Category Archives: deception

How labels we use reveal self-deception


Someone sent me one of Ken Pope’s summaries of a recent essay about the differences in research findings when asking men if they have ever used force and held someone down during sex versus asking them if they had ever raped another person. You can read the original research he was discussing here, which is by some researchers at the University of North Dakota.

No, I’m not a rapist, but I have used force to make someone to have sex.

Let that previous line sink in a bit.  We’ll discuss it in a minute. But first, you might not want to read the article so let me tell you what the authors were interested in knowing. They wanted to know if there were differences between men who are hostile towards women and accept the label of rape and those who have used force but deny the label.

This allows us to test whether there are differences in men who do not identify with the “rape” label on sexual aggression surveys, although they have committed acts that would be defined as rape. Men who admit intentions to force women to have sexual intercourse only, but do not believe that this act constitutes rape, might not be primarily motivated by a desire to retaliate and overpower women. Their behavior could be guided by other factors in line with stereotypically masculine gender roles such as having a high desire for sexual activity, viewing sexuality as a competition and a way to gain respect among peers, and lacking consideration for women or viewing them as sexual objects. Therefore, we hypothesize that men do not endorse any intentions for sexual aggression will differ from the other two groups of men primarily on a dimension characterized by hostility toward women as the strongest loading factor. (emphasis mine)

What did they find?

As hypothesized, a sizable number of participants indicated that they might use force to obtain intercourse, but would not rape a woman. Men who indicate intentions to use force but deny intentions to rape exhibit a unique disposition featuring an inverse construct of hostility toward women but high levels of callous sexual attitudes (Check 1985). Given that hostility toward women involves resentment, bitterness, rejection sensitivity, and paranoia about women’s motives, we consider the inverse of hostility toward women in men that intend to use force to be indicative of an affable, trusting, and nonreactive affect toward women. When combined with callous sexual attitudes, we interpret this function as representing personality characteristics that might lend themselves to allowing men to not perceive his actions as rape and may even view the forced intercourse as an achievement. The primary motivation in this case could be sexual gratification, accomplishment, and/or perceived compliance with stereotypical masculine gender norms. The use of force in these cases might be seen as an acceptable mean to reach one’s goal, or the woman’s “no” is perceived as a token resistance consistent with stereotypical gender norms. While the ultimate outcome of either act constitutes rape, this pattern of results suggests that there might be different types of offenders with potential differences in underlying motivation, cognition, and/or personality traits.

So, not every rapist does so for the same motives (and therefore our interventions will need to be different). Some knowingly rape and are not self-deceived about their actions. Others who are willing to acknowledge “forceful intercourse” group reveal deceptions  (probably both in view of self and other) that enable rape to be considered something less than it really is.

Labels and what they may reveal

What labels do you use and what do they reveal about yourself and your proclivity to self-deceive? Here are some examples

  • I exercise (once in a great while)
  • I stand up for myself (I attack anyone who disagrees with me)
  • I used to struggle with porn (well, I look about once a month but I don’t think I will do it again)
  • I eat healthy (I’m obsessed with food labels)
  • I am good at doing my taxes (I underreport income)
  • I’m a Christian (I go to church but never really talk to God)
  • Let’s just call it sin rather than abuse (because I won’t accept my actions are abusive)
  • I need (I want/demand)

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, counseling science, deception, Psychology, Rape

Lies and stereotypes told by helpers hurt the cause of trauma recovery

I’ve written a piece over at the faculty blog on the shady side of bending the truth to get more attention on the problem of trauma and the need for trauma recovery. It is a common temptation for those of us who work with trauma victims, a temptation to use the stories of trauma to garner personal acclaim (“look what I am doing about the problems in the world”) and to stereotype to increase attention and funding for those who are hurting. Shaping the truth hurts the cause and hurts the victims.

Read at the above link for more.

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, deception, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

How does small-time tyranny last?

Tyrants use fear to control subjects. Thus, we understand how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is elected by 100% of his constituency. To abstain or cast any other vote would be suicide. But since most do not live under such oppression we may wonder how individuals cave to lower-level tyranny here in democracies or locations where we have choice about who we vote for and where we live and work. Why do organizations allow dictatorial leadership? Can’t we all just walk away?

