The Fine Lines that Separate Faith from Fantasy and from Presumption

What is the difference between faith in the invisible God and fantasy? Or the difference between faith and presumption? Failure to recognize this can be the difference between life and death, between truth and error, between a solid, fruit-bearing walk with the Lord and spiritual deception.

The Fine Lines That Separate Faith from Fantasy and from Presumption | Articles | AskDrBrown

What is the difference between faith in the invisible God and fantasy? 

Or the difference between faith and presumption? 

The lines that separate faith from fantasy and presumption can be fine, but they are definite and they are clear. Failure to recognize those lines can be the difference between life and death, between truth and error, between a solid, fruit-bearing walk with the Lord and spiritual deception.

Hebrews 11:6 teaches that “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” 

Faith is essential and foundation in our relationship with God.

Yet many would claim that this very act of faith – putting our trust in something or someone that we cannot see with our natural eyes – is an act of fantasy and self-deception. In the eyes of many skeptics and atheists and agnostics, believing in the God of the Bible is no different than believing in an alleged Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the so-called Pastafarians satirically argued. 

Some believers would respond that there is massive, scientific and logical evidence that points to an Intelligent Designer. So it is hardly irrational to argue for the reality of Hebrews 11:6.

But however compelling those arguments may be – in my view, they are quite compelling – they are not the basis for our faith. They may contribute to our faith and supplement our faith and support our faith. 

But they are not the foundation for our faith, which requires us to take some kind of step in response to our beliefs. 

This kind of faith is illustrated in numerous biblical passages, where the hearer was required to do something tangible in response to a word from the Lord. 

Examples would be the man with a shriveled hand who stretched it out at the command of Jesus (Mark 3:1-5). Or the man who had been lame from birth responding to Paul’s call to, “Stand up on your feet.” The Scriptures state that, “At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.” (Acts 14:8-10)

On a deeper level, true faith requires us to leave our own ways and put our complete trust in the character of God and the trustworthiness of His Word (see Luke 9:57-62). Sometimes true faith requires us to overrule our own logical thinking, trusting in the faithfulness of the Lord (see Proverbs 3:5-6; for an example, see Luke 5:5-10).

How, then, do we separate this real and true faith from spiritual fantasy? 

Surely all of us know people who have been deeply deceived. 

How do we know that we are not deceived? 

And how do we separate this real and true faith from presumption, where we take action – supposedly faith-filled action in response to God – by our own fleshly initiative?

We separate faith from fantasy by doing spiritual reality checks that are ruthlessly honest. We separate faith from presumption by walking in deep humility and serious accountability. 

At the same time, we do not let these checks and balances stop us from exercising true faith, which often involves risk. After all, it’s challenging to get out of the boat and walk on the water at the Lord’s directive! (See Matthew 14:22-31.)

For a present-day example of spiritual fantasy, note these words from a pastor who prophesied that Trump would be reelected as president in 2020, spoken in May 2023 before a large church audience: 

“To all of those who said that we as prophets missed it when we prophesied that Donald Trump would be voted back in a separate term, you’re wrong. We did prophesy that he would be voted back in and he was voted back in by almost 80 million votes. And in the eyes of God the president of the United States right now in the courts of justice in heaven is not Joe Biden but it’s Donald Trump.” (At this point, the audience, also deceived, cheers its approval.)

“Now, whether he’s in the office or not doesn’t matter but prophecy had to be fulfilled, and so God fulfilled the prophetic word. And so whether you occupy it in the physical sense or not does not matter. What matters is did God say it and did God do it, and He did.”

This is complete rubbish. It is self-deception at the highest level. It is sheer fantasy.

I have addressed the false Trump prophecies at length elsewhere, but for the moment, let me simply say this. First, these prophets did not say that Trump would be voted in but not sit in office. Not for a moment. They made very clear that he would continue in the White House for four more years. To put some ridiculous spin on it after the fact is to deny reality.

Second, the whole issue is who sits in the White House and runs the country. That’s what we were concerned about and that’s what we were voting for. Who cares about the alleged President of the United States in the alleged “courts of justice in heaven” when the one making crucial decisions for our country right now is the man who currently sits in the White House, namely Joe Biden? That’s what matters in reality.

