I recently attended the Celebrate Recovery Summit 2005 at Saddleback Church in Southern California. The primary purpose of the conference was to train new leaders who would return to their churches and inaugurate the Celebrate Recovery (CR) program. Saddleback’s pastor, Rick Warren, describes CR as “a biblical and balanced program to help people overcome their hurts, habits, and hang-ups…[that is] based on the actual words of Jesus rather than psychological theory [emphasis added].” 1

As a long-time critic of psychological counseling and 12-Steps therapies in the church (see The Seduction of Christianity and archived TBC newsletter articles and Q&As), I was pleased to have the opportunity to learn firsthand from those who are leading and/or participating in the program, to better understand what was intended in CR, and to see how it is implemented. What I learned right away was that the 3,000 or so in attendance had a tremendous zeal for the Lord and an unquestionable sincerity in desiring to help those who were struggling with habitual sin. This was my impression in all of my interactions—with individuals, in small groups, in workshop sessions, and in the general worship sessions. The CR Summit lasted three (eight- to nine-hour) days and covered nearly every aspect of Celebrate Recovery.

Nevertheless, other thoughts ran through my mind as I reviewed whether or not I had missed something significant in my previous criticisms of 12-Steps recovery therapies. Is Celebrate Recovery’s 12-Steps program truly different—that is, “biblical and balanced…rather than psychological”—as Rick Warren believes? Furthermore, is he simply naïve when he says in his “Road to Recovery” series of sermons, “In 1935 a couple of guys formulated, based upon the Scriptures, what are now known as the classic twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and used by hundreds of other recovery groups. Twenty million Americans are in a recovery group every week and there are 500,000 recovery groups. The basis is God’s Word [emphasis added].” Or is Celebrate Recovery another alarming example of a way that seems right to a man but one that is turning believers to ways and means other than the Bible to solve their sin-related problems? Let’s consider these questions in light of some A.A. and 12 Steps background information.

To begin with, 12-Steps programs are not just a Saddleback Church issue. Increasing numbers of evangelical churches are sponsoring Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) and Narcotics Anonymous (N.A.) meetings and/or creating their own self-help groups based upon A.A.’s 12-Steps principles. Bill Wilson, one of the founders of A.A., created the 12 Steps. Wilson was a habitual drunk who had two life-changing events that he claims helped him achieve sobriety: 1) he was (mis)informed by a doctor that his drinking habit was a disease and was therefore not his fault, and 2) he had an experience (which he viewed as spiritual enlightenment) that convinced him that only “a Power greater than” himself could keep him sober. Attempting to understand his mystical experience, he was led into spiritism, a form of divination condemned in the Scriptures. His official biography indicates that the content of the 12-Steps principles came to him “rapidly” through spirit communication. Certainly not from God.

Celebrate Recovery began 14 years ago at Saddleback and is used in more than 3,500 churches today, making it evangelical Christianity’s most prominent and widely exported 12-Steps church program. Warren considers CR to be “the center of living a purpose-driven life and building a purpose-driven church” and recently announced that Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship would begin implementing CR in every prison where the ministry is functioning.

Celebrate Recovery is a very complex methodology that attempts to bring biblical adjustments to the 12-Steps program originated by A.A. and utilized in numerous other “addiction” recovery programs. The complexity, however, applies to the setting up and implementation of the program as well as to the strict rules that govern its execution. Although there are many problems related to “making it work,” there is only space in this article to address some fundamental issues. Let’s begin with the implications regarding the name of the program.

Reflecting A.A.’s influence upon CR, the term “Recovery” is significant. All those in A.A. are “recovering” alcoholics, who, according to A.A., never completely recover. Recovery is a term that primarily denotes a process of physical healing. A.A. teaches that alcoholism is a disease for which there is no ultimate cure. Although CR rejects A.A.’s view of alcoholism as a disease and calls it sin, the title nevertheless promotes the A.A. concept in contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Sin is not something from which a believer is “in recovery.” Sin is confessed by the sinner and forgiven by God. The believer is cleansed of the sin right then. “I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps 32:5 [2]).

At the 2005 Celebrate Recovery Summit, every speaker introduced himself or herself in the A.A. “recovery” mode, with this “Christianized” difference: “Hi, I’m so and so…and I’m a believer in Jesus Christ who struggles with issues of (alcohol, drug, codependency, sex, or whatever) addiction.” The audience then applauded to affirm the individual for overcoming the “denial” of his or her habitual sin. Not to confess some “addiction” or specific sin struggle raises suspicions of “being in denial.” Throughout the three-day conference, there was never a hint from any of the speakers that anything about A.A., 12 Steps, or CR might not be biblical. Moreover, where Celebrate Recovery programs were not available, those “in recovery” were encouraged to attend A.A. or N.A. meetings.

Rick Warren, on video, reassured the Summit attendees that CR was no man-made therapy. He insisted that CR was based upon the “actual words of Jesus Christ from the eight Beatitudes, which parallel the 12 Steps” and identified his own “Higher Power: His name is Jesus Christ.” I don’t find “Higher Power,” which is a misrepresentation of God, in the Bible. Nor can I fathom why a Bible-believing Christian would want to promote Bill Wilson’s concept and methodology. Why not simply rely on what the Bible teaches?

Is God’s way completely sufficient to set one free from so-called addictions? Did A.A.’s founders provide a more effective way? If so, what did the church do for the nearly 2,000 years prior to Bill Wilson’s “spiritually enlightened” way to recovery? Moreover, if Wilson’s method really works, why are some in the church trying to add Jesus as one’s Higher Power and the Beatitudes to it? On the other hand, if the effectiveness of the 12-Steps program is questionable at best and detrimental to the gospel and to a believer’s life and growth in Christ, why attempt to “Christianize” such a program? It is imperative that all believers ask themselves whether or not they truly believe that the Scriptures and the enablement of God’s Holy Spirit are sufficient for “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pt 1:3 [3]). A rejection of this biblical teaching is the only possible justification for turning to ways the Bible condemns: “the counsel of the ungodly” (Ps 1:1 [4]) and “a way which seemeth right unto a man.”

How dependent is Celebrate Recovery upon (with minor modifications) A.A.’s 12 Steps? Completely! Those going through CR’s small group take from 12 to 16 months to complete the 12-Steps program. Many go through more than one small group and often become leaders in one while attending others. Without Bill Wilson’s principles, the CR program would be reduced to a handful of misapplied Bible verses. Tragically, the most obvious biblical problem with such an approach to overcoming habitual sins seems to be dismissed by all 12-Steps advocates: the Bible never offers a by-the-numbers self-help methodology for deliverance from sin or for living a sanctified life. God’s way involves obedience to His full counsel and maturity in Christ through the enablement of His Holy Spirit.

Warren’s CR program views the 12 Steps as generally compatible with Scripture yet seeks out verses that appear to biblically reinforce each step. In doing so, however, scriptural interpretations are forced upon concepts that either have no direct relationship to the Bible or that pervert the true interpretation of the scripture intended to support the particular step. CR’s attempt to use the Beatitudes as biblical principles for overcoming habitual sins, for example, is a serious distortion of the Word of God.

Search as you may, you’ll find no commentaries that even hint at such a use of the Beatitudes. Why? Simply because the Beatitudes all have to do with seeking the Kingdom of God and nothing to do with solving an individual’s so-called addictions. Again, why try to legitimize from Scripture Wilson’s “ungodly counsel” from “seducing spirits [bringing] doctrines of devils” (1 Tm 4:1)?

Consider, for example, the “Beatitudes-justified” first three steps: (1) We admitted we were powerless over our addictions and compulsive behaviors. That our lives had become unmanageable. “Happy are those who are spiritually poor.” (2) Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. “Happy are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” (3) Made a decision to turn our life and our will over to the care of God (modified from A.A.’s “God as we understood Him”). “Happy are the meek.” This is more than a misdirected attempt to sanctify (in Rick Warren’s words) Bill Wilson’s “biblically vague” 12 Steps.2 It both abuses the Scriptures and reinterprets Wilson.

In these foundational steps, Wilson is summarizing his beliefs based upon his experiences as a “recovering alcoholic.” He felt “powerless” because he believed alcoholism was an incurable disease that consequently made his life “unmanageable.” Since he couldn’t “cure” himself (although millions do without 12-Step or other therapies!), he put his faith in “a power greater than ourselves,” whom he called God, and “understood” Him by fabricating Him out of beliefs discovered in his study of different religions and religious experiences. That’s more than “biblically vague.” It’s a false religion.

