Today I will be presenting at the 8th annual Faith and Spiritual Affairs conference put on the Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health (DBHIDS). The conference theme, and the title of my talk is: Trauma and Healing: Faith Communities Respond. Here are the slides from that talk: DBHIDS Presentation
Category Archives: Uncategorized
On Resilience
From the recent ABS Community of Practice: my talk on resilience to trauma healing specialists.
<p><a href=”http://vimeo.com/90045325″>Philip G. Monroe – COP 2014</a> from <a href=”http://vimeo.com/americanbible”>American Bible Society</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a>.</p>
Share this:
Comparing ACA and AACC ethics codes: Multiple Relationships
Continuing our review of the ACA and the AACC codes for counselors, let’s take a look at how both codes address the matter of multiple or dual relationships. (See first and second posts about comparing the ACA and AACC code of ethics for counselors and mental health professionals.)
Multiple or dual relationships between counselor and client (or client’s family) are those that combine the professional relationship with one of another sort. If a counselor of a client is also that client’s pastor, that would be a multiple relationship. Other types could combine counselor and friend, counselor and business partner, counselor and employer, and increasingly possible, counselor and social media “friend.” Both codes are concerned about the formation of dual relationships because they become fertile ground for counselor judgment bias and harm to the client. Both see that once a counseling relationship has been formed, that relationship ought to be clear take priority over all others.
The ACA code of ethics prohibits outright the following dual relationships:
- Counselor and sexual partner: Counselors may not have sex with clients or their family members
- Counselors may not start counseling work with former sexual partners
- Counselors must wait at least 5 years before engaging in sexual activity with former clients (and even then may be prohibited)
- Counselors may not provide services to friends and family
- Counselors are prohibited from engaging in personal virtual relationships (social media) with current clients
Beyond the sexual arena, the ACA code warns counselors to avoid dual relationships or “extending the boundary” of the counselor or supervisor relationship
Counselors avoid entering into nonprofessional relationships with former clients, their romantic partners, or their family members when the interaction is potentially harmful to the client. This applies to both in-person and electronic interactions or relationships. (A.6.e)
When a counselor agrees to provide counseling services to two or more persons who have a relationship, the counselor clarifies at the outset which person or persons are clients and the nature of the relationships the counselor will have with each involved person. If it becomes apparent that the counselor may be called upon to perform potentially conflicting roles, the counselor will clarify, adjust, or withdraw from roles appropriately. (A.8)
So, notice the focus: avoid “extending the boundary” or what we used to call forming multiple relationships with current or former counselees or their family members. Document when you do so to illustrate informed consent, limiting of potential harm, and efforts made to rectify harm when it unintentionally happens
What about the AACC code? It begins (ES1-140) with these paragraphs,
Dual relationships involve the breakdown of proper professional or ministerial boundaries. A dual relationship exists when two or more roles are mixed in a manner that can harm the counseling relationship and/or the therapeutic process. This includes counseling, as well as personal, fraternal, business, financial, or sexual and romantic relationships. Not all dual relationships are necessarily unethical—it is client exploitation that is wrong, not the dual relationship in and of itself. However, it remains the responsibility of the counselor to monitor and evaluate any potential harm to clients. (emphasis mine)
While in a counseling relationship, or when counseling relationships become imminent, or for an appropriate time after the termination of counseling, Christian counselors do not engage in dual relationships with clients. Some dual relationships are always avoided—sexual or romantic relations, and counseling close friends, family members, employees, business partners/associates or supervisees. Other dual relationships should be presumed as potentially troublesome and avoided wherever possible. (emphasis mine)
The AACC code then prohibits counseling relationships with family and close friends and warns against those “best avoided” (e.g., business associates, club members, etc.). Finally the code addresses counseling relationships within the church,
Christian counselors do not provide counseling to fellow church members with whom they have close personal, business, or shared ministry relations. Dual relationships with any other church members who are clients are potentially troublesome and best avoided, otherwise requiring justification. Pastors and church staff helpers should take all reasonable precautions to limit the adverse impact of any dual relationships. (ES-140-f)
This wording marks a change from the previous AACC code where dual relationships were more positively addressed. The old rule stated this, “Based on an absolute application that harms membership bonds in the Body of Christ, we oppose the ethical-legal view that all dual relationships are per se harmful and therefore invalid on their face. Many dual relations are wrong and indefensible, but some dual relationships are worthwhile and defensible.”
