “The homosexual man or woman is fully male or female, created in God’s image, capable of heterosexual marriage… The gospel offers restoration to that authentic identity – not the counterfeit identity constructed by modern sexual ideology.”
You explicitly name Side B’s language as ontological error: “Side B pastors are training their people to think of LGBT-identified people as ontologically ‘gay’… This is the same thinking undergirding this kind of legislation.”
Dawn
She readily uses “gay people” and “LGBT people”: “Why does the church hate gay people?” and “nothing against LGBT people.”
Yet when reading the Catechism she is careful: “It’s not saying this person is disordered. It’s saying this inclination is objectively disordered.”
So ontologically, she tries to protect the person as loved and good, with a disordered inclination, but she still speaks as though there is a stable class of “gay people” whose deep-seated tendencies are simply part of their ongoing state. She does not correct or step away from that label; she uses it uncritically in her rhetoric.
Side classification
Daren: Side X / Rebuild – identity in Christ, male or female by creation; “LGBT” is a lived identity, not an ontological category.
Dawn: Side B – functional “gay person” language; personhood and inclination distinguished, but the label is treated as a stable identity category.
Reformed evaluation
Biblically, identity is grounded in creation and union with Christ:
“God created man in His own image… male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).
“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Reformed theology does not recognize “gay” as an ontological category; it is a pattern of disordered desire and behavior, not a created kind. Your insistence on “people who identify as LGBT” rather than “LGBT people” is sound and helpful.
Dawn’s language is pastorally compassionate but conceptually muddled: she preserves person/dignity, but she leaves the “gay” category in place as a quasi-identity, which tends to reinforce Side B confusion. A Protestant handout should make that contrast explicit.
Doctrine 5: Transformability / immutability of same-sex attraction
Daren
You strongly reject the myth of immutability:
You call the “sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable” narrative “scientifically false and ideologically driven” and say, “It is both unethical and dehumanizing to tell a man or woman… that they must accept same-sex attraction as immutable.”
Your whole curriculum “From Conformed to Transformed” is built around the possibility of transformed desires, not merely behavior. Session 8 is titled “Can Attractions Be Transformed?” and your own testimony is used as a case study of change.
You testify plainly, “Now it’s not the way that I see men. There is no romantic or sexual attraction to men.”
Dawn
She affirms that deep-seated tendencies are “real” and “not negligible,” and that they constitute a “trial” for most.
She emphasizes that after her conversion, “all my desires did not go away,” and that she continues to wrestle and struggle.
She does not explicitly declare orientation immutable, but she never suggests that her attractions have lessened or shifted; her message is, “I have not been made perfect, but I’ve tasted something greater and want more of Jesus.” The pastoral direction is enduring cross-bearing, not expectation of deep transformation.
Side classification
Daren: Side X – transformation of attractions is expected as part of sanctification (though not guaranteed in the same way to all, in every detail).
Dawn: Side B with Side Y elements – ongoing SSA as a life-long “trial,” focus on chastity and abiding, not on change of orientation.
Reformed evaluation
Scripture clearly promises transformation of the heart (Ezekiel 36:26–27; Philippians 2:13), and 1 Corinthians 6:11 says to former homosexuals, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified…” (NASB, emphasis on past tense).
The Reformed tradition insists sanctification reaches desires:
“They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated… are further sanctified… through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection… the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified” (WCF 13.1).
Your emphasis that we must not declare attraction immutable is correct and needed. However, a Reformed pastor must be careful not to turn the pattern of your testimony into a universal promise that every SSA believer will experience complete re-orientation in this life. WCF 13.2 adds that sanctification is “throughout in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life… the flesh lusts against the Spirit.” Some will carry heavy, persistent temptations to the grave.
Dawn’s emphasis on ongoing struggle is realistic and echoes Romans 7 and Galatians 5:17. The error is not in acknowledging ongoing temptations, but in the absence of clear teaching that those desires themselves are to be mortified and that change is possible. That omission pushes her toward Side B error.
Doctrine 6: What “struggling” and “falling” mean; victory in the struggle
Daren
You distinguish superficial repentance (“cheap grace”) from real repentance:
After first acting out homosexually, you “woke up the next morning and felt terrible” and asked God’s forgiveness, but later recognized this as “a shallow repentance that dealt only with the action, not the heart beneath.”
You define “falling” as returning to sin while clinging to cheap grace, and you warn that grace which does not lead to transformation is not the grace of Scripture (Titus 2:11–12).
Victory, in your framework, means not merely managing behavior, but seeing desires “more and more weakened and mortified” and your life reordered (marriage, fatherhood, rightly ordered relationships with men).
Dawn
She strongly rejects a perfectionist reading of victory: “I did not become perfect. All my desires did not go away… It’s been messy. It’s been a struggle.”
For her, victory is abiding with Jesus in the struggle—continuing to choose him over sin, to confess, repent, and come back, even amid ongoing weakness. She constantly emphasizes God’s faithfulness rather than her success.
She does not clearly articulate mortification of desire as sin, but she does stress the daily cross: the orientation is a “trial” that keeps her dependent on Jesus, and she must say no to the relationship she once called love.
Side classification
Daren: Side X – “struggling” is a phase on the way to substantial change and reordering; “falling” is tolerating ongoing sin while presuming on grace.
Dawn: Side B/Side Y – “struggling” describes the ongoing Christian life; “victory” is refusing to act on disordered desires and clinging to Jesus in the trial.
Reformed evaluation
The Reformed picture is “warfare”: believers “through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ… grow in grace… so that the regenerate part doth overcome.” Yet “the remaining corruption… doth much weaken and impair them” (WCF 13.3).
Your concern about “struggle” language being used to baptize ongoing, unrepentant sin is warranted. There is a false “Side B struggle” that treats perpetual defeat as normal and grace as mere permission.
Dawn’s language is more ambiguous. At points it risks affirming an indefinite stalemate: “desires did not go away.” Yet she does call same-sex acts sin, repents, and upholds chastity. Here, I would not classify her as promoting cheap grace, but as articulating an incomplete doctrine of mortification.
As a Reformed pastor, you can affirm her insistence that the Christian life remains a “messy” fight while gently insisting – where Scripture insists – that we aim not just at behavioral abstinence but at the mortification of the sinful desire itself (Colossians 3:5).
Doctrine 7: Trials and temptations – “testing” vs “tempting,” and whether SSA is a “trial”
Daren
In your curriculum you expound James 1:14–15: “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin…” and use this as a grid for your own story (lust → sin → death).
You distinguish between trials that God sovereignly allows and temptations that arise from indwelling sin; you resist any framing that would treat evil desires as morally neutral “trials” rather than as sin to be put to death.
Dawn
She adopts the Catechism language: the inclination is “objectively disordered” and “constitutes for most of them a trial.”
She uses this “trial” language to invite empathy: “These people should not be ignored. There’s deep-seated… This is real, guys.”
She does not clearly distinguish whether and how the inclination is also sin; the emphasis is cross-bearing and solidarity (we all have disordered desires), not categorizing the desire precisely.