So why would Celebrate Recovery or the multitudes of other Christianized 12-Steps groups try to reconcile the Word of God with Wilson’s definitely erroneous and demonically inspired methodology? The deluded response is: “Because it works!” But does it?

Pragmatism is the fuel that powers “the way that seems right” and governs much of what is being lauded in the church today. Not only is this unbiblical, but too often there is nothing beyond enthusiastic testimonials to support the claim that something actually works. The reality for the 12-Steps program of A.A. and N.A. is that there is no research evidence proving that they are more effective than other treatments. Furthermore, the most extensive studies related to “addictions” conclude that most drug and alcohol abusers recover without any psychotherapeutic treatment or self-help therapies.3

The many problems inherent within a Christianized 12-Steps program—and particularly???Celebrate???Recovery—are too numerous for this brief article. Yet, consider these observations: CR is highly promoted as completely biblical and not psychological, yet the key speakers for CR Summit 2005 were clinical psychologists Drs. John Townsend and Henry Cloud. Psychologist David Stoop, the editor of Life Recovery Bible (CR participants’ mandatory paraphrase Bible, polluted with psychotherapy commentary), is a favorite speaker at Saddleback’s CR Large Group meetings. The CR leadership manual advises, “Have Christian psychotherapists volunteer their time to help instruct and support your leaders.”4

CR’s entire program content is marbled with psychobabble such as this “solution” from its Adult Children of the Chemically Addicted group’s dogmas:“The solution is to become your own loving parent….You will recover the child within you, learning to accept and love yourself.”5 This is biblical?! Honoring the psychologically contrived “disorder” of codependency, CR’s Codependency and Christian Living group made this humanistic and biblically false statement: “Jesus taught….A love of self forms the basis for loving others.”6

A.A.’s 12-Steps methodology, along with its antibiblical psychotherapeutic concepts and practices permeates Celebrate Recovery, yet no one at the Summit with whom I spoke seemed concerned. CR’s small group meetings are the antithesis of the way the Bible instructs mature believers to help those young or struggling in the faith to grow. Pastors and elders can be small group leaders, but not for teaching purposes. No leader may biblically instruct or correct but may only affirm the “transparency” of the participant sharing his feelings. “Cross-talk,” or comments by others, are prohibited to allow the freest expression possible. Much of this “expression” reinforces psychotherapeutic myths. The two-hour meetings usually open with the spiritually anemic Serenity Prayer and the recitation of the 12 Steps. Leaders are drawn from those who have completed one or more 12-Step groups. Some leaders work through one “addiction” in a small group while leading another group. It’s not unusual for a leader to put in eight to ten hours in CR functions per week, every week. Serious Bible study and discipleship are not part of the Celebrate Recovery “biblical” emphasis.

Let no one think that presenting these critical concerns about Celebrate Recovery in any way lessens the biblical obligation (Gal 6 [5]) of the church to minister to those struggling with habitual sin. The issue is not whether we should minister, but how we should minister: man’s way or God’s way? Man’s way, or a mixture of biblical teaching and ungodly counsel, is contrary to God’s way. Man’s way leads to death. Applying Scripture to man’s way leads to a slower death, akin to what would result when pure water is added to a toxic drinking fountain. We desperately need to take heed to God’s admonition through the Prophet Jeremiah: “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer 2:13 [6]). TBC

Endnotes

1. Celebrate Recovery Summit 2005 Handbook, 61.

2. Celebrate Recovery Senior Pastor Support Video, 2003.

3. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Vol. 16, No. 12, 1-4; See also:

www.stats.org/issuerecord.jsp?issue=true&ID=8.

4. Celebrate, 31.

5. Ibid., 342.

6. Ibid., 350.

Audio version of this newsletter is here [6].

Source URL:
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2568
 

Although there are far too many examples of apostasy influencing the church today to cite in this brief series of articles, there is one spurious trend that encompasses nearly all of what the above verses address. It’s called the Emerging Church Movement (ECM). The ECM is a development among evangelicals that appears to have some worthwhile goals: 1) It professes to speak to today’s culture about the relevancy of Christianity and the value of the gospel of Jesus Christ; and 2) It desires to keep young evangelicals continuing in the faith. The movement involves a number of churches (mostly non-denominational), some supportive ministries and parachurch organizations, and the support of a number of prominent evangelical leaders and authors.

The ECM has no official organization or leadership, although some of its adherents have “emerged” as recognized leaders and spokesmen. For many of those helping to promote the movement, their motivation to “try something different” grew out of the frustration of their own very limited success in evangelizing and discipling young people. Some of the leaders were in seeker-sensitive and purpose-driven churches, and they saw firsthand that their church-growth marketing schemes were not effective for drawing those in their late teens, 20s, and early 30s. The main fare of most consumer-driven churches features contemporary music with shallow, repetitive choruses, topical 30-minutes-or-less sermons (mostly psychology-based), a host of social programs to attract the lost (and the fleshly nature of Christians), and “Bible studies” that address everything but the Bible (see “Consumer Christianity I & II”, TBC, 2/05 [5] , 3/05 [5] ). For a surprising number of young adults, that was a spiritual turnoff.

In his book The Emerging Church (with contributions and endorsement by Rick Warren), Dan Kimball relates his own breakthrough in overcoming the frustrating experiences in trying to motivate the young people in the evangelical church where he was youth pastor. He tells about watching a concert on the youth-oriented MTV network late one night that was a candlelit, all-acoustic performance. Recognizing that MTV certainly knows its audience and the youth culture, he refashioned his church’s youth room into a subdued, “catacombish,” candlelit environment and had the worship band use acoustic guitars, forgoing their usual flashing light show and loud electric music. He was delighted by the reaction of one usually unresponsive teen who said, “I like this. This was really spiritual.”

That was an epiphany for Kimball. As he expanded the service with what he considered more “authentic Christian” elements and liturgy, it attracted hundreds, young and old alike. He is convinced he’s found what the church of today needs: “As the emerging church returns to a rawer and more vintage form of Christianity, we may see explosive growth much like the early church did.”

On the contrary, the “explosive growth” in the early church came from an approach that is almost nonexistent in the ECM. Peter’s confrontational address to the crowd on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 is directly at odds with the modus operandi of the emergent leaders. In the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter’s preaching brought conviction of sin, repentance, and belief; 3,000 came to Christ that day. Kimball’s “vintage form of Christianity,” featuring rituals, ceremony, candles, incense, prayer stations, and images to create a spiritually experiential atmosphere for evangelicals is “vintage” only in the sense that it is an imitation of the later unbiblical Eastern Orthodox and medieval Roman Catholic liturgies. The early New Testament church knew nothing of this idolatrous and sense-oriented worship.

Ironically, emergent churches around the world, in their attempt to “reconstruct” the church, are passing each other like ships in the night. Kimball’s efforts at spiritual stimulation by introducing to young evangelicals the liturgical bells and smells of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and high-church Episcopal and Presbyterian rituals, stands in contradiction to some European cathedrals and churches going emergent. Europeans are trying to revive their congregations, deadened by centuries of imagery and ritual, by covering their gothic interiors with decorated drapery, exchanging the organ and traditional hymns for electric guitars and contemporary choruses, and adding throw pillows for comfortable seating to create a seeker-friendly environment. These churches are abandoning the very things that are “spiritually” alluring to American emergent evangelicals. Regarding both sensual approaches, Scripture tells us, “the flesh profiteth nothing.”

In reading the works of the ECM leaders, we would agree with many of their criticisms of current Christianity. There is plenty to oppose as apostasy and the abandonment of the Word increases in Christendom. The ECM’s corrections, however, rather than having restorative value for the church, are just as contrary to the Scriptures. Even worse, they go far beyond subtly “weaning evangelicals off the Word” to rendering the Bible and its doctrines as the enemy when it comes to drawing the world in general and, specifically, our postmodern culture, to the love of Jesus.

The Emergent Church Movement claims to desire—above all things—to show the love and life of Christ to a culture that is distrustful of the Christianity it perceives as oppressive and absolutist. We’re assured by ECM writers that “numbers of postmoderns are attracted to Jesus but detest His church” and can therefore be reached by the emerging church approach. It professes to be more amenable to the culture, more viable in its practice of Christianity, and truer to what Jesus had in mind for His church on earth.

Admirable—but let’s see how true it is to the Scriptures. As Isaiah exhorted, “To the law and to the testimony [i.e., God’s Word]: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” Isaiah 8:20 [6]).

