|
Theophostic:
God’s Light or Satan’s Lie?
CCG Ministries’ Chairman, and senior pastor of the Thornlie Church of
Christ, Rob Furlong, has carefully examined and evaluated one of the
‘latest’ Christian counselling ‘fads’ sweeping through a number of
churches (across various denominations). Several people were interested
in introducing Theophostic counselling at Rob’s church, and so his
evaluation, from a Biblical perspective, was more than just a theoretical
interest. His report raises serious issues for Christian leaders
considering this approach for their church:
Is real change possible?
Why am I always struggling with the same
sin/s?
How can I ever forgive that person?
Who is responsible for the mess I have
made of my life?
Most Pastors and Christian workers will
tell you that these questions, in one form or another, have been put to
them in their ministry by people struggling with problems in life. Dr. Ed
M. Smith, a trained Christian counsellor in the U.S. claims to have
unlocked the door that answers these questions with a ministry he has
founded called, ‘Theophostic’.
What is Theophostic?
This is best understood by reading what
Theophostic says about itself. The following is taken from the
official Theophostic website:
‘Welcome to the web
site of Theophostic Ministries!
Our Christian
Counseling Ministry has achieved a dynamic breakthrough with thousands
around the world reporting incredible results.
Thousands of Pastors,
Professional Counselors, and Lay Counselors world-wide have found our
training program to be highly effective with:
Sexual Abuse Issues
Marital Issues
Substance Abuse and
other addictive behaviors
Traumatic memory
Post traumatic stress
syndrome
Grief and Loss
Eating Disorders
Children's issues
Dissociative Disorders
(DID)
Homosexuality
Satanic Ritual Abuse
(SRA)
All lie-based issues’
‘Theo (God) Phostic
(light) is a Divinely powerful and thoroughly biblical approach to
counselling Ministry. Theophostic Ministry is not a spin-off of any other
traditional approach to counselling. It should not be confused with any
other accelerated form of therapy. It is based on the words of Jesus who
said, “when the son of Man sets you free, you shall be free indeed!” (Jn.
8:36)
Theophostic Ministry
believes a person's present emotional pain comes from the
misinterpretations (lies) embedded in their memories and not from the
memories themselves. For example, an incest victim feels shame not because
she was molested but because she may believe it was her fault (the lie).
Theophostic Ministry
recognises that we can only “act as far as we can think”. Our behaviour is
limited to the data stored in the mind. Therefore, in order to act
differently we must be “renewed in our minds.” This renewal must go
beyond the cognitive passing of information from counsellor to counselled
as seen in most Christian counselling. Only the Spirit of the Living Lord
Jesus can set us free of the lies we experientially believe.
Theophostic principles
understand present behaviour to be drawn from “experiential knowledge”
(that which we have actually experienced) and not from logical truth (data
believed as truth but never realised through experience). Theophostic
Ministry is about renewing the mind at the experiential level of
consciousness.
Theophostic Ministry
recognises that every emotional pain in the present has an origin, source
and beginning. It believes that emotional pain is rooted in this original
historical faulty thinking. Therefore, unless the person is able to
return to the original memory event where the lie was first embedded, true
release of the emotional pain in the present will not occur.
The key to Theophostic
Ministry’s effectiveness is its ability to quickly uncover and identify
such early embedded lies and lead the wounded person to the place where he
is able to receive a direct word from the Spirit of Christ.
Theophostic Ministry
recognises that counsel based on logic and reason will not result in true
release of the pain one carries from historical woundedness. Cognitive
approaches require the individual to exert continuous self-effort toward
freedom with little or no lasting results. Theophostic Ministry requires
the person to feel, identify the original lie and receive truth from God.
Theophostic ministry
recognises the futility of trying to talk a person out of their false
belief and talking them into a new belief system and acknowledges that
apart from a direct word from the Spirit of Christ, nothing significant
will ever happen.
Theophostic Ministry
acknowledges that Jesus is the only one who can truly release the wounded
from their emotional/mental bondage. Theophostic (God’s Light) is all
about the Lord Jesus.’ 1
In
light of the preceding quoted comments, let’s compare Theophostic with the
Bible.
The ‘Parking Space’ illustration:
Dr. Smith describes a situation that we
have most likely all experienced: you are at a Shopping Centre, about to
park your car, when someone else sneaks in and steals your spot. In
response, you explode into violent anger. Ed Smith clearly states that
your anger is not the result of what has just happened – you are, in fact,
reacting to a lie you believed in the memory of a past event.2
Lies, lies and damned lies!
Let me explain in a little more detail
what I mean here. According to Smith, the problems that we experience in
life are the result of a lie that we have believed at the time of some
traumatic event back in our past. In short, we experience emotional pain
in the present because of the lie we believed at the time of the
trauma in the past.
Smith asserts that the trauma itself is
not the issue. The real problem is the lie that Satan plants in your head
at the time of the trauma. What this amounts to is, that for an incest or
gang rape victim, their problem is not really the actual event, it is the
lie planted in their minds at the time of the event. Eg. ‘You’re
worthless’ or ‘you deserve this.’ While I understand that people who are
victims of these types of traumas are not magically ‘healed’ by simply
re-visiting the event, I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that Ed
Smith minimises the trauma by unduly emphasising and exalting the
lie.