Agreements? Disagreements? Both codes ban the ending of counseling relationships for the purpose of changing the professional relationship to different relationship, or to engage in sexual activity with a client or a member of the client’s family. The AACC codes requires 3 years before marrying a former client (assuming all other concerns raised are not an issue) whereas the ACA code requires 5 years before engaging in an intimate relationship. The ACA code as extensive concerns about the teacher/student relationship as well as the supervisor/supervisee relationship. The AACC code says little about these (though some can be inferred). The biggest difference, however, is found in the stronger language banning dual relationships in the ACA code where the AACC code warns against possible harm but leaves the door open as long as the counselor knows they have to prove no harm happened and informed consent.
Share this:
Filed under AACC, christian counseling, christian psychology, counseling, counseling skills, ethics, Uncategorized
Comparing ACA and AACC ethics codes: Addressing counselor values impact
Over the next few post I plan to review similarities and differences between the ACA and AACC codes (see this post for the first in this mini-series). Today I want to look at how the two codes talk about counselors as they manage their own value systems with their clientele.
The ACA code raises the issue of values like this:
- Section A Introduction
Counselors actively attempt to understand the diverse cultural backgrounds of the clients they serve. Counselors also explore their own cultural identities and how these affect their values and beliefs about the counseling process.
- A.4.b. Personal Values
Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.
In addition, the ACA clearly states that when there are significant values differences, a counselor is NOT to make referral on the basis of values differences alone. Values clashes cannot be treated as lack of competency in a particular area of counseling.
- A.11.b. Values Within Termination and Referral
Counselors refrain from referring prospective and current clients based solely on the counselor’s personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.
The AACC code addresses the value systems of the counselor in these sections
- ES1-010 Affirming Human Worth and Dignity
…Christian counselors express appropriate care towards any client, service-inquiring person, or anyone encountered in the course of practice or ministry, without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual behavior or orientation, socioeconomic status, age, disability, marital status, education, occupation, denomination, belief system, values, or political affiliation. God’s love is unconditional and, at this level of concern, so must that be of the Christian counselor.
- ES1-120 Refusal to Participate in Harmful Actions of Clients
Within this section are paragraphs discussing the application and limits of the “do no harm” virtue to certain client behaviors deemed not to fit within the biblical framework articulated at the beginning of the ethics code. The AACC code expressed an ethic to avoid supporting or condoning (while respecting and continuing to help) in the following areas: abortion-seeking, substance abuse, violence towards others, pre or extramarital sex, homosexual/bisexual or transgender behavior, and euthanasia. On this last issue, the ACA notes that the duty to breach confidentiality may be optional (thus indicating a values insertion since in all other cases we have a duty to breach confidentiality so as to warn others or protect the life of our client).
- 1-530: Working with Persons of Different Faiths, Religions, and Values
Counselors work to understand the client’s belief system, always maintain respect for the client and strive to understand when faith and values issues are important to the client and foster values-informed client decision-making in counseling. Counselors share their own faith orientation only as a function of legitimate self-disclosure and when appropriate to client need, always maintaining a posture of humility. Christian counselors do not withhold services to anyone of a different race, ethnic group, faith, religion, denomination, or value system.
- 1-530-a: Not Imposing Values
While Christian counselors may expose clients and/or the community at large to their faith orientation, they do not impose their religious beliefs or practices on clients.
- 1-550: Action if Value Differences Interfere with Counseling
Christian counselors work to resolve problems—always in the client’s best interest—when differences between counselor and client values become too great and adversely affect the counseling process. This may include: (1) discussion of the issue as a therapeutic matter; (2) renegotiation of the counseling agreement; (3) consultation with a supervisor or trusted colleague or; as a last resort (4) referral to another counselor if the differences cannot be reduced or bridged (and then only in compliance with applicable state and federal law and/or regulatory requirements).
Differences between codes?
