Sir: Being a young member of the Charismatic Movement, I must make a defence. The Rev Bown (Letters, 25 August) tells mainstream churches to ward against such people as me, because I am in a situation where I can suffer profound psychological and spiritual damage. However, I think that John Wesley, who professed to have been "strangely warmed" in his heart by the Holy Spirit, would have been flattered by the title "charismatic".
Emotion in our services is also criticised. Why is it that when a tragic play produces tears, a comedy laughter, a football match excitement, they are labelled "good", yet when a congregation is moved by the glory of God, it is called "unhealthy".
In expecting miracles, we follow Jesus' example, who obviously advocated "quick-fix" religion. Being addicted to Jesus is no bad thing - the Psalmist tells us to delight in Him, and the Bible tells us to be filled with the Spirit.
If you see a blind dog, do you presume that all dogs are blind? Neither can you call the Charismatic Movement all bad because of one incident.
(Student, aged 17)