Third, if these prophets had really heard from the Lord, why didn’t they tell us the most important part of the story, namely that (in their view), Trump would be reelected but the election would be stolen? Wasn’t that the real issue? This would be like me prophesying to you that tomorrow, the Lord would give you a brand new car, only to fail to tell you that it would be stolen before it was delivered to you. In the end, you’re still without the car.

Cults have grown out of false prophecies like these, including some that set dates for the Lord’s return. When the prophesied dates didn’t come to pass, rather than acknowledging their error, they built whole theologies on the alleged spiritual nature of His return.

True faith gets true results, because it is based on truth, including the truth of God’s existence and the truth of Jesus rising from the dead. And because we find God and His Word to be utterly reliable, beginning with His transforming work in our own lives, we can trust Him in the face of temporary, contrary evidence. 

Soon enough, that faith will turn to sight. Soon enough, our trust will be vindicated.

In the case of spiritual fantasy, things continue to spiral out of control until we have lost touch with reality. We will still “believe” no matter what, and no amount of factual, contrary evidence can convince us. Careful!

When it comes to presumption (for a well-known biblical example, see Numbers 13-14), this arises when we act on our own impulses rather than God’s directives, often because of our spiritual immaturity or pride or stubbornness or carnality. 

We can avoid this dangerous attitude by: 

Constantly praying, “Not my will, but Yours Lord.” 

Walking in humility towards others and being quick to receive correction. 

Not over-exalting our own importance or spirituality. 

Having a submissive and honoring attitude towards authority. 

Being immersed in the Scriptures and renewing our minds to what is written. 

Establishing a solid track record of stepping out in faith, by which you can learn to differentiate between our own impulses and the Spirit’s voice.

In the end, we dare not draw back from true faith because of the dangers of spiritual fantasy, and we dare not try to show off our faith by acts of presumption.

The key, instead, is to cultivate intimacy with the Lord and instant obedience to His voice, learning from our experiences (including from our failures). True faith yields amazing results in this world and glorious fruit in the world to come.

 True faith overcomes the world. (See 1 John 5:4.)

Why We Wrote Our Statement on ‘NAR’ and Christian Nationalism

What do we believe when it came to apostolic and prophetic ministry today? What are the abuses we rejected? What concerns do we have? And did we identify with what is widely called “NAR” today? As for “Christian nationalism,” it can be a benign term, a beautiful term, or a very dangerous term. How did we define it? What did we affirm was healthy? What did we consider unhealthy and even dangerous...?

Why We Wrote Our Statement on ‘NAR’ and Christian Nationalism | Articles | AskDrBrown

Last week, Dr. Joe Mattera and I released, “A Collective Statement on the ‘New Apostolic Reformation’ (NAR)” and ‘Christian Nationalism’.” 

It was signed initially by 64 Christian leaders, some of them representing whole denominations or ministry networks, and the number of other leaders signing on is growing by the hour. 

But why did we write this statement in the first place? 

What were our motivations and what was our purpose?

I should state first that Dr. Mattera and I submitted the statement to a larger circle of leaders, including biblical scholars, theologians, pastors, leaders of apostolic and prophetic networks, and others. We listened to them carefully, revising and correcting and expanding the statement as best we could to reflect the important input we received. But in the end, we take responsibility for the statement, and comments and criticism should be directed to us.

As to why we penned the statement in the first place, there were two primary reasons.

First, we wanted to take the narrative into our own hands, sharing with both the Church and the world what we really believed and why we believed it.

What did we believe when it came to apostolic and prophetic ministry today? How did these ministries interface with local churches and local leaders? What were the abuses we rejected? What concerns did we have? And did we identify with what is widely called “NAR” today?

As for “Christian nationalism,” it can be a benign term, a beautiful term, or a very dangerous term. 

How did we define it? What did we affirm was healthy (in terms of national identity and national security)? What did we consider unhealthy and even dangerous (in terms of marrying politics with the gospel or conflating national identity with the kingdom of God)? What connection, if any, exists between “NAR” and “Christian nationalism,” and where did we stand concerning this connection?

Second, we were acutely aware that, with the 2022 and then 2024 elections looming near, there would be growing concerns about alleged Christian dominionist movements. These concerns would come from the left-leaning media in particular, who would often group all conservative Christians involved in politics with those espousing an unhealthy dominion theology.