There are many but let me identify two. Notice that the most significant difference between the two is on the basis of the AACC code biblical/christian ethic regarding what is good and what is harmful behaviors. Both codes express the need to respect persons without regard to their beliefs, values, identities, and actions. The AACC code differentiates between imposing of values and exposing of values. What is the difference between exposing and imposing? I suspect it will be in the eye of the beholder. However, I suspect that one of the results of the ACA code is that faith and spiritual values will be less likely to be brought up by counselors since “not imposing” is more emphasized than “exploring.” There is much literature out there suggesting that the failure to explore and utilize spiritual resources actually harms clients in that it slows recovery.
Both codes address the issue of values differences between client and counselor. Both point to a path (though different) about what to do when this happens. The ACA code places pressure on the counselor to work it out while the AACC code suggests a path to resolution either with re-negotiation or referral. Which one sounds better to you?
When the difference is with a colleague?
Both ACA and AACC codes addresses differences with colleagues. In section D (Relationships with other professionals), the ACA code states,
D.1.a. Different Approaches. Counselors are respectful of approaches that are grounded in theory and/or have an empirical or scientific foundation but may differ from their own. Counselors acknowledge the expertise of other professional groups and are respectful of their practices.
The AACC codes says something similar,
1-710-a: Honorable Relations between Professional and Ministerial Colleagues. Christian counselors respect professional and ministerial colleagues, both within and outside the church. Counselors strive to understand and, wherever able, respect differing approaches to counseling, and maintain collaborative and constructive relations with other professionals serving their clients—in the client’s best interest.
Fun facts
The ACA code never uses the word “faith”, does suggest counselors need to address self-care (includes spirituality), and does suggest counselors seek to utilize client’s spiritual resources…”when appropriate.”
Share this:
New Ethics Codes for Counselors
Both the American Counseling Association (ACA) and the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) have published 2014 editions of their codes of ethics (links above to pdf of codes). Given these new documents, I highly encourage all Christian counselors (both professional and pastoral/lay) to review these two codes. Even if you do not belong to either the ACA or the AACC, you should spend some time with these documents. Here’s why:
- The codes represent the current thinking of the ACA and the AACC about best practices for counselors. Even if you disagree, you need to know where you diverge (both for integrity sake with clients and for protection from unnecessary risk)
- It is easy to become sloppy about ethical matters. We tend to believe what we do is good. Reviewing our practice habits against a standard can reveal slippage
- It can be helpful to clients to know what code of ethics you subscribe to. Reading codes can help you determine which code you subscribe to and your reasons for doing so
Comparing Values and Principles
The following chart shows similarities and differences regarding the bases for ethics codes. It is worth reviewing these to see how they compare and contrast. In the next post, I will compare a few specific standards.
| Content | AACC | ACA |
| Mission | 1. help advance the central mission of the AACC—to bring honor to Jesus Christ and promote excellence and unity in Christian counseling;
2. promote the welfare and protect the dignity and fundamental rights of all individuals, families, groups, churches, schools, agencies, ministries, and other organizations with whom Christian counselors work; 3. provide standards of ethical conduct in Christian counseling that are to be advocated and applied by the AACC and the IBCC, and are respected by other professionals and institutions; and 4. provide an ethical framework from which to work in order to assure the dignity and care of every individual who seeks and receives services. |
1. enhancing human development throughout the life span;
2. honoring diversity and embracing a multicultural approach in support of the worth, dignity, potential, and uniqueness of people within their social and cultural contexts; 3. promoting social justice; 4. safeguarding the integrity of the counselor–client relationship; and 5. practicing in a competent and ethical manner. |
| Principles | Compassion in Christian Counseling – A Call to Servanthood Competence in Christian Counseling – A Call to ExcellenceConsent in Christian Counseling – A Call to Integrity
Confidentiality in Christian Counseling – A Call to Trustworthiness Cultural Regard in Christian Counseling – A Call to Dignity Case Management in Christian Counseling – A Call to Soundness Collegiality in Christian Counseling – A Call to Relationship Community Presence in Christian Counseling – A Call to Humility |
autonomy, or fostering the right to control the direction of one’s life;nonmaleficence, or avoiding actions that cause harm;beneficence, or working for the good of the individual and society by promoting mental health and well-being;justice, or treating individuals equitably and fostering fairness and equality;
fidelity, or honoring commitments and keeping promises, including fulfilling one’s responsibilities of trust in professional relationships; and veracity, or dealing truthfully with individuals with whom counselors come into professional contact. |
Share this:
The Power Behind Domestic and Political Dictatorships
The quote by Anjan Sundaram in Stringer continues to rattle in my head. I mentioned him here when I spoke about the power of small-time tyranny–that it lasts only when those close to the dictator look the other way.
