In the blogosphere and elsewhere, I often come across something like this:
Charismatics let their experiences define their theology...yada, yada, yada.
To which, I can only answer, "Well, duh!"
I fail, however, to see how this is a real criticism. Moreover, I fail to see how non-charismatic, acharismatic, or anti-charismatic theology is any less defined by experience (or lack thereof).
Can someone help me out here?