Although my last post “Why I
Consider Myself Post-Charismatic” was a bit tongue in cheek, it did express my
heart’s concern. I hope to clarify further
in this post what I am feeling and probably did not communicate as well as I
could have previously. Let’s look at the two word label “Charismatic Movement.”
The word charismatic is actually a
combination of charis (grace), ma (the result of), and ic, from the Greek ikos,
meaning “being like” or “having characteristics of.” A t is added before the ic
if the base word ends in a vowel (asthma t ic for another example). So
charismatic can be rendered being like or having characteristics of one embodying
the results of grace. That is a good thing. I'm all in on that.
One definition of the word movement
is “a group of people who share the same goal and work together to achieve
it.” So we might say the peace movement is
a group of people who share the goal of peace and work together to achieve it.
We could say the pro-life movement is a group of people who share the goal of defending
and honoring life and work together to achieve it. The problem here is not in
the definition or the goal, but how individuals or sub-groups within the
movement choose to act out the definition and achieve the goal. Do differing methods
of achieving a goal cause a movement to become differing movements with the
same name or goal? Do those committed to non-violent protest outside an
abortion clinic and those who vandalize or bomb the abortion clinic consider they
are working together to achieve their common goal of defending and honoring
life? Did MLK, Jr. and Malcolm X,
working toward the same goal in the Civil Rights Movement, use the same
methods?
In Chapter 25 of The Autobiography of Martin
Luther King, King says of Malcolm X, “He was an eloquent spokesman for
his point of view and no one can honestly
doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the problems that we face as a race. While we did
not always see eye to eye on methods
to solve the race problems, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt that he had the great
ability to put his finger on the
existence and root of the problem. He is very articulate, but I totally disagree with
many of his political and philosophical views-at least insofar as I understand
where he now stands. I don't want to sound self-righteous, or absolutist, or
that I think I have the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have
some of the answers. I know that I have often wished that he would talk less of
violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem. And, in his
litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive,
creative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people
a great disservice. Fiery, demagogic oratory in the black ghettos, urging
Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done,
can reap nothing but grief.”
So I guess my observation when it comes to movements is that
when men get involved it is easy for the original goal to become muddied in the
midst of working it out. Sometimes just labeling something puts it in a box
never intended for it. When man tries to institutionalize what was never
intended to be institutionalized, what happens over time? What does Jesus think of the institutionalizing
of His original goal and vision for His followers? Remember it was the movement of the Spirit on
the day of Pentecost that brought life to the church, not a man labeled or
institutionalized Charismatic Movement. This movement of the Holy Spirit in the
heart of the believer is the only movement we should be concerned with.
No comments:
Post a Comment