Defending Charismatic Theology to Non-Charismatic Believers

The upshot of this tip is three-fold. First, do not debate with someone whose views have been adopted due to a negative emotional experience. Facts rarely trump emotion. If you have any doubts, consider how parents react when told that their child is below average due to a lack of ability rather than lack of effort. Even though everyone knows that 50% of the population must have below average intelligence, everyone thinks they are not part of that group. Second, personal stories will help you understand not only your interlocutor but others who have had similar experiences. Frequently, just listening in an empathetic way will be cathartic for anti-charismatics. Your openness will let them know that “not all charismatics are alike” and thus stimulate them to reassess their opinion of the movement. Finally, their stories will assist you in avoiding unnecessary offence with other non-charismatics. You should also privately commit yourself to live your life in a manner that will avoid adding to his list of charismatic failures.

Tip #2. Recognize red herring arguments.⁴ Red herring arguments rely on directing the debate to irrelevant or secondary issues.⁵ Anti-charismatics frequently employ red herring arguments in their crusade against the evils of the charismatics. We need to be able to recognize them so that we can force our critics to address the substantive issues at stake rather than illegitimate ones. The following are two common examples of red herring arguments:

• Red Herring #1. “charismatic prophecy or interpretations exhibit bad theology and therefore need to be rejected.” I heard this mentioned once in one of my theology classes. Besides being a gross generalization, this argument misses the point. I responded by telling my instructor, on the basis of his argument, we should jettison preaching because, the Lord knows, I have heard plenty of preaching which exhibited poor homiletics and inadequate theological rigor. The professor did not provide a rejoinder.

• Red Herring #2. “I have never witnessed a real miraculous healing.” This argument should never be made by Christians because it adopts the same rationalistic perspective used by atheists to deny their belief in God. Remind your critic that atheists argue that God has never appeared to them or provided them with evidence that He exists either. Therefore, ask your non-charismatic critics, “Do you think that the atheists are correct in their use of this argument? If not, then why do you think it should be used as an argument against the charismata?”

The beauty of this tactic lies in its avoidance of endless debates over evidence. The fact is, you will not be able to provide enough acceptable examples of miraculous healing to convince your non-charismatic brother that God still miraculously heals today. By avoiding the evidentiary issues, you can move directly to the heart of the issue, namely what does the Scripture teach about the continuation of the gifts?

Before turning to the next tip, I must caution readers that exposing red herrings will rarely convince your opponents. However, they need to be rejected because red herrings allow people to avoid the difficult work of engaging the role and place of the charismata. As with all prejudices, people are rarely thankful to those who reveal them. Be prepared for your opponent to abruptly end the conversation or display an angry outburst. Do not follow or hound them. Let the Holy Spirit work on them when their emotions cool down. Neither should you feel guilty over their behavior. The truth frequently offends people. Jesus made lots of people angry and mad. While we should not seek such events, we should not avoid them when the truth is at stake.

Tags: believers, charismatic, defending, noncharismatic, theology

Category: Pneuma Review, Spirit, Winter 2010