The Fatal Flaw of the Charismatic Movement

I think a core issue is whether there were charismatics around before Topeka. If that is the genesis of the movement, pointing to the fraudulent birthing is entirely appropriate; if that is not the genesis of the movement, then Aaron makes a valid point that this is likely a mostly fruitless avenue of discussion.

First, Jesus’ reasoning in Matt 7 is the opposite of genetic fallacy. Genetic fallacy ignores the fruit itself and says it has to be bad because of what tree it came from. Jesus reasons that you look at the fruit and go from there. You discern the source by the fruit, not the fruit by the source.

My point about how we interact with the charismatic movement is that if you look at it’s doctrine and practice there are reasons for what they do. The reasons do not include what happened in Topeka. So what needs to be dealt with—as in any controversy—is not how it all started (allegedly) but what sustains it now. What is it based on now and how do people come to believe and practice it now? The genesis of the movement has some secondary value, but not much.

So charismaticism consists of certain beliefs and practices and those are the issue. They can’t be dismissed on the grounds of where they allegedly came from—at least not persuasively.