Sunday, October 30, 2016

Analyzing Facebook Post: Home Invasion and Sleep





Here, we have a police officer's wife Facebook posting of a home invasion.   

As you consider the language, note that a "home" is where one sleeps.  Linguistically, the location of sleep is always important.  This is seen in two ways:

The first is the use of "home" versus "house" when it comes to the location of both sleeping and eating; two requirements to sustain life. 

The second is when a subject specifies the location of sleep in a statement.  This should be "unnecessary" due to the expectation that one sleeps in one's own bed, in one's own bedroom.  When the specific location of where one slept is in a statement, it must be flagged.  

For example, a home invasion is just that, an "invasion" which should produce "invasive" elements in language.  It is very personal and very intrusive.  It is where you sleep, you eat, and where your privacy is maintained.  Home invasions have a tremendous psychological impact upon us. 


 As a separate issue in statement analysis , if one gives the specific location of where one slept, it is a signal of missing information regarding what displaced the person from their usual location of sleep. This is often seen in domestic homicide cases as well as domestic violence cases. 

"Last night, I was asleep on the couch when..."  This location is not expected and it is indicative of something that caused the subject to sleep somewhere besides his own bed.  There is a 'story' here that must be discovered. 

Even men who go to the couch due to back pain (men over 40 sometimes report this) do not feel the need to mention the location of their sleep.  They simply 'skip' it because, as they edit their account, it is not relevant. 

When a person mentions the specific location of where he slept, there is a reason for its inclusion and a reason for where he slept.  We look for the answer in the statement itself, and if not there, in the subsequent interview.  

Overall, a "home" is where one sleeps, which is necessary for life, and where one "eats", which is also necessary for life.  

This is why home invasions can be trauma producing in language.  




Maria Daly is a police officer's wife.  She now faces charges of false reporting.  She wrote:

We woke up to not only our house being robbed while we were sleeping but to see this hatred for no reasonIf you would have asked me yesterday about this blue lives and black lives matter issue my response would have been very positive. Today on the other hand I have so much anger and hate that I don’t like myself.”


There are many signals of deception in her post.  

a.  Follow her pronouns.  A home invasion will produce very personal language and the pronoun "I" is expected.  She begins her post with the need to "not be alone" with her statement.  This is a very strong signal that something is amiss.  By itself, it is not enough to conclude deception, but something posted this so soon after a home invasion should begin with the pronoun "I"

b.  Note the need to 'share' (guilt) with "we" were sleeping after we awoke.  Generally, one wakes up a bit differently than the other and this is expected in language from "I work up" to "my husband and I woke up..." because it is often at different times, even if only momentarily.  

c.  Note "not only" begins in the negative;

d.  Note "house" and not "home" as "home" is the safety place.  This would be something consistent with a home invasion but the context is introduced and surrounded by the activity of sleeping.  We "sleep" in our homes.  "Home" is where safety, sleep and food sustain life.  That she began with "wake" and followed "our house" with "sleep", it is not expected. 

e.  "our house" continues the sharing theme in something frightening, especially from a female subject.  In context of this statement the need to not be alone is already evidenced in the statement.  Other times it is indicative of a possible divorce, or the inclusion of others living in the home, including relatives or renters.  

f.  Motive for Writing:   note the inclusion of the reason:  "for no reason" attempts conceals the motive. "for no reason" would be false:  it would be for "BLM terroristic" reasons, but she is telling us something about herself:  this is not for BLM reasons."  She has come very close to a "Statement Analysis Confession" 

g.  note the important (and strong) change to "me" from "we" as a change of emotion :  This means the analyst should take notice of that which is going to now come from "me" as more important than what "we" produced. 

What does she tell us?

She introduces "me" because she is now going to reveal herself:

1.  She has anger

2.  She has hate

3.  She has self loathing 

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated as the author of the Facebook post reveals herself as the author of the vandalism and false reporting of robbery.  