Thanks to one of my students, Dan McCurdy, I pass on this recording from This American Life about a “small-time” tyrant in an upstate New York school district. The story is about the dictatorial dealings of a facilities manager of the school district–not of a principal, teacher, or even a school board member.

How is it possible for one with so little power (so we would normally assume) could wield such power over employees? How could he set off bombs, fire individuals, vandalize homes, threaten others with harm, simulate sex, and more without getting fired?

How? It is simple. He was,

surrounded above and below, by people who looked the other way. (near the end of the above recording)

Why do we look the other way?

We look away for all sorts of reasons. Consider a few of them:

  • Fear that no one will come to our defense if we stand up to abuses (which of course will be true if no one else sees or responds)
  • Need to protect what we have (e.g., position, income, career, reputation, etc.)
  • Cover up own failings (e.g., if he goes down…I will go down)
  • Perceive benefits outweigh consequences (i.e., in this case, school board received lowered energy costs, fewer worker complaints)
  • The people who complain of injustice matter little to us
  • Believe psychological abuse does not really happen

In Anjan Sundaram’s Stringer, he describes the most powerful of dictators are ones who instill fear when present and yet also instill fear of what life might be when that person is gone.

What to do?

When we hear of crazy stories such as the one in the recording, we shake our head and imagine ourselves standing up to power, standing up for the little guy. Too often our imagination never see the light of day. So, how can we keep ourselves sensitized to injustice and ready to act for the good of the weakest community member?

  • Identify our current fears. Who has power over us? What does love and grace look like when responding to this power?
  • Identify places we have chosen safety over truth. Who can help us rectify this problem?
  • Identify those places where we have power over others. Who do we have power over? How do we wield it? Who has God-given us the responsibility to protect? Where do we need to give power back (when taken or used inappropriately)?
  • Fix eyes on how Jesus uses power. How does he wield it with those who have the most power? The least power?
  • Identify habits of cover-up. Where, for reasons of shame, guilt, or comfort do we cover up and present self as someone we are not?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, counseling, deception, Justice

Narcissism in the Bible? A sermon by Philip Ryken

A few weeks ago, I attended a conference at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) where Dr. Philip Ryken was speaking/preaching. Dr. Ryken is a friend from our student days at WTS and is now the president of Wheaton College. His sermon was on the first 10 verses of 1 Kings 1. While the purpose of the talk was not to identify narcissism in the bible, the passage clearly points to egocentrism and all of the distortions and deceptions that come with building one’s own kingdom.

In the passage we see that Adonijah sets himself up as king even has his father, David, is still alive. What does he do that reveals narcissism?

  1. “I will be King.” He demands power
  2. He does not know humility or correction (sadly the passage says that his father never confronted him thus probably building egocentrism)
  3. He gathers people of influence to promote his position
  4. He buys an entourage to improve his public standing
  5. He gives the illusion of submission and faith (sacrificing sheep to look like he is doing the right thing)
  6. He makes sure not to include people who will speak the truth (does not invite Nathan the prophet)

Let me encourage you to listen (for free) to Dr. Ryken’s message as he describes in better fashion these features of building our own kingdom.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, deception

Motivated forgetting amongst perpetrators?

I’m in the middle of a series on the problem of abuse, memory, and recovered memories. You can see the first two posts here and here. But, before I go on to address the matter of dissociation, repression, and re-remembering abuse, I want to point out that motivated forgetting doesn’t just happen to victims. It also happens to perpetrators.

Even when forensic evidence exists, it is common for perpetrators to deny their participation (or downplay it at least) in the offense. Some are quite capable of passing lie detector exams. They appear to able NOT to recall or respond in ways that would signal lying. From a theoretical point of view, we could offer two plausible answers

  1. They are extraordinary liars. They have perfected their craft and are able to beat the best technologies we have to detect their conscious lying.
  2. They have forgotten. By means of practicing an alternative story, by means of inability to see outside their own perceptions, by means of dissociation during the event, they have somehow forgotten. Cover of "Machete Season: The Killers in ...

Could it be that perpetrators use psychological mechanisms to forget–at least in part? I am still taken with Jean Hatzfeld’s accounts of his interviews with imprisoned genocidaires in Rwanda. In Machete Season, he documents how mass killers (already imprisoned and so thus with less need to maintain one’s innocence) seemed unable to speak about their actions in the first person but could speak with greater detail when using 2nd or 3rd person (we…they…).

