Side X and Side B Comparison

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.

Doctrine 3: Homosexual desire / concupiscence (Is desire itself sin?)

Daren

• 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:

1. Pride as the church’s chief danger
2. 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.
3. 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.”
4. Emphasis on doctrinal stability
5. She says, “We don’t need doctrine that changes with a president… We need doctrine that is from Jesus Christ and his church.”
6. 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.
7. Universality of disordered desires
8. 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.
9. 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.

What you teach:

In Spotlight on Daren you say:

“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

1. 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).
2. 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)

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Sharpen your articulation of the Reformed critique of Rome as it intersects with sexuality and repentance.
2. Clarify your language on concupiscence and apply it pastorally to SSA believers.
3. 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):

1. Where in these passages is sin located in the heart (desires, thoughts), not just in outward acts?
2. How do these texts distinguish between temptation, desire, and full-grown sin?
3. 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:

1. How would you summarize, in two sentences, why Sola Scriptura rejects Rome’s “Scripture + sacred tradition” model?
2. How does Westminster help you say that disordered desire is already sin, while at the same time guarding against crushing the weak and despairing?
3. 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:

1. One paragraph affirming at least three concrete things she said that you rejoice in (quote her briefly).
2. 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.