This post is not about a home invasion, but it is about her and how close she has come to a confession. 

She has shown her emotions and her self loathing reveals knowledge that what she has done is wrong and self destructive.  

By negating the motive as "BLM" racism, she tells us that there is another "reason" or motive, outside of "BLM."  

Please note that police now suspect that financial motive is behind the criminal reporting. 

"Fake Hate" crime trend continues to increase dramatically as "Victim Status Mentality" continues to gain popularity in our culture.  

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Human Resources: Violence in Language

In our training, we look at specific language that is associated with Domestic Violence from both the perpetrator's perspective and the language of victims.  

We seek to discern, as early as possible, within the language, the potential for violence in our work on Employment Analysis.  

We have specific indicators and direct questions and exercises to weed out those who pose a risk of violence when they apply for law enforcement, as one inappropriate officer tarnishes the reputation of the whole.  

Trends and Culture 

A 10 year old boy punched a 70 year old woman in the jaw, so hard, that she went unconscious as she hit the sidewalk.  When questioned why he did this, he told police it was a new "game" he and his friends play and "lots of kids do it."

The game? "Polar Bear Knock Out" where black youths deliberately target elderly white victims.  The "polar bear" refers to the gray hair of the victim, interestingly enough, as ancient Scripture calls for specific honor given to those of advanced age.  

The desensitization of such youths came from somewhere.  

Where do youths sometimes get the notion of humiliating others?

In sports, "unsportsmanlike conduct" was specifically conduct meant to humiliate a defeated foe.  Celebration is normal, expected, and a release of tension (hormonal increase) from competition, yet, by refusing to allow taunting the defeated, sports used to teach self control. 

Which athlete is more likely to assault his wife or girlfriend?

Athletes are competitive, and competition, itself, is not only good, but necessary for society and confidence building.  Due to high levels of competition, domestic violence among professional athletes is at a much higher rate than other professions. 

Which athlete would you consider more likely to restrain his own temper and avoid using violence as an outlet to release pressure, athlete A or athlete B?

Athlete A scores a touch down, turns to the one of whom he just broke a tackle, and begins to "trash talk", grab his own crotch, and dance above the fallen foe. 

Athlete B scores a touch down and jumps into the arms of his fellow teammate, but upon seeing the possibly injured foe, leans over to offer a hand in getting up. 

Both athletes poured tremendous effort into overcoming the tremendous and violent effort of the defensive player who sought, by all means, to stop him.  

Both athletes had the same hormonal rush of adrenaline and testosterone. 

Now take Athlete A and Athlete B and put them both, separately, in high speed chases where a dangerous suspect is now putting Officer  A and Officer B's lives at risk. 

Driving at incredible speeds, both are on high alert.  

Both are using their training skills to maintain control over their vehicles. 

Both have tremendous rushes of hormones, including 'fight or flight' and are engaging in a 'fight' for their own lives and the lives of innocent citizens. 

Both are doing the jobs they accepted upon employment. 

When each gets out of their car, they now will handcuff the submissive perpetrator. 

Which officer, A or B is more likely to expend the tremendous tension via unwarranted violence?

Which officer will be able to control himself, the one who learned early in life that no matter how much exuberance he felt, he had to show respect to the defeated foe, or the other?


Things such as "self control", "reliability", "humility" and "personal responsibility" are dismissed by some as "old school", while for others, it is distinctly dismissed as "racist"; particularly those who call this "restorative justice"; that is, somehow, the victim deserved the assault, and this "balances the scales of justice" for wrongs perceived, including those of hundreds of years ago.  

When the violence is committed, media may seek to hide its elements, as we saw in the recent flash mob attack outside Temple University.  Elsewhere, violence is blamed on police.  Deception obfuscates truth.  

That we have become a violent nation, or a violent world, isn't in debate.  How we got there is not debated often enough, while "what can we do to fix it?" is.

But we live in the here and now, and for the Human Resources professional, who has clients or customers or patients at risk, screening out potentially violent employees is the present concern.

