Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating *plausible* explanations of how they arrived at an answer to a question. However, these explanations can misrepresent the model's "reasoning" process, i.e., they can be *unfaithful*. This, in turn, can lead to over-trust and misuse. We introduce a new approach for measuring the faithfulness of LLM explanations. First, we provide a rigorous definition of faithfulness. Since LLM explanations mimic human explanations, they often reference high-level *concepts* in the input question that purportedly influenced the model. We define faithfulness in terms of the difference between the set of concepts that the LLM's *explanations imply* are influential and the set that *truly* are. Second, we present a novel method for estimating faithfulness that is based on: (1) using an auxiliary LLM to modify the values of concepts within model inputs to create realistic counterfactuals, and (2) using a hierarchical Bayesian model to quantify the causal effects of concepts at both the example- and dataset-level. Our experiments show that our method can be used to quantify and discover interpretable patterns of unfaithfulness. On a social bias task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations hide the influence of social bias. On a medical question answering task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations provide misleading claims about which pieces of evidence influenced the model's decisions.