Personally, I don't know a single apostolic leader who claims to be equal to the original Apostles, and I don't know any who claim their authority cannot be questioned. In all circles I work with, such attitudes would be flatly rebuked. Yet we're told this is the very first hallmark of a "NAR" Church. Some "apostles" might claim this kind of authority, but that would exclude all the leaders I partner with." - Dr. Michael Brown"
Brown often cites this article because he has crafted talking points to rebuff them and thus, he uses it to dismiss all criticism of the NAR. What he engages in here is a parsing out of words. So, he claims that no one he partners with believes these things? Let's go to two direct quotes from the original source:
"The New Apostolic Reformation is an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit that is changing the shape of Christianity globally. It is truly a new day! The Church is changing. New names! New methods! New worship expressions! The Lord is establishing the foundations of the Church for the new millennium. This foundation is built upon apostles and prophets. Apostles execute and establish God's plan on the earth." - C. Peter Wagner
"Apostles receive revelations from God, and consequently they are able to say 'This is what the Spirit is saying to the churches right now.' Making such a statement with credibility carries with it tremendous authority." - C. Peter Wagner
Who is establishing this new foundation bult upon the new apostles and prophets? The Lord! Whose words now have tremendous authority because it comes straight from God? The new apostles and prophets! This false authority paradigm is central to NAR theology as much as dominionism is. Brown knows this of course.
'2. KINGDOM: "Rather than preach the Gospel of the cross, Apostolic leaders are working to bring the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth. They do this by taking dominion of earthly kingdoms or 'mountains' of government, media, entertainment, education, business, family, and religion. Leaders often talk of city building and organize prayer walks to pray against demonic strongholds. They often speak of being mission-focused rather than being Christ-centered."
This too is a gross exaggeration, although some of it is true in terms of dominion theology, a theology I strongly reject. What is false here is the notion that "NAR" leaders are not Christ-centered and do not preach the gospel of the cross. It's also false to group under "NAR" those churches that believe in prayer walks, that speak of being mission focused (which does not mean they are not Christ-centered), and that believe in praying against demonic strongholds. That takes in a wide variety of quite unrelated churches and movements. I think you can already see how these descriptions are, on the one hand, way too vague, and on the other hand, highly exaggerated. How does this help someone genuinely seeking to understand the meaning of "NAR"?' - Dr. Michael Brown
There is a lot to deal with here. First of all, Brown claims to "reject" dominion theology but he actively supports those that openly teach it. Ask Brown if he considers Bill Johnson, Lance Wallnau, Mario Murillo, and Greg Locke to be colleagues if not friends. Rejecting theology while hugging the theologians makes the rejection performative. Ask him what he thinks about his boss at Charisma News, Steven Strang, the most rabid dominionist alive today. Ask him what he thinks about Larry Tomczak. Secondly here, these folks do not preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, no matter how much Brown wants to stamp his feet and cry foul. Greg Locke famously told his congregation that if they did not vote Republican, they were unredeemable and should leave his church. Mario Murillo said they were going to hell. Does it matter at the point if they teach about the cross or hold an altar call? No! This is what Brown always gets wrong. He thinks that Ravi Zacharias' teachings on holiness stand even though while he was preaching them, he had an international cabal of sex workers and masseuses at his beck and call. He said the same thing recently about the now disgraced Mike Bickle. Brown does not strongly reject dominionist teachings. In fact, in 2016 Brown was a diehard Trumper who wrote extensively in favor of the obscenely immoral candidate. He has tried to gloss over this record but when Brown discusses politics, which he still does, he inevitably directs Christians to only the Republican Party, as the NAR masters demand. Thirdly, not all prayer walks are created equal. If a church wishes to walk around the neighborhood praying for folks there is nothing wrong with that. If however the guise is that it is "spiritual warfare" and that they are claiming dominion to take back the neighborhood or whatever other dog whistles they want, yeah that is NAR theology. It furthers the us against them mantra of the NAR. It elevates the saved to a lorded position over those godless heathens. It is also largely performative, as much of Charismania is. Dr. Brown is not trying to genuinely understand the meaning of the NAR. He is trying to diminish it to the point that he can credibly dismiss it.
1
1
1