Yet, it is the culture of violence that should be explored in the interview process in order to learn if a potential hire poses a risk to others.

I instituted Analytical Interviewing at a company that had experienced severe violence, where one victim, unable to speak, was left for dead, and police had already forwarded a report to the coroner's office.  The victim, however, survived.  I was asked, "Can you help?"

Analytical Interviewing is interviewing from Statement Analysis.  You must learn Statement Analysis first, and then practice, hands on, in the legally sound, non-coercion manner of Analytical Interviewing.


Another expression that has a wide gulf is, "I'm going to kill you" in speech.

"Let me borrow your shoes or I am going to kill you" versus the threat found within domestically violent situations.

Research and my own experiences in D/V show that the best predictor of D/V is not just history (often quoted, and, via data, wisely so) but also language.

Note that threats of violence should always be taken seriously, and must come within the realm of:

Decoding one's personal, internal, subjective dictionary:

Especially by not only those in charge of hiring, but of therapists, counselors, social workers and medical professionals.

Does the subject use phrases connected to violence?

In particular, does the subject use words connected to violence when he speaks of non-violent scenarios or situations?

Does he "knock out" or "slaughter" his friends in video games?  (substitute "knock out" for any of a hundred expressions).  This takes careful listening, just as "terrified" and "kill you" can be dismissed as hyperbole.  You must seek out a pattern of similes, for example, and what the subject reaches to, in his vocabulary, to ascertain risk.

Does he listen to, or quote, musical lyrics in which women are degraded, objectified, or even referenced with violent lyrics?

Ask questions about his friends, specifically targeting areas in which you learn about how his friends treat their wives and girlfriends.

Who does he admire?

Why does he admire so and so?

Heroes may not be, today, what you and I think they were, yesteryear.

Seek out areas in which the subject has been in some form of competition.  Now, focus in on what his reaction to victory was.

Did he gloat?
Did he boast?

or...

Did he show any empathy towards the loser?

Athletes are highly competitive and you must learn what their reaction is towards the loser.  This is critical.  ESPN has glorified violence and unsportsmanlike behavior, which means that agents will encourage athletes to "stop the camera's movement" and have it focus in on the player, specifically, while he taunts his opponent.  That ESPN highlight clip may translate to money for the agent and the player, even while it teaches unsportsmanlike conduct to the children watching.

We use sports scenarios in interviewing to discern between normal, competitive language and those who actually enjoy violence.  

Those who are sexually aroused by violence pose the highest threat.  


Your job as an interviewer is to de-code the internal, subjective and very personal dictionary of the subject.  This includes gender, race, culture, education, age, and so on, as factors into his language.  At this point, you are just listening and asking him to clarify, and define.  Do not assume to know even slang.  Ask the subject about the word, and allow him to explain.

Does the subject actually feel (expressed in empathetic language)  what the consequence of violence upon another is like?

You are an observer and not seeking, at this point, to enter into his language.

You are just listening.

Question:  Who should screen for violence?

Answer:  Who shouldn't?

The question is so sensitive that it requires a rhetorical question to explore if there is anyone that should not be on alert for violence. 



Parents,  teachers, professionals of all sort, and anyone who cares to protect others, particularly those incapable of protecting themselves.  

Training is necessary.  

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Perry Noble Mea Culpa

Perry Noble posted a public statement on Facebook.  This presupposes that readers will have an opinion on it, just as all public statements do.  

Do you believe him?

Do you doubt his words?

Why was Perry Noble fired from his church where he gained great wealth and numerical success?  Here, he and his counselor "both" felt that it would be "beneficial" to "share these things", with himself being the primary beneficiary, and his audience being secondary.  

What is his motive for writing?  

Is it, as stated, to benefit him and to keep others from making the same mistakes, should they find themselves in a position of wealth and power?

Or, as some say, it is a form of petitioning for his job back?  