First of all, one has to wonder what a postmodern—a person characterized chiefly by his or her general disdain for authority and absolutes, particularly those dealing with moral issues and religion—thinks about this “Jesus” to whom he or she is supposedly drawn. The critical question is “Jesus who?” Is it the biblical Jesus they like, the one who declared absolutely, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6 [7])? What about the authoritarian Jesus, who announced, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” (John 15:10 [8])? His words weren’t referring only to the Ten Commandments but rather to every instruction He gave. Is that the Jesus a postmodern desires? What about the Jesus who gave mankind an ultimatum: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36 [9])?

The biblical Jesus certainly does not accommodate postmodernism, which is one more example of humanity’s rebellion against its Creator. The good news is that Jesus offers deliverance from the delusion of postmodernism, as well as all the other man-centered isms: “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31,32 [10]). The bad news is that the emerging church approach attempts to accommodate Jesus and the Scriptures (actually “another Jesus” and a corrupted and emasculated Word) to our postmodern culture.

Although some regard the Emerging Church Movement as nothing more than a passing spiritual fad among young evangelicals, its potential for shipwrecking the faith of our next generation (should the Lord not yet return for His saints) is staggering. Here are just a few of the faith-destroying beliefs as espoused in the writings of the emergent leaders. First of all, foundational to the ECM is the subversion of the Bible. It’s akin to Satan’s scheme to destabilize Eve’s trust in what God commanded: “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1 [11]). They give lip service to the importance of God’s Word while undermining its inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.

Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis, following 22 pages of weakening the authority of the Bible (making statements such as “It is possible to make the Bible say whatever we want it to, isn’t it?” and “With God being so massive and awe-inspiring and full of truth, why is his book capable of so much confusion?”): “[L]et’s make a group decision to drop once and for all the Bible-as-owner’s-manual metaphor [i.e., God’s specific instructions for mankind]. It’s terrible. It really is….We have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored, passionate account it is of experiencing the living God.”1 No! “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pt 1:21 [12]).

His view, common to most emergent writers, is that the key to the authority of Scripture is one’s interpretation, and that is most authoritative when the interpretation takes place in a community and validated by a “group decision”: “Community, community, community. Together with others, wrestling and searching and engaging the Bible as a group of people hungry to know God in order to follow God.”2

Although we find thousands of times throughout the Bible clear, direct, and absolute commands prefaced by phrases such as “Thus saith the Lord” and “The word of the Lord came to me,” we’re now told that understanding and obedience to what God said are subject to a community’s interpretation. Consequently, ECM churches disdain preaching and authoritative teaching, yet they delight in discussion, causing some to dump the pulpit in favor of a dialogue-led Starbucks environment. As the goals of the community change, we’re told the interpretation may also change.

The claim that the ECM approach has not jettisoned sound doctrine is either a delusion or an outright deception. This becomes clear when one asks for a biblical position on an issue. Kristen Bell acknowledges in a Christianity Today emerging church article, “I grew up thinking that we figured out the Bible…that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means, and yet I feel like life is big again—like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”3 Brian McLaren, the most prominent of the emergent leaders, echoes Bell’s “doctrine” of avoidance regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality:

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making [doctrinal] pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.4
TBC has received numerous letters from parents and evangelical pastors who find their young people seeking out emergent churches for the “new” experiences, which they offer in abundance: religious art (primarily impressionistic images of “Jesus”), “biblical” films, rituals based upon Catholic/Orthodox liturgy, community, personal relationships, contemplative spirituality and mysticism (some include yoga), Bible dialogues, ecumenical interaction with “people of faith,” a social gospel, plans to save the planet, restore the kingdom, and so forth.

Regarding the seductive nature of such things, few evangelicals, young or old, have a defense. Too many function as biblical illiterates, meaning they know some things about the Bible and are capable of reading it but simply haven’t made any effort, outside of following along with their pastor’s teaching on Sundays. They are the spiritual con man’s delight.

Satan’s seduction of Eve began subtly, “Yea hath God said?” It was a confusion tactic, setting her up to believe his lie and reject what God had said: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.” That was his punch line to destroy the human race. Eve fell for it; Adam went along.
One finds a strikingly similar approach in the writings of the ECM leaders in regard to destroying faith in the gospel: Brian McLaren leads with doubts about what God had said:

The church latched on to that old doctrine of original sin like a dog to a stick, and before you knew it, the whole gospel got twisted around it. Instead of being God’s big message of saving love for the whole world, the gospel became a little bit of secret information on how to solve the pesky legal problem of original sin.5

He says elsewhere, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be saved?…None of us have arrived at orthodoxy.”

British emergent leader and Zondervan author Steve Chalke delivers the punch line that unabashedly rejects the essential gospel belief that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of mankind necessary to satisfy divine justice. Incredibly, he condemns that doctrine as a form of “cosmic child abuse” and a “twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.”6 This is where these emergent pied pipers, wittingly or unwittingly, are seductively leading our youth.

Hopefully, the above will move you to prayer and action regarding the biblical strengthening of your own children and the youth in your fellowship. If you need more motivation (this brief article allowed me to give you only the tip of the “emerging” iceberg), see our TBC Extra page (p. with multiple emergent leaders’ quotes helpfully compiled in Roger Oakland’s latest book Faith Undone: The emerging church…a new reformation or an end-time deception? TBC

Endnotes

1. Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 044-45, 062-63.
2. Ibid., 053.
3. Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today, November 2004, Vol 48, No 11, 36ff.
4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2006/cln60123.html [13] .
5. Brian McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 134.
6. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 182-83.

Published on thebereancall.org (http://www.thebereancall.org)

The Bible instructs and strengthens believers when they are misunderstood and mistreated for their faithfulness to God and to His Word, when they are rejected, ill-spoken of, and reviled.  Jesus said, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:11-12).  Rejoice when rejected?  Blessed when reviled and persecuted? Exceedingly glad when ill-spoken of?  Yes!  The reward in heaven is great and the blessedness of being in Christ right now far exceed any human discomfort that may come from such negative responses.

Jesus was hated and scorned.  The night of his betrayal he told his disciples, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord.  If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also” (John 15:17-20).

Present-day disciples also have the distinct privilege of accompanying Jesus “without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb. 13:13), of being outcasts with Him now, and of looking forward to spending eternity with Him in glory.  Therefore, by God’s grace, we urge each one of us to continue to speak forth and warn believers about the psychological wisdom of men and we encourage all to draw closer to Him in the midst of problems.  May we all be faithful in our desire to follow the Lord and His Word.  Let us gird up our loins and not fear or resist rebuff, rejection, or whatever may come from following Christ and from being faithful to His Word.  May we all patiently endure ill treatment for Christ’s sake.  But, each one of us needs to determine by God’s Word if we are suffering because of Christ or because of our own sin. 

For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.  For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently?  But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.  For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.  For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls (1 Peter 2:19-25).

If people accuse any of us who are contending for the faith of being mean-spirited, we must indeed judge ourselves before the Lord to see if the accusation is true.  If true, we must repent.  If untrue, we may rejoice.  And that is what we must do whenever we are accused.  We must go before the Lord to determine the accuracy of the accusation.  And then we will discover if we are being buffeted for our own faults or if we are suffering wrongfully for the sake of Christ.  Either way, we are all to suffer patiently as we consider Jesus.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.  For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.  Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin (Heb. 12:2-4). 

Let us all, therefore, do what God calls us to do, looking to Jesus in anticipation of his appearing, when “we shall be like him; for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).

(from PAL V6N3)

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110
                    
www.psychoheresy-aware.org

Unfortunately, PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries doesn’t believe in the Deliverance Ministry the way we do.  Nonetheless, many of the articles they publish are sound and have much value for the body of Christ. -HBC

Therapists who attempt to help clients remember events and feelings from their childhood often use hypnotic techniques that actually move clients into a trance state.  They may deny using hypnosis, but guided imagery and other techniques used in leading a person back into the past are hypnotic induction devices. Dr. Michael Yapko, author of Trancework, says:

Many times therapists aren’t even aware that they’re doing hypnosis.  They are doing what they call guided imagery or guided meditation, which are all very mainstream hypnotic techniques.

The suggestions, the emotions, and the focus on feelings in the past rarely produce true memories.  In various forms of regressive therapy the therapist attempts to convince the client that present problems are from past hurtful events and then proceeds to help the client remember and re-experience hurtful events in the past.  However, rather than positive change, many false memories are produced.

Some writers, such as Campbell Perry, indicate that such techniques as the eliciting of memories, relaxation, and regression work are often disguised forms of hypnosis.  In introducing his paper on controversies regarding the False Memory Syndrome (FMS), Perry describes some of the procedures that:

. . . appear to be strongly linked with the development of a subjectively convincing memory that a person (usually a woman) was sexually abused during childhood by (usually) her father, that the putative memory has been repressed, only to seemingly resurface during the course of “recovered memory” therapy. Special emphasis is placed upon the role of “disguised” hypnosis in eliciting such memories——that is, upon procedures that are characterized by such terms as guided imagery, “relaxation,” dream analysis, regression work and sodium amytal represented as “truth serum.” All of these appear to tap into the mechanisms thought to underly the experience of hypnosis.