To my mind, this suggests we are capable of forgetting many things (the motivation for forgetting how you chopped someone up is clear) but that we may remember when using a different portion of our brain and accessing a different perception of self/other. Self-deception takes many forms and is motivated by many  (often unknown to us) reasons.

To read another post I had on this book, see this link.


Filed under Abuse, deception, memory

When Your Strength is your Biggest Blindspot

The Penn State independent investigation report is now out. On page 129 the report criticizes Penn State for an

“over-emphasis on ‘the Penn State way’ as an approach to decision-making, a resistance to outside perspectives, and an excessive focus on athletics…”

I’m not a Penn State alum nor do I have an insider’s experience of “the Penn State way.” However, I would assume that this mindset provides alum and current employees some guidelines for how to approach many situations. Consider other entities like the Marines or particular denominations, or sporting associations and how they each have a culture that helps shape decision-making. Tennis players apologize for winning points when the ball hits the netcord. Marines won’t leave someone behind. Presbyterians entrust church polity to representative government processes. The strength of a culture helps individuals choose the “right” response without having to reinvent the wheel every time a conflict or problem arises. But that same culture leads to blindspots–things that no longer receive much attention or criticism.

As a result, an organization or system runs smoothly based on strengths of culture but risks failing to identify where these same strengths damage others. The only way to keep these strengths in check is to be willing to question them as a matter of routine AND to have close proximity to outsiders who will give honest criticism (it certainly helps if this criticism comes from a heart of love).

Individuals suffer from the same problem. What you consider your best asset or strength may be your biggest blindspot. Preachers who are excellent communicators often fail to recognize how much power their words have on others. Organizers sometimes fail to see how much control they exert on others. Critical thinkers sometimes fail to see how they devalue the ideas of others. Visionaries often burden underlings with work that cannot be completed in realistic timeframes.

What is your most valued strength or cultural artifact? Ask a trusted friend to tell you how this wonder part of you (or your organization) can be dangerous.

Don’t forget, 1 week til our “Abuse in the Church” mini-conference runs. It is not too late to sign up. Let’s all work to make sure that our churches don’t have to suffer the public humiliation that Penn State is going through right now. Come and see what the Church can do to respond with love and righteous!

Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, Christianity, church and culture, deception

Failures to act: Why we don’t always blow the whistle on abuse

Outrage. Befuddlement. Demands for the heads of leaders who probably knew something but didn’t appear to act. Righteous indignation against those who merely met legal obligations to report abuse but failed moral obligations to stop abuse.

Right now, in most of the country but especially in Philadelphia, you cannot turn on the television or listen to the radio without encountering such comments about the Sandusky/Penn State sexual abuse scandal. In my county, democrats control the county leadership for the first time in 140 years but no one seems to give that much time because of the outrage about this case. What people are talking about is, (a) why didn’t those who knew something was amiss do more to investigate abuse, and (b) what should happen to those people who failed to stop the abuse.

What would you have done?

If you are like me, you imagine that you would have acted to stop the abuse. You would have grabbed the boy out of the shower. You would have screamed bloody murder until someone took notice. You feel righteous indignation that no one seems to have had the moral fortitude to deal with this issue head on.

And you would be right to feel this way. But while we are holding leaders accountable for their failure to act and to protect (as well we should!) let us take a moment and address some of the reasons why we might not be quite as action oriented as we imagine ourselves. By doing so, we may make it more likely that we will respond correctly should we face the unfortunate situation of reporting someone we know to the authorities.

Here are some of the reasons we fail to intervene when intervention is needed:

Self protection

Worry about personal consequences can hinder our taking action. Thinking about how we will be treated, viewed, responded to can cause us to pause and not act. What if I get fired? What if this abusive person targets me? What if someone were to make an allegation about me? I wouldn’t like that so I don’t want to stir up trouble for this person.

Have you ever wondered why so many drivers flee the scene of a pedestrian/car accident–even when they were not at fault? We want to avoid facing the possibility that we might have done something wrong.

System protection

We sometimes worry about how the organization will be treated or viewed if abuse comes to light. Far too frequently individuals have covered up the sins of church leaders for fear of ruining the reputation of the congregation. This reason is also seen in the next two reasons. We don’t want people to turn away from God so we cover up what happened.