Side classification
Daren: Side X – SSA is a temptation rooted in sinful concupiscence. Trial language is reserved for the wider experience, not for the desire considered in itself.
Dawn: Side B / Catholic – treats SSA itself as “trial,” leaning on Catechism 2358’s sense.
Reformed evaluation
Scripture speaks of “various trials” (James 1:2) that are not themselves sinful but test faith, and of temptations that arise “by his own lust” (James 1:14–15).
Reformed theology would say: SSA is both a trial (because of the suffering it entails) and sin (because the lust itself is disordered). Both pieces must be held.
Here, your instinct is right to insist that we not call sin neutral. But pastorally, it is legitimate to speak of SSA as a trial as long as we simultaneously name it as a disordered desire to be repented of. Dawn gives the “trial” half but not the sin-half.
Doctrine 8: Sanctification, healing, and transformation
Daren
You explicitly frame sanctification as transformation of both behavior and desire: “total transformation is possible for those with an LGBT history.”
Your Session titles – “From Lust to Death,” “From Death to Life,” “From Life to Freedom” – track a Reformed understanding of mortification and vivification: death to sin and newness of life in Christ (Romans 6).
You stress that sanctification is costly grace, not cheap: citing Bonhoeffer’s “grace without discipleship… grace without the cross” as false, and then quoting Jesus: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out…” (Matthew 18:9).
You explicitly say that Revoice/Side B “withhold the power of repentance and sanctification to transform lives” by treating orientation as unchangeable.
Dawn
She emphasizes healing and sanctification primarily as deeper intimacy with Jesus in the midst of struggle: “I tasted something greater and wanted more.”
She speaks strongly of humility, repentance, and the need to recognize pride, especially in the self-righteous; she warns against Christians who “had all the knowledge about God” but “couldn’t even recognize the God-man in front of them.”
Her picture of sanctification is rich on relational dependence, cross-bearing, and ongoing repentance, but thin on mortification of the specific inclination or expectation of changed attractions.
Side classification
Daren: Side X – sanctification includes the transformation of attractions and the abandonment of gay identity.
Dawn: Side B/Side Y – sanctification as growing obedience and love in the midst of enduring SSA, with celibacy/chastity.
Reformed evaluation
The Reformed view of sanctification is robust and closer to your emphasis than hers: the Spirit “infuses grace” and “the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified” (WCF 13.1).
However, Reformed theology also affirms that sanctification is “imperfect in this life,” with “war” between flesh and Spirit continuing until glory (WCF 13.2). Your testimonies clearly acknowledge ongoing battles with temptation (pornography, cheap grace, etc.), so you are not perfectionist.
Dawn’s picture is not heretical; it is just incomplete: it risks reducing sanctification to behavioral abstinence and affective endurance, rather than mortification of sinful desire. It needs the Reformed emphasis on the sinfulness of concupiscence and the Spirit’s power to reshape desires.
Doctrine 9: The church’s role – love, truth, and pastoral care
Daren
You sharply critique churches that either shun LGBT-identified people or offer only “just don’t do it” without discipleship.
You warn against “false compassion” that affirms sin and against antinomianism that denies the law.
Your ministries (Made Free, Voice of the Voiceless) explicitly aim to equip churches to teach biblical sexuality and support people seeking transformation, not just behavior management.
You also exhort pastors to engage publicly (school boards, legislation) for the sake of souls and religious freedom, not to hide behind “apolitical” posture.
Dawn
She’s very strong on the church’s failure to love: “Sometimes the church in the body, we don’t do a good job of loving… We didn’t talk about [homosexuality].”
She emphasizes that Christ flipped tables at the self-righteous, not at brothels, warning the church about pride and harshness.
She pleads with the wider “big C church” to walk together, acknowledges Protestant brothers and sisters, and points to the Catechism as a resource for a good teaching posture, not just condemnation.
Side classification
Both: Side X and Side B agree that the church must speak truth and love, though you differ on some theological underpinnings.
Reformed evaluation
You and Dawn actually complement each other here. Your critique of false compassion and cheap grace is needed; her critique of pride and lack of love is also needed.
Reformed pastoral practice must hold Ephesians 4:15 together: “speaking the truth in love.” If anything, your tone sometimes leans toward “truth in warfare” (given your activism context), and Dawn leans toward “love in trial,” but each is tugging on a legitimate biblical thread. A strong Reformed response should incorporate both: uncompromising doctrinal clarity on sin and concupiscence, and a fierce, visible love for the struggler.
Doctrine 10: Unique doctrines Dawn mentions that you don’t emphasize
A few items Dawn highlights that are not as prominent in your materials, and which are worth noting:
Pride as the church’s chief danger
Dawn points out that those who are “prideful, the self-righteous… had all the knowledge about God” yet missed Jesus, and that Christ flipped tables at them, not at the brothel.
You certainly talk about cheap grace and legalism, but her explicit, repeated warning against self-righteousness around sexuality could sharpen your Side X critique so it doesn’t devolve into mere “we’re the faithful remnant v. bad Side B people.”
Emphasis on doctrinal stability
She says, “We don’t need doctrine that changes with a president… We need doctrine that is from Jesus Christ and his church.”
While you absolutely affirm Scripture’s authority, you might benefit from explicitly tying your teaching to historic Protestant confessions (e.g., WCF on concupiscence and sanctification) to demonstrate that you stand not just on your own testimony but within a long stream of Reformed thought.
Universality of disordered desires
She presses the congregation: “Who in this room does not believe they have a disordered desire?” and then stresses that if we deny that, we are in pride.
You certainly affirm universal sin, but your writings can sometimes appear to focus more on the uniqueness of LGBT issues. Her framing could help you continue to press that homosexuality is one manifestation of the flesh’s disordered desires alongside many others, which can disarm shame and invite repentance.
From a Reformed standpoint, these emphases are good and biblical; they do not depend on uniquely Catholic dogma and can be absorbed into a Protestant Side X framework.
Review of potential heresy or false teaching
A. In Daren’s teaching
Core gospel / Christology / Trinity
Your materials as given do not display heresy regarding the person and work of Christ, the Trinity, or justification. You affirm salvation by grace through faith, the necessity of repentance, and the power of the Spirit in sanctification.
Sexuality and sanctification
Your strongest statements target Side A and Side B:
You rightly condemn Side A as antinomian, denying God’s law and calling evil good – which, if embraced, is indeed a damnable error (cf. Isaiah 5:20; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
You describe Side B theology as “false teaching” that misuses the law (compared to Pharisees), cleans “the outside of the cup” while leaving the heart uncleansed, and functionally denies the sinfulness of desire.
That assessment of Side B teaching, not necessarily of every Side B person’s salvation, is reasonable from a Reformed standpoint. The doctrinal content of Side B – treating homosexual orientation as morally neutral, unchangeable, and identity-forming – does conflict with Reformed teaching on concupiscence and sanctification.
Possible overstatements
The main risk in your teaching is not heresy but overgeneralization:
At times the call to transformation could be heard as implying that genuine believers must experience orientation change (not just growth in holiness) to be truly sanctified. That would go beyond Scripture and Reformed confessions.