Leading questions, direct guidance, and voice intonation are enough to serve as an induction into the trance state for many individuals. Mark Pendergrast says:

The “guided imagery” exercises that trauma therapists employ to gain access to buried memories can be enormously convincing, whether we choose to call the process hypnosis or not. When someone is relaxed, willing to suspend critical judgment, engage in fantasy, and place ultimate faith in an authority figure using ritualistic methods, deceptive scenes from the past can easily be induced.

Various forms of regressive psychotherapy and inner healing with the use of visualization, guided imagery, powerful suggestion, and intense concentration can very easily result in inducing a hypnotic state.
                    
LARGE GROUP AWARENESS TRAINING

The Forum (formerly est), Life Spring, and Momentus are the names of some of the more well-known large-group training seminars that promise life-transforming results.  Using many of the ideas and techniques of the encounter movement, such group sessions attempt to alter participants’ present way of thinking (mind set, world view, personal faith, etc.) through intense personal and group experiences.  Some have marathon meetings that last numerous hours and take advantage of fatigue working together with much repetition, group pressure and various psychological techniques, some of which attack personal belief systems and cause mental confusion.

The confusion technique, which is also a hypnotic device, may be used to disorient the subject to make him more responsive to cues. Michael Yapko says:

In the confusion technique, you give a person more information than they could possibly keep up with, you get them to question everything, you make them feel uncertain as a way of building up their motivation to attain certainty.

While hypnosis may not be intended or admitted in such large group training sessions, the possibility is very strong for participants to experience hypnotic suggestion, dissociation, and impaired personal judgment.

OTHER SETTINGS AND SITUATIONS

Other activities and settings where hypnosis may occur also include:

Music
Church Services
Prayer and Meditation
Medical Offices
Self-Help Tapes

In today’s landscape of promises for self-fulfillment, self-mastery, personal well-being, and quick fixes for problems of living, one could easily find oneself in an environment conducive to hypnosis.  You may recognize some of the inductive techniques described in this book being used innocently or purposefully and therefore be forewarned.

Note: Quotation references may be found in the book Hypnosis: Medical, Scientific, or Occultic?

PAL V9N4 (July-August 2001)

www.psychoheresy-aware.org

Are Women Innocent Victims?
by Carol Tharp Almy, M.D.

The Bible views women and men as equally responsible before God for their sin.  However, the church has followed the world into viewing women as innocent victims with their “mistakes” being due to such things as a bad husband, abuse as a child, or chemical imbalance.  A typical illustration of this error is seen in an article by Mary Kassian in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Newsletter (CBMW).1

Kassian says she only had “good men” in her life.  Her article leads me to assume she means that her male associates have not been wife beaters and child molesters like the male associates of the woman she describes.  However, Scripture does not divide mankind into good and bad.  It simply says that no one is good or does good.  All have turned away and are unrighteous (Romans 3: 10-12).

Kassian contends that a woman “who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband, and ridiculed by her male friends . . . reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of worth and value as a woman.”

This basic view of women is rampant within the modern church, even though it is in direct disobedience to Jesus’ directive not to judge (Matthew 7:1).  Kassian makes a judgment of another person’s heart by adopting the doctrinal base of the insight-oriented therapy industry.  She views the woman as essentially innocent, a clean slate written upon by an evil environment, and controlled by her past, which comes bubbling up in ways the “wounded woman” does not recognize.  Only someone like Kassian, trained to read the symbols and secrets, can know this woman in ways that Scripture ascribes only to God.  Via certain special, gnostic knowledge, available only to an educated elite with psychology degrees, Kassian claims to know what produced the thinking and actions defined as “feminist philosophy.”

What does Scripture say is the problem when a woman refuses to acknowledge the headship of her husband in the home or participates in Sophia conferences worshiping female secretions?  The Bible makes no allowance whatsoever for the “wounded woman” portrayed by Kassian and simply says that refusal to take our place in God’s order is reason for God’s judgment. (Jude 6,7)

Kassian continues in the mindset of the psychotherapist, saying that the woman “needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.”  Remember that the cities into which the apostles moved were not filled with “good men.”  These cities were at least as depraved as the places where you and I live.  Yet the apostles did not approach either male or female with the diagnosis of wounding nor did they ever suggest that truth could not be accepted until the pain was healed.

Read Acts 16:13-15, about the women whom Paul found praying together.  Note the contrast between Kassian’s teaching and Scripture.  No issue is made at all as to whether Lydia was surrounded by “good men.”  No mention is made of the people with whom Lydia grew up or with whom she lived at the time.  That seems strangely beside the point, does it not?  Are we going to read between the lines and imagine that Paul spoke a different gospel to these women, because no men were present?  If this were the case, would not Luke have recorded at least a portion of this crucial variation?

It is unlikely that this woman dealing in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira had grown up without pain.  It is equally unlikely that Lydia had achieved what the therapeutic community calls “healing of her pain” before Paul arrived.  Yet Scripture tells us that Lydia responded to the truth of Paul’s message.  How could such a thing be?

Luke does not tell us whether these women who gathered outside the city gate by the river had rebelliously left home against the wishes of the “good men” in their life.  Had their fathers and husbands beat them and locked them out for the day?  Since Lydia is described as a Godfearer, it is not likely this was a group of lesbians seated in a ritualistic circle seeking to blend with Gaia down by the river.  Beyond that, we can come to few conclusions about the home life of these women.  Surely we should note that the inspired Word of God does not emphasize the influence of the men present in the lives of these women to whom Paul spoke.  Circumstances, such as their environment, their past, or their “father-image,” do not appear to determine their ability to respond to Truth.

Look carefully at what Lydia did.  She opened her heart, responded to Paul’s message with obedience in baptism, and began serving her God through hospitality.  There is no hint that Lydia had a self-centered motive in this hospitality, desiring the preachers to stay at her house so she could get time with them to pour out details of past abuse by bad men in her life.  There is no hint that Lydia was seeking any apostolic 12-step program to heal her wounded heart.

Is Lydia’s case unique?  Look at Acts 5:1-11.  Note that Peter quizzes Sapphira in the same way that he questioned Ananias.  Peter does not analyze Sapphira’s upbringing; neither does he seem to consider what kind of men Sapphira had in her life.  God’s Word gives us no permission to assume that Sapphira lied about the price of the land in order to gain worth and value as a woman.  Peter shows no concern as to whether Sapphira was searching for security and significance, and he does not seem to have been informed of Sapphira’s need for healing of her pain before she could respond to truth.

Had they lived in our era, Ananias may even have modeled the seven promises of a Promise Keeper and Sapphira may even have helped him model what CBMW calls the complementary roles for men and women.  However, about three hours after Ananias fell down and died for having lied to God, Sapphira did the same.  There is no hint that the three hour delay was spent investigating Sapphira for codependency, panic disorder, adult ADHD, etc.

It must be emphasized that Sapphira was not excused due to wounding by a dishonest husband.  It is no minor issue for church leaders to present a woman’s sin as healed by “a godly man who loves and blesses her as a woman,” facing “her woundedness,” repenting “of bitterness and unforgiveness,” and releasing “her pain to Jesus.”  When a woman has accepted feminist philosophy, she needs far more than “the faithful love of a good man and her willingness to forgive those who had wounded her.”  The church today seems content taking theology from romance novels or from the channel playing old movies.

Kassian goes on to say that “truth is not an end in and of itself, but rather the means . . . to be set fully free.”  Scripture says that Jesus is the Truth, the fulfillment and end of the law, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.  My freedom comes from the Messiah; it is not vice-versa and it cannot be so.  My freedom is not the fulfillment, the omega; my freedom is not the goal, the end.  Scripture gives me no license to make God’s Truth some ill-defined secondary luxury nice to have around after a “good man” or man’s techniques have healed my wounded heart.  This is no minor theological issue!

Kassian says, “Most feminists will not be persuaded by theological finesse or expertise.  Theirs is a wounding of the heart and their minds and will only be set aright as their hearts are healed.”  In contrast, Paul said that they “perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thes. 2:10-12).

