|
We here at EAEC felt the need to
address a rising ministry with questionable doctrine. Rather than try
and reinvent the wheel, this well written article is quite sufficient in
exposing the unscriptural doctrines of the Theophostic Ministry.
A
Biblical Evaluation of Theophostic Ministry
by the Staff of Community Evangelical Free Church
Elverson,
Pennsylvania
September 28, 2001
Please
note: This document is also available in a more printable .PDF
format
here.
Table
of Contents
"Theophostic
Ministry" — from theos (God) and phos (light) — is
the term coined by Dr. Ed Smith for a ministry approach that, he believes,
God revealed to him following years of less-than-successful counseling
of people traumatized by past events. Theophostic operates under the
premise that "all of us are emotionally wounded and need our hearts
and minds healed by Jesus" (Genuine Recovery, p. 1).1
Our woundedness comes from painful past experiences — not from the experiences
themselves, but from lies associated with those experiences that our
memories persist in believing. Much of the sin we commit stems from
such lies as well.
Theophostic
is a prayer ministry, "a process of divinely accomplished miracles"
(p. 5). During the process, Jesus Christ speaks directly to the hearts
and minds of wounded people, exposing the specific lies that bind them.
When this occurs, recovery is immediate, not gradual, and permanent
— that is, recovery is "genuine" as opposed to progressive.
"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed"
(John 8:36). This does not mean that the person is suddenly free from
all of life’s issues, problems and concerns, but from the lies that
bind them in that specific memory.
Theophostic
Ministry has been the subject of much study, discussion and prayer by
the CEFC Elder Board for nearly a year. As a result, we have concluded
that we can neither actively nor passively endorse this approach to
Christian ministry. Our reasoning is presented as follows. We encourage
readers to carefully and prayerfully study the issues themselves.
Theophostic’s
Pragmatic Approach to Defending its Validity
The
primary apologetic for Theophostic Ministry is experiential. Although
Dr. Smith quotes the Bible, the core argument for the ministry's validity
is that Theophostic "works." Dr. Smith writes, "All I
know is that the people who have experienced this healing were blind
(depressed, hopeless, shamed) and now they can see!" Several further
quotes:
*
"I have witnessed the Spirit of God use Theophostic Ministry
to accomplish this [freedom from lies and pain] hundreds of times"
(Genuine Recovery, p.10).
*
Regarding skeptics of Theophostic: "These people have not looked
very deeply into what the Lord Jesus is doing with hurting lives throughout
the world" (Genuine Recovery, p.3).
Our
major concern under this point is that Scripture gives a dual criteria
for testing a ministry’s legitimacy. The two criteria are "results"
and "truth." Clearly it is not unbiblical to consider the
results of a ministry. Jesus says, "By their fruit you will recognize
them" (Matt 7:16, 20). He also says, "Believe me when I say
that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe
on the evidence of the miracles themselves" (John 14:11).
But
the Bible warns against evaluating someone’s ministry on the basis of
results alone:
"If
a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces
to you a miraculous sign or wonder, {2} and if the sign or wonder
of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, `Let us follow other
gods' (gods you have not known) 'and let us worship them,’ {3} you
must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD
your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all
your heart and with all your soul." (Deu 13:1-3)
Moses’
signs before Pharaoh were matched by the magicians Jannes and Jambres
(2 Tim 3:8; Exo 7, 8). False prophets "will appear and perform
great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect — if that were possible"
(Matt 24:24). The works of the Antichrist will be "displayed in
all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders" (2 Thess
2:9). Even Paul’s ministry seemed bested by men whom he dubbed, literally,
"super apostles," while his own ministry appeared "unimpressive"
(2 Cor 10:10; 11:5 and elsewhere). In other words, the "super-apostles"
could boast of better "results."
In
the eighteenth century, Jonathan Edwards described in detail the Great-Awakening
phenomenon of parishioners having intense spiritual experience, some
of which later proved spurious. William James, in Varieties of Religious
of Experience, collected stories from around the world of people
who have been changed, sometimes drastically and for the good, by spiritual
experiences that were anything but Christian. Cult meetings often include
testimonies of changed lives. Regarding the Church of Scientology, David
Barrett writes,
"Members
say that whatever attacks are made on the movement, they believe in
Dianetics and Scientology because they work" (The New Believers:
Sects, ‘Cults', and Alternative Religions, p. 447).
We
are not saying that Christians who use Theophostic are in a cult. We
are saying that "results" are an insufficient apologetic for
any ministry practice. The results of Theophostic must be tested by
the doctrine of Theophostic. As we continue, we hope to show that
Theophostic doctrine is in substantial error.
*
* * *
Theophostic’s
Doctrine
Theophostic
presents an unscriptural view of effort in the Christian life
Dr.
Smith criticizes approaches to ministry that urge struggling people
to "go out and try again" (Genuine Recovery, p.8).
Here he addresses a real weakness in much Christian care of the soul
— legalistic, reductionistic methods that lack any of Christ’s supernatural
life and power. Dr. Smith rightly observes that such just-try-harder
approaches simply discourage people.
But
Dr. Smith expands his criticisms to include all spiritual exertion —
both exertion on the counselor’s part to diagnose a struggler’s problem,
and exertion on the struggler’s part to overcome his problem. He likens
such spiritual exertion to the works-righteousness attacked by Paul
in Galatians. Dr. Smith repeatedly takes biblical passages that
denounce man’s attempt to by-pass the cross and earn salvation through
self-righteousness, and applies them to spiritual exertion of all kinds.
*
"Our best effort is like filthy rags."
*
[Dr. Smith calls his former counseling "humanistic" because
it was] "based on Ed Smith's knowledge and their willingness
and determination to apply it. That's nothing more than self-effort.
That's a works salvation."
*
"I prided myself in my ability to diagnose a person's trouble
and come up with biblical steps of action. The problem with this approach
is it requires the person to do something they are not able to do.
This really is not any different than the Old Testament approach to
keeping the law" (Genuine Recovery, p.9).
He
virtually mocks the notion of self-effort in the Christian life. Genuine
recovery — where all pain, fear, shame, and panic are dealt with — "is
permanent and maintenance-free." During a Theophostic session,
Dr. Smith doesn't "leave the memory" until the struggler reports
100% peace and calm. This healing is instantaneous the moment the person
receives peace from Jesus.
*
"If I have to expend energy in maintaining my pain control or
behavior, then I have not truly received healing" (Genuine
Recovery, p.16, emphasis ours).
