Jerome Gellman, in The Routledge Companion to Theism (2012) says yes, Theism is the result of tea-drinking … but not for Jews:

I can verify that this is indeed OED’s second definition of “theism”, coming after the more well-known definition of theism1 (which has to do with God and stuff):

I especially like that quote from the 1886 issue of Science, which explains that the form of “theism” in the reference to “acute, subacute and chronic ‘theism’ … has no connection with theological matters”. Nice.

As Simon Blackburn, in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2016), s.v. “theism”, confirms, what we have here with theism1 and theism2 is “homonymy”.

Homonymy. That certainly sounds like something that most forms of theism would frown upon.