By Janet Fife
In Part 1 I discussed a few of the concerns I have about Bethel Sozo (BS) and its parent church, Bethel Redding (BR). Since then I have discovered that BR’s influence is even more pervasive than I had thought: there are churches not listed as ‘Sozo churches’ which nevertheless have links to BR and run ‘Healing Rooms’ based on BR thinking. And, according to the BS UK website, ‘Bethel Sozo is being offered in hundreds of churches across the UK from almost every denomination & stream. They have opted to offer this ministry within their own church community. Accordingly, they do not appear on the Bethel Sozo UK website.’
Are these churches with BR links aware that 3 of the church’s senior leaders are vocal Trump supporters? That serious questions have been asked about the church’s finances? That it has been accused of promoting conversion therapy for LGBT people? That its theology is not orthodox?
Let’s take a look at Bethel Sozo. In this blog there is not space for a thorough treatment of what is a complex and often ambiguous system, but I want to point out a few areas of concern.
When you book a Sozo you’ll be issued with paperwork, including an indemnity release (aka liability release) form and a forgiveness sheet. But if Sozo is as gentle as they claim, why do they need clients to affirm that they will ‘release Bethel Sozo Ministry…from any harm or perceived harm resulting from my voluntarily receiving of [sic] free prayer’?
The 2-page forgiveness form advises clients not to proceed with a Sozo unless they are willing to forgive everyone who has wronged them, as ‘forgiveness is vital to deliverance and freedom’. While this is true, forgiving deep traumas such as abuse is best seen as part of the lengthy process of healing, not as a prerequisite to it. Here the pressure is piled on in a way calculated to hinder healing rather than facilitate it: ‘Unforgiveness…Binds you in a prison of torment’ and ‘allows the enemy [Satan] to have access to you.’
The Sozo session will last anything from 90 min – 3 hours. The client will find herself with the Sozoer (their term), a notetaker who will remain silent, and possibly a third, and will be asked to close her eyes for part of the session. Outnumbered, and with closed eyes while being observed by the Sozo team, the client is put at an immediate disadvantage. Yet despite this power imbalance, the liability disclaimer states: ‘I understand that…I am under no obligation to accept or reject any of the advice or help that I might receive from the team members.’
The aim of BS is to ‘build strong connections’ with each member of the Trinity. Four ‘Tools’ are used in basic Sozo (there are also advanced Tools and Sozo for children, couples, finances, sexual abuse survivors, and education). There are problems with all the Tools, but there isn’t space in this blog to discuss them. I’ll focus on the Father Ladder. In BS theory, each member of the Trinity corresponds to a part of a human being with its particular needs and fears; which in turn corresponds to a role in the nuclear family. The chart below is reproduced from Sozo: Saved, Healed, Delivered (SSHD):
The separation of soul and spirit is simplistic and doesn’t do justice to biblical concepts; the family roles are stereotyped. The division between members of the Trinity is pursued to the extent that they will ask the same question of all three Persons, expecting different answers. This is a version of the Modalist heresy. Yet these concepts are at the heart of what BS believe and what they do.
The Sozoer typically begins by asking the Sozoee (their term) why they have come. Using this information, the issue is linked with a Person of the Trinity and a family member.; or they may detect a poor relationship with a member of the Trinity and deduce the source of the problem from that. An example given is of a woman who felt ‘Father God’ was cold and distant. The Sozoer’s immediate response:
‘Repeat after me: ‘I forgive my earthly father for being distant, for not wanting to be near me, and for not creating a space for me to feel safe or accepted. I renounce the lie that Father God does not want me close and does not have a safe place for me.’
The book gives many such examples where the Sozoer dictates a prayer to a Sozoee without first confirming their assumption of the family member’s failings (and in some cases, crimes) is correct, or asking the client if they are willing to pray as directed. The interview may continue with further dictated prayers of repentance, renunciation, and forgiveness, or demonic influence may be detected and banished. The liability waiver begins to make sense.
At some point in the session the Sozoer will ask the client to close their eyes and think of ‘Father God’, Jesus, or ‘Holy Spirit’. This may happen at the beginning or further into the session; with only one of the Trinity or with all three – but, crucially, only one at a time. The question follows: ‘What do you feel, hear or see?’ Depending on the response, the Sozoer is ‘able to discern which lies hinder that person’s connection to the Lord’. The pattern of forgiving and renouncing is followed each time, to ‘remove each negative presence’.
BS, and its parent church BR, teach that when a person is in a good relationship with Father God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, and not ‘partnering’ with wrong spirits, their other problems are resolved and their needs met. Sometimes this belief is implicit rather than explicit, but it lies behind many of the examples given in SSHD and on the BR website. Thus, the struggling single mother who has been taken through repentance, forgiveness, and deliverance is now free to ask for help, with the implication her financial worries will be solved.
No doubt many of those offering BS ministry will have a sincere desire to help; and some Sozoees will feel they have been helped. In some cases renouncing unhealthy attitudes and behaviours and forgiving others will have been what they needed. Others will be disappointed and disillusioned when expected improvements do not occur. Significantly, a Shabar ministry has now been established for those who ‘have been unable to hold on to’ their healing through Sozo. I fear some will find that the power imbalances, assumptions made, unfulfilled expectations, and distorted theology of Bethel Sozo will have only damaged them.
Janet – Never heard of this lot but thank you for flagging this up. We are on the same side here.
