An exhaustive response to the latest attempt from Dr. Brown to pretend the NAR doesn't exist...

::::::::

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; - 2Thessalonians 2:3 (KJV)

Click Here

For someone who once swore the NAR did not exist and now spends his days persuading people that it essentially does not exist as we all know it does, the imaginary NAR sure seems to have rented permanent space in Dr. Michael Brown's brain. It seems every week I come across yet another distorted article designed to muddy the waters about something that is crystal clear to anyone with an ounce of discernment. I was bored reviewing the usual Charisma News smorgasbord of false prophets and political gaslighting disguised as piety and decided to wander over to Dr. Brown's website. I found the above article I had missed from a few weeks back which claims he wants to ask an honest question of NAR critics. I am gingerly approaching this because rarely are such questions from Dr. Brown actually honest but let us reason once more beloved as we go through this together.

"This article is not meant to provoke or insult or demean or antagonize or gaslight. Instead, it is meant to help readers understand why I continue to say that the "NAR" of the critics does not exist. Remember that I freely acknowledge the existence of the New Apostolic Reformation as articulated by Peter Wagner and, in certain ways, spearheaded by him. I freely acknowledge that I have been a member and leader in the US Coalition of Apostolic Leaders (USCAL), but only after the name was changed from Apostles to Apostolic Leaders, which was subsequent to Dr. Wagner's involvement. I freely acknowledge that I believe in the ongoing ministry of apostles and prophets in the church, holding to the view that there have been apostles and prophets operating in the Church throughout history, even if not called by those names." - Dr. Michael Brown

This is the latest tactic from Dr. Brown, who is a gatekeeper for NAR false teachers and prophets. What I mean by that is while he may not advocate for many NAR positions himself, he spends his ministry these days defending those that do. He does so however in a disingenuous manner. Originally, he absolutely pretended the NAR did not even exist. When he realized there were far too many materials on the NAR, a term coined by his former colleague C. Peter Wagner, Brown had to change strategies. So, the new talking point is that the NAR as the critics describe it, does not exist. That it is just good old-fashioned Pentecostals concerned about our country and who have just as much a right to politically guide it as those godless lefty heathens. Except of course they do so by pretending their political choices are God's choices and that anyone who does not vote as they do, are hell-bound miscreants. Hyperbole? Not if you listen to Greg Locke, Mario Murillo and their ilk, none of which Dr. Brown would dare criticize.

It is interesting here that Brown highlights a group of people who on their own decided they were apostles. I agree that apostolic work, known as missionary work, has always been carried on within the church. I further agree that people have acted prophetically, as this is one of the active gifts of the Holy Spirit. I am not of course speaking about the psychic parlor tricks and clairvoyance that Dr. Brown endorses as prophecy today. This notion that prophets in the New Testament are held to laughably lower standards than their Old Testament counterparts is absurdly not supported by the bible. I acknowledge that the brainchild of C. Peter Wagner has been morphed so greatly over the years since his passing, but we all agree he started the idea. He wrote extensively about it. The problem back then remains the same problem Brown finds himself in now. You see, Wagner's posited that God was putting the band back together by reintroducing the apostles in these last days and wouldn't you know it? He was one of them! Except he wasn't of course, and God was doing no such thing. Brown has the same credibility problem when freely admitting he is part of an organization that essentially have declared themselves apostles. They are not.

"I freely acknowledge that I am friends with men like Lou Engle, Randy Clark, and Sid Roth. I freely acknowledge that I am an unashamed Pentecostal-Charismatic, that I have spoken in tongues since January 24, 1972, and that I will gladly debate any qualified leader or scholar on the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit." - Dr. Michael Brown

Once again, Brown highlights many parts of what makes him so dangerous and problematic. Who we decide to share the stage with and call friend matters. Lou Engle is a ridiculously false prophet. Randy Clark is the same as a false teacher. Both however are made to look like Charles Spurgeon if they stand next to the inane Sid Roth. Brown only names these three, but he has also defended the sneaky squid spirit nonsense and Jennifer LeClaire and referred to both Benny Hinn and Joseph Prince as "good brothers in the Lord", when I was on his radio program. The issue of the gifts is one that Brown likes to focus on but that just muddies the waters. Cessationism is as unsupported biblically as the baby babble version of tongues Brown brags about. There is no doubt about two fundamental truths that are confirmed in scripture. The first is that the gifts were meant for the entire existence of the church and not just the Apostolic Age. Secondly, the current Charismatic manifestations of the gifts are not biblical either.

"Why, then, do I say that the "NAR" of the critics is a fiction? I'll do my best to explain. On December 12, I'm scheduled to interview historian Matthew D. Taylor on my Line of Fire broadcast. Dr. Taylor is one of the hosts of the podcast called "Charismatic Revival Fury: The New Apostolic Reformation," as well as the author of a forthcoming book The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement that Is Threatening Our Democracy. He believes that there is a direct connection between the events of January 6 and the New Apostolic Reformation founded by Dr. Wagner. That's what we'll be focusing on in our interview, and while we definitely have some profound differences, we do share a number of common (and serious) concerns." - Dr. Michael Brown

This is another tried and true strategy from Brown. Find someone he likes to represent the negative opinions of him and use that person as a foil against anyone who might be critical. I do not know Matthew Taylor and do not believe I have even heard of him. Taylor is right that there is a clear through line between the NAR dominionist theology and January 6^th. Realize that after storming into the Capital, beating cops half to death, screaming they wanted to hang the Vice President, and defecating in the Well of the Senate, these people stopped to pray thanks to Jesus Christ for their successes that day. It was caught on video. Now, I do not lay that at the feet of Wagner, as I think he was more focused on the apostolic side of things rather than the dominionist forces that usurped his moniker but that is a distinction that does not truly matter at this point.

'Interestingly, in light of his investigative research, which included direct access to Dr. Wagner's archives (including personal emails and much more), Dr. Taylor has come to recognize that I myself am not part of NAR. He also recognizes that men like Randy Clark are not part of NAR. And, like me, he takes issue with the scholarly methodology of some of the principal critics of the wider "NAR," while acknowledging some nuggets of truth in their work, as I also do. In Dr. Taylor's own words, if you search online for NAR: "You'll find websites with literally thousands of names indexed of different Christian leaders who are supposedly part of 'the NAR.' " You will find writing about the New Apostolic Reformation that sounds like stuff out of a bad conspiracy novel - where NAR leaders are spookily manipulating political leaders like some sort of Charismatic Illuminati." He adds: "You will also find people, reputable people, journalists, scholars, people who've done their research, pushing back and say, 'Yes, there is such a thing as the NAR' and they can marshal a lot of evidence, much of it coming from Peter Wagner's writing and associations."' - Dr. Michael Brown

Well, I guess that resolves it. One random guy says X, so X must now be true? What kind of silly logic is that? By the way, as I have said even in this devotional, Dr. Brown does not actively teach NAR theology and if asked about the teachings themselves, he would probably denounce many of them. The problem is he provides credibility and cover for those that do. He is a gatekeeper for the NAR. In all of my writings regarding the NAR, I have never written about Randy Clark. Maybe he is NAR, maybe he is not. Recognize though that Brown mentions him to deflect the correct criticisms of other clearly NAR teachers he does support. While many may mislabel folks as NAR that are just false teachers, that does not remove the existence of the NAR. There is nothing spooky or mystical about the obvious attempts by the NAR to manipulate political leaders! Just look at the Oval Office shots of false teachers like Paula White laying hands on President Trump! Just look at the open bragging from seven mountains heretics about getting Mike Johnson, one of their own, to be Speaker of the House! This is why Dr. Brown is so disingenuous. He is constantly asking you to not believe your own lying eyes.

"It is the former "NAR" whose existence I deny, the NAR that has become the charismatic boogeyman lurking behind every controversial tree, the global network allegedly numbering hundreds of millions of Christians, poised to take over the world. It is the "NAR" that is described so differently by different critics that many of the descriptions are mutually contradictory." - Dr. Michael Brown

Yeah, no Doc. This is exactly what you swore at the start you were not going to do - gaslighting. To mockingly refer to it as "taking over the world," when you know that is the exact definition of the seven mountains mandate. Just ask your buddies like Lance Wallnau! He has no problem admitting it! It is not a boogeyman. It is not mutually contradictory. It is simply a collective of ideas, teachings and theology. It started with C. Peter Wagner. It is characterized today by Charismaniacs who abuse the gifts, the supernatural and a false authority paradigm of apostles and prophets, all of which are self-declared. The primary theological focus beyond this is dominionism, quite possibly the last idol of the church age. Dominionism is simply the mixing of carnal politics with a holy God. There are plenty of false teachers who are not NAR. Joel Osteen, Brian Houston and Joyce Meyer jump to my mind as more word faith hucksters who love the prosperity heresies. Others dance with the NAR but may not be full throated. Finally, others are rabid, such as Brown's boss Steven Strang and the aforementioned Locke and Murillo.

"To cite one example out of many, one critical website claims to offer "The Six Hallmarks of a NAR Church." These are: 1. APOSTLES: "We're in a 'Second Apostolic Age.' There are new Apostles are on the earth today, anointed by the laying of hands to represent and speak for God here on Earth. These 'Super Apostles' are equal to the original Apostles - the ones who witnessed Jesus' life, death and resurrection and were appointed by Christ Himself to the office. Since these new apostles are commissioned by God, their authority may not be questioned."

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.

'3. DESTINY. PRESENCE. GLORY. "Though members are not always charismatic, they frequently emphasize a manifestation of 'Glory' and 'God's presence,' and often have a special anointing to receive direct revelation from God, perform healings and other signs and wonders. They teach that our purpose is to achieve our dream destiny so that we can change the world."