Sin is not produced, as Kassian contends, by an assault on a woman’s personhood.  Beware of terminology that lacks definition.  Paul said, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.  For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1,2).  Today’s church would do well to remember this warning about intellectualized, silly terminology.  Sort through the fancy talk with its compassionate-sounding words, because it is basically saying that my sin is produced by my environment.  We cannot afford to forget that Eve became a feminist in the perfect environment.  Her grandfather had not molested her, her father had not ignored her, her brother had not sexually derided her, her husband had not slapped her, and male friends had not ridiculed her.  Scripture says you and I fall for the lie for the same reason as Eve did.  We would love to gain the wisdom and be like God.  We would love to be in the driver’s seat.  We hope that via a good husband, good parenting, visualization techniques, hypnosis, positive thinking, forgiveness methods, weigh-down——whatever fad is passing through——we can be set free.  And, if we can use some Jesus-words as a means, then all the better!

Christian leaders, both conservative and liberal, are taking their doctrine from the same father of lies and thus are taking women in the same destructive direction.  My problem is not the men in my life (and that is not to say that men are all models of righteousness).  My problem is not what Daddy did.  My problem is my own sin and rebellion.  Kassian leaves me with no answers and no hope.  If environmental wounding is my problem, I limp for the rest of my life.  However, if sin is my problem, Jesus has died for that.  Lidie Edmunds wrote a hymn in the 19th century, and I think we can safely say she would not have fallen for the “wounded woman” deception.

My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the everliving One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
 
That is really the only question for you and for me.  Is it enough that Jesus died; IS IT ENOUGH?

1 Mary Kassian, “For Those Who Hate Feminists——And Those Who Don’t. Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Newsletter , Vol. 1, No. 2. Kassian’s article can be accessed at the following World Wide Web address:

http://www.cbmw.org/html/vol1no2.html.

(From PAL, V7N1)

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110

www.psychoheresy-aware.org
 

Do children and adults really need self-esteem?  Does low self-esteem lead to serious life problems?  Should parents attempt to build self-esteem in their children?  Does the Bible encourage self-esteem?  Many Christians have assumptions about self-esteem.  But, what does the Bible say?  What does research say?

THE GENISIS OF SELF-ESTEEM
 
The self-esteem movement has its most recent roots in clinical psychology, namely in the personality theories of such men as William James, Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers.  It became further popularized by their many followers.  Nevertheless, the roots of the self-esteem movement reach further back into human history.

The self-esteem movement began in the third chapter of Genesis.  Initially Adam and Eve were God-conscious and aware of one another and their surroundings rather than being self-conscious.  Their awareness of themselves was incidental and peripheral to their focus on God and one another.  Adam realized that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, but he was not self-aware in the same sense that his descendants would be.  Self was not the issue until the Fall.

Partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not bring godly wisdom.  It brought guilt, fear, and separation from God.  Thus, when Adam and Eve heard God approaching, they hid in the bushes.  But God saw them and asked, “Who told thee that thou wast naked?  Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Genesis 3:11).

SINFUL SELF
 
Adam and Eve answered with the first example of self-justification.  First Adam blamed Eve and God, and then Eve blamed the serpent.  The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil spawned the sinful self with all of its self-love, self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-justification, self-righteousness, self-actualization, self-denigration, self-pity and other forms of self-focus and self-centeredness.

The present Self-Etc. movement is thus rooted in Adam and Eve’s sin.  Through the centuries mankind has continued to feast at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which has spread its branches of worldly wisdom.  It has branched out into the vain philosophies of men and, more recently, the “scientized” philosophies and metaphysics of modern psychology.

Religious incantations for self-worth, self-love, and self-acceptance ooze out of the TV tube, drift across radio waves, and entice through advertising.  From the cradle to the grave, self-promoters promise to cure all of society’s ills through doses of self-esteem, self-worth, self-acceptance, and self-love.  And everyone, or nearly everyone echoes the refrain: “You just need to love and accept yourself the way you are.  You just need to forgive yourself” and “I just have to accept myself the way I am.  I’m worth it. I am a lovable, valuable, forgivable person.”

CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THE WORLD
 
How is the Christian to combat the thinking of the world, which glorifies the self and places self at the center as the be-all and end-all of existence?  How is the Christian to be faithful to our Lord’s command to be in the world, but not of the world?  Can he adopt and adapt the popular philosophy/psychology of his culture, or must he stand apart as one who has been set apart by God and view his culture by the light of the Word?  Jesus said:

“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”  (Matthew 11:28-30)
 
Here is a call to give up one’s own way and to come under the yoke of humility and service – an emphasis on yoking – on a teaching and living relationship.  Jesus described His call for followers in different words, but to the same relationship and with the same intent, when He said:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”  (Matthew 16:24-25)
 
NO SELF-LOVE COMMANDMENT
 
Jesus does not command self-love, but rather love for God and love for one another.  The Bible presents an entirely different basis for love than humanistic psychology preaches.  Rather than promoting self-love as the basis for loving others, the Bible says that God’s love is the true source.  Human love is mixed with self-love and may be ultimately self-serving.  But God’s love is self-giving.  Therefore, when Jesus calls His disciples to deny self and to take up His yoke and His cross, He is calling them to a self-giving love, not a self-satisfying love.  Until the advent of humanistic psychology and its heavy influence in the church, Christians generally thought of self-esteem as a sinful attitude.

In Part Two of this series, we will look at what the Bible says about self-love, particularly the Second Great Commandment, and what research says about self-esteem.

PART TWO
       
Even though the Bible does not teach self-love, self-esteem, self-worth, or self-actualization as virtues, helps, or goals, a vast number of present-day Christians have been deceived by the self-teachings of humanistic psychology.  Rather than resisting the enticement of the world they become culture-bound.  Not only do they not resist the tidal wave of selfism; they are riding the crest of self-esteem, self- acceptance, and self-love.  One can hardly tell the difference between the Christian and the non-Christian in the area of the self, except that the Christian adds God as the main source for his self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-worth, and self-love.

Through slogans, one-liners, and twisted Scripture, many Christians jump on the existential bandwagon of humanistic psychology and set up their own cheering section.  Thus, any criticism voiced against the teachings of self-worth, self-love, and self-esteem is regarded as ipso facto proof that the speaker wants people to be miserable.  Moreover, any criticism against the self-esteem movement is seen as dangerous to society, since self-esteem is considered to be the panacea for its ills.  Then, in the church, if one does not wholly endorse a self-esteem theology, he is accused of promoting worm theology.

If there is one thing the world and many in the church have in common these days, it’s the psychology of self-esteem.  Although Christians may disagree about some of the nuances of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-acceptance, and even on some of the finer points of definition and how it is attained, too many have joined forces against what they believe is a formidable enemy – low self-esteem.  Yet, even the world cannot justify promoting high self-esteem through its own methods of research.

NO RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION FOR SELF-ESTEEM
 
A few years ago the California legislature passed a bill creating the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility.  The legislature funded the bill with $245,000 a year for three years, for a total of $735,000.  The twofold title of the Task Force was quite an assumption.  No one has ever demonstrated that promoting self-esteem is in any way related to personal and social responsibility.  Nor has anyone proved that all those who exhibit personal and social responsibility have high self-esteem.  Self-esteem and social and personal responsibility actually appear to be negatively rather than positively related.

The Mission Statement of the Task Force is as follows:

“Seek to determine whether self-esteem, and personal and social responsibility are the keys to unlocking the secrets of healthy human development so that we can get to the roots of and develop effective solutions for major social problems and to develop and provide for every Californian the latest knowledge and practices regarding the significance of self-esteem, and personal and social responsibility.”1
 
The Task Force believed that esteeming oneself and growing in self-esteem would reduce “dramatically the epidemic levels of social problems we currently face.”2

IS THERE A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH OR LOW SELF-ESTEEM AND PERSONAL AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY?

In order to investigate this relationship the state Task Force hired eight professors from the University of California to look at the research on self-esteem as it relates to the six following areas:

1. Crime, violence and recidivism.
2. Alcohol and drug abuse.
3. Welfare dependency.
4. Teenage pregnancy.
5. Child and spousal abuse.
6. Children failing to learn in school.
 
Seven of the professors researched the above areas and the eighth professor summarized the results.  The results were then published in a book titled “The Social Importance of Self-Esteem.”3  Has the relationship been established between self-esteem and social problems?  David L. Kirk, syndicated writer for the San Francisco Examiner,4 said it bluntly:

“That . . . scholarly tome, The Social Importance of Self-Esteem, summarizes all the research on the subject in the stultifyingly boring prose of wannabe scientists.  Save yourself the 40 bucks the book costs and head straight for the conclusion: There is precious little evidence that self-esteem is the cause of our social ills.”
 
