This isn't just a Pentecostal or charismatic movement; it's a significant trend that crosses over into all sectors of the church at large. This is why Wagner described it as "independent," and he was correct. Had he gone with the term "postdenominational" as a title for the movement rather than the "New Apostolic Reformation," I doubt there would have been any backlash. Instead, critics have grabbed hold of his term and taken full advantage of Wagner's innocent, albeit unfortunate, attempt to describe this type of church growth. I now believe the critics have done this as a way to push a nefarious agenda of their own. The Wikipedia entry for the NAR is a great example. Here's what this online outlet gives as a definition: "The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a movement which seeks to establish a fifth branch within Christendom, distinct from Catholicism, Protestantism (which includes Pentecostalism), Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodoxy. The movement largely consists of churches nominally or formerly associated with Pentecostal denominations and Charismatic movements but have diverged from traditional Pentecostal and Charismatic theology in that it advocates for the restoration of the lost offices of church governance, namely the offices of prophet and apostle." If we examine the source for this entry, we find only one citation for the definition of the NAR, and it points to one Charisma News article from 2011. When we compare the Wikipedia entry to the source itself, we realize it doesn't support anything Wikipedia says other than the part about advocating for the restoration of the offices of apostles and prophets. The rest is completely unsubstantiated. I mention this because I find this typical, not only for this Wikipedia entry, but more generally for people who discuss the NAR. Much of what they say is pure and simple nonsense.
The Kolenda's of the world cannot see so they do not get it. This has nothing to do with the word "new", "apostolic", or "reformation." It has everything to do with God's word however. As for this example, Kolenda seems to now be getting desperate. He brings up a silly entry on a Wikipedia page and then uses it to dismiss anyone who discusses the NAR as nonsensical. I do not know who made this entry but it does fall well short of defining the NAR today. I agree with Kolenda that the NAR is not seeking to become a fifth branch of Christendom. It is far more greedy than that. It does however seek this false authority paradigm regarding apostles and prophets but that is merely one spoke in the tire.
Doctrinal Issues or Dangerous Heresy? The whole NAR question reminds me of a spectrum. On one end, we have some truth and a few facts, even if they're mostly misunderstood, and on the other end, we have extreme full-blown "Illuminati type" conspiracy theories. There in the middle, where most of the NAR criticism lands, we find pure speculation or exaggeration. Even when a critic raises a good point about a questionable doctrine or practice, when we uncover its root, it has nothing to do with something called the NAR. It's just a doctrinal issue that needs to be addressed. Those who talk about the NAR are almost always critics who never have a clue what they're talking about. They usually use the term as a sort of catch-all, generic label to brand people they dislike as heretics. There may have been a handful of doctrinal issues typically associated with the NAR in the beginning, but that list has morphed into anything and everything the critics find distasteful in others' theology.
Notice that Kolenda offers up no proof, no examples, no support for his unsustainable positions. He offers a spectrum he created solely to again dismiss legitimate criticisms. At best, he claims some may possess a truth, a few facts, or a good point but at worst it is Illuminati conspiracy theories. Right. Even when someone might have a point about false doctrine that certainly is not associated with the NAR and is just a small doctrinal matter to be addressed. Let's be clear, something like the seven mountains mandate is sheer and utter heresy. Believing in personal experience over biblical fact is heresy. These are not small matters and no matter how much they are addressed, they remain uncorrected. No matter how Kolenda tries to dismiss the NAR critics as merely addressing something distasteful remember that we are talking about heretical doctrine that will end up landing a person before Christ bemoaning "Lord Lord." I also agree that the term NAR has become a bit of a catch all but it must be when you look at the scope of heresy embraced. Just look at Bethel, ground zero for the NAR. They fully support, embrace and defend prosperity gospels, healing on demand, dead raising teams, grave sucking, false signs and lying wonders, dominionism, and experiential Christianity just to name some off the top of my head. So yes, the term NAR has become a catch all for a cesspool of false teachings that will lead people straight to hell.
One of the main doctrinal issues that can brand a person as belonging to the notorious NAR is a concept known as "dominion" or "kingdom now" theology. This is taught in various ways, but the common denominator is the idea that as Christians, we're called to do more than just hang on until Jesus comes and rescues us from this God-forsaken world. No, we are called to be salt and light. We are here to make a real difference. Part of our assignment as the church is to influence society and culture through our gifts, our talents and our lives in general. Most Christians would agree with what I've just stated. If that applies to you, you might be surprised to learn that this could cause the critics to call you an NAR heretic. How do I know? Because I've been branded this way. Yet as far as "dominion theology" goes, what I just described is what I believe and teach.
At last we get into the false understanding of the bible that is the calling card for the NAR. Salt and light refers to how we live as Christians in a fallen society not how we stop that society from falling. The NAR is constantly chasing a false vision of revival in a world that was never alive to begin with. Dominionism is central to the NAR. It is purely carnal and political disguised with a thin veneer of piety. Do you know where Kolenda even got this teaching? C. Peter Wagner:
"Dominionism. This refers to the desire that some of my friends and I have to follow Jesus and do what He wants. One of the things He does want He taught us to pray for in the Lord's Prayer: "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." This means that we do our best to see that what we know is characteristic of heaven work its way into the warp and woof of our society here on earth. But where does dominion come in? On the first page of the Bible, God told Adam and Eve to "fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc." (Genesis 1:28). Adam, Eve, and the whole human race were to take dominion over the rest of creation, but Satan entered the picture, succeeded in usurping Adam's dominion for himself and became what Jesus calls "the ruler of this world" (John 14:30). When Jesus came, He brought the kingdom of God and He expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth. This is what we mean by dominionism." -- C. Peter Wagner
At least Wagner was honest about his false beliefs. God giving Adam dominion over the fish does not mean God gives us dominion over other human beings who do not share our beliefs. The notion that God needs us for anything, let alone to bring peace to the world in advance of His coming is patently absurd. Remember though; the NAR adherents worship this world not the eternal life. This notion of "on earth as it is in heaven" is bastardized by Bethel routinely. They espouse literally bringing heaven to earth. That is not supported anywhere in scripture. This world is falling away. At the time Jesus walked the earth His followers had real problems with the rulers of the world, Rome. Yet Jesus mentioned this zero times. He taught about how to represent Him in that word zero times. He discussed the politics of that world, zero times. Jesus did not instruct us to push back against Satan but rather to resist him and even that was for our personal lives not on an international basis. Our assignment is not to influence culture beloved. It is to show people the love of God so they might be willing to come out from among that culture. The church however has spent the past two decades trying to find relevance with the evil world and the NAR has succeeded immeasurably. The world no longer sees the church as a shining city on a hill but rather as a corrupt entity that is the easily compromised accomplice to one of the major political parties in this country.