Here’s the quote as he talks about being the victim of the dictator’s myth:
It startles me how steadfastly I believed, growing up, that our dictator was just, good and wise. I was never told anything to the contrary. … the indoctrination that holds up the dictator as a savior, a sage, as all-powerful. Until recently this myth usually invoked God, a divine right to power. These days dictators have less need for mysticism: they us the tools of liberty–elections, business, schools, art, the media. The successful dictator creates at once a terror of his presence and a fear of his loss. (p. 61-2)
Terror of presence, fear of absence. Sounds similar to the experience of victims of domestic abuse. Afraid of being hit, afraid of being abandoned. In order to have someone excuse violent and abusive behavior of a dictator, you have to believe that you need them, that what they do is necessary or acceptable in light of a worse outcome. While Sundaram may be right that dictators speak less of divine right, I suspect many religious abusive husbands use a variant on divine right to excuse lording it over their wives. And abusive wives can claim that their husband’s (supposed) failure to lead gives rights to engage in verbal abuse.
What is the power behind a dictator? Myth. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
True power does not grasp its right but willingly gives up power for the sake of others. Philippians 2 gives us this clear picture.
Share this:
Filed under Abuse, Biblical Reflection, Uncategorized
Mapping urban domestic trauma
Our community of practice continues with a presentation by Michael Lyles, MD who presented on the problem of trauma in urban settings. [Watch his talk here] He pointed out how we often think about violence and the connection with trauma in international settings but fail to connect the two in American urban settings. We see angry young men and women who seem calloused and do not value life. Yet, often what is happening is that we have hypervigilant individuals who choose to manage their trauma reactions by being alert and on edge and ready to attack before being attacked. When you bring together poverty, violence and a traumatized population, you develop a chronically traumatized person, meeting most criteria for PTSD but never getting diagnosed.
One study mentioned a few statistics about violence prevalence. 55% of urban children have experienced sexual abuse (compare that to about 15% of US population); 39% have witnessed domestic violence. 27% experienced physical abuse.
To highlight the problem he pointed out a 2o12 Philly Magazine report on trauma in our city. Between 2001 and 2012, more than 18,000 people were shot. During that time some 3800 murders. He noted that suicide rates run about 20% and that number goes even higher when you include “academic suicide”–dropping out of life. In addition, he pointed to the connections between trauma and adrenal overload, hypertension, diabetes, and other physical illness. He also pointed to the scarring that takes place in the amygdala.
He noted a good book to consider: John Rich, MD (Drexel University) Wrong Place, Wrong Time: Trauma and Violence in Lives of Young Black Men.
He ended his presentation considering the role of “Chief Musician” as found in the Psalms. These are folks who listen to the story, don’t debate it, set it to words/music that are appropriate.
Share this:
When you imagine something does your brain think you see it?
What is the difference between imagination and reality? Sometimes, not that much.
The February 2014 edition of the Monitor on Psychology (v. 45:2, p. 18) lists a brief note about a study published in Psychological Science that looks at eye pupil constriction when imagining light. Here’s the abstract from the link above (emphasis mine):
If a mental image is a rerepresentation of a perception, then properties such as luminance or brightness should also be conjured up in the image. We monitored pupil diameters with an infrared eye tracker while participants first saw and then generated mental images of shapes that varied in luminance or complexity, while looking at an empty gray background. Participants also imagined familiar scenarios (e.g., a “sunny sky” or a “dark room”) while looking at the same neutral screen. In all experiments, participants’ eye pupils dilated or constricted, respectively, in response to dark and bright imagined objects and scenarios. Shape complexity increased mental effort and pupillary sizes independently of shapes’ luminance. Because the participants were unable to voluntarily constrict their eyes’ pupils, the observed pupillary adjustments to imaginary light present a strong case for accounts of mental imagery as a process based on brain states similar to those that arise during perception.