A further problem also presents itself:
how does one know when they have the right memory event? Fortunately, if
you believe Ed Smith, he has answers for this also.
He claims that some people are healed by
Theophostic but later return because they still feel ‘yuk’. What you must
do then is identify the type of lie you are dealing with. It could be a
metamorphic lie (a lie that has been dealt with but has tricked you
into thinking it’s still true!) or a cluster lie (different lies
like feelings of shame or fear or loneliness but all linked to the
same past event). There are memory linked lies, guardian
lies, splinter lies, osmatic lies and even thematic
lies! For a system that promotes itself on the premise that it’s
‘effectiveness is
[in]
its ability to quickly uncover and identify such early embedded lies…’,
it becomes extremely complicated and rapidly so!!
Whatever happened to personal choice,
responsibility and accountability for our actions? If your response is
the result of a lie tied to a past memory event how do you know when you
have the right event? And where do you stop? When you arrive at one
memory event, who is to say you should not go back to yet another before
that…and another…ad infinitum? Surely we cannot write everything off as
the result of lies believed because of past memories. I know many people
are dysfunctional but we must be careful to not merely assign all sinful
responses to the realm of
‘lies and past
memories’.
Moreover, this type of teaching is
similar to a theology that floats around some Churches whereby it is
demons, not lies, which are responsible for everything. Thus we have
demons of lust, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, etc. In both scenarios,
whether it is demons or lies that are blamed, personal accountability and
responsibility are largely and often completely, ignored.
The sin issue:
It is in the area of Ed Smith’s teaching
on sin that major concerns are raised. Initially Smith starts out well:
‘When
I use the word sin, I am referring to any behaviour we engage in as a
result of choices we make which are less than God’s ideal desire for our
lives.’ 3
But
then he quickly gets off track:
‘These
choices are not always from an evil or immoral motive but often from vain
attempts to relieve ourselves of our pain.’
4
In
fact, he even goes so far as to say that he has reached the point in his
thinking where he believes
‘that sin is a
by-product of faulty thinking.’
5
Whatever you might think of Theophostic,
you cannot make a statement like this line up with the Biblical definition
of sin. Rom. 3:23 (which Smith also quotes) is unambiguous when it says
that ‘all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’
To fall short of God’s glory is not the
‘by-product of faulty
thinking.’ It is the result of
our wilful rejection of the commandments of God. Furthermore, the Bible
sees sin as something that is deeply ingrained into us. Jesus Himself
said, ‘That
which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from
within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts
and fornications, thefts, murders, adulterers…’
(Mark 7:20 & 21; see also vv. 22 & 23, emphasis mine).
Smith’s understanding of sin is so
fundamentally flawed that even he acknowledges the radical nature of what
he is teaching. As he addresses his audience on Video Tape 2 of the
training series for Theophostic, Smith announces,
‘Some of you will
struggle theologically with this…’
He then states,
‘The first step in the
sin process is not sin…it is deception. We sin because we are deceived.’
James, the brother of Jesus, sees it
quite differently. He says that we are tempted because we are
‘carried away and
enticed’ by our own lust. Lust
conceives and gives birth to sin and the result is death (see James
1:14-15). The Biblical picture is the antithesis of Smith’s teaching.
For Smith, sin is the
‘by-product of faulty
thinking.’ The Bible says sin
is the deliberate rejection (by us) of the righteous standards of a Holy
God. I could go on, but I trust you are getting the picture.
What is sin? Paul acknowledges that
Christians still sin but he also forthrightly demonstrates that the
Christian has died to sin and sin is no longer our master. We are
therefore to consider ourselves dead to sin and in response, offer
ourselves back to God for Him to work in us and through us His
righteousness (cf. Rom. 6:1-14). In fact, speaking of his own struggle
with sin, Paul clearly states that his failure is the result of
‘sin living in
me...’ (Rom. 7:20) and not
the believing of a lie resulting from the memory of a past event.
‘Works Based Salvation’
Ed Smith constantly stresses that any
emphasis on us working at the Christian life constitutes a works based
salvation. You are left with a strong impression that there is nothing we
should do; otherwise it becomes
‘works based
salvation.’
But
what of:
(i)
‘...continue to work
out your salvation with fear and trembling…’
(Phil. 2:12)? Paul goes on to say that God is also at work in us
(v.13) i.e. in the Christian life we are to
‘work out what God has
worked in.’
(ii) the constant exhortations in
Scripture to
‘put on the new man’ because we
have put off the old man? (cf. Rom. 6:6-14; Eph. 4:17-32 & Col. 3:1-17. NB
especially the translation in the NASB). When you read these passages it
is very clear that we are responsible for co-operating with God in
the task of maturity and spiritual growth in our Christian lives. See
also: 1 Cor. 9:24-27, Heb. 4:14; 6:9-11 & 2 Pet. 1:5-8
Theophostic is extremely
pragmatic:
Ed Smith clearly infers the rightness
of Theophostic when he states,
‘It works!’