First of all, I want to thank each one of you who have sent a letter or card, left a comment on a social media channel or seen me in public and stopped to offer some encouragement - to say I have appreciated your kind words would be a dramatic understatement. 

Where one begins an open statement is a priority, and sometimes even the reason for writing.  He begins with thanking "each one of you" who:
a.  sent a letter or card
b.  left a comment on social media
c.  saw him in public 

To these each, for him to say he appreciates their kind words would be a "dramatic understatement."  To say he appreciates that which he "thanked" would be not only "understatement" but it would be "dramatic."

We note the use of the words:

"understatement"

"drama "

as part of his priority.  

To "understate" something is to report less than what is accurate.  

We note the inclusion of "drama" within reporting less, with "drama" having emotional impact of story telling.  It is an interesting choice of words to open his statement with, and we consider their employment as we progress through the statement.  


Several people have asked how I am doing and have asked for an update. 

Of the above category, there was in the inclusion lastly listed those who saw him in public.  Now we have only "several" people asking for an update.  Were these who saw him in public?  Or, were there this number (several) who asked him in private?

With a reported weekly attendance of 32,000, only "several" people inquired how he was doing? 

As we consider "understatement", it is interesting to note one of both fame and fortune to only have "several" people ask him for an update on how he is doing.  

Did he answer them?
Did he tell them "wait until I post it publicly"?  

They "asked" for an update, but he does not report giving an update.  


I spent last week with my counselor and was able to make major progress towards healing. 

We note here, "last week" specifically, the distance reported between himself and his counselor.  He did not say "My counselor and I..." but used the word "with" to separate himself from his counselor.  That the counselor is unnamed in an incomplete social introduction is interesting. Though some wish for confidentiality (which is appropriate)   a counselor to a wealthy and famous client benefits from publicity.  

As we consider "understatement" and "dramatic", we now note the progress towards healing was "major" in his description.  

What the subject relates is "towards" healing.  He did not report receiving healing but uses the directional "towards", that is, to point in a specific direction forward.  We will keep the forward direction in mind, along with the other words he introduced.  


In meeting with him,

Here we have unnecessary repetition for the meeting, but he also doubles down on the distance:  "with" him.  

What has caused distance between the subject and the counselor?

We seek an answer in the language and continue to listen.  


 he helped me to dive in and discover the areas where I clearly dropped the ball. 



After we discussed this he and I both felt it 

Here we have insight into the distancing language of the subject in relation to the counselor:  the word "both" is an unnecessary emphasis that follows the element of time and unity. 

1.  After
2.  "we" expresses unity 

This is then followed by the unnecessary emphasis with "both."
Instead of writing, "After we discussed this we felt..." or even "after we discussed this he and I felt..."

We have the pronoun "we" changing to "he and I", with the additional 'calling in the troops' (weakness) with the unnecessary word "both."

This followed the repetition of the psychological distancing language of "with" he used. 

This is to strongly suggest:  the counselor likely did not want him making this public post. 

Few counselors would.  

Yet in dealing with a wealthy client, the counselor will have little influence over one who is used to getting his way.  "With the rich and mighty, always a little patience."  

The counselor may recognize how quickly he will no longer be the counselor should he press the issue.  

In dealing with an alcoholic, for example, counselors know how deeply deceptive they are, including denial so as to facilitate the very return that some suspect this post is about.  Slowing down the dramatic claims of "healing" are vital. I don't know of a counselor who, if not seeking publicity, would advise a new client to go public.  He was fired from his job three months ago and his claim to his reason for being fired is coming up in the statement.  

The language suggests that the distance was caused by disagreement, and the specific need for emphasizing unity at the cost of the intuitive pronoun tells us of the lack of unity.  


would be beneficial to share these things as it helps in my healing process - but also so that some of you will not make the same mistakes that I did. 

The claim made, without the unity of the counselor, is that by telling people on Facebook the things that caused his termination of gainful employment would benefit the subject, himself.  This may be seen as narcissistic, but there is more:

The word "but" refutes or minimizes this claim.  

