IN THE ENTIRE RANGE of contemporary Christian theology and personal experience, few topics are currently more important than those associated with what is now commonly called “the charismatic movement.” The label itself, as we shall see, is in the light of the biblical usage of χάρισμα (charisma) somewhat misleading; but because it is the common term, I shall continue to use it. What makes the subject difficult in any case is not so much the label as the substance. The movement embraces not only the traditional “Pentecostal” denominations but substantial minorities in most of the denominations of Christendom; and in some parts of the world—South America for instance—it is simultaneously the major Protestant voice and a successful invader of the Roman Catholic church. Whatever their theological commitments, young clergy will wrestle with questions raised by the charismatic movement as frequently and in some instances as painfully as anything else that comes their way.
As the charismatic movement has grown, so also has it become more diversified, thereby rendering many generalizations about it remarkably reductionistic. But it is probably fair to say that both charismatics and noncharismatics (if I may continue to use those terms in nonbiblical ways) often cherish neat stereotypes of the other party. As judged by the charismatics, noncharismatics tend to be stodgy traditionalists who do not really believe the Bible and who are not really hungry for the Lord. They are afraid of profound spiritual experience, too proud to give themselves wholeheartedly to God, more concerned for ritual than for reality, and more in love with propositional truth than with the truth incarnate. They are better at writing theological tomes than at evangelism; they are defeatist in outlook, defensive in stance, dull in worship, and devoid of the Spirit’s power in their personal experience. The noncharismatics themselves, of course, tend to see things a little differently. The charismatics, they think, have succumbed to the modern love of “experience,” even at the expense of truth. Charismatics are thought to be profoundly unbiblical, especially when they elevate their experience of tongues to the level of theological and spiritual shibboleth. If they are growing, no small part of their strength can be ascribed to their raw triumphalism, their populist elitism, their promise of shortcuts to holiness and power. They are better at splitting churches and stealing sheep than they are at evangelism, more accomplished in spiritual one-upmanship before other believers than in faithful, humble service. They are imperialistic in outlook (only they have the “full gospel”), abrasive in stance, uncontrolled in worship, and devoid of any real grasp of the Bible that goes beyond mere proof-texting.
Of course, both sides concede that the caricatures I have drawn admit notable exceptions; but the profound suspicions on both sides make genuine dialogue extremely difficult. This is especially painful, indeed embarrassing, in light of the commitment made by most believers on both sides to the Bible’s authority. The stereotyped positions of the two sides are so antithetical, even though both claim to be biblical, that we must conclude one of three things: one side or the other is right in its interpretation of Scripture on these points, and the other is correspondingly wrong; both sides are to some degree wrong, and some better way of understanding Scripture must be found; or the Bible simply does not speak clearly and univocally to these issues, and both sides of the dispute have extrapolated the Bible’s teachings to entrenched positions not themselves defensible in Scripture.
We must in any case return to Scripture. That is the rationale for this series. I have no delusions that what I say is particularly innovative or will prove thoroughly convincing to everyone who has thought about these issues; and the narrowness of the primary focus—only three chapters from one New Testament document—necessarily circumscribes my conclusions. Nevertheless, I hope my concluding chapter will integrate enough other biblical material, especially from the Book of Acts, that the conclusions will not appear distorted. Moreover, although most of my attention will be devoted to the text of 1 Corinthians 12–14, my concern to make this a theological exposition (as the subtitle stipulates) will force me to interact a little with some other Christian doctrines, as well as with the findings of linguists, social anthropologists, historians, and the practical and popular beliefs of the contemporary church, even where such considerations range outside the domain of the student of the New Testament; for I am persuaded that if the church is to have peace on these issues, we must evenhandedly attempt to weight all the relevant evidence even while we insist that the authority of Scripture must prevail. That authority, of course, should not be transferred to me, as the interpreter; and so I shall from time to time indicate the degree of certainty with which I make interpretative judgments, so that even if we cannot agree on all the details, perhaps most of us can come to agreement on the most central matters.