We’d like to think that with a larger group of individuals, sensibility will prevail. But my experience with institutions dealing with a sensitive issue suggests that once a group is deciding how to respond to abuse, it devolves into who has the loudest voice in what should be done next. Unfortunately, the loudest voice may be about liability (vs. morality) or outer reputation (vs. protection of victims). Also, groups often fail to address pertinent issues and alternative responses due to groupthink. Some of the reasons why this is the case can be found in Wikipedia’s definition.  One other thing about groups. We have ample evidence that individuals in a group setting are less likely to intervene when they witness violence happening to someone else. We’re more likely to act if we witness this when alone. Why is this? We may feel less responsibility when others are around.


We like to keep the good people good and the bad people bad. When those who are considered good do bad things, we can fall prey to denial. It is not possible. I know him. He couldn’t possibly do that. Thus, we deny what we have seen and that leads to the next reason.

Self doubt

Have you ever witnessed something troubling but then wondered if you really saw what you thought you saw? Maybe you catch a glimpse of an adult smacking a child in a parking lot as you drive by. Do you stop and confront? Well, maybe you didn’t really see that. Maybe there is some other explanation that might make this acceptable. When the abuse is done by someone we respect, it is easy to think we must have misconstrued it. And once we hesitate, it is that much harder to activate to do the right thing.

Winsomeness of the abusive person

It is important to remember that the most dangerous abuser is the person who is inter-personally winsome. The reason why a person can have access to others and can get away with abuse is often due to their capacity to put others at ease. Most abuse is not done by those who are revolting to others just because they don’t get opportunity. I know of individuals who were caught in acts of child abuse, questioned by authorities, and so winsome that the investigation was dropped before completed. They provide plausible even highly believable explanations that help the questioner feel at ease. They appear to be open and concerned. They are so good they convince most that such abuse could never happen by their hand. It takes a very expert examiner to catch them in the subtle lies they tell to themselves and to others. Check out Anna Salter’s book on predators if you want to see what she has learned from decades of interviewing known, convicted sex offenders.

It is easy for us to sit in the chair of judgment when we hear of cover-ups and failures to act. These failures to protect children do need to be judged and we ought not shrink back from administering restorative justice for abuse and for the inaction of others. However, let us remember that the work of being light in the midst of darkness has many enemies. Our own weaknesses plus the pressures of our community and the manipulative actions of offenders conspire to make inaction the easier choice.

May we take the high road as we encounter abuse in any form.


Filed under Abuse, Christianity, church and culture, Cognitive biases, Cultural Anthropology, deception

Great literature on the effect of unconfessed guilt and refused forgiveness

The Scarlet Letter (1860) by T. H. Matteson. O...

Image via Wikipedia

Listening to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. You can read for free here (if you have a Kindle you can download).  Hawthorne does a fantastic job illustrating the anguish of unconfessed sin. Despite the book being about Hester Prynne and her reception of the scarlet letter, Rev. Dimmesdale takes center stage with his struggle with his own sin shame and his unwillingness to speak the truth.

For those of you who read this back in the dark ages of high school, you will remember it takes place in Puritan Boston and Hester is a known adulterer given her lack of a husband and her infant daughter just born. She is branded with the scarlet letter but refuses to reveal her paramour.

Rev. Dimmesdale is a staunch reformer but in chapter 11 you see what his interior life is like and his torment between his perception of his own sin shame and the way his community views him (as near saint).

It is inconceivable, the agony with which this public veneration tortured him. It was his genuine impulse to adore the truth, and to reckon all things shadow-like, and utterly devoid of weight or value, that had not its divine essence as the life within their life. Then what was he?—a substance?—or the dimmest of all shadows? He longed to speak out from his own pulpit at the full height of his voice, and tell the people what he was. “I, whom you behold in these black garments of the priesthood—I, who ascend the sacred desk, and turn my pale face heavenward, taking upon myself to hold communion in your behalf with the Most High Omniscience—I, in whose daily life you discern the sanctity of Enoch—I, whose footsteps, as you suppose, leave a gleam along my earthly track, whereby the Pilgrims that shall come after me may be guided to the regions of the blest—I, who have laid the hand of baptism upon your children—I, who have breathed the parting prayer over your dying friends, to whom the Amen sounded faintly from a world which they had quitted—I, your pastor, whom you so reverence and trust, am utterly a pollution and a lie!”