He lists himself first, yet refutes this with the word "but" signaling that the information which follows the word "but" is to be elevated above that which preceded it.  

What is his own healing compared to?

That others in like minded situations (like a wealthy CEO of a popular company) might not make the same mistakes and get fired like he did. 

He now is going to reveal the "mistakes" he made which led him to being terminated from his position of both authority and wealth.  

He begins with the word "Honestly", which is a habit of deceptive people who now "really" want to be believed.  It signals that not all of his statements, in particular, those that do not begin with "honestly", may not be truthful. 

Honestly, the list is probably a lot longer than just four things; 

This statement is likely to be truthful, particularly in context of comparison with other claims. 

Here, he gives his four reasons for being fired, while telling us that there are a lot more reasons than just these four.  

This statement should be believed.  


however, 

Note that he does not use "but", which is stronger than "however." This word is used as a word signaling less comparison (not minimization nor rebuttal) but coincidental.  



these are the areas where I have clearly identified making 

Please note the absence of the counselor in "clear" identification of "EXTREMELY" (recall the word "drama") unwise decisions (recall the word "understatement") at this point. 




EXTREMELY unwise decisions

The capitalization is his.  

Note as "Pastor P", he does not call these "sins", that is, "transgressions" but "unwise" decisions.  The decisions he made were "EXTREMELY" unwise (his emphasis) but not necessarily sins. 

The reader/analyst should consider the opening use of the word "understatement" by the subject.  


1 - I chose isolation over community

Order reveals priority.  

As we seek to learn why a millionaire was fired from his job, we view his priority and description.  "Isolation" is the number one, worst thing he has done, which he now states to reveal to help you avoid making the same mistake.  Consider the word "understatement" as now thematic.  It was chosen deliberately. These are not the four EXTREMELY unwise decisions that he and his counselor came up with, but he takes strong ownership of them himself.  

Question:  Why was he terminated from his position?
Answer:  he chose isolation over community. 

The word "isolation" should be carefully considered.  

I was a hypocrite - I preached, "you can't do life alone" and then went out and lived the opposite. 

He no longer considers himself a "hypocrite."  This is in the past tense verb.  

He would not have been fired had he not made the "extremely unwise decision" to be more isolated than community orientated.  

One must now consider that, in context, the religious leader is avoiding using the word "sin", even though he invokes the word "Scripture", with no commandment that says

"Thou shalt not choose isolation."

Therefore, the reader/analyst should consider what sins, crimes or "extremely unwise decisions" were involved while the subject was alone.  


Yes, the Scriptures do say we should seek solitude from time to time. 
However, solitude is refreshing, isolation is destructive. 
Isolation is where self pity dominated my thinking, thus justifying my abuse of alcohol. 

Now the entrance of "abuse of alcohol" enters while he is "isolated" and feeling pity for himself. 

This does not tell us what "sin" was committed, while abusing alcohol, alone, that would lead him to be terminated from employment.  

This may shed light as to why his counselor, did not want this public posting, at least initially:  not only is the impact to strengthen the deceptive denial for the subject himself, but it is also a minimization of substance abuse impact where others involved in alcohol abuse may be encouraged to do the same. 

In this sense, it is self, first, which leans towards self-promotion and seeking back his employment.  

If his board were to be interviewed as to why they terminated his employment, would any say,

"Because he had too many beers sitting alone, feeling sorry for himself?"

It is not likely.  

Yet, this is his response, and it is the first response indicating his priority in setting forth his reasons for being terminated.  This would not be helpful to recovering alcoholics, but could impact them negatively, should they take seriously his 'advice' in helping others 'avoid' his mistakes.  

It may be that his counselor objected, not only for the sake of the subject himself, but ethically, for others.  In fact, as he uses the words "self pity", we should now note the inclusion of the word "pity" as part of his statement. 

We now look to see if "pity" is repeated, either by word or theme, leading to the question:  

Is the subject seeking to manipulate his audience emotionally? 