Even though they searched for a connection between low self-esteem and problematic behavior, they could not find a cause and effect link.  However, more recent studies indicate a definite relationship between violent behavior and high self-esteem.  Nevertheless, faith in self-esteem dies hard and schools continue to work on building high self-esteem.

Worse than the continuance of self-esteem teachings in the world is the faith that Christians continue to place in self-esteem and self-worth teachings.  Thus, the secular self-esteem movement is not a frontal attack against the Bible with the battle-lines clearly displayed.  Instead it is skillfully subversive and is truly the work, not of flesh and blood, but of principalities, powers, the rulers of darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places, just as delineated by Paul near the end of Ephesians.  The sad thing is that many Christians are not alert to the dangers.  More than we can number are being subtly deceived into another gospel: the gospel of self.

BIBLICAL LOVE
 
Jesus calls His own into a love relationship with Himself and with one another.  Their joy is to be found in Him, not in self.  Their love comes from His love for them.  Thus, their love for one another does not come from self-love or self-esteem, nor does it enhance self-esteem.  The emphasis is on relationship, fruitfulness, and readiness to be rejected by the world.  A believer’s identification is in Jesus to the point of suffering and following Him to the cross.  Only through strained semantics, labored logic and exploited exegesis can one even attempt to demonstrate that self-esteem is biblical or even a part of the church tradition or teaching.

The focus of love in the Bible is upward and outward instead of inward.  Love is both an attitude and action to one another.  And while love may include sentiment and emotional affection, it is primarily volitional action for the glory of God and the good of others.  Thus when Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30), He was saying that all of our being is to be committed to loving and, therefore, pleasing God.  Love for God is expressed with a thankful heart committed to doing what pleases God according to what has been revealed in the Bible.  It is not a grudging kind of obedience, but an eagerness to conform to His gracious will and to agree with God that He is the source and standard for all that is right and good.

The Second commandment is an extension or expression of the First Commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Mark 12:31).  John elaborates on this.  He describes the sequence of love.  In contrast to the teachers of self-love, who say that people cannot love God and others until they love themselves, John says that love originates with God and then extends to others:

“We love Him because He first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?  And this commandment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.” (1 John 4:19-21)
 
God loved us first, which enables us to love Him, which then expresses itself in love for one another.

From Adam’s first breath, mankind was designed to live in relationship with God, not as autonomous selves.  The entire Bible rests on that relationship, for after Jesus answered the Pharisee by saying that the Greatest Commandment is to love God and the second is to love neighbor as oneself, He said: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40).  Jesus came to save us from self and to reestablish that love relationship for which we were created.  Through the centuries books have been written about loving God and loving one another.  However, today the church is increasingly inundated with books telling us how to love ourselves better, esteem ourselves more, accept ourselves no matter what, and build our own self-worth.

End Notes

1 California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. “1987 Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature,” p. V.
2 Andrew M. Mecca, “Chairman’s Report.” Esteem, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 1988, p. 1.
3 Andrew M. Mecca, Neil J. Smelser, and John Vasconcellos, eds. The Social Importance of Self-Esteem. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
4 David L. Kirk, “Lack of Self Esteem is Not the Root of All Ills.” Santa Barbara News-Press, 15 January 1990.

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110
 

Are Women Innocent Victims?
by Carol Tharp Almy, M.D.

The Bible views women and men as equally responsible before God for their sin.  However, the church has followed the world into viewing women as innocent victims with their “mistakes” being due to such things as a bad husband, abuse as a child, or chemical imbalance.  A typical illustration of this error is seen in an article by Mary Kassian in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Newsletter (CBMW).1

Kassian says she only had “good men” in her life.  Her article leads me to assume she means that her male associates have not been wife beaters and child molesters like the male associates of the woman she describes.  However, Scripture does not divide mankind into good and bad.  It simply says that no one is good or does good.  All have turned away and are unrighteous (Romans 3: 10-12).

Kassian contends that a woman “who has been molested by her grandfather, ignored by her father, sexually derided by her brother, slapped by her husband, and ridiculed by her male friends . . . reacts to the wounding by adopting a feminist and/or egalitarian philosophy which assures her of worth and value as a woman.”

This basic view of women is rampant within the modern church, even though it is in direct disobedience to Jesus’ directive not to judge (Matthew 7:1).  Kassian makes a judgment of another person’s heart by adopting the doctrinal base of the insight-oriented therapy industry.  She views the woman as essentially innocent, a clean slate written upon by an evil environment, and controlled by her past, which comes bubbling up in ways the “wounded woman” does not recognize.  Only someone like Kassian, trained to read the symbols and secrets, can know this woman in ways that Scripture ascribes only to God.  Via certain special, gnostic knowledge, available only to an educated elite with psychology degrees, Kassian claims to know what produced the thinking and actions defined as “feminist philosophy.”

What does Scripture say is the problem when a woman refuses to acknowledge the headship of her husband in the home or participates in Sophia conferences worshiping female secretions?  The Bible makes no allowance whatsoever for the “wounded woman” portrayed by Kassian and simply says that refusal to take our place in God’s order is reason for God’s judgment. (Jude 6,7)

Kassian continues in the mindset of the psychotherapist, saying that the woman “needs healing of her pain before she is able to respond to truth.”  Remember that the cities into which the apostles moved were not filled with “good men.”  These cities were at least as depraved as the places where you and I live.  Yet the apostles did not approach either male or female with the diagnosis of wounding nor did they ever suggest that truth could not be accepted until the pain was healed.

Read Acts 16:13-15, about the women whom Paul found praying together.  Note the contrast between Kassian’s teaching and Scripture.  No issue is made at all as to whether Lydia was surrounded by “good men.”  No mention is made of the people with whom Lydia grew up or with whom she lived at the time.  That seems strangely beside the point, does it not?  Are we going to read between the lines and imagine that Paul spoke a different gospel to these women, because no men were present?  If this were the case, would not Luke have recorded at least a portion of this crucial variation?

It is unlikely that this woman dealing in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira had grown up without pain.  It is equally unlikely that Lydia had achieved what the therapeutic community calls “healing of her pain” before Paul arrived.  Yet Scripture tells us that Lydia responded to the truth of Paul’s message.  How could such a thing be?

Luke does not tell us whether these women who gathered outside the city gate by the river had rebelliously left home against the wishes of the “good men” in their life.  Had their fathers and husbands beat them and locked them out for the day?  Since Lydia is described as a Godfearer, it is not likely this was a group of lesbians seated in a ritualistic circle seeking to blend with Gaia down by the river.  Beyond that, we can come to few conclusions about the home life of these women.  Surely we should note that the inspired Word of God does not emphasize the influence of the men present in the lives of these women to whom Paul spoke.  Circumstances, such as their environment, their past, or their “father-image,” do not appear to determine their ability to respond to Truth.

Look carefully at what Lydia did.  She opened her heart, responded to Paul’s message with obedience in baptism, and began serving her God through hospitality.  There is no hint that Lydia had a self-centered motive in this hospitality, desiring the preachers to stay at her house so she could get time with them to pour out details of past abuse by bad men in her life.  There is no hint that Lydia was seeking any apostolic 12-step program to heal her wounded heart.

Is Lydia’s case unique?  Look at Acts 5:1-11.  Note that Peter quizzes Sapphira in the same way that he questioned Ananias.  Peter does not analyze Sapphira’s upbringing; neither does he seem to consider what kind of men Sapphira had in her life.  God’s Word gives us no permission to assume that Sapphira lied about the price of the land in order to gain worth and value as a woman.  Peter shows no concern as to whether Sapphira was searching for security and significance, and he does not seem to have been informed of Sapphira’s need for healing of her pain before she could respond to truth.

Had they lived in our era, Ananias may even have modeled the seven promises of a Promise Keeper and Sapphira may even have helped him model what CBMW calls the complementary roles for men and women.  However, about three hours after Ananias fell down and died for having lied to God, Sapphira did the same.  There is no hint that the three hour delay was spent investigating Sapphira for codependency, panic disorder, adult ADHD, etc.

It must be emphasized that Sapphira was not excused due to wounding by a dishonest husband.  It is no minor issue for church leaders to present a woman’s sin as healed by “a godly man who loves and blesses her as a woman,” facing “her woundedness,” repenting “of bitterness and unforgiveness,” and releasing “her pain to Jesus.”  When a woman has accepted feminist philosophy, she needs far more than “the faithful love of a good man and her willingness to forgive those who had wounded her.”  The church today seems content taking theology from romance novels or from the channel playing old movies.