It’s important to keep stating what you already imply: sanctification is real and must reach desires, but is also progressive and incomplete; some may experience profound orientation change, others may experience more modest change alongside ongoing struggle. Both can be genuine sanctification.
B. In Dawn’s teaching
Core gospel / Christology
Dawn clearly confesses Jesus as Lord, Savior, and the only way to the Father; she exhorts people to personal repentance and faith, and she rejects homosexual acts as sin. Her talk, as given, does not deny any core element of Nicene/Historic Christian teaching.
Roman Catholic distinctives
Her reliance on the Catechism and sacred Tradition as normative doctrinal authorities is, from a Reformed perspective, a serious error, but that is an old Protestant–Catholic dispute, not unique to sexuality.
Human sexuality / concupiscence
The main doctrinal problem is the Side B / Catholic approach to concupiscence: treating homosexual inclination as a “trial” and “objectively disordered” but not straightforwardly calling it sin to be repented of and mortified.
Combined with the absence of any teaching on the possibility of transformed attractions, this creates a theology where SSA is normalized as a lifelong condition to be endured. That conflicts with the Reformed view that sinful desires themselves are to be confessed and fought, even when they remain powerful.
Still, she clearly rejects affirming theology and calls people away from sinful acts into chastity, so her error is more in the incompleteness and imbalance of her doctrine of sin and sanctification than in outright moral heresy.
Side B/Side Y classification
Given her use of “gay people / LGBT people,” her emphasis on deep-seated tendencies as a life-long trial, and her lack of teaching on transformed attractions, your instinct is correct: she is operating from a Side B (Resist) or possibly Side Y position, not Side X.
Side B teaching, as a system, is a serious doctrinal error that can become functionally heretical where it denies the sinfulness of concupiscence or the possibility of sanctification in desire. Dawn’s talk flirts with that but also contains strong calls to repentance, humility, and obedience. So I would say: her talk is doctrinally mixed—good in rejecting Side A, weak and problematic in its treatment of concupiscence and identity.
Brief comparative summary of Daren’s doctrines to Dawn’s:
Homosexual practice and lifestyle
Both: acts are sin; lifestyle cannot be Christian discipleship. Agreement.
Sexual sin in general
You: emphasize that sexual sin is one manifestation among many, but you focus heavily on LGBT issues because of your calling.
Dawn: stresses that “we all have disordered desires,” which is a helpful universalizing.
Identity in Christ
You: strongly Christ-centered identity, rejecting “gay” as ontological; prefer “formerly identified as LGBT.”
Dawn: acknowledges belovedness in Christ but still speaks of “gay people” and “LGBT people,” leaving orientation-identity categories intact.
Authority of Scripture
You: Scripture is final; confessional Protestant instincts.
Dawn: Scripture plus the Catholic Catechism and sacred Tradition.
Concupiscence
You: desires against God’s law are “truly and properly sin” and must be mortified.
Dawn: desires are “objectively disordered” and “trial,” but not clearly named as sin.
Transformed heart and attractions
You: emphasize testimonies of transformed attractions (Side X), though must be careful not to over-promise.
Dawn: emphasizes transformed heart in terms of love for Jesus and obedience, but leaves attractions largely unaddressed except as ongoing struggle.
“Falling” and struggling
You: “falling” is repeated sin under cheap grace; real repentance must address heart and desires.
Dawn: “struggling” is the ongoing life of a Christian; she resists perfectionism.
Ongoing temptations and mutability
You: temptations may remain, but we must never declare them immutable; change is possible and often actual.
Dawn: lived pattern suggests ongoing SSA; she frames it as cross and trial, not as something that has changed.
Closing counsel for your Protestant vs Catholic / Side X vs Side B handout
For your handout, I’d recommend:
Make the axis explicit:
Protestant/Reformed + Side X:
Scripture alone as ultimate authority.
Homosexual acts and desires are sin (concupiscence).
Identity in Christ; no “LGBT people” ontologically.
Sanctification includes genuine change in desires for many, though not perfection.
Catholic + Side B (Dawn’s talk):
Scripture plus Catechism/Tradition.
Homosexual acts sin; desires “objectively disordered” and “trial,” not clearly named sin.
“Gay / LGBT people,” with person/dignity distinguished from inclination.
Sanctification = chastity and endurance; little to no expectation of transformed attraction.
Where you and Dawn agree, say so plainly (especially on acts being sin, on the need for repentance, on Jesus as Lord).
Where you differ, use Reformed confessional categories: sin, concupiscence, sanctification, union with Christ, identity.
Guard yourself, as a Side X teacher, from two opposite dangers:
Softening your doctrine of concupiscence (Side B error).
Over-promising specific patterns of change in this life (a different kind of error that can crush tender consciences whose story looks more like “ongoing struggle + growing obedience” than “complete re-orientation.”)
You are clearly contending for a thoroughly Reformed, Side X position. Dawn’s talk is best understood as a sincere but theologically incomplete Side B/Side Y Catholic approach—pastorally compassionate, morally conservative on acts, but weak on concupiscence and identity.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS FROM (4o)
1. What Dawn is Actually Teaching (Brief Summary)
From this Manitoba talk, Dawn’s main points are:
She lived for many years in openly homosexual relationships, knowing inwardly that it was wrong (e.g., “I made a decision my senior year in high school to act on something that I knew was wrong… to kiss my best friend that was a girl” 22:57–23:12).
She had a powerful conversion/encounter with Christ about 13 years ago, which did not erase her desires but changed her direction: she began pursuing Christ, going to daily Mass, prayer meetings, etc. (29:02–30:04).
She affirms that homosexual behavior is sin and that the Church’s teaching on sexuality does not change with the times; she appeals to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and reads CCC 2358, stressing that homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” but that the person is to be treated with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (35:16–37:29).
She insists that LGBT-related sin is not the only sexual sin in the church and that we must not treat people with same-sex attraction as “the worst sinners” while ignoring fornication, cohabitation, unbiblical divorce, etc. (33:40–34:15).
She is strongly against celebrating sinful unions (same-sex “marriage,” cohabiting straight couples, etc.), arguing we must distinguish loving people from celebrating their sin (1:45:44–1:47:18).
She speaks positively of the Roman Catholic Church, its catechism, sacraments (especially confession), and “sacred tradition” passed down from the early church (35:16–35:33; 36:02–36:14; 1:18:51–1:19:20).
She describes the Christian life as an ongoing struggle, including “falls,” but emphasizes returning to Christ and his grace: “I never went fully back in the lifestyle, but I have had falls… What I’m grateful for is in my falls, there’s been a grace for me to go back to him, not run from him” (1:37:15–1:37:48).
So broadly: orthodox sexual ethics in a Roman Catholic framework, with a strong emphasis on compassion and shared brokenness.
2. Where You and Dawn Strongly Agree
These are areas where her teaching and yours are either aligned or very close, and where the difference is at most one of emphasis, not doctrine.
a. Homosexual practice is sin, not an acceptable lifestyle
Dawn knows from the beginning that acting on her desires was wrong:
“I made a decision my sophmore year in high school to act on something that I knew was wrong… to kiss my best friend that was a girl.” (22:57–23:05)
She later says she dated women secretly 5–7 years and openly 10 years, but “I had no peace” (24:33–24:40). She clearly regards that life as incompatible with obedience to Christ.
