< Browse > Home / Bill Johnson/Bethel Church, Che Ahn, Michael Brown, Mike Bickle, Size and Influence of the NAR / Blog article: My response to Michael Brown’s claim that NAR doesn’t exist

My response to Michael Brown’s claim that NAR doesn’t exist

For many years, very few people knew of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) by name, though they certainly were impacted by its teachings and practices. It’s been encouraging to see more people become aware of this movement’s existence and even to see the rise of a counter-movement challenging NAR.

But in response to this counter-movement, some voices have risen defending the leaders of this movement. Some of those voices have gone so far as to deny that the New Apostolic Reformation even exists or, if it does exist, that it’s as large and harmful as its critics, myself included, say it is. One of the strongest voices, in this regard, has been Michael Brown, author and radio host.

During a recent podcast interview, Alisa Childers asked for my response to Brown’s claims. You can read what I said below, starting at 29 minutes into the interview. The bottom line is that Brown hasn’t clearly defined NAR. Nor does he seem to understand the essential thing that makes the NAR, NAR: i.e., the belief in the present-day governing offices of apostle and prophet. Because he doesn’t clearly define NAR, Brown errs in his conclusion that it doesn’t exist, at least not to any significant degree. It seems that Brown just doesn’t know what he ought to be looking for.

The question

Alisa: I have to ask you about this. As I was preparing for this podcast and doing some research and just doing some of my own thinking, I started to see some tweets come down my news feed claiming that the NAR is not even a real thing, that it’s just a fabrication from really overly critical people. Specifically Michael Brown was tweeting a lot and even made a video basically claiming that NAR doesn’t exist. And so I have to ask you about that. So can you sum up what is Michael Brown saying and then how would you go about answering what he’s claiming?

Holly: Sure. Well first, for those who don’t know, Michael Brown is a respected charismatic radio host and author. Commendably he has taken a strong biblical stand on moral issues like same-sex marriage.

But lately, as you mentioned, he’s been dedicating his efforts to debunking criticisms of the New Apostolic Reformation and really been dismissing those who critique the NAR as conspiracy theorists. He keeps referring to the movement as the “so-called New Apostolic Reformation” and has described it in a recent show as a “bizarre false narrative about this worldwide conspiratorial NAR” saying “it’s just a myth.” And he said that he’s personal friends with many of the people who are identified as leaders in this movement — such as Bill Johnson, Ché Ahn, and Mike Bickle — and that they’ve never even heard of this movement so how could it be what the critics are saying it is?

And so during a recent show he [Brown] did on the NAR he said some very good things, I have to say, about specific NAR teachings he disagrees with, such as the teaching that NAR revelation can supplement Scripture. He took a stand against that. And I’m glad he disagrees with those teachings.

But the mistake he’s made, I think, in all of his recent shows and interviews about the NAR, is that I’ve never heard him give a clear, tight definition of what the NAR is. And because he hasn’t provided that clear definition, he hasn’t recognized that the leaders he defends are, in fact, a part of the NAR.

And so it’s important that when people recognize what the NAR is – that it’s the belief in the present-day church offices of apostle and prophet, that those offices govern the church, then it becomes very clear that the NAR is a very large movement that’s been documented by church growth researchers and sociologists and so that’s the key thing to recognize. The defining belief of NAR that sets it apart from Protestant Christians throughout church history, including classical Pentecostals and charismatics, is the belief in these present-day governing offices.

So, once that’s recognized, all you have to do is go to the website of Bethel Church in Redding, California – Bill Johnson’s church – and read their statement that their church embraces the biblical government of apostles and prophets. Or read Bill Johnson’s writings, including the article “Apostolic Teams — A Group of People Who Carry the Family Mission.”

As far as Ché Ahn goes, he’s chancellor of Wagner University, which was founded by C. Peter Wagner. It’s described itself as a school to raise up leaders for the New Apostolic Reformation. And you can go on their website right now and see that they offer courses on the New Apostolic Reformation and training people to be apostles. Ché Ahn also governs a very large apostolic network of over 25,000 churches and ministries that have come under his apostolic authority, and people can just go to his website, Harvest International Ministry, and look at that network.

Mike Bickle, who Michael Brown has also defended, through the years he [Bickle] has taught that the offices of apostle and prophet are [for] today, that they’re being restored for the end time, and that they have an essential role in the unfolding of God’s end-time plans for Earth. He’s talked about these offices in his very popular book Growing in the Prophetic. He, himself, has claimed that Jesus told him, during a visit he took to heaven, that if he was faithful he’d be among a group of 35 imminent apostles, governing apostles to rise up in the last days.

So just a little bit of research will show that all these guys embrace the idea that apostles and prophets are to govern the church today. And I really want to stress that that teaching is very distinctive through church history, that there are governing apostles and prophets for today. So that’s how I’d respond to some of the claims he’s making.


Holly Pivec is the co-author of A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement and God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement. She has a master’s degree in Christian apologetics from Biola University.

  • No Related Post
Follow Discussion

25 Responses to “My response to Michael Brown’s claim that NAR doesn’t exist”

  1. Tiffany Wilson Says:

    Brown is not right. I have friends who became involved years ago and are Very messed up.I got both your books after your interview with Michael Heiser. In hope of helping them. Blessed your work Holly!

  2. Holly Says:

    Thanks for your encouraging words, Tiffany!

  3. roger olson Says:

    If Dr. Brown means that the office of Apostleship is for today. that is with a BIG Apostle then i disagree. Now if he means small apostle then i agree with him. what does apostle mean in the N.T.? one sent. Are we not all sent who belong to the Lord Jesus? Those in Christ Jesus should study Scripture and do Scripture as Jesus , Paul, James taught. It is not for the Church to sit around and study all day and not do anything about it. Go and be the church in the community. and i am saying this to myself. If i am wrong then show me From Scripture. All that matters is what Scripture says.

  4. bill (cycleguy) Says:

    Well said Holly. I’ve been deeply concerned about the NAR’s influence even since some folks I dearly love got caught in it and in the contemplative prayer noose. They have since left the church I pastor to pursue other things. I recently finished Costi Hinn and Andrew Wood’s book called Defining Deception. Boy, talk about an eye-opener!! Anyway, maybe Mr. Brown needs to read it.

  5. arisemylove Says:

    Anything Holly says will always come with a grain of salt because those of the NAR beliefs will criticize her for not believing the full gifts are for today, and they will therefore conclude that she cannot understand the NAR beliefs.

    Holly please correct me if I am wrong about your stand on whether the Gifts are for today, or not.

    As a full Pentecostal/Charismatic personally, I believe one must understand the underlying teaching of this antiChrist NAR movement, so the Gifts are properly put in perspective in our lives.

    As a charismatic, I also believe that the NAR is being upheld by the same demons, or “doctrines of demons” that the Mormon Church is under. The Mormons likewise believe that their prophets and apostles are also for today.

    Then you have to ask yourself why does Satan want us to believe that there are “governing Apostles and Prophets” for today?

    It’s very clear…

    … the reason both the NAR and Mormons want you to believe that big “A” Apostles and big “P” Prophets are for today is so that THE WORD OF GOD CAN BE SUPERCEDED AND REWRITTEN.

    Because the Old Testament Offices of the Prophet and the Old Testament Office of Apostle were those who WROTE THE WORD OF GOD.

    But no one who lives today can claim the same authority as the Apostles who saw Christ in the flesh.

    Notice how Rick Joyner is obsessed with Paul and how he always tries to discredit Paul in his writings. He accuses Paul of having pride and that Paul somehow evolved spiritually out of the sin of pride… Joyner is a liar and an antiChrist for trying to discredit Paul, and he does so in order to discredit the veracity of the entire Word of God.

    I’ll paraphrase Paul here in Galatians: may those who preach any other gospel than that which has been preached, (may those who do so in the NAR) be accursed.

  6. Mark Scheiderer Says:

    Brown was key player in the demonically infested Brownsville Revival years ago and he has NEVER renounced it. He continues to defend it.
    IMO, he is extremely deluded on various issues in the church and is basically flawed/biased/deluded in his “discernment”. I have no idea why he is so popular and why he seems to cross denominational boundaries, being a guest and/or a host on shows like “In the Marketplace” with Janet Parschall and having a rebroadcast of his show on American Family Radio, which are conservative in nature.
    FWIW: I heard him a year or so ago stating that he was in a meeting where those in attendance prayed for one full hour in “tongues” concerning some issue. What a colossal waste of time!

  7. kadri liisa Says:

    Thx for making your statement against M.Brown. i personally do not know who he is as i am not from usa.
    However in my country town has several branches of NAR spreading out like from USA, Singapur, South Africa, Netherland etc.
    Biblically in Acts there was also apostles and prophets in church and as God is restoring his stuff why He should lesve body of chridt only with three official gifts. However i have to admit there is lot of unmature leaders who had done lot of bad things. Like in my church i webcast from usa apostle got idea to bless america famous mormon in three years ago. Enough it is confusing to me and i am still learning about NAR and open theology some of them seems to practice i know also lot godly true leaders in Europe in that movement who follow Bible.

  8. Delkin Says:

    Hey Holly – have you read IHOP’s response to the NAR?


    IHOP explicitly denies involement in the movement as well as the core NAR teachings.

    Also, have you seen the responses generated to your discussion on the Naked Bible Podcast?


    Matthew 18:15-17 gives us very clear instruction on how to handle issues with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Acts 18:24-28 gives a clear example of how to approach someone who has errant theology. In each of these passages, we are called to directly and personally try our best to speak in private with the people we have disagreements with. If we can’t have meaningful dialog, then we are to bring along another brother or sister to help. If and only if that fails, then do we bring the issue to the Church at large.

    Would you please consider asking the list of people that you have identified as part of this movement if they actually hold to the beliefs that you are attributing to them? If they won’t speak with you, would you please consider reaching out to Michael Brown personally and ask him to put you in contact with these individuals you are focusing on?

    Please consider doing this. We are writing this on a public website that is visited by both the lost and saved – we must consider how we are representing Christ, especially in how we handle those we strongly disagree with.

  9. Holly Says:

    Delkin, thanks for your message. A few things can be said in response. First, I wrote a post addressing the misapplication of Matthew 18. In short, this passage is not about addressing publicly delivered teaching; it’s about addressing private sin committed against individuals. You can read it here: http://www.spiritoferror.org/2013/07/naming-names-3/3705 Second, yes, I’m aware of the IHOP statement and intend to address it in a future post. Third, I have spoken personally and reached out to some of the names mentioned, so you’re mistaken in your assumption that I haven’t done this. As far as your concern about non-believers visiting my site, I strive always to write in a tone that is fair, accurate and gracious. Hopefully this approach will speak to all who are visiting the site.

  10. Delkin Says:

    Hey Holly – I do appreciate your desire to be fair and charitable to those you disagree with. I had no idea that you have spoken personally with the individuals and churches you challenge here. I would say this is just me, but I’ve seen a number of comments from your readers and listeners who are operating under my same (incorrect) assumption.

    Something that would be very helpful would be to give those you are writing about a chance to respond in a way that we, your audience, can see. Most articles from news outlets give people the chance to personally respond and comment on any piece in which they are the subject to ensure factual and balanced reporting. For example, we would be more sure that this is a fair assessment of Michael Brown’s views if something was said to the extent of “I showed this article to Brown before publishing and he did not disagree with any major points.” I feel that most people would appreciate an opportunity to weigh into a piece challenging their views prior to it being distributed to thousands.

    And as per the Scripture regarding Matthew 18 – I agree that it is in reference to personal sin, but that doesn’t invalidate the principal of trying to honor others through private correction rather than public rebuke. Also, Acts 18:24-28 is in reference to theologically incomplete teaching, which is perhaps more applicable here – and the correction was done in private. Even Paul’s correction which you cite seems to have been done in the context of Church leaders (Council of Jerusalem), not for the general public to observe and take sides.

    I do appreciate your zeal for truth and desire to defend the faith! Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to comment on your website. I appreciate that you allow contrary views to be voiced.