We expected that the world would paint with an increasingly broad (and, sometimes, reckless) brush, mingling together some genuinely dangerous, “Christian” rhetoric with the valid concerns of millions of conservative Christians. The statement was our way of setting the record straight for those who wanted to know the truth.

That being said, we did not think for a moment that we could stem the tide of unbalanced and, at times, hysterical secular reporting. And we fully embrace the reproach of the cross and the slander of the world when it comes to our biblically based stands.

We recognize that to the extent we represent Jesus to the world, we will be treated as He was treated. And we consider it a high honor to be maligned and rejected for the sake of righteousness (Matthew 5:10-12; 10:24-25; John 15:18-20; Acts 5:41; 2 Timothy 3:12).

At the same time, we consider it shameful when the Church draws the mockery of the world because of scandals. Or because we have become the appendage (or tool) of a political party (or leader). Or because we have compromised our ethics for the sake of earthly power.

We also did not think for a moment that our statement would stem the tide of criticism from within the Body related to apostolic and prophetic ministry today. Just as Jesus and Paul had their critics, every leader in Church history has had his or her critics, especially those who were spiritual pioneers. So be it. 

That criticism, too, is a badge of honor, as long as it comes as the result of us affirming what is true and biblical and right.

At the same time, there are many valid criticisms of apostolic and prophetic abuses today, criticisms which we affirm and which we have spoken against for years as well.

Now, here in our own words, we have stated what we do believe and do not believe, thereby separating fact from fiction for those who want to know the truth.

Yet our statement was not a response to all critics, in which case we would have needed book-length refutations to expose some of the errors and exaggerations and misstatements and misconceptions.

But now, by looking at the names of those who signed on to the statement, everyone can see what we actually do and do not believe on a number of critically important points of theology and practice.

As for leaders who did not sign on, it’s best to ask them directly why they chose not to. 

In some cases, they represent large networks of leaders and do not make public statements on their own, since they cannot represent everyone in their network (or denomination). In other cases, they simply have policies not to sign public statements or because they have drawn up their own statements. In still other cases, people did not sign on because they did not agree.

That’s why it is best not to draw conclusions without inquiring directly as to why a given leader did not sign on. But for those who did sign on, we urge you to take them at their word. What they signed is what they believe.

As for Dr. Mattera and me, we unashamedly and unapologetically affirm what we affirmed and reject what we rejected. There are no punches pulled and no holds barred.

To read the statement or to add your signature as a leader, go here. 

May the Lord bring about what is best for the Church and the nations!

A Collective Leadership Statement on the 'New Apostolic Reformation' (NAR) and 'Christian Nationalism'

In light of the controversy surrounding the terms “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) and “Christian Nationalism,” a group of Christian leaders is issuing this statement to give our own perspective on these issues and terms..

A Collective Leadership Statement on the “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) and “Christian Nationalism” | Articles | AskDrBrown

In light of the controversy surrounding the terms “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) and “Christian Nationalism,” a group of Christian leaders is issuing this statement to give our own perspective on these issues and terms. 

We invite other like-minded leaders to add their names to this statement. 

(For signing details, see the end of the statement.)

WE AFFIRM the importance of Ephesians 4:11 ministries for the Church today and believe that such ministry functions have existed throughout Church history, even if not described in these exact terms.

WE AFFIRM that contemporary apostolic and prophetic ministries are important for the well-being and mission of the Church, just as evangelistic, pastoral, and teaching ministries are important.

By “apostolic,” we are referring to visionary leaders who are missional, fathering, and pioneering, such as church planters, networkers, or movement leaders, often marked by their focus on gospel expansion beyond one local region. Such leaders are identified by their function, whether or not they use the term apostolic and whether or not they are Pentecostal or charismatic. 

By “prophetic,” we are referring to Church leaders who understand and declare the mind of God for specific times and seasons, helping the Lord’s people respond biblically. Such leaders are identified by their function, whether or not they use the term prophetic and whether or not they are Pentecostal or charismatic.

WE REJECT the belief that contemporary apostles carry the same authority as did the original Twelve Apostles.

WE REJECT the belief that contemporary prophets have the exact same function or carry the exact same authority as did Old Testament prophets. (For more details on prophetic ministry, see here.)

WE REJECT the belief that every church must be submitted to apostles and prophets to be in right order before the Lord.