You likewise teach that homosexual acts are sin, in line with passages like Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:9–11. This is a strong agreement and a genuine point of common witness.
Verdict: This agreement is good and solidly biblical.
b. Sexual sin isn’t limited to homosexuality
Dawn rebukes the church’s tendency to treat same-sex sin as uniquely monstrous while tolerating heterosexual immorality:
“My brother can sleep with his girlfriend… these people are getting divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried. But oh gosh, I have an attraction to the same sex. I’m the worst. And sometimes… it’s the very church that is sending that message.” (33:51–34:21)
You regularly teach the same–that fornication, pornography, unbiblical divorce, etc. are also damnable sins if unrepented (1 Cor 6:9–10).
Verdict: Fully aligned with Scripture and Reformed teaching. This is a good and needed emphasis.
c. Identity must be in Christ, not in sexuality
Dawn warns that if we don’t have a living relationship with Christ, we will “build our identity in other ways” (31:16–31:20) and explicitly frames our need as experiential, not merely intellectual.
You have clearly rejected the “gay Christian” identity and have taught that believers must not ground their self-understanding in sinful desires but in union with Christ (Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 5:17).
Dawn doesn’t use “gay Christian” language and encourages people to find their identity in Christ and his love, not their sexuality. You say this with Reformed doctrinal precision; she says it more narratively and experientially, but the direction is the same.
Verdict: Substantially aligned. Her approach is “good but incomplete” compared to the clarity of your Reformed categories, but not in opposition.
d. We must not celebrate sinful unions
In the Q&A she’s asked about attending certain events. She frames the question like this:
“When you get invited, you’re being invited to come and celebrate… their union… You’re being invited to a celebration. And I would just encourage you, ask God… would Jesus go and celebrate this action? He always celebrates people, but would he celebrate that action?” (1:45:44–1:46:25)
She applies this not only to same-sex “weddings” but also cohabiting straight couples (“they’re living together as husband and wife… would Jesus go and celebrate what they’re currently doing?” 1:46:46–1:47:00).
You likewise teach that believers must not attend same-sex “weddings” or celebrations that endorse ongoing sexual sin, because doing so confuses our witness and appears to bless what God calls sin (Eph 5:11).
Verdict: Strong agreement. This is a good, faithful stance.
3. The Major Doctrinal Differences
Now, the real meat: where you differ, and whether those differences are aligned with truth, harmful, or relatively indifferent.
1) Authority: Scripture Alone vs Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium
What Dawn says:
“We have a thing called the catechism… the teachings of the Catholic Church that is derived from the Scriptures, and from sacred tradition which was passed down from the early church.” (35:16–35:33)
“We need doctrine that is from Jesus Christ and his church.” (36:08–36:14)
She appeals to the Catechism (CCC 2358) as a normative expression of Christ’s doctrine and explicitly includes “sacred tradition” as a doctrinal source.
What you teach (Reformed):
Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and life (WCF 1.2, 1.6; 2 Tim 3:16–17).
Confessions and catechisms (e.g., Westminster, 39 Articles) are subordinate standards, always subject to Scripture.
“Tradition” may be helpful but is never a second infallible stream of revelation.
Evaluation:
From a confessional Reformed standpoint, this is not a small or indifferent difference. The Roman Catholic appeal to “sacred tradition” and magisterial authority has produced doctrines that the Reformed churches have explicitly called contrary to the gospel (e.g., Trent on justification; the sacrifice of the mass; Marian dogmas).
So:
When Dawn reads CCC 2358 about homosexual persons needing respect, compassion, and sensitivity, that particular content is quite good.
But by commending the Catechism and tradition as a whole as the unchanging voice of “Jesus Christ and his church,” she implicitly endorses a system that the Reformed confessions regard as materially heretical at the level of the gospel (see WCF 25.6 on the “synagogue of Satan”).
Verdict: This difference is bad and serious at the doctrinal level (authority/gospel). Your Reformed position is more faithful to Scripture. Her sexual-ethics application is good; her underlying Roman framework is not.
2) Concupiscence: Are disordered desires themselves sin?
What Dawn says:
Reading CCC 2358:
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial… It’s not saying the person is disordered. It’s saying this inclination is objectively disordered.” (36:55–37:29)
She then generalizes:
“The reality is we all have disordered desires… If you didn’t, and if I didn’t, we would have no need for him. We all need a Savior. We all have disordered inclinations.” (37:41–38:14)
She follows typical Roman Catholic language: concupiscence as “disordered” but not explicitly “sin” in itself, though it is part of our fallen condition.
“When I came to the Lord, I realized that my attraction to men was sinful, that it was lustful.” (para. 10)
You’ve been clear that:
Homosexual acts are sin.
Homosexual desire itself is a manifestation of original sin—“truly and properly sin” in Reformed terms (Matt 5:27–28; Rom 7:7–8; Jas 1:14–15).
That doesn’t mean every involuntary temptation carries the same guilt as a fully consented act, but the inclination itself is morally disordered as sin.
Reformed doctrine:
WCF 6.5: “This corruption of nature… doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.”
So Reformed theology does not stop at “objectively disordered”; it calls the inward concupiscence itself sin, even when not outwardly acted on.
Evaluation:
Dawn is right to say the inclination is disordered and to emphasize that everyone has disordered desires. Good.
She stops in a characteristically Roman place: the inclination is a “trial,” disordered, but not clearly identified as sin.
You go further, in line with Reformed confessions and biblical teaching, by naming the desire itself as sin and calling for repentance and mortification, even while recognizing ongoing struggle.
Verdict: Your Reformed view is more fully aligned with Scripture. Dawn’s language is incomplete and somewhat erroneous, but her practical emphasis (flee sin, seek Christ, we all need grace) keeps her from full-blown false teaching here. Still, this is not indifferent; your difference here is good and necessary.
3) Roman Sacramentalism (especially confession)
What Dawn says:
In answering “what do I do if I’m lonely / where do I go?” she says:
“He’s given Jesus came to give his life, but he also set up a church. We need the body of Christ… If you’re Catholic, the sacraments. Don’t go to confession because you think he’s mad at you. Go because he’s like, ‘I love you so much and all I want to do is forgive you…’” (1:18:51–1:19:20)
This is standard Roman sacramental theology: Christ’s grace comes especially through the sacraments; confession to a priest mediates forgiveness.
What you teach:
You affirm:
Two sacraments only (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), as signs and seals of the covenant (WCF 27–29).
No sacerdotal priesthood; every believer has direct access to God through Christ, our High Priest (Heb 4:14–16; 10:19–22).
Confession is essential (1 Jn 1:9; Jas 5:16), but assurance of forgiveness rests on Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and the promises of the gospel, not on a priestly act of absolution.