*
"Recovery is not building strong defenses against the lies or
controlling undesirable behavior. Genuine recovery is freedom from
the lies that control and dictate such behavior" (Genuine
Recovery, p.10).
*
"If a person is truly recovered, then relapse should not be a
concern…" (Genuine Recovery, p.12).
But
contrary to this perspective, Scripture continually prompts us toward
Spirit-energized striving and self-control:
"Like
a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control"
(Prov. 25:28).
"Above
all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life"
(Prov. 4:23).
"A
wise man keeps himself under control" (Prov. 29:11).
"Each
of you should learn to control his body in a way that is holy and
honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen" (1 Thess.
4:4).
"Prepare
your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on
the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed" (1 Pet.
1:13).
"Be
self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like
a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" (1 Pet. 5:8).
"Make
every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge
and to knowledge, self-control..." (2 Pet. 1:5-6).
Consider
also the multiple New Testament phrases about "effort" in
the Christian life. They portray the Christian life as a boxing match
(1 Cor 9:26), a long-distance race (Heb 12:1), a farming of crops (2
Tim 2:6), and an infantry battle (Eph 6:11-12). They command us to "struggle"
(Eph 6:12), "stand firm" (Eph 6:14), "do not let"
(Rom 6:12), "do not offer" (Rom 6:13), "be careful"
(1 Cor 10:12), "hold firmly" (1 Cor 15:2), "stop sinning"
(1 Cor 15:34), "be on your guard" (2 Pet 3:17), "be strong"
(2 Tim 2:1), "resist" (Jam 4:7), "flee" (1 Tim 6:11),
"avoid" (2 Tim 2:16), "purify" (2 Cor 7:1), "watch"
(1 Tim 4:16), "be diligent" (1 Tim 4:15), "be strong"
(Eph 6:10), "do good" (Gal 6:9), "consider" (Rom
6:11), "persevere" (Heb 10:36), and a host of other things.
This is an astounding refutation of the effortless overcoming that Dr.
Smith speaks of.
In
fairness, we should say that Theophostic teaching does not claim to
replace the need for discipleship and spiritual growth. Hence, presumably
it does not denounce the need for Spirit-empowered effort in the Christian
life. No doubt Dr. Smith would not wish to quarrel with the scriptural
exhortations in the above paragraph. But Theophostic teaching inadvertently
drains such passages of their effect. It does so by taking an array
of problems traditionally seen among Christians as "discipleship"
or "growth" issues (issues that Scripture addresses and that
require the effort of meditation, obedience, and so forth) and re-categorizing
them as "woundedness" issues — and thus as issues that only
Theophostic Ministry can address.
According
to Scripture, sanctification takes work — Spirit-empowered work, we
hasten to add — but work nonetheless. Theophostic Ministry, perhaps
unintentionally, offers an end run around such work.
Theophostic
does ill justice to the sufficiency claimed by Scripture
Theophostic
literature and video lectures speak highly of Scripture and include
biblical quotations. But while Scripture is professed as valued, its
sufficiency is minimized. In practice, Theophostic does not view the
Bible as making the man of God "thoroughly equipped for every good
work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). The Bible is valuable. It is true. It is
often quoted in Theophostic material. But, in practice, Theophostic
cannot say that the Bible is adequate for Christian ministry.
This
is seen first from the way in which Theophostic Ministry began. It was
not derived from a study of the Bible. Rather, during a particularly
frustrating counseling session, Dr. Smith believes God led him into
using, for the first time, the principles that later came to be called
Theophostic Ministry. Dr. Smith denies that he claims to be the
recipient of special revelation:
"Some
have suggested that I am advocating . . . new revelation. Nothing
could be further from the truth. . . . There are some who are saying
that I believe that I have been given a new revelation from God. I
am very sorry to disappoint them, but I cannot claim such notoriety."
Rather,
he says:
"I
do believe that God provides His Church with new insight in new methods
and applications of leading people to Jesus and into healing"
(Genuine Recovery, p. 6).
That
Theophostic offers new "methods" is indisputable. But that
it offers new "applications" (presumably of Scripture) would
be hard to establish. The proposal that Jesus Christ must directly reveal
to a struggler the specific lie he is believing (not through Scripture
or through bringing Scripture to mind, but directly) — that He
does this only as painful memories are re-visited — and that Jesus himself
must then personally refute that lie in that person’s heart, not merely
in general but while the person is recalling the life context in
which he began embracing that lie — these are not notions derived
from a study of Scripture. They are new revelation.
That
Theophostic in practice (though not in theory) sees the Bible as inadequate
for ministry is seen not only in how Theophostic began, but also in
the ministry principles it promotes. The quotes in the section below
are from the "Beyond Tolerable Recovery" basic training videos
unless noted otherwise:
*
"No one, including myself, can talk me out of the lie — only
Jesus can. Not even memorizing Scripture can."
*
[In cautioning people to be discerning about those from whom they
receive alleged Theophostic ministry, Dr. Smith says:] "They
should not be giving you truth..." [He adds:] "If they are
telling you what they think God wants you to know, then they are not
doing Theophostic Ministry" (Genuine Recovery, p. 2).
To
use Scripture with wounded people who are believing lies — and in Theophostic
training materials, this means most everyone — is inadequate and thus
a mistake. Dr. Smith now realizes that he "was doing Jesus'
job" by trying to help people identify the lies they believe. So
what do people need? "They need an experience." People need
Jesus Christ to talk directly to their souls. This is not the secret
work of the Holy Spirit, blowing like the wind, regenerating a person
or strengthening him with power in his inner being (Ephesians 3:16).
This is the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, directly speaking
extra-biblical (although not anti-biblical) content into the person’s
heart.
*
"Most truth is given cognitively through a teacher or preacher
passing it from their mind to the recipient's mind. Theophostic Ministry
is the process of God speaking directly to the hearts and minds of
His wounded little lambs. True sheep still hear His voice" (Genuine
Recovery, p.6).
*
"Somewhere along the way the Church exchanged experiencing Jesus
(faith) with learning about Jesus (cognitive)."
*
"I won't do well until Jesus brings truth to my experiential
side."
This
difference between experiential knowledge and logical truth is "one
of the most important principles of the Theophostic process" (Beyond
Tolerable Recovery, p. 203). Because of this, Dr. Smith says he
"no longer gives advice," which means even advice from Scripture.
When we are enmeshed in a lie, the discipline of forcing our minds to
meditate on "logical truth" — even that of Scripture — "doesn't
do a whole lot of good."