Pragmatism is that attitude that attributes value to something because it
has a good or positive effect upon people. So saying, Theophostic is good
and right because,
‘it works’,
on and with people. I have also had this stated to me on a number of
occasions. My response is simply, ‘Buddhism works for many people
too but that doesn’t make it right.’
In fact, Smith is at pains to drive home
the point that because Theophostic works, it must logically be right.
He states:
‘God
has given me these principles.’
6
‘I don’t know how all
Theophostic works…but I know it works.’
7
This
is the essence of pragmatism and it both plagues and ails the contemporary
Church. We no longer assess things by whether or not they reflect
Biblical truth but simply by the criterion of ‘Does it work?’
It is to our shame that we have become so un-discerning in our Lord’s
Church.
Attitude to the Word of God:
I am of the opinion that Theophostic
undermines the integrity and authority of the Word of God. Ed Smith draws
a sharp distinction between cognitive truth and experiential truth. He
states very strongly that no amount of cognitive truth/learning will ever
bring about change for people – this must happen at the experiential
level when, as Theophostic puts it, God’s
‘light’
shines in upon a person. Basically Smith is saying that you need the
experiential first before the cognitive will work.
What
about:
Rom.
12:1 & 2?
Paul clearly says that we are transformed
(metamorphosed) by
‘the renewing of’
our minds (v. 2).
This is the mind (cognitive) bringing about change (experientially).
2 John?
John’s letter is all about knowing
‘the truth’ (cognitive again) in order to live as Christians. This he
plainly says vv. 9 & 10. In all honesty, if I took Ed Smith literally, I
should never preach again, after all, what is the point of preaching the
truth of God to bring about life change when it can all be done through an
experience of God’s light shining into my life? The danger of this method
is that my experience now interprets the truth or otherwise of God’s Word
instead of the Word of God interpreting my experience.
‘It’s not counselling!’
Because of cases of mismanagement in the
U.S. there are now stern penalties placed upon counsellors, as well as
restrictions (In some, not all), U.S. States. This particularly applies
to lay counsellors and Pastors. Smith stated quite clearly in his lecture
that,
‘Theophostic is not counselling…you could legitimately stand up in a court
of law and say you were not counselling because it is Jesus who does all
the work.’ Quite frankly, I
find this to be misleading, dangerous and naïve. (Besides, their own
website repeatedly refers to Theophostic as
‘counselling’.)
Smith also states that he no longer does
any marriage counselling. In fact, there is no such thing as people with
marital problems…it is simply two dysfunctional people crashing against
each other! (I would like to know what the difference is). He also
declares that it is wrong to tell people to ‘work at’ their
marriage because this amounts to
‘works based salvation.
What about:
Eph. 5:22-33?
Col. 3:18-21?
1 Pet. 3:1-7?
Aren’t we being told to work at our
marriages?
‘Theophostic goes back to the
Early Church.’
i.e.
‘This is not
new…it has been around for 2000 years.’
If this is true, then why has Theophostic
only surfaced in the past few years? Are we to seriously believe that
this method has been/was ignored by: the instigators of the Reformation
(Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli); the leaders of great spiritual
revivals (Wesley, Edwards and in modern times, Graham)?
A Final Thought:
Two years ago a lady in my Church
approached me seeking my signature and endorsement to enable her to
undergo Theophostic training. I politely refused on the grounds that the
Elders of our Church were to have a presentation put to them regarding the
merits, etc. of Theophostic. I explained to her that it ‘would be
most unwise for me to endorse her until we, as Elders, had reached a
decision about Theophostic.’ 8
To cut a long story short, the lady
concerned undertook the training without my endorsement. She was advised
by those running the course to submit her application anyway and they
would ‘pray about it.’ Obviously she was accepted.
However, no one from Theophostic has ever contacted me to seek my
opinion, despite the fact that they clearly state that they require
the signature of the Pastor and two elders before a person can undergo
training. Quite frankly, this type of attitude lacks any integrity as far
as I am concerned and raises a huge question mark in my mind.
Ed Smith has stated,
‘Many believe
that if we would just repent our sin, confess it to God, and choose to
apply appropriate truth, we can walk in victory.’
9 I want to say that that is one thing that I can agree
with Ed Smith about. It sounds like a better plan to me rather than
embracing the web that is called ‘Theophostic’.
Footnotes
1. www. theophostic.com
2. Theophostic Ministry Basic Training Seminar; set of video
tapes; Session One: “Introduction”
3. Beyond Tolerable Recovery. Ed M. Smith, p. 218
4. ibid, p. 218
5. ibid, p. 219
6. Video Tape 2, Theophostic Ministry Basic Training Seminar.
7. ibid
8. It should be noted that earlier that same year we had endorsed two
men in our Church to undergo Theophostic training on the strict proviso
that this did not automatically guarantee its introduction into our
Church. Theophostic was new to us and we wanted time to look at it more
closely and to examine it in the light of Scripture.
R.
Furlong
Thornlie Church of Christ
|