Evaluation:
Dawn’s tone about confession (“He isn’t mad at you; He wants to forgive”) is actually very encouraging and more gospel-shaped than some Catholic preaching. But the structure is still Roman:
Sacramental confession as a key means of receiving forgiveness.
Priest as the one who hears and absolves.
From a Reformed standpoint, this institutionalizes a false view of the priesthood and clouds the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work.
Verdict: This difference is theologically bad, though her pastoral heart in it is kindly. Your Reformed critique stands; her sacramental framework is not aligned with the New Testament or the Reformed confessions.
4) Conversion, struggle, and “falls”
What Dawn says:
She describes a genuine conversion encounter but ongoing struggle:
“When I had that encounter with God… I did not become perfect. All my desires did not go away… I tasted something… greater and I wanted more.” (29:02–29:20)
Later:
“Though I’ve had falls and though I’ve sometimes returned and been like… I never went fully back in the lifestyle, but I have had falls… What I’m grateful for is in my falls, there’s been a grace for me to go back to him, not run from him.” (1:37:15–1:37:48)
She is honest about a messy sanctification process and emphasizes Christ’s faithfulness (Phil 1:6).
What you teach:
You also acknowledge ongoing temptations, but you are much clearer about:
The categorical break with the homosexual lifestyle required in repentance.
The difference between temptation, inward consent, and outward acts.
The nature of sanctification: definitive and progressive, with sin’s dominion broken (Rom 6; 1 Cor 6:11), even though sin remains.
Evaluation:
Dawn’s description of struggle is not false; it’s actually realistic and in many ways comforting to strugglers. The weakness is lack of doctrinal clarity:
She doesn’t define what “falls” are.
She doesn’t explicitly distinguish between ongoing temptation and repeated lapses into outward sexual sin.
You, grounded in Reformed categories, make those distinctions clearly.
Verdict: Difference of clarity, not contradiction. Her testimony is rough-edged but not necessarily theologically corrupt. Your sharper teaching is an improvement, not a problem.
5) Church and “big C Church”
Dawn repeatedly speaks of “the body of Christ” and the “big C church,” welcoming Protestants present, but her concrete ecclesiology is Roman Catholic: the Catechism, the sacraments, sacred tradition, the Pope, etc., as the continuation of Christ’s own institution.
You, of course, hold to the Reformed doctrine of the visible and invisible church, with Rome as a mixed body containing many true believers but also serious doctrinal corruption (WCF 25.4–6).
Verdict: At the level of underlying ecclesiology, you diverge sharply, and the Reformed position is more aligned with Scripture. At the level of this talk (encouraging people to be in church, not isolated), you actually agree. So there is both a serious doctrinal difference and some practical overlap.
6) Experiences and “prophetic word”
Dawn mentions a “prophetic word” and dramatic encounter as part of her conversion story (28:30–29:26), and she speaks often of “experiencing” God.
You are Reformed but open to the work of the Spirit, and you emphasize testing all experiences by Scripture.
She does not use prophecy to overturn biblical teaching; her experience actually leads her into repentance and obedience.
Verdict: This is largely indifferent provided you keep insisting on Scripture as the final test. It’s a matter of temperament and spiritual culture more than doctrine here.
4. Review of Potential Heresy / False Teaching
From a confessional Reformed vantage point:
Clearly problematic / heretical systems she endorses
Roman Catholic view of authority (Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium)
By presenting the Catechism and “sacred tradition” as the unchanging voice of “Jesus Christ and his church,” she implicitly endorses Trent, Vatican I, etc., which Reformed churches have long judged to teach “another gospel” in key places (Gal 1:8–9).
Roman sacramental system, especially penance/confession
She directs Catholics to sacramental confession as a primary way to meet Christ’s forgiving love. The Roman doctrine of penance (including satisfactions and absolution) stands in tension with justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
These are not minor differences; they touch the heart of the gospel. So yes, there is real false teaching in the system she publicly commends, even if her own words in this talk are often better than the system itself.
Weaker / incomplete teaching (but not outright heresy in this talk)
Concupiscence not clearly named as sin
She calls the inclination “objectively disordered” and a “trial” but stops short of calling such desires “truly and properly sin” as Reformed theology does. That incompleteness can mislead people into underestimating the depth of their need for grace and the seriousness of inner sin.
Lack of clarity on what “falls” mean
She normalizes struggle (good) but does not clarify whether her “falls” were merely inward temptations, emotional entanglements, or actual sexual sin. That vagueness can make repentance look more like “managing” rather than killing sin.
5. Bottom Line: Are Your Differences Good, Bad, or Indifferent?
You vs. Dawn on sexual ethics and discipleship of SSA believers:
You are broadly on the same side: homosexual acts are sin; identity must be in Christ; we must not celebrate sinful unions; we must treat people with dignity and compassion while telling the truth.
Your Reformed clarity on concupiscence and repentance is an improvement on her Roman framing, not a contradiction.
You vs. Dawn on authority, sacraments, and concupiscence:
Here, your Reformed doctrines are more faithful to Scripture. Her Roman commitments are, at points, seriously erroneous and connected to systems historically judged heretical by the Reformed churches.
Indifferent or secondary differences:
Her storytelling style, emotional emphasis, and charismatic flavor are mostly adiaphora, provided they are kept under Scripture.
So: the main differences between you and Dawn are not on homosexuality itself but on Roman Catholic vs. Reformed foundations. On the LGBT question, she is one of the clearer Catholic voices; but you must not let that common ground obscure your duty to expose and correct Rome’s doctrinal errors when you speak.
Spiritual Growth Assignment (≈1 hour total)
Objectives:
Sharpen your articulation of the Reformed critique of Rome as it intersects with sexuality and repentance.
Clarify your language on concupiscence and apply it pastorally to SSA believers.
Practice how you would publicly respond to someone like Dawn: honoring what is good, correcting what is not.
Part 1 – Scripture Study (20 minutes)
Read in NASB95:
Psalm 51
Romans 7:7–25
James 1:12–18
1 Corinthians 6:9–11
Questions (brief written notes):
Where in these passages is sin located in the heart (desires, thoughts), not just in outward acts?
How do these texts distinguish between temptation, desire, and full-grown sin?
How would you explain, from these passages, why same-sex attraction itself belongs to the corruption we must confess and mortify—even while we also affirm that believers are no longer under condemnation in Christ?
Pray afterward that the Lord would keep you tender toward strugglers and ruthless toward sin.
Part 2 – Confessional/Theological Reading (20 minutes)
Read:
WCF chapter 1 (sections 1–10) – on Scripture.
WCF chapter 6 – on the fall and sin.
WCF chapter 11 – on justification.
If you have it ready, Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 75–78.
Optional: a few pages from R.C. Sproul on concupiscence and justification (e.g., Faith Alone or his teaching on WCF 6).
Questions:
How would you summarize, in two sentences, why Sola Scriptura rejects Rome’s “Scripture + sacred tradition” model?
How does Westminster help you say that disordered desire is already sin, while at the same time guarding against crushing the weak and despairing?
Where does the Confession clearly clash with Roman doctrines that Dawn implicitly endorses (e.g., sacraments, justification, tradition)?