Isolation is where self-doubt dominated my emotions, causing me to believe I just could not carry the weight anymore, and alcohol was necessary for me to make it through another day. 

Here we find:

a.  the avoidance of "sin" in any form
b.  a call for his audience to pity him.   They should pity him because, in spite of his great numerical and financial success, he had "self doubt" and if this is not enough reason to pity him, he gives the detail:

"I just could not carry the weight anymore..."

This invokes empathy from the reader, while avoiding the confession of sin or transgression.  Keep in mind the religious context and invocation of Scripture.  

He continues the theme of "isolation" and now introduces something new found within isolation:  

Isolation is where self-hatred dominated my mentality - I hated myself, literally HATED myself for doing what I was doing, but believed the lie that this was just the way things were and there was no way it could ever get better. 

Here is where the missing information begins to take form.  

What he was "doing" was something he used "isolation" to do, and it was something that caused him to "hate" himself for "what I was doing."

One should consider the homo-erotic language he employed at the "memorial" service of Amanda Blackburn. There, he spoke less of Amanda and more of Davey Blackburn's physical attractiveness.  View the specific language he chose to employ at the public setting:   

" Davey’s the kind of guy that I didn’t like when I was in school ‘cuz he’s beautiful. He’s a beautiful man, and if you’re a man you know exactly what I’m talking about. Like he walks in the room and he’s an athlete, and he’s chiseled, and he’s got that smile, and that little dimple thing and, he’s beautiful. 

The board of directors may have dealt with SSA pornography or activity on his part, which he may now blame alcohol on.  

As one considers the context:  Amanda Blackburn brutally murdered and now being memorialized by a "Christian pastor", the expectation would remain:

a.  Speaking of the resurrection of Christ
b.  Remembering the Godly love Amanda Blackburn had for Christ

as principle themes. 

The resurrection of Christ was not mentioned, and Amanda Blackburn was only given a passing introduction, but no follow through.  

Instead, he used specific homosexual attraction in language instead of either of the two expected themes.  

Therefore:  It is a dominant trait within him, one in which, even in the most extreme settings as a murder, he was incapable of controlling.  

This desire would need confidentiality to be indulged in.  It would need:   


I chose isolation - 

He gives it the privacy he wants it to have, and has alcohol as a ready made excuse for that which provoked self loathing.  



all the while knowing that a strong community of people who really loved me would rally around me and walk with me through the valley I was in. 
Hebrews 10:24-25 were memory verses I knew, but not life verses I applied--and the results were devastating. 

2 - I chose alcohol over Lucretia and Charisse
This one hurts so bad! 

Yet, it is number 2 on the list, but still we note the names given include his wife.  

Lucretia and I, like so many couples, have faced challenges in our marriage for many years. After a season of walking through these challenges I became discouraged and, instead of asking for help, began to overmedicate on alcohol. 

Note that this unnamed sin is known by her and there was, in the least, a "season" where he "walked through these challenges" that led him to:

"overmedicate" on alcohol. 

That is to say that alcohol is "medicine"  and that he only used too much medicine.  

This, too, shows the minimization (understatement) as well as his flair for the dramatic.  


At first it was once or twice a week; however, over time it literally became something I "had to have" every evening. 
I was sick - deceived by sin, alcohol and myself. 

In just 3 months, his declaration of healing.  This is not supported by a wide body of research into alcoholic treatment.

The shifting of blame, the minimization and the short period of time should all be considered together.  

Note order:  "sin, alcohol and myself" with "myself" listed last as who or what is deceiving him.  


I justified this by saying I needed it to take the edge off, to help me relax, to help me deal with the pressure at home. Honestly, I knew the entire time I was using it as an excuse to zone out at home, thus causing me to neglect my role as a husband and a father. 

Alcohol, not sin, caused him to neglect his role as "husband" (see above) and "father." 
Note past tense continues.    It is now a distant memory: 


As I look back on making this foolish exchange, waves of self condemnation crash into my soul. 

