Adrian Warnock wrote: Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?
Why shouldn't we have churches that are every bit as concerned about doctrinal accuracy and knowledge as John MacArthur, that love relational intimacy with Jesus as much as John Arnott, see miraculous healings that are every bit as dynamic as the ones the tele-evangelists claim to have seen, are as full of vision and purpose as Rick Warren, as skilled in leadership as Bill Hybels, as humble and committed to spiritual maturity as C. J. Mahaney, as relevant to practical life as the author of any self-help book you can think of, that impact social needs in the model of Shaftsbury, tackle political issues like Wilberforce, preach with both the passion for souls of Spurgeon and the passion for God's glory of John Piper, that hear from God as clearly as any modern prophet, are as aggressively missional as Mark Driscoll, have the apostolic drive of Terry Virgo, and yet somehow still feel as comforting as my wife's homemade apple crumble with custard?Maurice McCracken is writing on similar lines: Am I charismatic yet? His observation? That we need both a strong doctrine of the regeneration of the heart and a strong doctrine of the depravity of the heart. Is it so unreasonable to believe that God is at work in me, and to simultaneously be suspicious of myself, always scrutinising myself with the scriptures? Let's have both.