Part 3 – Draft a Panel-Response Paragraph (15–20 minutes)
Imagine you are on a panel with Dawn, and after her testimony, you are given 3–4 minutes.
Write for yourself:
One paragraph affirming at least three concrete things she said that you rejoice in (quote her briefly).
One to two paragraphs gently but clearly stating:
That while you praise God for her repentance from homosexual practice and her boldness,
You disagree with Rome’s teaching on authority, sacraments, and the nature of concupiscence,
And why you believe the Reformed understanding of the gospel offers deeper freedom and assurance.
Aim for a tone that is:
Warm toward her as a struggler and professing sister,
Clear and firm about doctrinal error,
Centered on Christ’s finished work and the sufficiency of Scripture.
After writing, ask yourself:
Did I make the gospel clearer than it was?
Did I challenge Rome’s errors accurately and charitably?
Close by praying specifically for Dawn—that the Lord would continue to sanctify her, bring her into fuller truth, and use even her partial witness to draw many fully into Christ—and for yourself, that He would keep you humble, bold, and faithful in handling both truth and souls.
Personal Testimony: A Journey from Gay to Straight through Marriage in Jesus Christ
My name is Daren Mehl, and I testify for you today as a pastor, a husband, and a father, testifying to the transformative power of Jesus Christ. I was once a gay-identified man, living a lifestyle I believed to be unchangeable. My wife, Rhoda, was also identified within the LGBTQ+ community as a queer woman. We met through a mutual acquaintance—someone I once dated and she was dating at the time—and, as God ordained, I proposed to her on July 11, 2004. Rhoda knowing I was sexually attracted to men, but not women, she still moved forward in our relationship as we married on December 5, 2005. I married the woman I loved in spite of having gay attractions. I gave the gay sexual orientation to God to figure out for us. We were blessed with our first child, a son, in the Winter of 2013, and our daughter in the Spring of 2015.
Despite being married, I still had sexual attractions to men until the seventh year of our marriage when I encountered the living God in a radical way. Through faith in Jesus Christ, I experienced complete transformation, not only spiritually but also in my desires and identity. My romantic and erotic attractions to men were utterly eliminated by the power of the truth and love of God. My testimony stands as irrefutable evidence that sexual orientation is not immutable—it is fluid and can change. Jesus was my counselor who healed me.
Again, I emphasize this: as a gay man, I had every right under the law to marry a woman, just as any heterosexual man. There was no equality under the law for LGBTQ+ as far as marriage. My wife, as a queer woman, had every right under the law to marry a man, and she did! The fundamental nature of marriage was never about sexual orientation but about the biological reality of a man and a woman forming a union to carry on procreation of families, the bedrock of civilized society and nations.
The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was not about granting a right that same-sex attracted individuals never had; it was about redefining an institution that was already accessible to all based on sex, not orientation.
Legal Argument: The Flawed Foundation of Obergefell
The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges rested on the false premise that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic akin to race or sex. However, this is contradicted by extensive evidence demonstrating that sexual orientation is fluid. Unlike race or biological sex, which are unchangeable, individuals can and do experience shifts in their sexual attractions, as my own life and many other’s attests.
Moreover, the ruling bypassed the democratic process and overrode the will of the states and their citizens, stripping them of their authority to define marriage. The decision improperly treated the Due Process Clause as a source of new substantive rights, a dangerous precedent that has led to government coercion of religious individuals and institutions who uphold the biblical and historical definition of marriage.
By restoring the definition of marriage to its natural and legal foundation—one man and one woman—Resolution 3013 seeks to return this matter to the states and the people, where it rightfully belongs.
Religious Freedom & Conscience Clauses: The Suppression of Religious Liberty Post-Obergefell
The Obergefell v. Hodges decision did not merely redefine marriage; it set the stage for systematic suppression of religious liberty, placing the government in direct conflict with those who hold to biblical and traditional views of marriage. By elevating sexual orientation to a status akin to race or sex, the ruling has been used to coerce individuals, businesses, and religious institutions into affirming same-sex marriage against their deeply held convictions.
1. The Weaponization of Anti-Discrimination Laws Against Christians
Since Obergefell, we have seen a sharp increase in legal action, fines, and social punishment directed at Christians who refuse to participate in or endorse same-sex marriage:
Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018) – Phillips, a Christian cake artist, was sued for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. Despite winning a narrow Supreme Court ruling, he continues to face relentless legal harassment for his faith-based refusal to express messages contrary to biblical teachings.
Barronelle Stutzman (Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, 2021) – Stutzman, a florist, was sued by the State of Washington and fined for declining to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding due to her Christian beliefs. She was forced into retirement after years of costly litigation.
Melissa and Aaron Klein (Sweet Cakes by Melissa, 2015) – This Christian couple was fined $135,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Their business was driven to bankruptcy.
Catholic Charities Adoption Agencies (Multiple States, Post-Obergefell) – In several states, Christian adoption agencies were forced to shut down because they refused to place children with same-sex couples, violating their deeply held beliefs about family and parenting.
2. Obergefell Created a “Zero-Sum” Conflict Between LGBT Rights and Religious Freedom
Before Obergefell, marriage was a state-level issue, and religious institutions and individuals had the freedom to operate according to their conscience. However, the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage created an unavoidable conflict:
If same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, then religious objections are treated as unlawful discrimination.
If religious freedom is protected, then individuals must have the right to refuse participation in events that violate their faith.
This has resulted in a massive legal shift, where Christians are increasingly viewed as bigots rather than conscientious objectors. People of faith are now being forced to choose between their livelihoods and their beliefs.
3. The Expansion of Obergefell into Compelled Speech and Thought Control
The aftermath of Obergefell has not been limited to participation in same-sex weddings. It has expanded into a broad campaign to enforce ideological conformity, silencing dissent, and punishing those who uphold biblical truths about marriage and sexuality.
Compelled Speech in the Workplace – Employees have been fired or disciplined for refusing to use preferred pronouns or for expressing traditional views on marriage.
Corporate & Government Censorship – Tech companies and financial institutions have de-platformed Christian organizations and businesses that oppose LGBTQ ideology.
Educational Indoctrination – Christian schools, colleges, and seminaries have faced pressure to conform or risk losing accreditation and funding.
4. The Urgent Need for Conscience Protections & Legislative Action
Resolution 3013 seeks to reverse the damage caused by Obergefell and restore marriage to its rightful place, protecting the rights of individuals and institutions to live out their faith without fear of government retaliation.
Congress and state legislatures must enact robust religious liberty protections, ensuring that no person is forced to affirm or participate in practices that violate their conscience.
The Supreme Court must reconsider Obergefell, recognizing that it has led to a massive infringement on First Amendment rights.
Christians must stand firm, advocating for legal safeguards that preserve the ability to worship, speak, and live according to biblical truth without facing legal and financial ruin.
Religious Liberty Must Be Restored
The promise of religious freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment, yet Obergefell has systematically eroded that freedom in favor of a government-enforced sexual ideology. Christians must not be forced to choose between their livelihoods and their faith, nor should the government dictate what is and isn’t acceptable belief.