WE FURTHER OPPOSE the possible abuse of ecclesial titles that manifests itself in self-proclaimed apostles and prophets claiming territorial authority over pastors in a community, city, or nation.

WE REJECT the belief that “new revelation” is essential for the life and growth of the Church or that contemporary apostles or prophets are the only ones privy to such “new revelation.”

WE AFFIRM the full sufficiency of Scripture for the health and mission of the Church.

WE AFFIRM that the spirit of true apostles and prophets should exemplify the attitude and lifestyle of Jesus (Philippians 2:4-12), coming alongside other church and workplace leaders to serve them, not replace them.

In short, WE DENY any affiliation with what is presently characterized as “NAR” in many circles of both Christian and secular press. We also believe that reports of an alleged conspiratorial, worldwide, dangerous “NAR” movement are highly exaggerated and misleading.

As for “Christian nationalism,” WE RECOGNIZE that for some, this simply refers to a healthy form of Christian patriotism, of loving God and loving one’s country. In that sense, the term is benign. 

WE ALSO RECOGNIZE that some media outlets put the worst construction on our words, take us out of context, falsely associate us with dangerous, fringe groups, and unfairly malign us. For those who genuinely want to separate fact from fiction, we make these clarifying statements.

WE RECOGNIZE that America has a rich Christian heritage, despite its many historic failings, and that to the extent we have honored that heritage, the nation has been blessed. And we applaud those who encourage other Americans to pattern their lives after Christian principles that have helped bring God’s favor to our nation through the generations.

In addition, WE BELIEVE that nationalism is a biblical concept in the sense of nations having defined borders and identities, as mentioned by Paul in Acts 17 and by Moses in Deuteronomy 32. God sets national borders and governments and authority spheres for a purpose. 

WE ALSO BELIEVE in the positive value of respecting national borders and national authority, in contrast with an international one-world government.

At the same time, WE REJECT as unbiblical the belief that America is a uniquely chosen nation, similar to Old Testament Israel being the chosen nation of God. (Although God has used the USA in various ways to bless the world with humanitarian aid and military support, and although the Church of America has sent out missionaries worldwide, in the New Testament, Jesus, as the King of kings and Lord of lords has a special assignment for every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue represented on the earth.)

WE ALSO RECOGNIZE that there is a dangerous and unhealthy form of “Christian nationalism,” one that speaks of a potential Christian uprising against the government or hints at the use of force to advance God’s kingdom.

WE CATEGORICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY DENY any affiliation with or connection to that form of Christian nationalism.

Because WE BELIEVE that God made one human race expressed through different ethnicities and races, all of which deserve dignity and respect as His image bearers, WE REJECT all ideologies and movements claiming ethnic or racial superiority.

WE DENOUNCE calls to violent, armed resistance in the name of Christian nationalism or as an alleged means of advancing the cause of the gospel.

WE REJECT the triumphalist, top-down, take-over of society as part of a so-called “dominion mandate,” also noting that we do not know of any major Christian movement that espouses such a top-down, take-over mentality.

WE REJECT the merging of Christian identity and national identity, as if the Kingdom of God and our particular nation were one and the same.

In contrast, WE BELIEVE the biblical way to influence society is by living the cruciform life in which believers lay down their lives in the service of others, resulting in human flourishing for the glory of God. This can include Christ-like engagement in every sphere of society.

And WE DO BELIEVE that Christians have as much right as any other group to have their voices heard in the public square and to influence society, functioning as the salt of the earth and light of the world, and we encourage such activities as good citizens of our various nations and as part of our sacred calling.

WE BELIEVE that Christians should seek to make a positive impact on every aspect of society, including education and media, along with politics, and that by acting on gospel principles, whole nations can be changed.

WE BELIEVE that Christians should be politically informed, should exercise their right to vote, should hold elected officials accountable, and when called by God, should run for political offices themselves.

BUT WE SEE IT AS SPIRITUALLY DANGEROUS IF/WHEN…

We wrap the gospel in the American flag (or any national or state flag).

We equate our country with the Kingdom of God.

We compromise our ethics to keep our party (or leader) in power.

Our church/denomination/ministry becomes an appendage of a political party.

We put more trust in earthly methods than in spiritual methods.

We marry the cause of Christ to the cause of a political party (or leader) as if they were one and the same.

We become as vulgar and rude as the candidates we follow.