As
we have noted, Dr. Smith insists that Theophostic does not replace the
need for discipleship and Christian growth. But his references to discipleship
and "normal" methods of growth are sparse and lack the same
enthusiasm shown for Theophostic procedures. It is clear that the real
key to progress in the Christian life is to be set free from lies by
a direct word from Jesus Christ — and this by way of a process that,
as of this writing, was revealed to the Christian church only about
three years ago, via Dr. Smith.
Theophostic
displays a superficial view of sin
Dr.
Smith asks the question, "What keeps us from soaring?" By
this he means something like, "What keeps us from living productive,
contented Christian lives?" Theophostic replies that the problem
is not "a lack of truth" — for most Christians already have
all the truth they can absorb. Nor is the problem a "lack of desire
for more" — for "most people are spiritually hungry."
(Pausing
for a moment, can we truly accept that most western Christians know
the Bible’s truths well? Do they study it? Are their thought patterns
permeated by it? And are "most people" — presumably, both
Christians and non-Christians — truly hungry and thirsty for God, rather
than for his benefits? Does not Romans 3:11 say that "there is
no one . . . who seeks God"?)
Dr.
Smith goes on to say where the true problem lies — it is that Christian
churches and ministries "haven't given them the goods." The
"goods" are the tools and perspective of Theophostic. In contrast
to the "sin-based theology" of traditional Christianity, Theophostic
promotes a "lie-based theology" that finds the root problem
of many people, apparently most people, not in their sinfulness but
in their belief of lies. Sin is real, but a belief in lies is the even
deeper reality. These lies grow in the soil of pain and woundedness
that we experienced in past difficult situations. Sin is not focused
on in Theophostic literature. Neither is ignorance of the Bible, or
a failure to hide its truths in our hearts. But the human experience
of pain, and the lies bred by pain, are spotlighted and scrutinized.
When sin is discussed, it is acknowledged as real and as requiring a
prayer of confession during which God’s grace and pardon is claimed.
But a mention of sin in Theophostic literature leads quickly into qualifiers
such as, "It is important to note that not all guilt or shame is
genuine. Most of the time the guilt and shame coming from childhood
is false. . ." (Genuine Recovery, p. 42).
Consider
this quote concerning people embroiled in perpetual arguments, marital
or otherwise:
*
"I find people are not really in conflict; they are just wounded,
‘bumping' into each other's wounds or lie-infested painful memories"
(Genuine Recovery, p.9).
Yet
how does Scripture diagnose conflict?
"What
causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your
desires that battle within you? You want something but don't
get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You
quarrel and fight. . . ." (James 4:1-2).
Consider these quotes from Dr. Smith:
*
"If we have lies stored in our experiential knowledge we will
have little choice but [to] act out accordingly or else live a
life of constant struggle and self-effort." (emphasis added)
*
[Regarding our "primary choices" which are made from "experiential
knowledge" and not "logical truth"]: – "[People]
don't have much option." (emphasis added)
Here,
people entangled by spiritual lies are presented far more as victims
than as sinners. But Scripture presents the belief in such lies as less
than innocent. For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 discusses those who
will be deceived by the counterfeit miracles of the Antichrist. Satan’s
work through him "deceives" them. What are we to make of such
deceit? The passages use these phrases in parallel:
"they
refused to love the truth" (verse 10)
"they
will believe the lie" (verse 11)
"[they]
have not believed in the truth" (verse 12)
"but
have delighted in wickedness" (verse 12)
Here,
believing spiritual lies is called "refusing to love the truth"
and "delighting in wickedness." That is, this passage views
unbelief itself as sin. Why? Because we have a vested interest
in not believing certain, unpleasant truths. Non-Christians don’t want
to believe that they are as sinful as Scripture depicts, or that God
will hold them accountable. Even Christians have an interest in disbelieving
Scriptural truths.
Let
us imagine a fire-fighter who tried desperately but failed to rescue
his comrade from a burning building. Understandably, he is shaken. He
cannot forgive himself. Let us say that years later he still cannot
lose this feeling of being responsible. His feelings persist. He is
"unable to believe" God’s words in the Bible that he is loved
by God, that God alone controls the day of people’s birth and death,
and so forth. Yet other fire-fighters have been able to recover from
the same trauma. Why not this man? As with all of us, this man has heart-motives
he is unaware of. "All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives
are weighed by the LORD" (Prov 16:2). Perhaps for this fireman
to embrace the fact that he wasn’t responsible for his friend’s death
would mean facing the fact that he himself cannot control the world
as he imagines — and perhaps control is highly important to him. Or
perhaps another motive drives him. But his inability to believe God
does not grow out of a vacuum. He is driven by values that are precious
to him — values that are not strictly innocent. His unbelief, therefore,
though understandable, is not innocent.
Consider
a non-Christian’s disbelief in the Gospel. Perhaps professed Christians
have mistreated and cheated him. Perhaps a minister ran off with his
mother and split his family, or a drunken deacon ran over his son with
a car. His pain leads him to believe that "all Christians are hypocrites"
and that religion is a hoax. His unbelief is to some extent understandable.
We sympathize with how these experiences make faith more difficult.
But God still calls upon him to repent and believe the Gospel. His unbelief
is a guilty unbelief — so guilty that if he does not turn from it, he
will perish eternally. Most Christians would agree with this paragraph.
Now
imagine that this unbeliever becomes converted. Imagine too that, as
a Christian, he undergoes a painful experience that tempts him to believe
lies — lies whispering that God does not love him, or that these trials
happened simply because he is dirty. As a Christian, his unbelief is
made of the "same stuff" as before his conversion. Perhaps
his unbelief is quantitatively less, but qualitatively it is identical.
It may be understandable, but still it is sinful.
Theophostic
Ministry seems to make no account for this fact. It speaks of unbelief
as if it were neutral, or as simply the natural response of a victimized
person. Theophostic does grant that sin may keep a person from experiencing
deliverance. It acknowledges the existence of "appropriate shame
and guilt" that must be confessed and that can be forgiven by Christ’s
blood. But belief in lies is not itself focused on as a sin problem.
The focus is upon the suffering person’s pain and status as a victim
needing the reassuring words of Christ.
This
view of sin grows out of Theophostic’s view of man.
Theophostic
presents a distorted understanding of the doctrine of man
Key
to Dr. Smith’s approach is a strong differentiation between the human
soul (which is only partially redeemed in this life) and the human spirit
(which, in a Christian, is totally redeemed and righteous in this life).