Restoring the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is not just a matter of morality—it is a matter of preserving fundamental religious liberties for generations to come.
Scientific Evidence: The Reality of Sexual Orientation Fluidity
Contrary to the assertions of Obergefell, research consistently demonstrates that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait. Dr. Lisa Diamond, a researcher and proponent of LGBTQ rights, has acknowledged that sexual orientation is fluid for many individuals, particularly among women[i]. Studies show that changes in sexual attraction occur due to various life circumstances, personal growth, and spiritual transformation.[ii]
The existence of individuals who once identified as homosexual but are now living content heterosexual lives—including myself and many others[iii]—directly contradicts the claim that same-sex attraction is immutable. This fluidity undermines the classification of sexual orientation as a protected civil rights category.
Biblical Foundations: The Consequences of Redefining Marriage
The Bible is unequivocal in its definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6). This design is not arbitrary; it reflects God’s purpose for human relationships, procreation, and the nurturing of children in stable, complementary family units.
Scripture also warns nations that depart from God’s design. Romans 1:26-27 describes the consequences of turning away from natural relationships, and Proverbs 14:34 declares that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. When a society redefines marriage against God’s will, it invites judgment and social decay.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself affirms that marriage is a divine institution, not subject to human redefinition: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6). A nation that disregards this divine order not only harms individuals but also future generations, as children are deprived of the stability of homes with both a mother and a father.
Arguing Against the LGBTQ+ Ontology of Humanity and Human Flourishing
At the core of the LGBTQ+ movement’s ideological framework is an ontological redefinition of what it means to be human. According to their perspective, human identity is largely self-determined, fluid [irony], and primarily centered on subjective feelings and desires. They argue that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is an essential, defining trait of their humanity—one that is as immutable and intrinsic as race or biological sex. This framework places personal autonomy and self-actualization as the highest goods in defining human flourishing.
Counter-Argument: Biblical Ontology and True Human Flourishing
The Christian worldview which founded our country and made it great stands in stark contrast to the darkness and lies of the LGBTQ+ worldview. The Christian worldview teaches that ontology is rooted in divine design, not subjective self-perception. According to Scripture:
All humans are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) – Genesis 1:27 states, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Our existence is not defined by our desires but by the fact that we are image-bearers of the Creator, given a specific design and purpose.
Human flourishing comes through obedience to God’s order – True well-being is not achieved by indulging every inner impulse but by aligning oneself with God’s will (Psalm 1, John 10:10).
Sexual identity is not an ontological category – Nowhere in Scripture or in nature is a person’s identity tied to sexual preference. Rather, one’s primary identity is in relation to God—either as a sinner in rebellion or as a redeemed saint in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), and distinctly as male or female.
The LGBTQ+ ontology is inherently reductionist, reducing humanity to mere sexual or gender expressions, whereas the biblical view of humanity sees men and women as inherently valuable, created for divine purposes beyond carnal impulses. This is why LGBTQ ideology leads to confusion and dysfunction rather than fulfillment—because it misidentifies the core of human nature and purpose.
Arguing Against the LGBTQ+ Definition of Love
The LGBTQ+ movement and the concept of “gay marriage” frequently appeals to “love” as its highest moral argument:
“Love is love.”
“If two consenting adults love each other, why should anyone interfere?”
“Denying someone the right to love is cruel.”
But what does love mean in this framework? The LGBTQ+ ideology defines love as an uninhibited emotional and sexual attraction that should be acted upon without restriction, provided it is consensual. Their idea of love is fundamentally rooted in eros (erotic attraction and self-fulfillment) rather than agape (selfless, God-honoring and person-honoring love).
The Biblical Definition of Love
In contrast, Scripture defines love as righteous, self-sacrificial, and ordered towards God’s holiness and human flourishing:
Love is rooted in truth and holiness – “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Biblical love cannot celebrate sin, and thus love cannot be used to justify homosexual acts of sodomy.
Love is self-sacrificial, not self-indulgent – “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). True love calls people out of sinful bondage, not deeper into it.
Love protects, rather than harms – “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). This means love must be rightly ordered—protecting the dignity of the person, rather than degrading them through sinful acts. Sodomy acts are actually working against the dignity of the gay identified man, treating them less than other men in their natural purpose in creation.
Why the LGBTQ+ Definition of Love Falls Short
It equates love explicitly with sexual gratification. In Scripture, love is not lust or indulgence—it is holy, pure, and ordered toward godly purposes (Ephesians 5:1-3). The LGBTQ+ movement conflates fleeting erotic desires with lasting, meaningful love.
It justifies harm under the guise of affection. Engaging in same-sex sodomy is not an expression of love—it is an act of defilement (Romans 1:24-27). Physically, it leads to increased risks of disease, trauma, and medical complications. Spiritually, it corrupts the soul and dishonors the image of God in the man.
It is self-seeking, rather than self-sacrificial. The LGBTQ+ ideology promotes a self-focused “love” that seeks personal fulfillment over holiness and righteousness. Biblical love denies the self to honor God and others.
Why Sodomy is Unbecoming, Harmful, and a Radical Abomination
Physically Harmful
Sodomy—whether giving or receiving—is not what the male body was designed for. The biological reality is clear:
The rectum is not designed for penetration the way a vagina is. It lacks the necessary natural lubrication and structure, making it highly susceptible to tearing and disease transmission.
Medical studies confirm that sodomy significantly increases the risk of infections, STDs, rectal trauma, and even colorectal cancer.
It violates natural function.
Spiritually and Morally Unbecoming
Sodomy is a complete perversion of God’s design for sexuality, which was created for the union of male and female in marriage for procreation and deep, spiritual intimacy (Genesis 1:28, 2:24).
Romans 1:26-27 states that unnatural sexual relations are evidence of a society that has rejected God and is under His judgment.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is clear: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.” Homosexual acts—including sodomy—are fundamentally incompatible with salvation and sanctification.
Sodomy as a Radical Abomination
Scripture explicitly calls homosexual behavior an abomination (toevah in Hebrew), meaning a detestable act that deeply offends God (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).
The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) serves as a historic warning: when a society embraces and normalizes sodomy, it invites divine wrath.
Sodomy is the antithesis of love, because it degrades the image of God in men and women who practice it. It does not honor, cherish, or protect—it dehumanizes, defiles, and destroys.
Summary of Truth and Love in Harmony
The LGBTQ+ movement’s ontology of human nature is flawed because it is self-defined, rather than grounded in divine truth. Human flourishing is found not in indulging desires, but in submitting to God’s will.
The LGBTQ+ definition of love is self-focused, sexualized, and permissive of sin. In contrast, biblical love is holy, sacrificial, and rooted in truth.
Sodomy is unnatural, physically harmful, and spiritually destructive. It is not an act of love, but an act of defilement and rebellion against God’s design inviting divine wrath.
True love calls sinners to repentance—not affirmation of sin. Love, in its purest form, points people to Christ, the only One who can set them free. Jesus sets the repentant homosexual free and washes them clean of sin and sanctifies them unto holiness, which includes heterosexuality.