My blood runs cold, reading this Janet. When we ran survivors groups at Greenbelt, many survivors disclosed deeply distressing and reabusive treatment like this. Imagine being forced to forgive a father like mine, or being made to feel that if you struggle to be close to a fatherly God after abuse/incest, there is something wrong with you. Terrifying.
Yes, very worrying people are still being subjected to this. Nor do they give any option for addressing God in any way other than ‘Father’.
The other Tools are just as bad. In ‘Presenting Jesus’ they do a form of regression, where the client is asked to picture a difficult scene from the past and imagine God there. But of course God was there – in the books no one seems to ask why, if God was there, he didn’t stop it happening. That’s what I asked when someone tried it on me. Regression is dangerous – and if there’s a strong reaction of course they ‘diagnose’ a demon.
Thanks Janet. Good to grapple with this. Lots to chew on.
My own approach to receiving personal ministry is to remember the verse “Hold on to the good. Avoid evil of every kind (1 Thess 5:21-22). That is, I take on board what seems to be helpful, and let things I don’t find helpful slide away like water off a duck’s back. My main concern is to have counsellors / prayer people who have integrity and are trying to do their best for me. “Love covers a multitude of sins (Prov 10:12).
I have normally had one or two people praying with me, which felt fine. A larger group might feel overwhelming.
I also like the practice of agreeing at the end of the session to put back everything discussed into God’s filing cabinet and close the door on it. Nothing is to leave the room.
I went through the training offered by Wholeness Through Christ in the 1980s and found it helpful. Worth looking at them?
I suppose the point in all this is that putting oneself on the receiving end of any form of counselling, therapy or prayer ministry has the potential for doing good, but could also be abused by unscrupulous people. To quote Boris, stay alert!
thank you David for the notion of putting things back in God’s filing cabinet. I like that.
I am glad you seem to have had some good experiences of helpful personal ministry. I like your reminder to hold on to the good.
I have avoided most prayer ministry because I have seen and heard about so many spiritually abusive practices, some like what Janet describes. It scares and concerns me how these practices can be used – even by well intentioned (but ignorant – people to reabuse survivors. We are so vulnerable to being made to feel responsible for the abuse, or ashamed, or evil, or bad because we cannot forgive someone who has done nothing to deserve our forgiveness, no remorse, probably denies everything, may still be a risk to us. I think that is really dangerous and it disturbs me that this kind of thing is growing again. Deliverance ministry of any kind scares me. It is certainly recognised by the APPG on abuse on faith settings, and organisations such as 31:8, that deliverance ministry as been used to abuse children and is linked with some of the most horrific abuse, such as Victoria Climbie.
One wonders whether there should be some kind of regulation of prayer and healing ministry, such as there is with therapy.
Manual-ised Ministry could in theory be a good thing. I’ve often flippantly referred to the HTB Manual of Ministry, a term I invented for the process of prayer ministry spread far and wide in HTB affiliated churches. Many will know what I mean.
Bethel takes its branded Sozo thing to a whole new level. It’s good to have principles of operation and procedural guidelines of course, but if these are flawed the program of “roll out” across the world will magnify the errors repeatedly.
I spent many years working in the business world and anyone else who has will recognise the characteristic markers of a marketing programme. Again nothing wrong per se, but are we really being seduced by the fickle gods of Growth here in signing up to become a Bethel Sozo affiliate?
The clamour for results and performance is behind a lot of these “systems” being marketed. An expanding work force will also be needed and risks increased by inexperienced but undoubtedly well-meaning novices tackling complex and troublesome areas. Only fools go where angels fear to tread.
Can we really manual-use God?
I would say Amen to this manualised ministry too. The obvious question is where in the New Testament do we find this manual? It would be very remiss of the Apostles not to have passed it on.
Actually any manualised therapy is troubling even coming from ‘professional’ psychiatric or counselling areas. I have personal experience of a so-called family therapy far from helping only closing doors on a family.
I remember Monty Barker who was Consultant Psychiatrist in Bristol saying that many in the Church had forgotten the therapeutic benefit of simple friendship. Of course qualifications and diplomas give us a certain power which can be used in ways whose benefit is to the possessor.
What about Psalm 41 verses one to three as a manual for healing? Notice that there is not even a need for any prayer – the attitude of the sick person seems to be all that is required. Nice, Jane. Oh yes, and Proverbs 21 verse thirteen for the same point made the opposite way round. Note how prayers in this case are useless.
There. That’s saved us all time and effort. Back to the World Snooker Championship.
Ps. 41:1-3 is lovely, but it wasn’t written as a manual for healing – or for anything else. It’s a worship song and its language is poetic. In Hebrew, as in American English, hyperbole (overstatement) is a very common figure of speech. This can be confusing to us Brits, who much more often employ litotes (understatement). So v. 3 can’t be read as promising that literally all our diseases and infirmities will be healed. They aren’t, and weren’t even for New Testament Christians, even Paul himself. Jesus himself didn’t heal everyone when he lived in Israel. At the Pool of Bethsaida only one was healed; when the disciples came to him saying lots of sick people had come for healing he replied, ‘Let us go on to the next town.’
Paul’s second later to the Corinthians is a corrective for the theology that wealth and health are available bye to all of us through Jesus’ death on the cross.
I’ve been fortunate enough to witness several miracles and at least two remarkable healings, but it doesn’t happen very often. More usually God works through the means available: doctors, psychotherapists, food banks, social security payments.