An Honest Question for the Critics of ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation)

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....

An Honest Question for the Critics of ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation) | Articles | AskDrBrown

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.

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.

Why, then, do I say that the “NAR” of the critics is a fiction?

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. 

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.”

“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.”

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.

To cite one example out of many, one critical website claims to offer “The Six Hallmarks of a NAR Church.” 

“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.

“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”?

“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.”

“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.

“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! 

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.

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?

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.

Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur's 'Strange Fire'

Why Reformed Cessationists Should NOT Quote Church History to Support Their Position

Although it is common for my Calvinist, non-charismatic friends to point to church history in support of their cessationist position, it’s really a mistake for them to do so. A big mistake. Church history actually works AGAINST them...

Why Reformed Cessationists Should Not Quote Church History to Support Their Position | Articles | AskDrBrown

Although it is common for my Calvinist, non-charismatic friends to point to church history in support of their cessationist position, it’s really a mistake for them to do so. 

Church history actually works against them.

The first reason is the most obvious. Reformed cessationists, like me, are in the Protestant, rather than Catholic, camp of the church. That means that we believe that, in some very fundamental ways, much of the church lost its way through history, because of which a massive reformation was needed. Many Reformed Christians even argue that Roman Catholics are not Christians at all, meaning that roughly half of all professing Christians today are de facto disqualified.

On what basis, then, does a Reformed cessationist appeal to church history, when so much of that history is rejected from the outset? 

If the argument is that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which were normative in New Testament times gradually disappeared from church history, what do these cessationists do with Roman Catholic miracles through the centuries? They must reject them as counterfeits or frauds. As a result, they appeal to church history while rejecting large portions of that history that violate their narrative. 

And on what basis can a Reformed cessationist argue against God restoring something that was lost in light of the whole premise of the Reformation? Pentecostals and charismatics believe that, even though there was definitely a decrease in the use of these miraculous gifts at certain points in church history, there is no doubt that they have been powerfully restored in the last 150 years.

Yet it is the very essence of Protestantism to argue that, in much larger ways, things that were part of the early church were subsequently lost to history, only to be recovered by Luther and the other reformers. As British theologian Andrew Wilson rightly noted, 

“this sort of argument - that, since something gradually disappeared from the church over the course of the first two or three centuries, it must therefore be invalid - should strike any five sola Protestant as providing several hostages to fortune.”

As one popular website states, the Reformation slogan, ecclesia reformata, semper reformand, “the church reformed, always being reformed,” is meant to ensure “that our hearts, lives, and practices are being reformed by God’s Word.” That’s what we have been calling for for decades: let us continually reform our practices, beliefs, and attitudes by what is written in the Word. 

A second reason why church history works against Reformed cessationists is that there is clear testimony that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit did not cease with the death of the apostles.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (written around 160 A.D.): “For the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time.”

Irenaeus of Lyon in Against Heresies (180 A.D.): “For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe, and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. . . . We do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages.” 

Basil the Great (350 A.D.): “The Spirit enlightens all, inspires prophets, gives wisdom to lawmakers, consecrates priests, empowers kings, perfects the just, exalts the prudent, is active in gifts of healing, gives life to the dead, frees those in bondage, turns foreigners into adopted sons.”

The position of Augustine (354-430) is often quoted, as he “stated quite specifically that Christians are not to look for continuance of the healing gift” (in the words of Morton Kelsey, Healing and Christianity). He also stated that the gift of tongues had ceased in his Homilies on the First Epistle of John.

But Augustine decidedly changed his views while completing his magnum opus, The City of God. 

“how many miracles were occurring in our own day and which were so like the miracles of old and also how wrong it would be to allow the memory of these marvels of divine power to perish from among our people. It is only two years ago that the keeping of records was begun here in Hippo, and already, at this writing, we have nearly seventy attested miracles.” (City of God, XXII.8, cited in Morton Kelsey, Healing and Christianity.)

And, as I previously mentioned, if church history is used to argue that the gifts dissipated and disappeared, then church history (in contemporary times) proves the opposite. (For a detailed, carefully documented survey of contemporary miracles, see Craig S. Keener, Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World; for the larger exegetical and philosophical underpinnings, see Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.)

A third reason that Reformed cessationists should not cite church history to support their position is that the Calvinistic distinctives of their faith cannot be traced to the earliest church fathers but rather to Augustine, despite some claims to the contrary (conveniently, see here and here). 

I have sometimes heard Reformed teachers claim that Augustine recovered what Paul had taught, meaning that the disciples of the apostles failed to grasp Paul’s teaching and it was only Augustine, three centuries later, who really got it. Consequently, the evidence for Reformed/Calvinist theology is weakened (if not undermined) by the earliest centuries of church history, the very period of history they use to argue that the gifts had ceased.

Fourth, and most fundamentally, Reformed cessationists believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and while church traditions and creeds can be respected, only the written Word of God has final authority. 

That is my position as well, which is the ultimate reason why I am not a cessationist: not only does the Word of God fail to support cessationism, it consistently supports the continuationist position.

And whereas many cessationists admit that there is no specific verse in the New Testament that states the gifts will cease before the Lord returns, there are quite a few verses that speak of their continuance, including verses that urge us to pursue these gifts earnestly, including 1 Corinthians 14:1: “Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy.” This is a command from the Lord, not a suggestion. (Among many other verses, see also John 14:12; Acts 2:14-21, 39; 1 Corinthians 14:26, 39; 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21; James 5:13-16.)

What the Word says alone is more than enough for me, and when you add in the glorious testimony of the Lord’s miraculous acts worldwide today, you have all the proof that you need. 

Let us embrace the Spirit’s work to the glory of Jesus’ name.

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?

Charismatic/ Spiritual Gifts

An Honest Question for the Critics of ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation)

Why Reformed Cessationists Should NOT Quote Church History to Support Their Position

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