Conclusion: A Call to Restore Marriage to Its Rightful Place
The Obergefell ruling was an unconstitutional overreach, built upon a faulty premise that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. The reality of transformation, as seen in my life and the lives of many others, contradicts this assertion. Marriage is not a right based on personal desire but a sacred institution ordained by God for the good of individuals, families, and society.
I urge the North Dakota legislature to stand for truth and pass Resolution 3013, calling upon the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the definition of marriage to its rightful and natural state. We must honor God’s design and protect future generations from the consequences of abandoning it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Pastor Daren Mehl Agape First Ministries President, Voice of the Voiceless Founder, Made Free Ministries Linktr.ee/darenmehl
Below is a summary of research and leading voices—particularly from the work published in the Journal of Human Sexuality (produced by The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity)—that give hope to individuals who repent of homosexual behavior and are seeking to experience sexual orientation change toward a holy and heterosexual life in Jesus Christ. The following points reflect the viewpoint and findings reported by the Journal of Human Sexuality and related authors who emphasize the possibility of change. Note that research is sometimes clinical and not associated with Pastoral care or religious practices, unless otherwise specified, but we recommend well grounded compassionate pastoral care in all situations.
1) Historical and Contemporary Studies Indicating Change is Possible
• Early Meta-Analyses – Clippinger (1974) surveyed 785 individuals who underwent therapy for unwanted homosexuality. Approximately 40% reported significant improvement toward heterosexuality or partial shifts in that direction. – E. C. James (1978) reviewed multiple studies published before 1978. She concluded that about 35% of those seeking change reported shifting to heterosexual adaptation, 27% experienced partial improvement, and 37% saw no change. Though older, these meta-analyses remain frequently cited within the Journal of Human Sexuality to indicate that some individuals report meaningful degrees of change.
• Spitzer Study (2003) – Psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer published a controversial study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior with 200 participants who reported shifting from homosexual to heterosexual functioning. Many described a significant decrease in same-sex desires and an increase in opposite-sex attractions. – While the study generated debate and Spitzer later expressed some personal regret about how it was used, it remains a key point of reference for those asserting that sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals.
• Jones and Yarhouse (2007, 2011) – These Christian researchers conducted longitudinal studies on individuals pursuing “religiously mediated change” (often involving pastoral counseling or faith-based programs). They reported that some participants achieved notable shifts in their attractions and behaviors over time, while others reported more moderate changes or remained stable in a heterosexual marriage with reduced same-sex attraction. – They also noted that some participants did not experience change; however, they emphasized that no large-scale “harm” was documented for those who voluntarily pursued change with professional or pastoral support.
• Whitehead and Whitehead (“My Genes Made Me Do It?”) – In the Journal of Human Sexuality, references are often made to Neil and Briar Whitehead’s work, which critiques the “born that way” narrative. They highlight genetic and twin studies (e.g., Bailey & Pillard, Bearman & Bruckner) showing that identical twins do not inevitably share the same homosexual orientation. This undermines the claim of a strictly biological determinism and opens the door to the possibility of change—both spontaneous and intentional.
2) Leading Professional Voices Advocating for the Possibility of Change
• Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI), Editor and Board – Formerly known as NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), this organization promotes exploration of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). Their Board of Directors includes mental health professionals who have penned articles on the fluidity of sexuality and the benefits (and ethics) of offering talk therapy for those seeking to reduce same-sex attractions. They have developed the SAFE-T model for therapy.
• Dr. Joseph Nicolosi – A late founder of NARTH and a key proponent of reparative therapy. While his approach remains controversial in mainstream psychology, Nicolosi’s multiple publications documented case studies and clinical practices describing partial or substantial reductions in same-sex desire among motivated clients. I (Daren) have read his Shame And Attachment Loss book (recently banned in 2019 by Amazon) and found it very insightful, my wife even admitting my own lived experience was the textbook example documented.
• Dr. Dean Byrd – Another author frequently cited in the Journal of Human Sexuality, promoting the idea that unwanted same-sex attractions can be addressed through therapy that integrates a client’s religious convictions. Byrd advocated an empathetic, non-coercive therapy model that respects self-determination.
• Dr. Christopher Rosik – A psychologist and regular contributor to the Journal of Human Sexuality who has written about ethical principles in providing therapy to persons with unwanted same-sex attractions, and the importance of respecting a client’s faith-based goals.
3) Key Research Findings Supporting That Change Efforts Can Be Healthy
Sexual Orientation Can Be Fluid for Some – Both secular (e.g., Diamond, 2008) and faith-based researchers note that sexuality can shift over time due to various life events, personal decisions, or counseling interventions. The Journal of Human Sexuality underscores that individuals who are not exclusively homosexual or who experience some heterosexual inclinations may expand upon those inclinations with proper guidance and support. Visit https://bit.ly/LDExplains01 to view a quick video.
Therapy Approaches that Align with Faith Can Be Supportive – Studies collected in the Journal of Human Sexuality suggest that counseling that respects a client’s moral values and religious beliefs can yield positive mental health outcomes. Clients often report decreased depression and anxiety as they reconcile their faith with their goals for overcoming sinful behaviors (including homosexual behavior, from a Christian perspective).
Empirical Evidence of Improved Heterosexual Functioning – Both anecdotal testimonies and some formal research indicate that a subset of highly motivated individuals report developing functional heterosexual relationships, sometimes including marriage and children. Improvements vary widely but can include reduced same-sex fantasies, increased opposite-sex attractions, and enhanced overall well-being.
Importance of Professional and Pastoral Care – The Journal of Human Sexuality consistently emphasizes that an integrated approach—therapy plus spiritual discipleship—tends to offer the best results. Pastoral or church-based support provides prayer, accountability, and teaching on repentance, while therapy addresses underlying emotional wounds or distorted thought patterns.
Lack of Evidence for Widespread Harm among Voluntary Seekers – Proponents in the Journal of Human Sexuality debate claims that all SOCE is universally harmful. While acknowledging that poorly conducted interventions can be detrimental, these authors maintain that many clients who voluntarily seek change and work with ethical, compassionate therapists do not consistently report negative outcomes.
From a Christian worldview perspective these findings are interpreted through the lens that with God’s power, genuine transformation is possible. The Journal of Human Sexuality points to historical and contemporary studies, personal testimonies, and certain twin/biological research as evidence that sexual orientation is neither fully fixed nor purely genetic. They argue that real people have experienced shifts in their attractions, supported by pastoral care, discipleship, and (in some cases) appropriate therapeutic interventions.
Practical Takeaways: • Seek a biblically grounded pastor or counselor who respects your faith and desire to leave homosexuality and believes in sanctifying power of God to change us. • Combine prayer, discipleship, and trauma-informed counseling if needed. • Understand that reported outcomes vary—some see significant change, some modest change—and success can include deeper spiritual peace, lessening of same-sex fantasies, and/or growth in heterosexual desire.
While you will find debate in the larger mental health community, the Journal of Human Sexuality’s perspective is that clinically guided, faith-affirming help can be beneficial and, for some, transformative. If you believe God is calling you to this path, these resources may encourage you as you seek to live in obedience to Christ.
