Open letter to CNN editor on ‘conversion therapy’

CNN’s recent coverage of so-called “conversion therapy” and the deliberate conflation of Christian ministry with coercive or abusive practices demands a clear, evidence-based, and morally coherent rebuttal.

The article’s claims not only misrepresent the lived experience of countless men and women who have found freedom from homosexual behavior and identity through faith in Jesus Christ but also suppress decades of scientific evidence supporting sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) for those who seek them.

What follows is not mere opinion. It is a fusion of rigorous, peer-reviewed research from the Journal of Human Sexuality (JHS), Scripture, and ethical reasoning. I write as a Christian pastor and former homosexual, unapologetically affirming that holiness, repentance, and sanctification are not just possible-they are commanded and empowered by God. To deny this truth is to deny people the hope that Christ Himself offers.

1. On the myth of immutability

Your article repeatedly implied that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. This assertion is scientifically false and ideologically driven. Even the American Psychological Association (APA), in its own publications, admits: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation… no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors” (APA, 2008). JHS Volume 5 underscores that same-sex attraction is best understood through a bio-psycho-social model, which by definition allows for change over time.

Longitudinal research (Lisa Diamond, Ph.D., University of Utah) confirms that sexual attractions and identities can, and often do, shift. Denying this reality is not science-it is activism masquerading as science. The lived experiences of thousands who have left homosexuality testify to this truth, and their voices cannot be erased simply because they conflict with prevailing ideology.

2. On the ‘harm’ narrative

You rely heavily on studies claiming SOCE causes harm, particularly the oft-cited Shidlo & Schroeder (2002). JHS Volume 6 exposes this research as methodologically corrupt: participants were recruited through gay activist publications targeting those dissatisfied with SOCE; satisfied participants were excluded; and abuse, coercion, and voluntary counseling were lumped together as if they were the same. Christopher Rosik, Ph.D., has rightly labeled this a case study in advocacy research, not objective science.

Furthermore, even APA’s own task force admits there is insufficient evidence to make definitive claims about harm or benefit. Yet your reporting accepts the harm narrative uncritically. This is not journalism or academic rigor; it is propaganda. From a biblical standpoint, conviction of sin (John 16:8) may be uncomfortable, but it is life-giving. Godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation (2 Cor. 7:10). The temporary discomfort of conviction is not harm-it is the very mechanism by which freedom is found.

3. On APA division 44 bias

Your piece treats APA pronouncements as neutral, objective truth. They are not. APA’s Division 44 is dominated by LGBT activists who have openly declared their intent to eliminate all SOCE, regardless of client autonomy, religious freedom, or positive outcomes. This is a flagrant violation of the APA’s own Ethical Principles, which affirm a client’s right to self-determination. JHS volumes 5–7 document numerous cases where Division 44 has ignored, suppressed, or misrepresented research showing that change is possible.

When an organization’s policy is set by ideologues, its pronouncements are political, not scientific. The media’s failure to disclose this bias is an abdication of your duty to inform the public truthfully.

4. On client autonomy and human rights

Your framing strips individuals of their basic human right to pursue the life they desire in alignment with their faith. It is both unethical and dehumanizing to tell a man or woman seeking to live according to God’s design that they must accept same-sex attraction as immutable.

Scripture is explicit: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). This is not an empty metaphor. It is a lived reality for believers who have walked away from homosexuality into holiness and have experienced the power of faith in Jesus.

Even in secular ethical terms, informed consent demands that clients have access to counseling that aligns with their goals whether that is reducing same-sex attraction, strengthening or repairing their marriage, or deepening their walk with God.

5. On the real definition of love

You suggest that affirming homosexual identity is the loving path, and that calling it sin is hateful. This is the inverse of reality. True love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6). Jesus’ model was always grace and truth together (John 8:11). To affirm what God calls sin is not compassion-it is complicity in self-destruction.

Calling people to repentance is not condemnation; it is rescue. The homosexual man or woman is fully male or female, created in God’s image, capable of heterosexual marriage as designed by God. The gospel offers restoration to that authentic identity, not the counterfeit identity constructed by modern sexual ideology, which has its origins in sin and the denial of God.

In conclusion, the CNN narrative is not only scientifically bankrupt — it is spiritually dangerous. By suppressing evidence, misrepresenting research, and denying the transforming power of Jesus Christ, you are participating in a deception that leads people away from life and toward death.

We will not be silent while the truth is trampled. Christ is still in the business of setting captives free (Luke 4:18), and no amount of media distortion will change that reality.

Respectfully,

Pastor Daren Mehl