So it seems that thinking about something causes your brain to respond as if it is really seeing. What might this mean about those who are trying to break free of addictions?
- Would imagining heroin use create observable changes in they body that would make it harder to maintain abstinence
- Would recalling sexual images create responses that make sexual addictions harder to break?
So, what is the difference between imagining an affair and actually engaging in one? From a brain perspective, maybe not that much. Certainly Jesus’ expansion of the seventh commandment suggests there isn’t a difference between the two from God’s perspective. And yet, we know that actual adultery creates more damage to more people than merely fantasizing about having an affair.
Rumination: the health killer!
I’m currently teaching students a course on psychopathology. Each week we consider a different family of problems. Thus far we have explored anxiety disorders, mood disorders (depression, mania), anger/explosive disorders and addictions. Soon we’ll look at eating disorders, trauma, and psychosis.
There is one symptom that almost every person fitting one of those above categories experiences–repetitive, negative thought patterns.
Rumination.
The content of the repetitive thoughts may change depending on the type of problem (i.e., anxious fears, depressive negative thoughts, illicit urges, fears of weight gain, fears of being hurt, irritability, etc.) but the heart of the problem is the vicious cycle that negative thought patterns produce.
While there are many very good ancillary mental health treatments (Did you know that daily exercise, getting a good 8 hours of sleep each night, and eating a diet rich in protein supports good mental health and may even prevent re-occurrence of prior problems?) it is essential for those of us who struggle with imagining negative events to find ways to shut down the production of rumination. Mindfulness techniques, thought-stopping, alternate focus may help to interrupt imaging bad feelings, thoughts, events and thereby interrupt the body reacting as if those bad things are indeed happening.
Share this:
Video: Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse in Christian Contexts
This video was shot last October during a conference in South Africa cosponsored by the World Reformed Fellowship and North West University. In it I cover these objectives:
- Understand common practices of offenders
- Develop policies to hinder predatory behavior
- Avoid poor reactions to allegations known to compound injury
- Provide care to all parties
I’m thankful to Boz Tchividjian of GRACE who allowed me to use some of his material since he could not be present to deliver it himself. If you are interested in seeing Boz’ far more eloquent work, check out videos at the GRACE site or, even better, click the link to the right of this entry and purchase the 5 hour video he and I filmed in 2012.
Link for video here. Link for accompanying slides here.
Want more resources? I encourage you to watch the other videos from this conference, especially the powerful one by Jim Gamble that should NOT BE MISSED (Thinkuknow) and another by Diane Langberg: http://wrfnet.org/resources/media
Share this:
Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, christian counseling, Christianity, Uncategorized
The Sin of Categorizing Failures: Why Our Explanations Often Fail
We all do it. We categorize sins and failures to explain why they happened. This habit is not new. Our first parents did it. Adam and Eve knew of their choices and yet laid the blame at another’s feet.
We do it too, whether for ourselves or for others. We hear of the sins of others and provide a ready explanation.
He’s a jerk…she comes from a dysfunctional family…he has a chemical imbalance…a disease…low self-esteem…narcissism……
When we think about our own failings, we also provide simple explanations to categorize the problem:
I was tired…You made me…I forgot the Gospel…I just loved you too much…I didn’t love myself enough
Usually these explanations and categorizations fail. (Who was it who said that every complex problem has a simple, neat but wrong answer? Mencken?)
Why do we categorize in simple but incomplete fashion?
In short, it serves a purpose. It enables us to communicate something we find important. Yes, we may lay blame on others or remove blame from self, I don’t think that is our first or only goal. What we really want to do is point out a factor we fear is going to be missed by others. Consider these two examples:
- A christian leader is revealed to have an affair. How will we categorize it? Some might focus on the impossible pressures of ministry. Others might focus on a pattern of arrogance and narcissism. Still others might focus on childhood trauma.
- You falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing. How will you categorize it? Talk about your history of being mistreated? Talk about misunderstanding the facts? Talk about having a demonic influence? Talk about a psychological illness?
These explanations may well carry some weight. They may be, in part, true. I would suggest that our motivations for emphasizing one reason over another has much to do with comfort. It settles matters. It avoids blame. It separates things we love from things we hate.
What to do?
