..while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:13).
Cei Dewar’s unwavering endorsement of Chris Wickland is deeply concerning. His insistence that the congregation trust “this man of God” without testing the spirits is not merely irresponsible—it is alarming.
Before identifying the concern, I will briefly address Dewar’s assertion that “when the priest’s garment is torn, the priesthood has left him." This claim has no textual grounding in the Old Testament and represents pure eisegesis. No Old Testament passage states that tearing priestly garments removes the office. In the Torah, tearing the high priest’s clothing is a prohibited act, not a ritual signal of disqualification. The high‑priestly robe is explicitly constructed so that “it will not be torn” (Exodus 28), and priests—especially the high priest—are forbidden to tear their garments (Leviticus 10:6; 21:10). A torn garment therefore indicates violation of priestly sanctity, not loss of priestly status. Caiaphas’ action in Matthew 26 follows rabbinic courtroom custom, not Mosaic law. The tearing signaled a judicial declaration of blasphemy, a conventional expression of outrage and condemnation. In doing so, he simultaneously broke the very prohibition binding the high priest, making his act unlawful rather than symbolic of priesthood transfer. Christ’s resurrection inaugurated a heavenly priesthood that was not yet manifested on earth; the high priest’s earthly office did not end through his own unlawful act. Theologically, the Levitical priesthood concluded at the cross (Hebrews 7-10). Historically, it ceased with the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (Matthew 24:2; Daniel 9:26-27). Since that point, no functioning Levitical priesthood has existed.
Dewar: "God sets up a man of God in the Old Testament to say 'I will show you where to follow'. And in the New Covenant brings him into a relationship that now says, 'Don't just follow me. walk with me'. ...today I charge you in the name of God to stand when nobody else will stand with this man of God. When you don't understand why he's saying what he's saying or doing what he's doing that you charged in the name of God will trust this man is listening to the voice that I do not hear and leading us to the place of purpose, to the place of promise, even when it looks like we're stuck in the wilderness, because Israel would have got through the wilderness a whole lot quicker had they just trusted the one God put to lead them through. How many seasons of our lives have been delayed or lengthened simply because we did not obey an instruction from a man of God."
This is the stuff of cults!
Dewar effectively argues that allegiance to the “man of God” should outrank allegiance to Christ. His model suppresses critical discernment, removes the believer’s right to test Wickland’s extravagant claims, and elevates trust in a self‑appointed prophet above the authority of scripture. In doing so, both men displace the role of the Holy Spirit and encroach upon the prerogatives of Christ Himself.
The Man of God syndrome is the Moses Model
There is no textual or historical basis for any pastor or leader to appropriate the title "the man of God" as an exclusive, elevated status over fellow elders. Such self‑designation reflects an inflated view of one’s own authority and aligns with the arrogance scripture explicitly warns against (Romans 12:3; Galatians 6:3). A leader who adopts titles of superiority demonstrates a disposition incompatible with legitimate pastoral responsibility (Matthew 23:8).
In contemporary usage, "man of God" has shifted to describe a self‑appointed apostle, prophet, or pastor who operates without meaningful accountability. This figure claims special powers—healing, predicting the future, or functioning as the exclusive conduit of divine blessing—and becomes someone the congregation fears and reveres. In some cases he is treated as the sole channel through which God acts, a posture that edges toward functional worship
The contemporary “man of God” posture reflects a Moses‑style leadership model that has no relevance for New Testament ecclesiology. The Old Testament used "man of God" as a generic designation for prophets and divine messengers—applied to figures such as Moses, Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, as well as unnamed prophetic voices (e.g., 1 Kings 13; 20:28). In the New Testament, Paul applies the term to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:11) as a minister of the gospel, a usage that extends naturally to all faithful ministers and, by extension, all faithful believers.
Biblical leadership remains accountable and subject to rebuke and correction. A plurality of elders is required to ensure mutual oversight. Where humility and teachability are present, a healthy church is more likely to emerge. A leader confronted with concerns does not pull rank but examines himself honestly to determine whether the charge has merit. Where this posture is absent, the system becomes authoritarian and predictably collapses, leaving many exposed to spiritual harm.
I have already demonstrated in earlier posts that Wickland is a proven false prophet. He is openly ecumenical, and scripture instructs believers to mark and avoid such men (Romans 16:17-18). The clearest example is his failed “prophetic vision” for the UK delivered on 31 July 2022, built on Joshua 1, in which he announced an imminent national “shift”. None of the predicted outcomes—the disappearance of major denominations, the collapse of the liberal left, the breakdown of economic systems, or the fall of the government—has occurred in any identifiable or concrete form.1
Dewar presents himself as "a voice for the historic Gospel of Jesus Christ", adopting a fatherly authority and a manufactured moral gravity that relies heavily on emotional appeal. His sermons are theatrical, yet his claims are inaccurate, unscriptural, and collapse under straightforward textual examination. He is part of a group called The Five Fathers, who lead online prayer for the United Kingdom on Sunday evenings. Dewar serves as a missionary bishop in the Confessing Anglican Church (CAC), attached to the Missionary Diocese of Providence (UK). His public ministry is branded through CAC platforms and media appearances, where he advances a politically charged form of Christianity described by mainstream reporting as militant and confrontational. The CAC functions as a small, independent Anglican jurisdiction outside the historic Anglican Communion, and Dewar’s role reflects a self‑contained ecclesial identity rather than recognised Anglican oversight. The movement has gained traction in the vacuum created by the Church of England’s failures and the current political climate; however, its theological foundations are questionable.
I recommend John Collins’ Leaving the Message material, which provides valuable analysis and practical lessons drawn from the corrupt Branhamism cult and the subsequent development of the New Apostolic Reformation.
Collins: "Leaving the Message is a project of William Branham Historical Research, critically examining William Marrion Branham (a.k.a. William Marvin Branham, 1907–1965), a Pentecostal revivalist and doomsday prophet whose teachings gave rise to authoritarian cults and spiritual abuse. We trace his influence into N.A.R., Latter Rain, Word of Faith, and Deliverance ministries."
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.. (1 Timothy 2:5).
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3).