This leads to a trichotomistic (threefold) view of man as Body, Soul/Mind,
and Spirit — a threefold view far more extreme than the more modest
trichotomistic view held by many mainstream evangelicals. This is not
a mere academic issue, for the unspoken but inescapable inference is
this: Scripture speaks to the spirit, but the deeper human problem is
in the soul, and the soul is not the Scripture's specialty. Lies nestled
in the soul "cannot be dealt with logically" (translate "cannot
be dealt with by biblical truth") — they must be dealt with directly
by God.
THE
SPIRIT
According
to Theophostic teaching St. Paul was speaking of human spirit, not the
human soul, when he penned 2 Corinthians 5:17. "Therefore if any
man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new" (KJV). When someone becomes
a Christian, his spirit alone is made new — but this newness is absolute
and complete. There is nothing "old" still about the spirit.
It is totally righteous, Theophostic teaches. Even if a Christian
acts unrighteously, this does not affect his soul’s righteousness. The
spirit, not the soul, is the "new man which after God is created
in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 4:24, KJV). The following
quotes about the spirit are from the "Beyond Tolerable Recovery"
basic video training series unless marked:
*
"We are not in the process of becoming like Jesus but rather
are on a journey of discovering who we are in Him."
*
"We already are like Jesus; we just don't know it."
*
"I am in Christ and what I was before (lost, depraved, sinful)
has all passed away (in my spirit man) and all things have become
new whether or not I believe it, feel it, or know it. My lies tell
me I am shameful, guilty, imperfect, less than others or unacceptable.
God's Word says I am redeemed, perfect, righteous and holy. Who are
we going to believe?" (Beyond Tolerable Recovery, p. 204).
THE
SOUL/MIND
In
contrast, the soul is still in need of attention. It is the the part
of a person that interacts with the outside world. It stores and processes
information. It tries to make sense out of a person’s life experiences.
It develops the person’s values by how it interprets those events.
The soul is thus the seat of the conscience. It "rewards"
or "punishes" the person according to its values, making him
feel guilty or innocent. These values are "based on the mind’s
current thinking," which may or may not be correct.
HOW
THE SPIRIT AND SOUL INTERACT
The
spirit, being totally righteous, always wants to choose the good. But
when the spirit chooses to act, its options are limited by the condition
of the soul (or mind) — that is, by what the mind or soul is thinking
or believing. Any darkness in the mind or soul "cripples the spirit."
*
"The righteous spirit desires to act righteously but is limited
to the information of the soul's experiential knowledge."
*
"The righteous spirit of man . . . is limited to the thinking
of the soul. I can only act as far as I can think" (Beyond
Tolerable Recovery, p. 205).
The
problem is that the soul/mind, not being fully regenerated by Christ,
may be believing lies. These lies stem from its false interpretations
of past traumatic events.
*
"My righteous spirit 'bumps into a lie' and is crippled. This
is what Romans 7 is talking about when it says, 'It is no longer I
that am doing it but rather the members of my flesh.'"
What
is the answer to this dilemma? The mind (not the spirit) must be renewed.
Theophostic teaching reminds us that Scripture speaks of this renewal,
for Romans 12:2 commands: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of
your mind." Other passages urge the same thing:
*
"Receive the implanted word which is able to save (rebuild, restore,
renew) your soul" (James 1:21) (from Beyond Tolerable Recovery).
*
"Be made new in the attitude of your minds" (Ephesians 4:23).
*
"I am completely regenerated spiritually the moment I come to
Christ in repentance and faith. . . .Yet my soul/mind stays the same
unless I choose to renew it" (Beyond Tolerable Recovery,
p. 204).
How
is the mind renewed? Through the Theophostic process. The above passages
are not used to urge Christians toward study the Bible and meditation
on its precepts. Rather, they are used to propel us to seek a "memory
picture" of past traumatic events, re-access the emotional pain,
discover the original lie, and have Jesus come and directly contradict
that lie in our minds.
EVALUATION
OF DR. SMITH'S VIEW OF MAN
At
least two problems stand out concerning Dr. Smith’s understanding of
the nature of man. First, the whole Theophostic system leans on a trichotomistic
view of Scripture that is difficult to sustain exegetically. True, Hebrews
4:12 appears to differentiate between soul and spirit:
For
the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and
marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
1
Thessalonians 5:23 also seems to point to a trichotomy:
May
God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May
your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
But
how do we then interpret Mark 12:30? "Love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with
all your strength." If we woodenly take each element of the person
listed here as separate from the others, we must conclude that the mind
and soul are separate entities — and both are separate from "the
heart." Is this what Scripture really intends? In an excellent
article on this subject, counselor Winston Smith comments: "Jesus
is not proposing a four-fold view of people as heart, mind, soul, and
strength, but commanding us to love God with our entire being."2
Many
other biblical passages point in the same direction, interchanging these
various terms, now using one, now using another. Death is described
both as "giving up the soul" (Gen. 35:18; I Kings 17:21; Acts
15:26), and as "giving up the spirit" (Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:46;
Acts 7:59). The dead are described as "the spirits in prison"
(I Pet 3:19) and as "the souls of those who had been slain"
(Rev. 6:9). The Bible sometimes designates man as "body and soul"
(Matt. 6:25; 10:28) — at other times as "body and spirit"
(Ecc. 12:7; I Cor. 5:3, 5).3 Many similar verses could be
mentioned which are problematic to a strict threefold view of man. Yet,
Theophostic Ministry places enormous weight on the absolute distinction
between soul and spirit.
A
second problem with Dr. Smith’s view of man is his teaching that our
spirits become perfectly holy at conversion. He writes, "God's
Word says I am redeemed, perfect, righteous, and holy" (Beyond
Tolerable Recovery, p. 204). But in what way does Scripture
call us "perfect, righteous, and holy?" Paul answers this
in Romans 4:5.
"However,
to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked,
his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:5). That
is, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to our account. This is a righteousness
"on the books," a legal declaration of "Not Guilty"
— what theologians call a forensic righteousness. Our ledgers are put
in the black, our debt is forgiven, even if we could righteously be
put into debtors’ prison. Romans is describing our position before
God, not the condition of our hearts.
From
the moment of salvation, God treats the justified man as if he
had lived Christ's life. To be sure, at salvation God does a work in
our hearts that reflects what he does on our ledgers. He begins to make
us holy inside in a way mirroring our being declared holy. We are "born
again" (John 3:3). God takes from us our "heart of stone"
and gives us "a heart of flesh" (Ezk 36:26). We experience
"the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus
3:5). But the Bible consistently stresses that, while this washing is
complete with regard to our account or standing, it is incomplete with
regard to our internal holiness. Hebrews 12:23 calls those who have
gone to heaven "righteous ones who have been made perfect"
— that is, at the cross they were declared righteous, but at
death their hearts were made perfect. Jesus taught that the person
who has been washed at spiritual rebirth "needs only to wash his
feet" (John 13:10). That is, he has been cleansed — but he still
needs to wash! This daily "washing" by confession of sin is
not just for our souls, according to 2 Corinthians 7:1 — "Since
we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything
that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of
reverence for God." Here the spirits of Christians are liable
to contamination — something which Dr. Smith must totally deny.
