what is the alternative?

Phil Johnson writes on why he thinks Charismatic doctrine is to blame for the overabundance of craziness in that movement.

I've suggested on more than one occasion that a major reason the charismatic movement has produced more than its fair share of aberrant behavior is because the distinctive doctrines of charismatic belief foster gullibility while constantly seeding the movement with all kinds of whimsy. Specifically, the charismatic belief that it's normative for Spirit-filled Christians to receive extrabiblical divine revelation through various mystical means has opened the door for all kinds of mischief.

The belief that extrabiblical revelation is normative does indeed "regularly and systematically breed willful gullibility, not discernment." Even the more sane and sober charismatics are not totally exempt from the tendency.

I want to give Johnson at least partial credit for his clear attempt at civility and before I begin discussing where I take issue, let me say that I am not Charismatic in the classical sense, I am a continuationalist as opposed to a cessationist. So when I accept the tag Charismatic, I do so to acknowledge my belief that the charismata occurs today. Now to my thoughts on Johnson's post.

For ease of argument, I'll acquiesce to 100% of Johnson's points. I could pick at them here or there but then there could be a counter and back and forth it could go and in the end it's one opinion against another. And that's not worth it because ultimately my real concern is that his point is meaningless. Let me think through that bit by bit.

1. If the statement Johnson makes is true in that a lot of deception can flow from continuationalism, does that make it unbiblical? I would argue that the Bible is full of truths that (1) taken to extreme become error and (2) taken out of context of the larger Truth become error.

2. In his own argument Johnson points to men who are continuationalists that he considers generally ok. Why? I would suggest it is because they have balance.

3. Saying Evangelical doctrine breeds legalism, a judgmental spirit, denies the power of God outside the ability to grant entrance to heaven, etc. could be supported by a plethora of examples. Does it mean Evangelical doctrine is wrong or does it mean, as with the Charismatic argument, that Satan can and will distort anything?

4. Johnson points out what calls questionable practices in the Vineyard because the events that he was involved in didn't have the closure he would expect to see, e.g., John Wimber's failure to explain in an open meeting two apparently contradictory prophecies. First, I'm not clear how Wimber's explanation would have made any difference given Johnson doesn't believe the Bible teaches this can happen. It would be good if Johnson was more honest about his position. Second, his point stems from a belief system that values confrontation and tying-up loose ends in a neat intellectual package. He lacked the benefit of past and future teaching in that congregation and expected Wimber to fix that in a few short words. Does the absence of these words to Johnson's satisfaction prove something? I think that what it proves is a different understanding of the main point here. Some would call that event part of our growth and learning experience while to Johnson and others it serves as an example of the mischief that he sees being bred by the doctrine.

And on it goes ...

I titled this post, "What is the alternative?" because while I agree that bad stuff has come from imbalance and exaggeration in the Charismatic camp, I would contend that to live in other camp denies the work of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Kingdom of God - that is sin, we don't need to wait for it to get exaggerated.

Technorati Tags: charismata, Signs & Wonders, spiritual gifts