The seeking of pity from his intended audience:  "waves of self condemnation"

This is strong language for one who only 


I know I've been forgiven for the sin, but I must now deal with the consequences. 
Lucretia and I both love each other and are really trying to make our marriage work. Your continued prayers are so appreciated. 

Note the unnecessary emphasis of "both" used again.  

But, before I move on let me beg married couples...please don't to cease fighting for your marriage by investing your time and attention into other things. Maybe it's not alcohol, maybe it's a hobby, or porn, or friendships...or even your kids. Take it from me - the temporary feeling of relief is not worth the long term pain of the consequences. 

He could produce any list of things that take attention:  he chose to include "porn" in his language.  Note he uses the shorter, familiar term, "porn", and not the more formal and distant "pornography."  

3 - I chose control over relationships
I was "successful" at work, I wasn't successful at home, so I chose to put more and more time into a place where I felt like I was in control rather than addressing the out of control area of my life. 

He was fired for working too hard; being too dedicated...

When my family and I would go on vacation, I would "control" my schedule and not actually enjoy the vacation with them because I had to make sure I got up early, got in a workout, had a quiet time and answered emails. Doing so allowed me to feel "in control" of the day - and now, looking back, I realize how out of control I really was. Because of this type of behavior I missed spending time with my girls, choosing instead to answer emails, none of which I can recall. What I pretended was important was only an illusion. 
For those who struggle with control - it's my prayer you will understand (as I am understanding) that control is the biggest illusion in the universe. We do not control when we were born, who our parents are, where we were born, the weather, the stock market, the maniac drivers out on the road or the day we step into eternity. 
It's in this season I am really beginning to understand and embrace what Jesus said in Matthew 5:3 (MSG) - "You're blessed when you're at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and His rule." 

Former members report a history of changing Scripture, including the Ten Commandments.  If the subject holds to Divine origin of Scripture, it is akin to making himself equal to Divinity. 

4 - I chose silence over crying out for help
I was hurting, deeply hurting. 

The use of drama and manipulation may be precisely why his counselor objected to this posting.  
His former followers would have to be 'heartless' to not want the subject to "cry out for help" and they would not be fulfilling their Christian duties if they did not seek to help someone "hurting, deeply hurting..."

This may also be intended to provoke a split between the board and the congregation.  He may push the board to reveal more information about the termination which could lead to a lawsuit, further ripping the church apart. 

In doing so I allowed sinful thoughts to exponentially multiply in my mind, thus impacting my mind in ways that were both destructive and harmful. I believed the deceptive lies the enemy would whisper to me such as, "no one will understand," or, "you are the only one who has this issue," or, "if you tell people what's really going on they will abandon you." 
If you are in a bad place, I mean you are living through hell on earth - my prayer for you is you would make the immediate decision to tell someone ASAP. Because, you are not the only one, people will not abandon you, and, believe it or not, more people will understand than you could ever imagine. 
However, I chose to remain silent which propelled me with light speed towards the coping mechanism of alcohol abuse. 
Asking for help is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of strength. I was weak--I did not ask for help, and the end result was a train wreck. What happened to me doesn't have to happen to you - you can ask for help today. 
Once more, thanks to everyone who has offered prayers, support and encouragement as I've journeyed through this. 

What's next? I'm not quite sure - 

Note that "sure" is qualified by "quite", indicating he is "sure" of what is next, but only not "quite", that is, in specific detail.  It would be interesting to compare this sentence with what Scripture says about "tomorrow."  

I'm praying about this as well as seeking the counsel of others whom I deeply love, respect and know love me. I will keep you guys posted. 

He is with a counselor, of whom the language indicates did not agree with this post.  

He now reveals that he is seeking the counsel of "others"; and he identifies these favorably:  "I deeply love, respect and "know me."

Rather than objectivity, he only seeks those who "know me" and of whom he is favorably disposed:  "I deeply love, respect..."