More than once, Mr. Dimmesdale had gone into the pulpit, with a purpose never to come down its steps until he should have spoken words like the above. More than once he had cleared his throat, and drawn in the long, deep, and tremulous breath, which, when sent forth again, would come burdened with the black secret of his soul. More than once—nay, more than a hundred times—he had actually spoken! Spoken! But how? He had told his hearers that he was altogether vile, a viler companion of the vilest, the worst of sinners, an abomination, a thing of unimaginable iniquity, and that the only wonder was that they did not see his wretched body shrivelled up before their eyes by the burning wrath of the Almighty! Could there be plainer speech than this? Would not the people start up in their seats, by a simultaneous impulse, and tear him down out of the pulpit which he defiled? Not so, indeed! They heard it all, and did but reverence him the more. They little guessed what deadly purport lurked in those self-condemning words. “The godly youth!” said they among themselves. “The saint on earth! Alas! if he discern such sinfulness in his own white soul, what horrid spectacle would he behold in thine or mine!” The minister well knew—subtle, but remorseful hypocrite that he was!—the light in which his vague confession would be viewed. He had striven to put a cheat upon himself by making the avowal of a guilty conscience, but had gained only one other sin, and a self-acknowledged shame, without the momentary relief of being self-deceived. He had spoken the very truth, and transformed it into the veriest falsehood. And yet, by the constitution of his nature, he loved the truth, and loathed the lie, as few men ever did. Therefore, above all things else, he loathed his miserable self!

His inward trouble drove him to practices more in accordance with the old, corrupted faith of Rome than with the better light of the church in which he had been born and bred. In Mr. Dimmesdale’s secret closet, under lock and key, there was a bloody scourge. Oftentimes, this Protestant and Puritan divine had plied it on his own shoulders, laughing bitterly at himself the while, and smiting so much the more pitilessly because of that bitter laugh. It was his custom, too, as it has been that of many other pious Puritans, to fast—not however, like them, in order to purify the body, and render it the fitter medium of celestial illumination—but rigorously, and until his knees trembled beneath him, as an act of penance. He kept vigils, likewise, night after night, sometimes in utter darkness, sometimes with a glimmering lamp, and sometimes, viewing his own face in a looking-glass, by the most powerful light which he could throw upon it. He thus typified the constant introspection wherewith he tortured, but could not purify himself. In these lengthened vigils, his brain often reeled, and visions seemed to flit before him; perhaps seen doubtfully, and by a faint light of their own, in the remote dimness of the chamber, or more vividly and close beside him, within the looking-glass. Now it was a herd of diabolic shapes, that grinned and mocked at the pale minister, and beckoned him away with them; now a group of shining angels, who flew upward heavily, as sorrow-laden, but grew more ethereal as they rose. Now came the dead friends of his youth, and his white-bearded father, with a saint-like frown, and his mother turning her face away as she passed by. Ghost of a mother—thinnest fantasy of a mother—methinks she might yet have thrown a pitying glance towards her son! And now, through the chamber which these spectral thoughts had made so ghastly, glided Hester Prynne leading along little Pearl, in her scarlet garb, and pointing her forefinger, first at the scarlet letter on her bosom, and then at the clergyman’s own breast.

None of these visions ever quite deluded him. At any moment, by an effort of his will, he could discern substances through their misty lack of substance, and convince himself that they were not solid in their nature, like yonder table of carved oak, or that big, square, leather-bound and brazen-clasped volume of divinity. But, for all that, they were, in one sense, the truest and most substantial things which the poor minister now dealt with. It is the unspeakable misery of a life so false as his, that it steals the pith and substance out of whatever realities there are around us, and which were meant by Heaven to be the spirit’s joy and nutriment. To the untrue man, the whole universe is false—it is impalpable—it shrinks to nothing within his grasp. And he himself in so far as he shows himself in a false light, becomes a shadow, or, indeed, ceases to exist. The only truth that continued to give Mr. Dimmesdale a real existence on this earth was the anguish in his inmost soul, and the undissembled expression of it in his aspect. Had he once found power to smile, and wear a face of gaiety, there would have been no such man!