Thus,
Theophostic has similarities to Roman Catholic theology’s confusion
of imputation and impartation. In contrast, Scripture presents us as
perfect in God's eyes because Christ’s righteousness has been imputed,
or credited, to us. This teaching has been historically known as the
doctrine of Justification (by faith alone). The Protestant Reformers
correctly saw this as "the doctrine on which the Church stands
or falls." In contrast, Catholic doctrine defines justification
as God's act of infusing or imparting grace or power into
Christians enabling them to do good and thus attain merit. Theophostic’s
error, while not identical, is dangerously close. We suspect that Dr.
Smith’s low view of sin (discussed earlier) is related to his teaching
that the spirits of Christians have been made perfectly holy.
Theophostic’s
focus on past traumatic events is absent in Scripture
Theophostic
places strong emphasis on remembering. "Present discomfort is rooted
in an unresolved historical moment." The "echo" of that
moment, "the feeling you experience each time your painful memory
is accessed," must be faced in order to gain authentic release
(Genuine Recovery, 18). The quotes below are from the "Beyond
Tolerable Recovery" basic training video series:
*
"The present is a reflection of the past."
*
"We need to get to the source of where it first occurred."
*
"What I feel now is coming from someplace else."
*
"Get to the original lie."
*
"Trying to resolve present conflict without finding healing from
the past wounds at best gives only temporary relief."
*
"But if I heal my past I redeem my present."
The
Bible, too, talks a great deal about remembering. But its focus is very
different. The psalmist remembered God’s long ago miracles (77:12),
his ancient laws (119:52), and his name (119:55). God told Israel to
wear garments with tassels — "Then you will remember to obey all
my commandments . . ." (Numbers 15:40). After forty years of wandering,
he tells them, "Watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget
the things your eyes have seen . . . Remember the day you stood before
the Lord your God at Horeb. . ." (Deut 4:9-10). He says:
(Deu
5:15) "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt . . ."
(Deu
8:2) "Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the
desert these forty years . . ."
(Mat
16:9) "Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand,
and how many basketfuls you gathered?"
That
is, remember all God’s goodness. But he also commands:
(Deu
24:9) "Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam [in causing
leprosy]. . ."
(Luke
17:32) "Remember Lot's wife!"
That
is, remember God’s punishments on the rebellious. He says to remember
the Sabbath (Exo 20:8), to remember his ways (Isa 64:5), to remember
the poor (Galatians 2:10). Avoid judgment by remembering God’s commands
(Jude 1:17; Rev 3:3). Having stumbled, we should remember the heights
we fell from (Rev 2:5). Remember Paul’s chains (Colossians 4:18). Remember
Paul’s ministry (Acts 20:31). Remember when you were without hope (Eph
2:11-12).
Remember
the bad things too — past traumatic events. Remember how the Amalekites
attacked you so you can act accordingly in the future (Exo 17:14). Of
Israel, God predicts : "You will remember your conduct and the
actions by which you have defiled yourselves, and you will loathe yourselves
for all the evil you have done" (Ezk 20:43). That is, you will
remember so that you learn to despise sin.
Remember
so as to consider. Remember so as to restrain yourself. But not a word
about remembering so that "I can confront my wound . . . face-to-face
and feel its fresh fury again," in order that "the pain will
lead us to the root of our trouble" (Genuine Recovery, p.
17-18). There simply are no Scriptural commands to that effect. The
New Testament contains twenty-one epistles of detailed instructions
for sanctification and Christian living — and one hundred and fifty
psalms about the deepest matters of the heart — yet not a verse outlining
anything remotely resembling Theophostic practice. Theophostic is an
approach novel to the history of Christianity. For twenty centuries
the Church has spread without it. Yet Theophostic casts itself as integral
to effective Christian ministry.
Theophostic
materials pervasively misuse Scripture by violating fundamental principles
of exegesis4
Two
verses in particular have been used in answer to the question, "Where
in the Bible can one locate the principles or practices of Theophostic
ministry?"
*
"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."
(John 8:36)
*
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government
will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isa 9:6)
Let
us examine these, and several other passages treated in Theophostic
literature, one by one.
"So
if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).
Dr.
Smith uses this verse to contrast Theophostic with counseling approaches
that yield only "tolerable recovery." That is, struggling
Christians who try to grasp God's Word only cognitively may be "free"
in a limited sense, but they won’t experience the total freedom from
painful lies — the genuine recovery — that Theophostic offers.
In
the context of John 8, Jesus was debating the Pharisees. During the
debate, many believed in him (verse 30). To these he said, "If
you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. . . and the truth
will set you free" (vs. 31-32). Offended, the people answered,
"We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone.
How can you say that we shall be set free?" By this they showed
their misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching that their slavery was to
sin and Satan. So Jesus responded in verses 34-36:
I
tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave
has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.
So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
In
essence he was saying, "You think you are free, but you are really
slaves to sin. A slave has no permanent place in the household he serves.
But I'm the Son of my Father and therefore have a permanent place in
his home. If you are with me, the Son, and I set you free, you will
be free indeed. Your physical relationship with Abraham guarantees you
nothing. I guarantee you true freedom."
Does
Jesus here use the phrase "free indeed" in contrast to the
bondage of someone’s struggling under the load of painful memories?
Is he alluding to a girl who, molested at a young age, cannot later
shake the mistaken belief that she herself was to blame for the incest?
Is he contrasting the spiritual ups and downs of a struggler undergoing
traditional Christian counseling with the Christian whose transformation
under a process like Theophostic "is instantaneous the moment they
receive peace from Jesus," and whose "genuine recovery is
permanent and maintenance free"?
No,
he contrasts those "free indeed" with self-righteous unbelievers
who are self-satisfied in their sins but still slaves of it. He is talking
about salvation and the freedom from sin that comes with it — partial
in this life, complete in heaven.
*
* * *
"For
to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will
be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor . . ."
(Isaiah 9:6).
Does
this passage hint at, or at least set the stage for, Jesus directly
speaking truth to the heart of a believer in a Theophostic manner —
that is, where the "logical truth" of Scripture has proven
inadequate?
