No Dr. Brown. Everything is not NAR. Stop trying to blur the lines. Brown is a huge defender of Bill Johnson who literally wrote a book entitled "When Heaven Invades Earth!" Now to be honest I may not have included this point, but I think I see where the author was coming from. The dominionist does not care who he gets in bed with as long as they have the same political opinion. Early on in the pandemic, it was Rodney Howard Browne who the NAR embraced because he refused to close his church. Never mind the whole drunk in the spirit garbage. What's a little heresy between new friends? John MacArthur would permanently ruin his reputation to reopen his church in defiance of local ordinances and this landed him an interview with Steven Strang from Charisma News. You would think Johnny Mac would have felt uncomfortable with that association but the dominionism always trumps sound doctrine. In 2014 our presidential choices were the liberal Christian Barack Obama and the Mormon Mitt Romney. At the time, the Billy Graham Association correctly listed Mormonism as a cult but Romney had a 'r" next to his name so Franklin Graham removed Mormonism from the list of cults in order to tell Christians they must vote for the Mormon. Same thing happened in 2016 when the most immoral man ever ran on the Republican ticket and the NAR told us we were not voting for pastor in chief, ugh. In the realm of the NAR doctrine always comes in second to politics.
"6. NAR DENIES THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. "NAR adherents may believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, but God's breathed-out Word is just not enough for them. Jesus' sacrificial death for our sins is not good enough; the promise of eternal life in Heaven is not good enough."
Having served the Lord now for the last 52 years, having worked with hundreds of thousands of leaders and believers worldwide, having ministered outside the United States on roughly 200 trips along with preaching throughout America, having taught at dozens of ministry schools and seminaries, to my knowledge, not a single person I have worked with would affirm this statement. Yet, we're told, this is a hallmark of a NAR Church." - Dr. Michael Brown
Again, perhaps I might have worded this differently, but I think I get the point Brown is trying cover up. First of all, no wolf walks into a church with a wolf sign around their neck. Just like most would never admit to being NAR, there is no one stupid enough to openly admit that the word is not enough, well except for Andy Stanley. The point is that how they teach reflects these problems. When you think that God needs your help to conquer culture then you are essentially saying the word is not enough because nowhere in the word are we commanded to do such. When we insist on dirty, corrupt politicians as our pollical and spiritual saviors, then we are admitting we do not have faith in God's redemptive plan. Case in point was the aforementioned Locke and Murillo but let's look at another example. John Hagee, rabid dominionist, once preached that those that refused to say Merry Christmas should get on a plane and get out of his country. Now, that is a mighty strange evangelism strategy, no? When your focus is on how to improve this world and revive this country, you sure do not seem to be focused on the eternal. I think that was the point.
"The truth be told, I don't personally know a single church that would affirm all six of these alleged "hallmarks." Of what use are they? You might say, "But you're cherry picking. You chose a ridiculous, hyper-critical website rather than a reliable one." I would reply that, first, plenty of people do believe what is on this site, and second, how does one know which is the real "NAR" and which is not? Or who are the reliable critics and who are not?" - Dr. Michael Brown
Allow me to clarify what the good doctor is doing here. He is play acting that false teachers must affirm they are false teachers before we can believe they are false teachers. He is mistaken. Of course, no church would affirm ANY of these positions, let alone all six! No one is claiming they would! That is known in debate circles as a strawman argument, of which Dr. Brown is an expert at wielding. As for the website, I would not charge cherry picking. Most of the points are fair with a couple more nuanced than I would have represented. My charge is Dr. Brown picked this article because he thinks he has cogent talking points in response. The same reason he chose Matthew Taylor. He once chose me but apparently does not like when someone calls him a gatekeeper. Taylor's opening position is that Dr. Brown is not NAR, which is why he chose him. Whatever. The bottom line is any theology or teaching has good and bad representatives. Within Charismania, Mario Murillo recently called out Kat Kerr for example as a false teacher. I assume Dr. Brown would not want Kerr to be the poster child of Charismatics anymore than discernment ministries would reference someone who is unclear in their understanding of what the NAR is. The notion however that because there are differences it indicates the entire argument is null, is absurdly stupid. Dr. Brown is not absurdly stupid. He knows better than the gaslighting he is doing here. I am reminded of when he went on the Benny Hinn show for a week and when I called him out for it, he claimed he was unaware of Hinn's false teachings or prophecies. Right. My cat is not even Charismatic and knows how false Hinn is. Mercifully, this mess now ends:
"So, once again, I come back to my initial question. Why do I deny the existence of "NAR" (let alone by being an alleged leader in "NAR") when I so freely affirm apostolic ministry today, when I recognize the existence of Dr. Wagner's NAR, and when I am an unashamed Pentecostal-Charismatic? It is because the "NAR" of the critics is a fiction, and a dangerous one at that. For that reason, my appeal remains the same. Ditch the unhelpful terminology, give up the exaggerated, fear-mongering, click-bait posts, and focus on actual abuses and problems. Then we can get some constructive work done for the glory of God and the good of His people." - Dr. Michael Brown
Do you know what kind of hubris it takes to write for Charisma News and criticize other people for posting click bait? The NAR of the critics is the NAR. There is no other version. Claiming Donald Trump is the second coming of King Cyrus with a Deborah mantle and an Elijah anointing is an actual abuse and problem. Convincing people that they must vote for your dirty corrupt politicians or face the fires of hell, is an actual abuse and problem. Claiming God is putting the band back together and has named you an apostle is an actual abuse and problem. Pretending that prophets can be 35% wrong and still be considered as hearing from God is an actual abuse and problem. Claiming gold dust, gemstones and angel feathers are supernatural manifestations from God is an actual abuse and problem. So is defending sneaky squid spirits, the angels of abundant harvest, Ravi Zacharias' teachings on holiness, Mike Bickle, Bill Johnson, Lou Engle, Benny Hinn, Joseph Prince, and of all people, Sid Roth. Reposting exactly what this gaggle of hucksters, frauds and heretics have already said is not fear mongering. It is reading. The bible says we are either gathering people to Christ or scattering them away. I think it is extremely helpful to call out those that work to scatter. God instructs us to do so. So, my plea remains the same too. If you are not part of the solution to false teaching, then you are part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem Dr. Brown, step aside and let people with discernment warn the body of Christ, as we are commanded.
1
1
1