We look to the White House or any branch of government in any nation more than to God.

We make a human being into a political savior.

We equate loyalty to God (which should be unconditional) with loyalty to a party or political leader (which should be conditional).

Our prayers and our prophecies become politically partisan.

FINALLY, WE CONCLUDE BY CONTRASTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITH EXTREME NATIONALISM:

The Kingdom of God prioritizes the advancement of the gospel. Extreme nationalism prioritizes the advancement of its ideology even at the expense of the gospel.

The Kingdom of God produces loyalty to Christ above all else. Extreme nationalism produces loyalty to one’s nation above all else.

The Kingdom of God raises the banner of Jesus above all else. Extreme nationalism raises the national flag above all else.

The Kingdom of God promotes the interests of God above the world. Extreme nationalism promotes the interests of one’s nation above the Kingdom.

The Kingdom of God views the world through a biblical lens. Extreme nationalism views the world solely through a geopolitical lens.

The Kingdom of God is dependent upon neither an earthly kingdom nor an earthly ruler but upon Jesus as the King of kings (Revelation 19:16). Extreme nationalism is dependent upon both the ideology of an earthly nation and its ruler.

Followers of the Kingdom of God are passionate about a Christ-centered global awakening. Adherents of extreme nationalism are focused primarily on a political/ideological awakening.

Christ-followers are primarily identified with the Kingdom of God. Extreme nationalists derive their primary identity from their nation.

Christ-followers derive their primary value from being children of their heavenly Father (Romans 8:14-17). Extreme nationalists derive their primary value from being citizens of their country.. 

May the Church put God’s Kingdom and His righteousness first so that He can trust true believers, who genuinely represent His heart, to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

To add your signature to the statement as a Christian leader, go here.

Staying on Mission: A Lesson From the Pentecostal Charismatic Movement

How do we explain the unprecedented, massive, worldwide growth of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Church? And what can all Christians learn from this spiritual phenomenon?

Staying on Mission: A Lesson From the Pentecostal Charismatic Movement | Article | AskDrBrown

For some believers, this is an odd question, since they associate Pentecostals and Charismatics with aberrant spiritual practices and unbiblical, deviant teachings. Why would they want to learn from this group?

The reality is that aberrant practices and unbiblical teachings reflect the “chaff” of this worldwide movement (to use a biblical term, in contrast with “wheat”), just as dead traditionalism, spiritual dryness, and religious hypocrisy mark the “chaff” of other parts of the global Church. 

Each group has its strengths and its weaknesses. And while it is easy to focus on the many weaknesses of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement, the whole Church would do well to learn from its strengths...

How to Have a Constructive Conversation about ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation)

I had the pleasure of spending 4 hours in face to face dialogue with Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec, best known for their jointly-authored books on "NAR" the "New Apostolic Reformation." Our purpose was not to debate but rather to have a constructive discussion...

How to Have a Constructive Conversation about ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation) | Article | AskDrBrown

This past Saturday, August 13, I had the pleasure of spending four hours in face to face dialogue with Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec, best known for their jointly-authored books A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement and God's Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement.

Our purpose was not to debate but rather to have a constructive discussion about what they would classify as “NAR.” Where did we agree and where did we differ? (For the rest of the article, I’ll drop the quotation marks around “NAR” so as not to be redundant. But whenever I say NAR, I mean, “What Doug and Holly describe as NAR.”)

In my view, they have painted with too broad of a brush, wrongly grouping together related but different movements, churches, and individuals, labeling all of them NAR, while using extreme examples to negatively color the whole.

In their view, they have been careful, judicious, and fair in their citations, using the very language that NAR proponents would use and rightly describing a global movement that does, in fact, have a number of key unifying factors.

In my view, having worked on some level with a number of the leaders they critique, Doug and Holly are putting the worst construction on the words and ministry philosophies of these leaders.

In Doug and Holly’s view, they are quoting these leaders accurately and in context, and they can point to many examples of people who have been hurt by NAR leaders and churches.

Having said this, I believe in Doug and Holly’s sincerity. I believe they want to be fair. I believe they truly desire to dialogue with those they are critiquing. And, most importantly, I agree with many of their critiques.

That’s why, in preparation for our meeting, my prayer was that the Lord would be glorified and His people edified. And that’s why we met together to have a discussion rather than a debate.

