Share on Facebook 57 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing

Dominionist Dr. Michael Brown Continues to Whitewash the NAR

By       (Page 2 of 4 pages)   1 comment

This is a widely known tactic of Dr. Brown. In order to sound reasonable and be able to point back on this offer of reasonableness, Brown starts with some whitewashing. The old, "they are sincere but sincerely wrong" argument is being set up so Brown can sound like he is only attacking the doctrine but not the people. It is smart but transparent. Let me do it right back to him. Dr. Brown is right that many do paint with too broad a brush and dump churches into the NAR category that probably do not belong. For example, Joel Osteen's church would be more properly labeled as word faith or prosperity gospel and Joseph Prince should be called antinominalist not NAR. They are still voracious wolves, just not necessarily NAR. Brown gives an early tell into his most popular defense - I know these wolves! Like Obi-Wan trying to assuage me that these aren't the droids I am looking for, Brown always returns to his personal relationship with wolves to defend that they are not wolves. To that absurd defense I raise Ravi Zacharias. I am sure Brown would have always defended Ravi as just such a man of God that everyone else did. Right up until it was revealed that he had sexual massage employees from here to Bangkok at his disposal. I remember one time I was on Brown's radio show he defended the ridiculously heretical supernatural school at Bethel by saying he taught there. As if that changed that what was taught was heresy.

"When you say NAR, what do you mean? How do you define it, and what are your areas of concern (or agreement)? If you say, "That's an NAR church," or, "He's a major leader in NAR," my response is, "Please tell me exactly what you mean by NAR." This is not to be argumentative but to gain understanding. Perhaps we're talking about two different things? For example, all NAR churches are charismatic, but not all charismatics are NAR, meaning NAR here as defined by Geivett and Pivec in their writings. Conversely, all NAR churches believe in present day apostolic and prophetic ministry, but not all churches which believe in present day apostolic and prophetic ministry are NAR." - Dr. Michael Brown

What Dr. Brown desires is to toss this conversation into the weeds where it can be parsed to death to the point that no one really cares anymore. I am not even sure that the notion that all NAR churches are Charismatic is even accurate anymore. As more and more mainstream churches bow to the alter of carnal politics, we see them more and more embracing dominionism. Do not lose sight of the ball here as Brown plays his shell game. NAR churches teach FALSELY when it comes to an apostolic leadership paradigm or regarding the worshiping of this country. So, it is not about ministry but what is being taught about that ministry.

"Based on my understanding of the Word and of different ministry functions and giftings, I strongly believe in the continuance of apostolic and prophetic ministry. I also believe it's important for the overall health of the church to recognize these ministry functions, just as it's important to recognize the functions and giftings of evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Each calling complements the other. Each calling plays a different role in equipping and edifying the body. And each calling presents a different aspect of the ministry of Jesus to His church. At the same time, I reject "the governing offices of apostle and prophet" (this is how Doug and Holly described what, in their mind, is the most fundamental pillar of NAR)." - Dr. Michael Brown

Brown seems to be setting up the difference between cessationism and continuism but that is not what we are discussing. The false apostolic teaching is that the apostles are now in charge and supplant the role of pastor within the local church. This paradigm takes the purpose driven and seeker friendly models of church growth and puts them on steroids. This melds right in with dominionism as now the focus is solely on those outside the church, lost in the darkness of this world. This is a false teaching if one would just read the end of Acts Chapter Two and the initial formation of the church. The believers focused on the word and growing in Christ. God added to their number. The church was designed for them, not the lost. The Great Commission does not wipe out the rest of the New Testament.

"But what, exactly, does this mean? Do I believe that apostles (or prophets) can govern? Absolutely, just as evangelists, pastors and teachers can govern. All of them can potentially lead churches or birth movements or serve as spiritual fathers in a region. Do I believe in the office of apostle or prophet? No I don't, just as I don't believe in the office of evangelist, pastor or teacher. But, to ask again, what exactly is the difference between ministry function and office? For some believers, this is quibbling over words and splitting hairs. To others, these distinctions are important. Either way, if we don't talk to each other and make efforts to understand each other, how can we help each other grow in the Lord? How can we pursue unity? How can we sharpen each other? How can we learn from each other? How can we correct each other?" - Dr. Michael Brown

Note the sleight of hand employed by Brown. He has now made this entire issue not to be about false doctrine but about splitting hairs between believing in offices versus functions. I wish that was all we were disagreeing about, but it is not. The unity Brown seeks is misinformed. We do not unify with teachings contrary to the bible. The only way to grow in the Lord is through correct teaching. Brown seems to assert here that this is a matter of my saying tomayto and he says tomahto, so can't we all just get along? No, we cannot.

"During the course of our dialogue, Pivec read numerous quotes to me from different NAR leaders, many of whom I knew personally and some of whom I have worked with. To my knowledge, those I have worked with are fine Christians, true servant leaders, not authoritarian or heavy-handed, lovers of the Lord and lovers of the Word, sound in their fundamental theology. At the same time, when asked if I agreed with the quotes Holly read, I responded consistently, "No, I don't agree with that position," or, "I would not put it like that," or, "Yes, I agree with your concerns." Welcome to life in the church!" - Dr. Michael Brown

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

Rate It | View Ratings

Anthony Wade Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Joel Osteen Blasphemes "I Am" (54886 views)

Why I Have Left the Assemblies of God (38448 views)

Joyce Meyer Teaching the "Relationship over Religion" Heresy (19619 views)

Joyce Meyer -- A Prisoner of Heresy (17431 views)

Francis Chan Stands With Outright Heresy, Again (14465 views)

Bethel Teaches to Declare God is in a Good Mood and Other Insanities (14170 views)

Total Views: 159019

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: