[google28b52e0868d1e307.html]

Search This Blog

Tuesday, 13 August 2024

MICHAEL BROWN: DESPERATE TO DITCH THE NAR LABEL!

NAR: Myth or Movement? - AG Roundtable (youtube.com)

Michael Brown's false accusation against Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett is that they have caused an unnecessary division within the body of Christ due to their widespread deployment of the NAR label. According to Brown, they have falsely identified people who are not necessarily associated with the movement with their "broad brush approach". Brown's incredible complaint is that they have damaged reputations and demonized and exaggerated the activities of innocent people.

Brown: "I will have people who will not go near my ministry, whatever good we could give or however we could help them because 'I am part of NAR' it is this boogeyman.. it is this thing that has been created that I don't believe exists.. In one way or another, it has come out in an alarmist way and thus an exaggerated way that people that are really not related are put in one group that the worst construction on certain things is put extreme examples are used.. This NAR thing that's been created I don't believe exists..  to see how we can help the body discern better without demonizing, without exaggerating, that's the concern.. "

The reality   

In reality, there is overwhelming evidence that the NAR label is ubiquitous within and without the movement. C Peter Wagner coined the term "New Apostolic Reformation" and became the "Presiding Apostle" of the International Coalition of Apostles (ICA). Ché Ahn used the label in his book Modern Day Apostles which had the endorsement of Bill Johnson, James Goll, Shawn Bolz, Patricia King, Cindy Jacobs, and Lou Engle. The International Coalition of Apostolic Leaders (ICAL)  also uses the label: "This is why it is vital that existing members of ICAL find ways of creating National Coalitions in nations, regions and cities around the world. The AIM Strategy can help make this happen as we endeavor to bring legitimacy to the New Apostolic Reformation."1 Bethel Church in Redding: "Watch as Kris Vallotton and Dann Farrelly discuss the five-fold ministry, denominationalism, mentorship, the New Apostolic Reformation, and much more."2  

In the UK Emma Stark is the Core Leader of the British Isles Council of Prophets (BICP). The BICP are unmistakably NAR having associations with many US NAR "prophets". Simon Braker claims to be an "ordained prophet" and is also part of the BICP. Braker attended the Wagner Leadership Institute.  

The core teaching of the NAR is that the church must be governed by present-day apostles and prophets. Chris Vallotton (Bethel Church Redding) is one of the worst offenders. He falsely claims that if believers are not under apostolic authority then God will not answer their prayers. 

Brown admits that such claims are abusive, but he does not reject or condemn Bethel Church or any other ministry outright. He suggests that the leaders involved in these ministries may need to revise their language or they may need correction, but in his eyes, they are bona fide leaders within the body of Christ. Brown claims that many leaders associated with the NAR do not use the term "office" to describe alleged present-day apostles and prophets and he relegates this as "old language". He now prefers the term "ministry functions" as more appropriate language. I view this as damage control rather than a genuine concern about the inevitable damage these people inflict upon their followers. 

A number of false teachers claim "the office of the prophet" to maneuver themselves into positions of authority by alleging they are directly commissioned by Jesus Christ. Biblically there is no such thing as "the office of the prophet". Prophecy is identified as a gift of the Spirit in the New Testament. (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).  

Emma Stark: The office of the prophet is a gift from Jesus, not the Spirit, mainly listed in Ephesians, 2 and 4, and is part of the governmental structure of the Church. It is more responsible for words that steward leadership, nations, tribes, regions, which are about correction, direction and understanding seasons of time.”4

The assumption that believers can direct decrees and declarations towards situations or circumstances is not how Jesus taught His disciples to pray. The New Testament teaches petitionary prayer. (Matthew 6:7-13; John 16:24; Philippians 4:6; Ephesians 6:18; 1 Timothy 2:1 etc.)

The paradox of "prophets" who make proclamations and declarations or give prophetic utterances in the first person of the Lord while at the same time admitting that they are fallible typifies the reductio ad absurdum of the entire movement. By definition, if someone speaks in the first person of the Lord, they claim to speak the very words of God Himself who is infallible. (Deuteronomy 18:22; Jeremiah 28:9).

Geivett: ".. it's puzzling to me when a prophet says.. 'Thus sayeth the Lord but maybe not' and I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about the effect that has on the church, and it is prolific.."

The critical question (2:32 mark)

Brown: "So you've quoted Che Ahn, you've quoted Chris Valloton,  one known as an apostle, one known as a prophet. In your view would you use the term 'false apostle' like Paul does in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15  'such are false apostles' and he says they are 'servants of Satan', or Matthew 7 where Jesus says 'beware of false prophets they are wolves in sheep's clothing'. Would you consider these men to be true believers who are falsely called apostles and prophets, or would you say in your mind they are false apostles, false prophets?"

Geivett: "..what's needed is a deep fundamental restructuring of the underlying theology that's what we're proposing"   

I was rather surprised by Geivett's response to this question. While he affirmed that the track record of "prophets" is so poor that they are not to be believed, he stopped short of saying that they are "servants of Satan" or "wolves in sheep's clothing".

Geivett's corrective solution i.e. the fundamental restructuring of the underlying theology is rather puzzling. How can you restructure something rotten to the core? Can a bad tree bear good fruit? (Matthew 7:19). The NAR false prophets and apostles do not handle the scriptures correctly, they have disqualified themselves and they have ruined their own reputations. (2 Timothy 2:15 Titus 1:9). 

I admire the work of Pivec and Geivett and I have found their work to be very accurate and thorough. However, I differ with Geivett's assessment of false prophets. The biblical language used about false apostles, prophets, and teachers unquestionably identifies them as "wolves" and "ministers of Satan" in the same sentence in some instances. I am perplexed by Geivett's view that we need special discernment to identify false apostles and prophets in these terms.  
  
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.(Matthew 7:15).
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.. (Acts 20:29-30).
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Brown either doesn't understand or deliberately downplays the danger of this nefarious movement by suggesting "a minor terminological adjustment" due to what he describes as "the tremendous fallout, division coming to the body, good people being hurt other ministries being misunderstood.."  Brown is very concerned about his associates' reputations, but he does not seem overly concerned about the tremendous damage inflicted upon the body of Christ by NAR false prophets and apostles. 

Ironically, the very slogan they once boasted about has come back to bite them and has become a byword! The term New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is here to stay and like it or not their leaders are stuck with it! Praise the Lord!

2 comments:

  1. Hi Treena, Steve Kozar has done some research on Michael Brown and found that he is adjunct faculty for Nations College, which is a subsidiary of Christ for all Nations. Presumably he is being paid for this role. Since Kenneth Copeland funds CFAN, you could argue that Brown is indirectly being funded by Copeland. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you! Maybe this explains his reluctance to condemn Copeland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous.. Brown certainly is adjunt faculty for Nations College: https://nationscollege.org/about-us/faculty/ I can't confirm that Brown is being indirectly funded by Copeland. I think that information would be very difficult to access, but it is an interesting thought! God bless.

      Delete