First,
consider the term "counselor" in the Old Testament. The term
described a king’s advisor, one who held a position similar to a cabinet
office in the United States today. It was generally used regarding affairs
of government. During a political revolution in David’s time:
While
Absalom was offering sacrifices, he also sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite,
David's counselor, to come from Giloh, his hometown. And so the conspiracy
gained strength, and Absalom's following kept on increasing. (2 Sam
15:12)
Ahithophel
had given advice to David in matters of state; now he is conscripted
by Absalom. The prophet Balaam gave King counsel as to the fortunes
of his political enemies (Num 24:14). Job wishes he could sleep "with
kings and counselors [that is, high officials] of the earth" (3:14).
King Rehoboam listened to the counsel of his young advisors rather than
his old (2 Chron 10), and so forth.
In
the beginning of Isaiah 9:6 (the verse we are considering), it is prophesied
that when the Messiah comes, "The government will be upon his shoulders."
That is, he will bear the responsibility for it. Thus, the Old Testament
commentator Leupold writes that "Wonderful Counselor" is written
about the Messiah in his role as statesman. It emphasizes primarily
that he will be most effective in planning, in formulating a plan for
action. A great work is to be done by him, even the greatest ever attempted.
He had an adequate plan, the only one ever devised that measured up
to the things to be attempted. To read into this word the modern notion
of a therapist, or personal ministry person, helping another through
personal pain is to stretch the meaning.
*
* * *
"All
of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts
are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind
our sins sweep us away" (Isaiah 64:6).
Dr.
Smith uses this verse in discussing the efforts of Christians toward
personal holiness who do not have the benefit of proper ministry. Their
efforts, he says, although sincere, are described by this verse in Isaiah.
"Our best self-effort is like filthy rags." But does the verse
even address efforts at spiritual growth and sanctification? Again,
the verse is wrenched from its context. Consider the preceding verses:
Since
ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen
any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your
ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How
then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is
unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel
up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No
one calls on your name or strives to lay hold of you; for you have
hidden your face from us and made us waste away because of our sins.
(Isa 64:4-7)
Isaiah
wants God to "come down" and help Israel. But Israel continues
to sin, and God is angry. Isaiah describes this sinning with the words
"all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" — that is, "We
act good outwardly, but are unchanged in our hearts." Proof of
this is found in the very next verse: "No one calls on your name
or strives to lay hold of you" (verse 7). The passage is thus not
criticizing the efforts of God's people to fight sin in their own flesh
— it condemns the fact that they are not fighting sin at all.
This
lack of sensitivity to context is not merely occasional in Theophostic
literature and lectures. It is pervasive.
Theophostic
does not fit Scripture’s model for Christian ministry as distilled in
2 Corinthians 10:4-5
At
one point, Dr. Smith quotes 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 as illustrative of
Theophostic practice: "We demolish arguments and every pretension
that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive
every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Yet in reality, this
passage lays out a model of Christian ministry — we might call it a
distillation of much of the New Testament teaching about ministry —
which is radically at odds with Theophostic principles.5
In
2 Corinthians 10, Paul begins several chapters that affirm his apostolic
ministry and defend against attacks by the false apostles at Corinth
who argue this way: "His letters are weighty and forceful, but
in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing"
(10:10). They argue that Paul not only lacks rhetorical flourish and
sufficient acquaintance with philosophy, but he also lacks stage presence.
These
men have mistaken Paul's decision not to preach "with eloquence
or superior wisdom" as ignorance (1 Cor 2:1). They see his coming
with "weakness and fear and much trembling" as spinelessness
and lack of leadership rather than a deliberate ministry style that
relied on the Holy Spirit's power and not the messenger's skills (1
Cor 2:3). They take his imitation of "the meekness and gentleness
of Christ" as cowardice and impotence (2 Cor 10:1). They paint
him as promising to visit Corinth and then cavalierly changing his mind,
calling his change of plans "fleshly wisdom" (2 Cor 1:12-23,
especially vs. 23). In fact, they say that Paul generally lives "according
to the flesh" and not "in the Spirit" as they themselves
do (2 Cor 10:2)!
In
response, Paul admits that he does indeed "walk in the flesh"
in the sense of being subject to the laws and limitations of frail mortal
beings. But he insists that he does not "war according to the flesh"
— that is, he doesn't conduct his ministry in the self-seeking manner
of an unregenerate person (2 Cor 10:3). Make no mistake, he does wage
war, constantly, and is about to wage it in his following four chapters!
But he will not do it according to the flesh.
How
then does he conduct warfare? What weapons does he use (for anyone who
wars must have weapons)? Since he fights satanic forces that are not
flesh and blood (Eph 6:12), it would be folly to fight them with weapons
of the flesh. Only the armor of God will do. So rather than rely on
human wisdom, stage presence, rhetoric, an entertaining speaking style,
and a display of massive organization, he uses the weapons outlined
in Ephesians 6 — truth, righteousness, evangelism, faith, salvation,
the Word of God, and prayer. And he wields these while maintaining the
character of a Christian, which includes meekness and humility, even
when he must be confrontational and "not spare" rebels in
the church (2 Cor 13:2). These are the weapons scorned by the world
yet most feared by the powers of darkness.
In
2 Cor 10:5 Paul describes the strongholds assailed by the Christian
warrior: "We demolish arguments and every pretension
that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive
every thought to make it obedient to Christ." In the New International
Commentary on the New Testament series, Philip E. Hughes writes,
"It is noticeable that [the strongholds] belong to the realm of
will and intellect. . . . for a man's inner motives are the fount of
his action." So, the Greeks of Paul's day worshiped human wisdom,
making the word of the cross seem like foolishness. Yet Paul's strategy
against such entrenched foolishness consisted in the insistent preaching
— yes, arguing — of that very message which was deemed so foolish. We
quote Hughes at length regarding Paul's assault on the human mind as
it rebels against God:
Hence
it is that the Christian warfare is aimed at the casting down of the
reasonings which are the strongholds whereby the unbelieving mind
seeks to fortify itself against the truths of human depravity and
divine grace, and at the casting down also of every proud bulwark
raised high against the knowledge of God. This metaphor emphasizes
the defiant and mutinous nature of sin: sinful man does not wish to
know God; he wishes himself to be the self-sufficient centre of his
universe. The knowledge of God is available to him, indeed he cannot
escape from it: it is a knowledge which is constitutional to him,
for he himself is God's creature, made, moreover, in the image of
his Creator; it is a knowledge which the whole created order clearly
and ceaselessly proclaims, witnessing as it does to the eternal power
and godhead of the Creator (cf. Ps. 19:1-4; Rom. 1:19f.); and it is
a knowledge livingly and graciously revealed in Christ Jesus, preserved
in Holy Scripture, and presented in the preaching of the gospel (cf.