Kassian goes on to say that “truth is not an end in and of itself, but rather the means . . . to be set fully free.”  Scripture says that Jesus is the Truth, the fulfillment and end of the law, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.  My freedom comes from the Messiah; it is not vice-versa and it cannot be so.  My freedom is not the fulfillment, the omega; my freedom is not the goal, the end.  Scripture gives me no license to make God’s Truth some ill-defined secondary luxury nice to have around after a “good man” or man’s techniques have healed my wounded heart.  This is no minor theological issue!

Kassian says, “Most feminists will not be persuaded by theological finesse or expertise.  Theirs is a wounding of the heart and their minds and will only be set aright as their hearts are healed.”  In contrast, Paul said that they “perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thes. 2:10-12).

Sin is not produced, as Kassian contends, by an assault on a woman’s personhood.  Beware of terminology that lacks definition.  Paul said, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.  For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1,2).  Today’s church would do well to remember this warning about intellectualized, silly terminology.  Sort through the fancy talk with its compassionate-sounding words, because it is basically saying that my sin is produced by my environment.  We cannot afford to forget that Eve became a feminist in the perfect environment.  Her grandfather had not molested her, her father had not ignored her, her brother had not sexually derided her, her husband had not slapped her, and male friends had not ridiculed her.  Scripture says you and I fall for the lie for the same reason as Eve did.  We would love to gain the wisdom and be like God.  We would love to be in the driver’s seat.  We hope that via a good husband, good parenting, visualization techniques, hypnosis, positive thinking, forgiveness methods, weigh-down——whatever fad is passing through——we can be set free.  And, if we can use some Jesus-words as a means, then all the better!

Christian leaders, both conservative and liberal, are taking their doctrine from the same father of lies and thus are taking women in the same destructive direction.  My problem is not the men in my life (and that is not to say that men are all models of righteousness).  My problem is not what Daddy did.  My problem is my own sin and rebellion.  Kassian leaves me with no answers and no hope.  If environmental wounding is my problem, I limp for the rest of my life.  However, if sin is my problem, Jesus has died for that.  Lidie Edmunds wrote a hymn in the 19th century, and I think we can safely say she would not have fallen for the “wounded woman” deception.

My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the everliving One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea.
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
 
That is really the only question for you and for me.  Is it enough that Jesus died; IS IT ENOUGH?

1 Mary Kassian, “For Those Who Hate Feminists——And Those Who Don’t. Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Newsletter , Vol. 1, No. 2. Kassian’s article can be accessed at the following World Wide Web address:

http://www.cbmw.org/html/vol1no2.html.

(From PAL, V7N1)

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110

www.psychoheresy-aware.org
 

“Abusing Memory” is an appropriate title for Dr. Jane Gumprecht’s book.  She skillfully demonstrates that the popular practice of inner healing is a dangerous combination of psychology and new-age spirituality.   Practitioners attempt to heal people of present problems through a mental imagery process that guides people into re-experiencing real or imagined past events.  Instead of being healed, many recipients of inner healing are now living according to lies.  Inner healing is not based on truth, but rather on unbiblical doctrines, faulty memory, heightened hypnotic-like susceptibility, guided imagery, visualization, and fantasy.

In her book “Abusing Memory: The Healing Theology of Agnes Sanford,” Gumprecht focuses on the beliefs, teachings, and practices of Agnes Sanford, the “mother of the Inner Healing/Healing of the Memories movement.”  As one studies this book, one sees Sanford’s vast influence throughout Christendom. Gumprecht says:

“Most inner healing advocates acknowledge their debt to her, and her “theology” is evident in their ministries.  John Loren Sandford (no relation to her) dedicated his books to her as his beloved mentor.  Morton Kelsey learned healing of memories from her as well.  Karen Mains of “Chapel of the Air” was trained in inner healing at the School of Pastoral Care founded by Agnes and her husband.  Similarly, spiritual therapist Leanne Payne is a disciple of Agnes, as was the late Ruth Carter Stapleton.  Glen Clark, who established “Camps Furthest Out,” published Agnes’s first book, “The Healing Light”. . . also endorsed by Theosophy, the first of the modern New Age cults.
 
An entire chapter is devoted to “The Ministry of John Sandford.”

Gumprecht traces Agnes Sanford’s life and her development of unbiblical theological notions gleaned from a syncretism of occult spirituality, the Freudian unconscious, the Jungian collective unconscious, and depth psychology.  She shows how Sanford distorted Christianity to make it fit her ideas and turned Jesus into a “Time Traveler” who supposedly guides people back in time to meet their so-called inner child, to remember the pain of their past, and to have Jesus heal the pain.  She also shows how Sanford “affirmed the Freudian doctrine . . . that the unconscious is a powerful dark force which rules our conscious lives” and used teachings about the inner child from mystical traditions and Jung’’s Child Archetype.

While the entire book is filled with evidence that should discourage every Christian from participating in inner healing, Gumprecht’s chapters “Inner Healing and Memories,” “The Inner Child,” and “The Source of the Unconscious” are especially helpful.  They give a clear overview of the practice of inner healing, of its unbiblical foundations, and of the dangers of inner healing as it is used by people today.  Inner healing techniques are used by many Christian counselors, some of whom may not even call what they are doing “inner healing.”  Thus, Christians need to be warned and armed with the kind of warning and documentation found in the book Abusing Memory.

PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110

www.psychoheresy-aware.org

“Christian psychologists” follow the theories of secular theorists and they pick up certain ideas and treat them as truth.  One set of currently popular psychological notions is that people repress impulses and memories from consciousness and that those impulses and memories continue to act in powerful ways from an active, motivating unconscious.

INFLUENCE OF FREUD

Simply put, the scientifically unproven notion is that painful memories are pushed out of normal memory and packed into a powerful unconscious.  Then those “forgotten” memories supposedly cause people to act in certain ways.  The unproven Freudian-based idea is that if what is hidden in the unconscious can be exposed, then people will know why they behave the way they do and then with such self-knowledge they change their thinking and behaving.  Thus, if a “forgotten” memory of abuse is “remembered” in therapy, that serves as an explanation for one’s present behavior.  However, such theories contradict biblical doctrines on the nature of man and they deny biblical doctrines of personal responsibility and sin.

TRUE OR FALSE MEMORIES?

Are “forgotten” memories newly “remembered” by individuals in therapy true memories?  Are they really viable explanations for why people are the way they are and why they do what they do today?  Most people, including Christians, would answer “yes,” especially if they are involved in “Christian” psychology or listen to “Christian” radio, or read the popular “Christian” books.

However, evidence reveals that memories are not as solid as they have been assumed to be.  Moreover, there is no real evidence to prove Freud’s theory of the unconscious or his theory of repression.  And since there is no proof that what has been forgotten drives present behavior and feelings, it is pointless and counterproductive to search the past rather than look to the Lord and His word in the present.  Believers are instructed to put off the old man.  Even if real memories of painful events are resurrected, the negative results may be worse than having forgotten.

Faith in theories of an unconscious filled with forgotten memories that cause present behavior has led to a special genre of psychologists who specialize in satanic ritual abuse.  Numerous Christians are counseling according to those theories of the unconscious, repression, and widespread traumatic amnesia.  And countless Christians are newly “remembering” sexual and satanic ritual abuse in therapy and after reading books that encourage people to search for such memories.

Then, once people “remember” such horrible events, no amount of proof seems to dissuade them.  Even when other family members say that the abuse could not have happened and when pediatricians and gynecologists report that such abuse could not have occurred, the person “remembering” the abuse continues to maintain that those memories are true.

The result is not greater understanding of what actually happened.  Instead, the clients seem to “need” perpetual therapy.  And, those accused of the abuse are further accused of denial (another Freudian defense mechanism). They are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, rather than innocent until proven guilty.

WHAT KIND OF ABUSE?

Our question is this: could the abuse be occurring in therapy?  Not sexual abuse, but rather abuse of the mind?  Abuse of memories?  Abuse of family members who are blamed, accused, rejected, and sued?  Answers to these questions are not easy, because the human mind is the most intricate and least understood aspect of creation. 

However, certain assumptions stemming from the extensive influence of Freudian theory on our culture are now being looked at and reexamined.  Research on memory is important for Christians to watch, because too many myths are believed as truth and too many promoters and followers of “Christian” psychology think that those assumptions are part of their “discovered” truth from God. 

PrimeTime aired a special segment on this kind of therapy January 7, 1993.  The television program showed therapy sessions and interviews with therapists.  One leading therapist in this movement truly believes there are hundreds of thousands of victims of satanic ritual abuse who have repressed the memories.  PrimeTime also showed part of one seminar being given to therapists, to teach them how to “help” clients “remember” through hypnosis.