This is a public message meant to be read by them.  


And for those who are at NewSpring - I want to say, once more, I am so sorry I let you down. Being the pastor of NewSpring Church was one of the greatest privileges of my life. The things we got to see Jesus do over the past 16 years were simply miraculous. 

In Scripture, a "miracle" is a suspension of the laws of nature, itself.  "We" got to see things that were both "simple" and "miraculous" (a contradiction in terms) took place during the "past 16 years"; that is:

miracles happened when he was there, as to say,

"don't you want to see miracles return?"  

He puts himself into the orchestration of suspensions of the last nature.  


It was an honor to stand beside you as we got to see Jesus to way more than we ever asked for or imagined - Godspeed to you as you continue to do whatever it takes to reach people far from God. 
Pastor P

While he was present, "Jesus" did "way more" than "we" asked or even "imagined."

Is "Jesus" no longer doing those things?   

As to "whatever it takes", this is the pragmatic view towards money making and numerical success practiced, sold, merchandized and marketed, including the change of Scripture, and powerful, ego-driven manipulations.  

This is the mentor behind murder victim Amanda Blackburn's husband, Davey Blackburn, and his insatiable drive for numerical success. 

"Whatever it takes" is to not be bound to Scriptural or Ecclesiastical norms or settings.  


Analysis Conclusion:

Perry Noble is not truthful about why he was terminated from Newspring.  

He uses drama to influence and minimization, which in his language is "understatement" to avoid any direct confession of his own faults; even as he shifts responsibility.  Had he simply been "overmedicating" with alcohol, he would have been given time off and sent to rehabilitation services; the finest money can purchase, to rebuild both physical and mental health. 

Perry Noble gives indication of possible same sex attraction in his "challenges" while "isolated", though this may be known to his wife.  

He likely posted this against the initial objection of his counselor, and as to his motive:

He is seeking his employment status to be returned to him by persuading his followers, rather than the board, to pity and accept him, even though his posting may bring harm to the church, and even to recovering alcoholics.  As this pressure continues, the board may be forced to publicly defend their decision, which could provoke the narcissistic reaction of a law suit against them, further damaging the church. 

Noble seeks to rush through a process of confronting alcohol abuse and uses it as a means of blame shifting, from himself, as a cover for other issues the board is likely aware of.  

The narcissistic drive that former members have oft cited, continues.  It does not appear that the counselor is making any progress or has any tangible influence over him.  Personality disorders are managed, with consequences mitigated, more than "healed."  

He wants the reader to believe that years and years of patterned inappropriate behavior are gone in 3 months.  This should be understood in light of the word "miracle" used above, in the context of "drama" and "understatement" as well.  

The subject uses language that strongly suggests life long deception and manipulation and knows exactly how to sound penitent in order to manipulate.  As he reveals the hole in his marriage, it is likely that his wife is not deceived.  

It is not likely that many counselors, both faith based and secular, would agree with his public statement.  

The language reveals a very troubled man; one who has little connection to self honesty and reality.  

It is difficult and unfair to blame the counselor of a wealthy, "controlling" man because counsel is dismissed and can be simply replaced with another who "knows me" and can, therefore, be manipulated.  

Noble is self driven and his blind ambition could end up bringing more turmoil, division and ultimate loss to others.  This is what the narcissist does:  he does not 'let it go' for the good of others.  He must be "front and center" and is the proverbial drowning swimmer who grabs the lifeguard rescuer, and drowns both himself and the lifeguard.  

His motive for posting  is his return to fame and fortune and he uses "drama", "understatement" and deception to do so.   A man of immense wealth, he could retire quietly and spend time with his family, or he could obtain honest work where he would willfully exercise self discipline and seek to rebuild his life. 

His posting shows no entertainment of such.  

This is the man emulated by murder victim Amanda Blackburn's husband. 

"Whatever it takes" is a frightening pragmatic worldview where the ends justify the means.