4:6). But sinful man rebels against this knowledge of God. He holds
down the truth in unrighteousness. Knowing God, he refuses to glorify
Him as God. His senseless heart is darkened, so that, though professing
himself to be wise, he becomes a fool. In short, he exchanges the
truth of and about God for a lie. It is thus that Paul analyzes the
intellectual motives of unbelief in Rom. 1:18-25. And this analysis
reveals, starkly and precisely, the nature of the high tower raised
against the knowledge of God within which proud, unregenerate man
immures himself. But unless it is cast down by the gospel of God's
grace in Christ Jesus, his tower becomes his tomb.
Not
only are strongholds and high towers cast down, but prisoners are
taken captive in the Christian warfare. These prisoners are the
thoughts — the cogitations and intentions — of man's mind, and
they are led captive, every one of them, into the obedience of Christ.
In this way the genuine Christian position is established. The rebellion
is quelled, the truth of God prevails, and the divine sovereignty
is acknowledged. . . .
Unfortunately,
while the thinking of regenerate man is in principle entirely subjected
to the obedience of Christ, in practice it is not always entirely
so. The philosophies and sophistries of the "natural" man
are frequently permitted to usurp a position of influence in the redeemed
intellect. This was the case with some of the Corinthian believers
who, through failure to submit their thinking consistently to the
obedience of Christ, were being deceived by the specious logic of
the false apostles whose teaching differed fundamentally from that
delivered to them by Paul, their true and authentic apostle (cf. 11:2ff.).
Paul is determined to expose the perversity of mind and will of such
imposters. He earnestly desires that the members of the Corinthian
church may learn what it means to bring both mind and will into complete
submission to, and therefore harmony with, the mind and will of Christ.
(pp.
351-353, emphases added)
If
ever there was a time for Paul to stress the need for a ministry such
as Theophostic proposes, it was here. Paul is discussing how people's
minds are deceived, how strongholds must be overcome. Powerful weapons
are needed to free people from lies. Human weapons will not do, they
must be "divinely powerful." Here is the time for Paul to
say something like this:
When
you encounter people who seem simply unable to embrace the truth of
the Bible, you should stop telling them what you think God wants them
to know. They don't need truth given through a preacher or teacher,
passing it from his mind to theirs. No — such people are wounded.
Most of them are spiritually hungry. The reason they are not finding
help from Christian churches is because we have not given them the
goods. People experience life on an experiential level, not
on the level of logical truth. No one can talk them out of the lies
they believe — not even memorizing Scripture can. Only Jesus can.
God must speak directly to the hearts and minds of his wounded little
lambs. You must help them face the pain from their past experiences,
and in that pain identify the lie that insulates them from the truth.
Then, resist the urge to address that lie with the truth you think
they need to hear. Rather, ask Jesus to address it himself, directly
to their souls.
But
Paul never mentions going back into painful past memories — in this
passage or anywhere else. Rather, he refers to strongholds within the
mind as "pretensions" that "set themselves up against
the knowledge of God" that must be "demolished," "made
obedient," and "taken captive" (2 Cor 10:4-5). That is,
he argues that wrong thinking flows from sin and requires surrender,
for wrong thinking is simply the intellect in the service of the heart's
rebellion against God.
This
is what Paul is saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. There, people who
believe Satan's lies are not innocents — there, Satan's counterfeit
miracles "deceive" only "those who are perishing."
But why are they deceived? Why do they fail to embrace the truth? Because
of life's painful experiences? No, it is because "they refused
to love the truth" (vs. 10). As Romans 1:18 says, "they suppress
the truth."
But
why would anyone suppress the truth? It is because "although they
knew God," to acknowledge what they know and to believe his words
would mean "glorifying him as God" and "giving thanks
to him" (Rom 1:21). Paul teaches that belief in lies is a moral
issue, not merely a pain-generated one. He equates "not believing
the truth" with "delighting in wickedness" — (2 Thess
2:10-12). And because of this, God actually "sends them a powerful
delusion so that they will believe the lie" (2 Thess 2:11). In
other words, many people believe lies because God is judging their prior
unbelief.
If
the "normal" weapons of truth, prayer, and so forth do not
overcome the embedded lies in such disobedient strongholds, Paul in
2 Corinthians 10 knows only one other step to take. It is not to investigate
the painful past. Rather, he says, "we will be ready to punish
every act of disobedience" (10:6).
Note
that in describing the weapons that fight such strongholds of false
thinking, Paul doesn't list those weapons. He assumes that the Corinthians
already know what "weapons" he is talking about. This is because
he writes about such weapons on virtually every page of his epistles,
and he constantly models their use. These weapons are truth, righteousness,
evangelism, faith, salvation, the Word of God, and prayer, wielded by
a Spirit-filled Christian who maintains a Christian character in his
ministry — the "normal" weapons of Christian warfare employed
by every generation of the church from the beginning. Paul says that
such weapons "demolish" these strongholds. They demolish them
in the minds of unbelieving people whom God has determined to save —
and in the minds of Christians whom God is determined to sanctify.
Several
other objections to Theophostic
We
mention only briefly several additional concerns:
THEOPHOSTIC
INCONSISTENTLY COMPARES ITS APPROACH TO THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST
Dr.
Smith writes concerning his pre-Theophostic counseling ministry: "I
knew that the results I was seeing was [sic] not consistent with
what I saw in the New Testament" (Genuine Recovery, p.9).
His point is that Jesus affected people in radical, immediate, and lasting
ways all out of proportion to what Dr. Smith’s former ministry accomplished.
Yet had not Jesus promised in John 14:12 that "anyone who has faith
in me . . . will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater
things than these, because I am going to the Father" (John 14:12)?
Yet,
in the Gospels, the "works" of Jesus included not merely spiritual
and psychological restoration, but physical healings, miracles of nature,
and raising of the dead. If the "spectacular" results of Jesus
are the model for our ministries today, why limit what we seek to remarkable
healing from psychological pain? If the Gospels require us to "be
consistent with what we see in the New Testament," as Dr. Smith
proposes, why be selective? Christian ministry should include not only
the healing of physical illnesses, but the authoritative stopping of
storms and raising of the dead.
Should
not this point make us examine whether Jesus’ promise of greater works
relates rather to the scope of the spread of the Gospel, or some such
thing?