This is a long quote but you can see the psychological and spiritual torture of unconfessed sin and the public/private divide. At one level Dimmesdale is painted as one who can really relate too the common sinner. At another level, he is tortured by his living a false persona.

1 Comment

Filed under deception, Good Books, Great Quotes

Are you a delay discounter?

Delay discounting is a term coined by those researching various types of impulsivity: risky behaviors, ADHD, gambling, obesity, etc. In appears that people may be inclined to one form of delay discounting over another. And monetary delay discounting is predictive of a number of serious problems (e.g., obesity, willingness to share needles with other drug users, sexual acting out).

One researcher defined delay discounting as a,

preference for smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed rewards.

It can also be used to explain why I say yes to things long in the future without adequately counting the cost. I jump at the impulse to do something fun or interesting without adequately evaluating just how much work is involved. What is interesting is that many of us “delay discounters” fail to learn from our experiences. I’d like to think I can learn from mistakes and sometimes we do…for a short-time. But memory for the pain of saying yes fades and then I’m back saying yes without fully counting the cost.

How about you? Are you a delay discounter? What entices you to discount the cost?

Feel free to respond but I won’t be able to get back to you…I’m off to an academic presentation in Indianapolis that I agreed to 9 months ago, something I signed up for without thinking fully about the timing in the semester.


Filed under deception, Psychology, Uncategorized

Abuse and Trafficking Conference: Final Plenary

The abuse and trafficking conference hosted by Biblical concluded by hearing from Dr. Diane Langberg about the problem of sexual abuse in Christian communities and a panel discussion of the speakers.You may order DVDs here for a ridiculously low price.

Diane began her talk by acknowledged that the very title of her talk, abuse in christian communities ought to be “the king” of oxymorons, something that makes no sense to us. But sadly, abuse does happen in our midst. She provided several examples, from missionary kids being abused, to pastors abusing counselees and camp counselors their children.

While the abuse is horrific, what is even more problematic is the way the Christian community often covers up and protects the “head” or their reputation at the cost of the victim’s right to justice and protection.

People in power are protected because they are gifted, important, and successful or considered necessary to the furtherance of the work of the kingdom of God.  Vulnerable sheep, who have not found it safe to graze, have been thrown out, silenced, slandered and frankly, abused yet again by the power structure of the body that is not following its Head

How does this happen? Diane listed several contributing factors

1. a culture of systems.While systems are not inherently bad, they do have a tendency to be self-preserving over against rooting out sickness. Families have ways of tolerating great sicknesses via denial:

No system – family, church, community or institution – is God’s work unless it is full of truth and love.  Toleration of sin, pretense, disease, crookedness or deviation from the truth means the system is in fact not the work of God, no matter the words used to describe it. We have a tendency as humans to submit ourselves to some command or idea of men, of the past, of tradition, of a systemic culture and in so doing, refuse to listen to and obey the living and ever present God.

2. Deception. “Sexual abuse requires both deception and coercion or an abuse of power.  The deception must first be of the self and then of the victim and the community.” Diane pointed out that a significant problem happens in the Church when abusers use spiritual language to deceive.

3. Power. There are various types: positional, verbal, theological, emotional, etc. We have the power to speak up for those who have been silenced. Our failure to do so is complicity with the crime of abuse.

4. Misunderstanding of repentance. Quoting a convicted abuser, Diane told us that many see Christians as easy to dupe…with a few tears and emotions. But repentance must take time and bear the fruit of acceptance restrictions, seeking the welfare of others (not the end of punishment). Anyone who asks for trust and believes he/she is worthy of it (after abuse) does not understand the Scripture’s teaching on deception and is therefore at risk for further abuse.

Finally, She ended with some principles to remember. Some of them included remembering that sexual offenses against minors are crimes and therefore we are to utilize the criminal justice system. Sex between a leader and a parishioner is NOT an affair but an abuse of power. Systems are not to be protected but the weak and God’s name. God is glorified by truth, not lies and cover-ups.

May we, who are already in positions of power and influence, lead the way by falling down on our faces, imploring God to make us like Himself no matter the cost to our positions, our programs, our organizations, our ministries, or our traditions so that His precious sheep may safely graze.

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Biblical Seminary, christian counseling, christian psychology, Christianity: Leaders and Leadership, deception, Diane Langberg, Doctrine/Theology