Hopefully, in the months to come, others will be able to benefit from our dialogue, which was videotaped with the goal of future release.

For now, I would propose that rather than continuing to debate the existence or scope of NAR (which has been a major point of contention for me), we focus on the actual issues.

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 a 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?

Have you ever talked with an atheist who told you why he didn’t believe in God, only to respond, “I don’t believe in that God either!”

It could be the same thing when it comes to NAR.

For example, all NAR churches are charismatic, but not all charismatics are NAR, meaning NAR here as defined by Doug and Holly 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.

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 that 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).

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?

During the course of our dialogue, Holly 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.”

I have worked with hundreds of leaders over the years, some of whom I agree with on virtually every point, some of whom I agree with on many points, and some of whom I agree with only on the most fundamental matters of the faith. (One leader said to me jokingly, “Sometimes I don’t even agree with myself!”)

Personally, I don’t have the slightest problem when a colleague says to me, “Mike, I think you’re wrong on this issue.” And it wouldn’t offend me in the least if, when questioned publicly about our differences, they said, “I disagree with Dr. Brown on this point for the following reasons.”

Wonderful! Let’s put the issues on the table and have a constructive conversation about them.

Who said we had to agree on every point to have unity? To the contrary, we are more likely to find true unity in the midst of our diversity. And I can say to you as a fellow-leader, “I have the utmost respect for you and I honor you in the Lord, but I don’t agree with this statement you made.”

These disagreements may provide fodder for the destructive critics, but for the rest of the Body, this is a sign of being healthy and mature.

That being said, the big question in the context of this article is: What, exactly, are the distinctive beliefs and practices of what Doug and Holly refer to as NAR, and are these beliefs and practices biblical and helpful or unbiblical and harmful?

To say it again, I believe in the importance of recognizing apostolic and prophetic ministry today while also sharing many of Doug and Holly’s concerns. (I hate to disappoint some of the critics, but based on Doug and Holly’s criteria, I am decidedly not NAR.)

And it is my hope that, in the days ahead, while helping to cultivate solid, mature, biblically-based, Spirit-empowered five-fold ministry, I can help amplify areas of concern when it comes to contemporary apostles and prophets.

Let us talk, let us understand, and let us grow!

Do you know the most challenging verse in the Bible? It’s where Jesus said, ‘According to your faith, be it done to you.’ What a holy challenge and invitation!

‘According to Your Faith’ | Article | AskDrBrown

Recently, while flying to Las Vegas to minister, I ended up sitting next to a pastor who was a few years older than me. As he recounted his travels he said to me, “Do you know the most challenging verse in the Bible? It’s where Jesus said, ‘According to your faith, be it done to you.’” 

And he repeated those words slowly: according to your faith.

What a holy challenge and invitation! It is something the Lord has been speaking to me consistently for the last 12 months, even asking me, “Where is your faith?” Perhaps He is speaking to you as well?

A Friendly Word to My ‘Cautiously Charismatic’ Colleagues

In recent years, I have heard Christian leaders describe themselves as “open but cautious” when it comes to the gifts and power of the Spirit for today, including tongues and prophecy and healing. Others have described themselves as “charismatics with seatbelts.” 

But is that really a biblical position to hold? Is it a healthy spiritual perspective?

A Friendly Word to My ‘Cautiously Charismatic’ Colleagues | Articles | AskDrBrown

In recent years, I have heard Christian leaders describe themselves as “open but cautious” when it comes to the gifts and power of the Spirit for today, including tongues and prophecy and healing. Others have described themselves as “charismatics with seatbelts.” But is that really a biblical position to hold? Is it a healthy spiritual perspective?

To speak directly to my “cautiously charismatic” colleagues, are you “open but cautious” when it comes to following Jesus? Or believing God’s Word? Or giving yourself to the Great Commission? Or loving God? Why, then, when it comes to the gifts and power of the Spirit for today are you “open but cautious”?

When it comes to your overall devotion to the Lord, do you wear those same seatbelts? Or do you wear them when you get alone with God in prayer? Or when you engage in corporate worship? Or when you share the gospel with the lost? Why put those seatbelts on only when it comes to the things of the Spirit?

I know, of course, what you mean when you use some of these terms. You’re saying, “I believe that the Spirit is still moving today with various gifts and manifestations of power. But there’s a lot of flaky stuff out there, and I don’t want any part of that.”

