Rocky,
The charismatic movement emerged out of the Holiness movement via Wesley that sought to combat the nominalism of his day and push for a more experiential and holiness-producing walk with God. So, although the charismatic movement tends to emphasize more of Wesley's experiental emphasis rather than his doctrinal and disciplinary focus, the entire movement is based on a free-will/Arminian paradigm.
RW Schambach use to try put up with people wanting to argue his faith stand. And after listening to many sermons... He would tell folk...
1. If you don't believe in healing... Stay sick!
2. If you don't believe in prosperity... Stay poor!
3. If you don't believe in faith... Stay in your unbelief!
But just don't mess with my faith! The last thing he would want to do is hang around and debate with people.
The problem I have with this type of "preaching" is that it implies that sickness and poverty are the results of unbelief and that belief is focused on personal faith to change circumstances rather than faith in Christ regardless of my circumstances. Much of the early church was sick, poor, and outcast and it wasnt because of their lack of faith. Rather, it was because they were faithful that they suffered as they did. This is what the book of Revelation is all about! It is a message to the church that the reason they are suffering is not because God has abandoned them, but because they are under attack by an enemy that is testing their faithfulness. Thus, they are to look to Jesus and his suffering under trial and follow that example, even to death. Then they would recieve a crown of life.
The fact of the matter is, doctrine matters. Paul told Timothy to watch his faith and doctrine closely so he could save both himself and his hearers. If we put our faith in the wrong things or get our doctrine twisted, it can have devistating effects on our lives. My wife was part of a charistmatic church (I am not trying to be sterotypical, but just recounting an example in my own life) and of all the passionate believers she knew in that fellowship, perhaps one or two still claim to be Christian. They focused so much on experience and feelings in the moment that they were never really grounded in the word and taught to believe in the truth of God's word and built up in healthy doctrine. Rather they focused on personal revelations, experiences, striving for immediate aches and pains to be cured and so forth. Even the daughter of the pastor of the church now believes multiple religions are likely true.
Again, I am not saying this is true of all charismatics. However, to say doctrine isnt significant is like saying we enjoy baking but dont want to hassle with recipes because some argue about which is better. Its unfortunate that Christians divide over unessentials, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because something is abused does not mean it should be done away with. I agree we shouldnt seek to debate for the sake of debate, but Paul sure spent a lot of time debating issues of truth, doctrine and Christian practice. That is pretty much what the entire NT consists of...correcting wrong thinking about Jesus, the Gospel, and church practice. If someone is a teacher and doesnt feel compelled to defend the rationale for his teaching and guidance in the lives of others, something is deeply wrong. I have found some charismatic leaders to be quick to label themselves as apostles and prophets, but then if you question them on something they are teaching, they try to pull rank with their titles and experiences rather than trying to explain why their teaching is biblically sound. To me, that is a red flag. Paul sought to show people through the Scriptures what he was saying was true. If someone is a teacher and they just expect people to follow them and are unwilling to defend their doctrine and teaching, then it would raise a lot of red flags for me.