When listening to our own explanations or those of others, I think it might be best to use this blog entry by Ted Haggard penned after the recent suicide of a well-known preacher and preacher’s son. You’ll recall that some years ago, Ted went through his own public hell after evidence of misconduct including same-sex activity and meth purchase was released to the public. The purpose of Haggard’s writing now is to identify false theology behind the reasons why we Christians jump to conclusions about the reason for moral failings,
In the past we would try to argue that Evangelical leaders who fall were not sincere believers, or were unrepentant, or that they did not really believe their Bibles, or were not adequately submitted. And in the midst of these arguments, we KNOW those ideas are, in some cases, rationalizations.
…
It is much more convenient to believe that every thought, word, and action is a reflection of our character, our spirituality, and our core. They think the Earth is flat. Everyone is either completely good or bad, everything is either white or black, and if people are sincere Christians, then they are good and their behavior should conform.
Not so. There are more grays in life than many of our modern theological positions allow. It would be easy if I were a hypocrite, Bakker was a thief, and Swaggart was a pervert. None of that is true.
Haggard then explains that the problem is that we buy too much of the legalistic view of sin/holiness (A pharasaical view) and do not apply the Gospel of repentance and faith in a fallen-in process life. Actually, he doesn’t quite spell it out what it should be but points to the fact that we too often just label our failing leaders as sinners without seeing our own sin.
True, but maybe we can do better than this. What if we
- Listen first and validate. What does the explanation given reveal about what you or others think or feel?
Notice this from Ted about his own scandal (all emphases are mine)
The therapeutic team that dug in on me insisted that I did not have a spiritual problem or a problem with cognitive ability, and that I tested in normal ranges on all of my mental health tests (MMPI, etc.). Instead, I had a physiological problem rooted in a childhood trauma, and as a result, needed trauma resolution therapy. I had been traumatized when I was 7 years old, but when Bill Bright led me to the Lord when I was 16, I learned that I had become a new creature, a new person, and that I did not need to be concerned about anything in my past, that it was all covered by the blood. I did become a new creation spiritually, but I have since learned that I needed some simple care that would have spared my family and I a great deal of loss and pain.
Contrary to popular reports, my core issue was not sexual orientation, but trauma. I went through EMDR, a trauma resolution therapy, and received some immediate relief and, as promised, that relief was progressive. When I explain that to most Evangelical leaders, their eyes glaze over. They just don’t have a grid for the complexity of it all. It is much more convenient to believe that every thought, word, and action is a reflection of our character, our spirituality, and our core.
Seems Ted is trying to tell us that sexual orientation doesn’t tell the whole story; sin doesn’t do the story justice. But note he calls it only a physical problem, a trauma problem. He actively rejects it as a spiritual problem. Why? His entire being had a problem. He can’t really compartmentalize himself in this way. But by emphasizing the physiological, he communicates that we Christians far too quickly just stop at the problem of the will. Ted’s problem was more than just not believing the Gospel. There were far more complex factors in his heart and life, apparently far more than Ted knew or let on to himself.
Point taken.
- Consider additional factors. What am I ignoring or minimizing?
Since Adam and Eve, we minimize our own failings and maximize those of others. So, if we are going to find more accurate explanations for failures, we had better acknowledge some of the (not so) little gods we have served all these years. They may not show up on a psychological exam, but we all have them.
- We want power, prestige, control, accolades
- We want protection, love, purpose
- We want our weaknesses to be hidden and our strengths to be cherished by others
The problem isn’t that we want these things. Rather, it is that we fail to acknowledge that we use them to excuse, dismiss, or cover our actions from examination–from self, from God, from others.
- Look at all the parts. Be honest to self and God but look to Him for the right response.
Too often we look at self or other in all-or-nothing lenses. Either we are all victim or all perpetrator. The truth is everyone is full of parts. Part of us want holiness. Part of us want to look holy but practice sin. Part of us does a good thing to serve another and another part does the same thing to get praise. This is what the Apostle Paul speaks of in Romans 7. Thankfully, Paul doesn’t stop with the split. He continues in chapter 8 to point us to the fact that the power of sin is broken giving us the freedom to do good and the Holy Spirit’s help.
Share this:
Filed under Christianity, Uncategorized
Musings on Faith and Psychology 