Did you get that? If you emphasize God's presence in your corporate services or your private prayer life, you're probably NAR. If you believe the Spirit is still speaking and healing, you're probably NAR. If you believe that God wants to use you, as a follower of Jesus, to be a world changer, you're probably NAR. Once again, you can see how utterly unhelpful and confusing such definitions are, especially when you remember that day and night, we hear about the dangers of "NAR."' - Dr. Michael Brown

Dr. Brown is just being purposefully obtuse here. He knows darn well that is not what this is saying. It is not very confusing at all, unless you are seeking to confuse people. As stated earlier, one of the hallmark teachings of the NAR is this obsession with the supernatural, or what I call false signs and lying wonders. It is not decrying the glory of God but rather the fake manifestations of that glory. Like I don't know, maybe when Bethel pumps smoke through their ventilation system to pretend there is a glory cloud. The dream destiny thingy? Brown knows this is an active teaching in most Charismatic churches and certainly in NAR dominionist circles. It is portrayed as a war, and we are culture warriors taking over the seven mountains to facilitate the second coming of Christ. By the way, if you are being taught that God wants to use you specifically to change the world, yes you are in a NAR church! Are you serious Dr. Brown! Is this world passing away or not? Are we called to preach the gospel so that some might be saved out from this world or not? You either believe in the bible or you do not. It is not about believing in healing today. Everyone believes that. It is not believing that when Benny Hinn waves his magical suit coat that thousands are saved and healed. It is not believing that when Todd Bentley punches a man in the stomach with stage four pancreatic cancer that the spirit told him to do it. Before Brown starts defending himself by saying he denounced Bentley remember he only did so the SECOND time he was exposed as a sexual predator. He also glosses over the fact that the NAR, including his good buddy Bill Johnson, went down to Lakeland Florida and anointed (there's that word again Dr. Brown) Bentley a prophet! So as Brown just said, did you get that?

"4. REVIVAL. "Revival on a massive scale is key in this movement. There is a strong emphasis on an 'end times harvest' through a great awakening that we can usher in. Often these revivals are held in stadiums and reach millions around the world via live stream technology; they are marketed and produced like rock concerts. All scripture verses about an end times falling away are ignored, and get replaced with hyped-up claims about the Next Big Thing that's always just around the corner."

Again, aside from gross exaggerations, such as, "All scripture verses about an end times falling away are ignored," this description indicts countless thousands of churches worldwide that have been praying for revival and believing for a great end-time harvest for decades (even while recognizing that there will be falling away as well). This also indicts the hundreds of millions of believers who have prayed and believed for revival and a great end-time harvest throughout church history. This also indicts much of the world missions movement, along with many postmillennialists who are even anti-charismatic. Uniquely NAR? Hardly." - Dr. Michael Brown

Dr. Brown is again engaging in distraction and hyperbole instead of dealing with the known truths being discussed. To say the NAR is overly focused on pursuing this false revival is so blatantly obvious. That is how the NAR presents their dominionist argument. They butcher American History to turn all the Founding Fathers into tongue speaking Charismatics who were apparently trying to establish a theocracy here in the new world. They ignore the deists. They ignore the atheists. They whitewash the sins of this country such as slavery, sweatshops and imperialism. They pretend the American Revolution, which violated Romans 11, was not about economics, which it most certainly was. They do this so they can create the myth that the godless "left" in this country then somehow snuck in all these other religions into this country and now if we could just beat them into the ground and teach the lost to behave better, then God would send revival. The problem of course is that revival assumes something was once alive. America never was and is not now under covenant with God. This is a point I think Brown would agree with while not rejecting the teachers who clearly do believe this. The bible does not promise this revival. It promises a great end times apostasy, as seen in the key verse above. That apostasy is underway today and being led by NAR teachings. Oh, and these rock show large scale revival events that Dr. Brown seems to gloss over here? He should ask his good friend Lou Engle, who organizes many of them.

5. UNITY. "Unity (at the expense of biblical doctrine) is almost always used as both the how and the why in this movement. Unity for the sake of bringing Heaven to Earth is leading to the blurring of doctrinal and denominational lines, often bringing together well-known leaders of charismatic, reformed, Word of Faith, seeker-emergent, progressive and Roman Catholics churches, all under one umbrella."

Again, I don't work with anyone who believes in unity at the expense of essential doctrines. But hopefully we all believe in unity around Jesus despite secondary doctrinal issues. As for this being a description of "NAR," notice now that this becomes the umbrella for "well-known leaders of charismatic, reformed, Word of Faith, seeker-emergent, progressive and Roman Catholics churches." It looks like everything is NAR!" - Dr. Michael Brown

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.

Reverend Anthony Wade - December 22, 2023

Authors Bio:
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 His purpose.