THEOPHOSTIC TOO FREQUENTLY - ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY - USES THE MODEL
OF SEXUAL ABUSE TO VALIDATE ITS METHODOLOGY
Most
people, religious and otherwise, acknowledge that any attack or abuse
of a sexual nature results in problems far more difficult to overcome
than most any other. Yet in setting forth an apologetic for its principles
of ministering to people at large — for we are "all"
wounded, it is only a question of how much — Theophostic consistently
uses illustrations from those sexually abused. If Theophostic proposed
a methodology solely for helping sexually abused people, the objections
raised in this paper, while serious, would at least be open to greater
discussion. But arguing for general ministry principles based upon a
special category of problem is ill advised.
DR. SMITH DOES NOT SEEM TO INVITE CRITIQUE FROM THOSE OUTSIDE THE
THEOPHOSTIC FAMILY
In
advising people where they can seek Theophostic help, Dr. Smith does
advise them to question the potentially ministering person in this way:
"Are you under the authority and spiritual covering of a recognized
ministry, church or professional organization?" He adds that "If
the person is a `lone wolf,’ be careful" (Genuine Recovery,
p. 2).
Such
advice is Scriptural. But on page 53 of Genuine Recovery, the
orientation notebook containing Theophostic’s basic principles, Dr.
Smith writes:
Principle
six:
Traditionalists will try to discredit the process.
When
I first began to share this concept with fellow therapists, I was
not received with much favor or enthusiasm. I was called a quack and
a charlatan. I was told that what was happening would not last, or
at best, it was post-hypnotic.
However,
the results that Dr. Smith viewed proved more convincing to than the
remarks of his critics.
Certainly
every Christian must make theological decisions and, having made them,
not return daily to re-examine his entire edifice. "Each one should
be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 14:5). But he should be
open to sincere questioning. And his process of decision-making should
include substantial interaction with those who disagree, especially
if one’s theology is at odds with the generally accepted views of the
Christian church. We do not know the history of Dr. Smith’s interactions
with others regarding the type of concerns raised in this paper. But
the concerns are serious, and the materials we have seen give little
indication of any serious engagement with arguments like them.
On
pages 232 to 236 of his larger work, Beyond Tolerable Recovery, Dr.
Smith gives a running commentary on Romans 7 and part of Romans 8 that
attempts to see in that passage many of the specifics of Theophostic
principles. These pages stretch interpretive principles to their maximum
and beyond. Page 233 contains a small box of text with this disclaimer:
This
section is an Ed Smith interpretation of Romans chapter 7, presented
through the grid of Theophostic Ministry principles. I know that this
smacks in the face of some of our traditional thought. Bear with me,
hold to what you can, and look past what you cannot. I am in theological
transition as I allow the Holy Spirit to teach me and correct
me where necessary. I hope you are as well. (Emphasis ours)
Dr.
Smith does not invite teaching or interaction from theologians or other
counselors. Rather, he allows the Holy Spirit to teach him. With such
an apparent isolation during a time of "theological transition,"
it is not surprising that one would come to embrace the views criticized
in this paper.
Then
why does it work?
We
might ask, "Suppose Theophostic is shown to be in error — how do
we explain that it often seems to help people?" God alone can answer
this. But two suggestions follow.
First,
in some cases God may indeed be helping people during their Theophostic
encounters. His mercy is beyond all telling. He often rains down grace
when people’s understanding is deficient, or even when they are rebelling.
The woman who touched Jesus’ robe in Mark 5:25-34 did not "do it
right" when she approached Jesus. Her faith was misguided — she
attempted to receive healing not by a personal encounter with the Savior,
but by stealing a touch of his garment, as if it were magic. Her faith
was also selfish — suffering a discharge of blood, she knew that touching
anyone else would render that person ceremonially unclean, and her plan
was to slip off unnoticed without a word of thanks. Yet Jesus graciously
healed her. Or consider when God told Moses to gather seventy of Israel’s
elders to the entrance of the tabernacle so the Spirit would rest upon
them and they could assist in Moses’ labors. Two of the elders, Eldad
and Medad, failed to come but "remained in the camp." "Yet
the Spirit rested on them" as well, and they too prophesied (Num
11:16-17, 24-26). Or consider that twice the prophet Balaam resorted
to sorcery in seeking God, yet God granted him an oracle each time (Num
23).
Do
any of these cases prove that the supplicants’ methods were justified?
Not at all. They prove only that God sometimes responds generously to
our misguided — or even sinful — approaches toward him. Many people
no doubt pray sincerely during Theophostic sessions. God is at liberty
to answer any of them with mercy, even while his Word demonstrates the
error of their approach.
Second,
in many cases people may merely be imagining that Christ speaks to them
or that they receive divine help. The power of suggestion is very strong.
Researchers have long noticed the "healing" effects of placebos
not only on those using experimental medicines but on those administering
them. In Abnormal Psychology, David Holmes describes this phenomenon
in experiments with depression medication:
The
effects of suggestion influence not only the participants in experiments
but also raters who are evaluating the participants. For example,
if a depressed person is given a treatment that the therapist thinks
will help, the therapist may selectively notice improvements in the
patient . . . and ignore behaviors that suggest lack of improvement
(e.g., lack of activity).6
Since
virtually every religion, philosophy, medicine (real or quack), counseling
method, and psychic reader in history boast testimonies of those marvelously
helped, we must avoid the lure of anecdotal evidence as our primary
means for establishing what is true. For the Christian who seeks the
best means for curing wounded souls, the only sure testimony is that
of Scripture. Even with Scripture, Peter warns that "ignorant and
unstable people distort" it, and Paul warns that only the Christian
workman who "correctly handles the word of truth" is approved
— surely implying that many Christian workmen are not.
ENDNOTES
1Smith,
Edward. Genuine Recovery. (Campbellsville, KY:
Alathia Publishing, 1996, 2000)
2Smith,
Winston. "Dichotomy or Trichotomy? How the Doctrine of Man
Shapes the Treatment of Depression." The Journal of Biblical
Counseling 18 (Spring 2000) : 21. Emphasis ours.
3Berkhof,
Louis. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939, 1941).
4In
this section, Scripture passages under consideration are quoted in bold,
italicized letters.
5We
are much indebted in this section for many thoughts and even phraseology
in Philip E. Hughes' outstanding commentary on 2 Corinthians in the
New International Commentary on the New Testament series.
6Holmes,
David. Abnormal Psychology. (Massachusetts:
Allyn & Bacon, 2001), p. 113.
Back to Being Berean:
Various Subjects and The Bible's Answers |