Or, “Yes, the Word is clear on this, but there are also many warnings about spiritual abuses in the Bible, which is why I am open but cautious.”

In response, I would say that there are plenty of flaky things in non-charismatic circles too, not to mention all kinds of bizarre and even cult-like interpretations of the Bible in non-charismatic circles. By that same logic, shouldn’t we be “open but cautious” with the Bible itself?

And yes, the Word does warn against spiritual abuses. But it also warns against moral failures and doctrinal errors and wrong leadership practices, just to name a few.

Should we then wear those safety belts at all times and in all situations? Shouldn’t we just say, “I’m a Christian with seatbelts”?

You can quickly see where this kind of thinking leads.

Not only so, but Paul is quite emphatic as to what our attitude should be, and he expresses himself most strongly when writing to a church that was filled with spiritual abuses (along with divisions, serious moral failings, and major doctrinal error).

I’m speaking, of course, of the church of Corinth, to whom Paul says in his initial greeting, “I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge—God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed” (1 Corinthians 1:4-7, my emphasis).

So, despite the very real abuses he will address later in his letter, he commends them for not lacking any spiritual gift. This was important for him to point out as something highly commendable.

Then, he writes, “Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed” (1 Corinthians 12:1), meaning that this was not a subject to be avoided. Quite the contrary. And he explicitly attributed these spiritual gifts to the Father, Son, and Spirit (12:4-6).

As for correcting the spiritual abuses at Corinth, he begins that section of his letter with these words: “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy” (14:1). That hardly sounds like “open but cautious” to me, let alone Paul saying, “Be sure to get those seatbelts on!”

And having corrected the wrong order at Corinth, he then painted a picture of what a properly ordered meeting would look like (as they met together in small groups in homes): “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up” (14:26). Is that what we cultivate in our gatherings?

Then, this final, closing word: “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (14:39-40).

Charismatic/ Spiritual Gifts

The Fine Lines that Separate Faith from Fantasy and from Presumption

Why We Wrote Our Statement on ‘NAR’ and Christian Nationalism

A Collective Leadership Statement on the 'New Apostolic Reformation' (NAR) and 'Christian Nationalism'

Staying on Mission: A Lesson From the Pentecostal Charismatic Movement

How to Have a Constructive Conversation about ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation)

‘According to Your Faith’

A Friendly Word to My ‘Cautiously Charismatic’ Colleagues

Sickness Is an Enemy

Are You Suffering from Prophetic Burnout?

A Unified Call for Prophetic Accountability

Prophecies are NOT Simply Newspaper Headlines in Advance

Who or What Is a False Prophet?

Don’t Despise Prophecy

A Strong Appeal to Those Who Prophesied Trump’s Reelection

Slobbering in the Spirit

Does 'Believe the Prophets' Apply to Us TODAY?

The Essence of the Spirit of Prophecy

Some Practical Thoughts on Contemporary Prophetic Ministry

This is a Great Time to Test Contemporary Prophetic Words

Is the ‘7 Mountains Mandate’ Biblical or Heretical?

Sex Symbols Who 'Speak in Tongues?'

The Shocking Difference Between Pentecostal Pastors and ‘Mainline’ Pastors

An Appeal to Holly Pivec and Prof. Doug Geivett to Separate Yourselves from the Hyper-Critics

Dispelling the Myths About NAR (the New Apostolic Reformation)

So Many Charismatic Casualties

Gullibility, the Great Sin of the Charismatic Church

Did God Send a Prophet to Rebuke John MacArthur?

Justin Peters, Benny Hinn, and the Pursuit Of Truth

Are We Charismatics Doing Enough to Correct Abuses in Our Midst?

A Great Big Blind Spot

Authentic Fire vs. Strange Fire: It's Not about Winning an Argument

A Final Appeal to Pastor John MacArthur on the Eve of His 'Strange Fire' Conference

Why We Need the Manifest Presence of God

Is African Charismatic Christianity a Counterfeit?

Lack of Fire: The True Crisis in the Contemporary Charismatic Church

R.C. Sproul, False Prophecies and the Word of God

Some Thoughts on the Unity of the Word and the Spirit

Great Comments by Jonathan Edwards on Revival Discernment

John MacArthur, Strange Fire and Blasphemy of the Spirit