PrimeTime also interviewed Dr. George Ganaway, who has interviewed numerous satanic ritual abuse patients.  He said that not one had proved to be the result of actual satanic ritual abuse.  Instead, he said that such memories are formed through the person absorbing information in a highly suggestible state of mind.

Christians are not exempt from such therapy or from the accusations of abuse allegedly remembered in therapy.  Also featured on the program were Mr. and Mrs. Grady whose story was told in D Magazine.1  Their family had been close until their daughter Gloria entered psychological therapy in hopes of losing weight.  Through regressive therapy aimed at locating the “key” to her weight problem in her past, Gloria came to believe that her family had involved her in satanic ritual abuse.  The power of Gloria’s memories are so strong that even the clear evidence presented in court, which disproved her allegations, did not dissuade her from believing those memories.  The parents are still hoping to regain their daughter, but even to the airing of the PrimeTime Special, Gloria declared that she still believed her memories.

HOW ACCURATE ARE OUR MEMORIES?

Some people would have us think that the memory is like a tape recorder that records every event accurately and keeps it intact.  But, research on memory has debunked that myth and raised many questions about common misconceptions about remembering and forgetting.
 
For instance, how accurate are childhood memories? Does the vividness of the recall increase the validity of a memory?  The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget describes a clear memory from his own early childhood:

“I can still see, most clearly, the following scene, in which I believed until I was about fifteen.  I was sitting in my pram, which my nurse was pushing in the Champs Elyséées, when a man tried to kidnap me.  I was held in by the strap fastened round me while my nurse bravely tried to stand between me and the thief.  She received various scratches, and I can still see vaguely those on her face.  Then a crowd gathered, a policeman with a short cloak and a white baton came up, and the man took to his heels.  I can still see the whole scene, and can even place it near the tube station.”

Notice the details of this memory.  Nevertheless, Piaget then says his clear memory is of an event that never happened.  His nurse had confessed when he was about fifteen years old.  Piaget says:

“She had made up the whole story, faking the scratches.  I, therefore, must have heard, as a child, the account of this story, which my parents believed, and projected into the past in the form of a   visual memory.2

Memories are created out of images, overheard conversations, dreams, suggestions, and imagination as well as out of actual events.  And they change over time.  Even as we remember we tend to fill in the gaps.  Therefore, each time a memory is recalled it is also recreated with the emotions accompanying the recall and with the imagination which fills in the gaps.

Elizabeth Loftus is well-known for her research on memory.  She begins her book “Memory: Surprising New Insights into How We Remember and Why We Forget” by describing her own memory of her father after he had died.  At first her thoughts of him were filled with recent images of him suffering the final stages of cancer.  She says:

“Then, gradually, my thoughts of him began to include some happier images.  I saw him standing in the yard, holding a scrawny cat.  I saw him in the living room surrounded by smiling family.  I even thought about him holding me on his lap when I was no older than four.”3

Then she realized the source of those memories.  She had photographs of each event.  She was  remembering the pictures.  Thus her memory was enhanced by additional visual information.  Remembering is not running an invisible tape recorder back to an event.  It is pulling together bits and pieces of information that logically fit together.  Nor can we depend on accuracy.  Even immediate recall may be inaccurate simply because of an initial failure to perceive accurately.  That is why those who testify about a particular event may have completely different stories.

Memories are also very malleable. They change even as we recall past events. Loftus says:

“With the passage of time, with proper motivation, with the introduction of special kinds of interfering facts, the memory traces seem sometimes to change or become transformed.  These distortions can be quite frightening, for they can cause us to have memories of things that never happened.4

Even under the best circumstances, our memory is incomplete.  We creatively fill in details with probabilities.  Because of this natural inclination and because of the possibility of creating new memories through hypnosis and other forms of suggestion, Christians should be cautious about any counseling that looks for the keys of today’s behavior in so-called repressed memories in some controlling unconscious.

Notes:
1 Glenna Whitley, “The Seduction of Gloria Grady,” D Magazine, October 1991, pp. 44-49, 66-71.
2 Jean Piaget, “Plays, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood” (New York: Norton, 1962).
3 Elizabeth Loftus, “Memory: Surprising New Insights into How We Remember and Why We Forget” (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 1-2.
4 Ibid., p. 37.

The recent epidemic proportions of the “false memory syndrome” have spawned a number of books providing both information and counsel.  Victims of Memory by Mark Pendergrast is one of the thickest, most extensively researched of such volumes, written by a man whose two grown daughters have accused him of serious abuse and cut him from their lives.

For Christians, this book has limited usefulness.  There is a wealth of information about what is currently happening in the area of false memories.  Pendergrast provides many personal accounts, from therapists, accused parents, survivors, and retractors, showing us what people are thinking and believing.  He also gives us an overview of scientific research concerning human memory and introduces us to the massive literature that has accumulated on both sides of the issue.

However, the author makes no claim to Christian faith and presents some unbiblical standards of morality when he says that “there’s nothing wrong with masturbation or sex between women,” and when he says, “Lesbianism as a sexual choice is fine——but as a creed that encourages a generalized hatred of men and a search for repressed memories of abuse, it is disturbing” (48-49).

Toward the end of the book, Pendergrast again reveals his personal belief that any sort of sexual inclination is morally acceptable, “as long as they do not harm anyone else in the process,” admitting in a footnote that “harm” isn’t easy to define (454).  Such abandonment of biblical principles gives us reason for extreme caution in the use of this book.  It’s informative in terms of literature, research, and current events, but not a place to look for godly principles about responding to this catastrophic problem.

Christians do need to note the book’s indictment of the church for its involvement in encouraging “repressed memories.”  The well-known names of Frank Minirth and Paul Meier (472), Fred and Florence Littauer, Dan Allender, and James Friesen are cited as leaders in the “Christian hunt for repressed memories” (476).  Let’s look at some actual quotes from some of these well-known promoters of repressed memory therapy.

In “Freeing Your Mind From Memories That Bind,” the Littauers state their belief that:

“The person who has memory gaps has built a wall around the painful, hurtful experiences of childhood.  They have suppressed those hurts deeply into their subconscious.  They have covered them up in the garbage can of their early life and put the lid on them tightly so as never to be confronted again (142-143).”
 
In his approach to psychotherapy for those diagnosed with “multiple personality disorder,” James Friesen emphasizes the retrieval of buried memories:

“Pulling unconscious, dissociated memories into the client’s awareness lies at the heart of therapy for dissociators…. The wounds must be thoroughly exposed, so that the client can receive healing (”Uncovering the Mystery of MPD,” 167).”
    
Dan Allender often appears more biblical, speaking about sin and repentance far more than some psychologists.  However, he too promotes “memory work.”  Even physical symptoms, he claims, may be related to “repressed memories.” Allender insists that:

“It is as if the body is warring against the soul by blocking memories or dreams that would unleash a torrent of anguish … physical armor protects against those memories (”Healing the Wounded Heart,” 151).”
 
Pendergrast notes the sad outcome of such “Christian” therapies:

“Unfortunately, all too many books by “Christian counselors” espouse varieties of recovered-memory therapy, with the ironic and tragic result of destroying families “in the name of Christ” (19).”
 
He also quotes one therapist’s concern that “Christian visualization” appears beyond reach due to the insistence that God is behind the “revelations” produced by it (24).  We ought to be alarmed also!  Christians should be leading the way out of this destructive maze, not enticing other believers into it.  How tragic when unbelievers must rebuke a phenomena that is destroying so many Christian families!

Pendergrast not only convicts the Christian church of its error in this arena of repressed memories; he insightfully shows how “survivorship” has taken on the status of a substitute faith with therapists as the “priests” (chapter 12, 463-494).  There is a “mystical, non-rational component” (465).  Survivorship includes doctrines, “myths,” ethical teachings, rituals, and social institutions, such as the 12-step and other support groups (468).  There is a “conversion” experience, a “radical transformation of identity or orientation” (467).  John Bradshaw is the “evangelist of dysfunction” (482-485).

Groups for survivors often function much like religious sects or cults (486-492).  Pendergrast attributes Christian involvement to the strong religious element present in the repressed memory crisis.  Yet discerning believers should recognize it as a false gospel that rejects God’s Word and salvation as inadequate means of grace.  We must return to the sufficient Scripture, to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), and encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ to do the same.  Editor’s note: Dewart’s book on “John Bradshaw, A Way That Seems Right,” is available from this ministry.  See PAM Books page.  Other books for further study that are not available through this ministry are:

“Suggestions of Abuse” by Michael Yapko.
  
“The Myth of Repressed Memory” by Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham
  
“Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria” by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters.
 
“Manufacturing Victims” by Tana Dineen.
  
PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries, 4137 Primavera Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110