  11. Tiffany Wilson Says:

    Holly you are 100% correct about Matthew 18. I have been in the ministry for almost 50 years and I’ve seen such abuse by not warning the Lambs and the young sheep and people take that scripture out of context all the time. We are told that when someone is preaching a different gospel that we’re not even supposed to eat with them we’re supposed to love them and pray for them and if they repent to welcome them back. We are to warn, admonish and teach people but never allow wolves in sheep’s clothing that have their own hidden agendas destroy the flock. Those who do do that will be held accountable for it. You are handling all of this in a very Godly, respectful, gentle and kind way, just as the word teaches for it to be done. May the Lord continue to strengthen you Spirit soul and body and protect you and your family for being obedient to the Lord’s word.

  12. Jacob Aitken Says:

    While I respect Brown on a lot of the moral stances he takes, and while it is true that some cessationists have delivered less-than-competent responses to him, I wish he would stop evading these questions. He refuses to call out guys like Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen. That would actually strengthen the integrity and vitality of the charismatic movement.

  13. Samuel Lamonde Says:

    The first time I have seen videos about the laughing “revival” and the “Apostle” Arnott, I cried, still cannot believe the lack of discernment that so many people prove to have, and I don’t even speak of these so-called pastors, which the Word says they will be judge more severely, they really have no respect neither fear of the Lord.. I can’t speak of this movement in the gentle way you do Holly, it frustrate me too much, congrats. I’m french well Quebecois, would be great to have a french version of your material.. Cuz, you know, this cancer is here too, even if it seems to not be spread out or at the very least being weak and dying, for example in Halifax N-S, Bethel is only like a small church of 40 persons congregation..

  14. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Holly, I found it interesting that both Dr. Brown and Joseph Mattera mentioned that “The present apostolic paradigm will bring a course correction to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and view the apostolic as a ministry function—not an office—as an adjective—not a title.” Dr. Brown inferred this in the recent podcast discourse you had with him and Joseph Mattera specifically mentions the “course correction” aspect in his recent posts: http://josephmattera.org/necessity-restoring-apostolic-ministry-today-part-1/ and
    If I didn’t know better I would almost think that this is a defensive response to the whole authoritative Apostolic accusation being levelled at the otherwise stated NAR doctrine.

    2nd point, reference the note left by Samuel Lamonde, most web browsers allow you to translate a web page from English to another language of your choice like French, should you wish to do so. Example: Google Chrome webbrowser does this via https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/173424?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en-GB

    Grace and blessings!

  15. Holly Says:

    Bruce, yes, I saw those comments, too. Joseph Mattera’s book on An Anthology of Essays on Apostolic Leadership is also very enlightening in showing what, exactly, he has in mind when he refers to present-day apostles.

  16. Holly Says:

    Bruce, can you please help me find Samuel Lamonde’s note you referenced?

  17. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Holly, I can view what Samuel stated but here is a copy and paste of what he said “The first time I have seen videos about the laughing “revival” and the “Apostle” Arnott, I cried, still cannot believe the lack of discernment that so many people prove to have, and I don’t even speak of these so-called pastors, which the Word says they will be judge more severely, they really have no respect neither fear of the Lord.. I can’t speak of this movement in the gentle way you do Holly, it frustrate me too much, congrats. I’m french well Quebecois, would be great to have a french version of your material.. Cuz, you know, this cancer is here too, even if it seems to not be spread out or at the very least being weak and dying, for example in Halifax N-S, Bethel is only like a small church of 40 persons congregation.” Hope this helps.

  18. Holly Says:

    Thanks for supplying that comment for me, Bruce!

  19. Gianne Says:

    I recently came across Childers podcast. I am an avid podcast listener. Yet, I did not see how a discussion or debate could happen with Michael Brown. He uses strong arm tactics when people have called in to engage in discussion counter to his thinking on his radio show. So I did not listen and decided not to add Childer’s podcast to my lineup. I felt his reputation was already established so that an invitation would not be offered in the first place.

  20. Benaiah Says:

    Hi Holly,

    Compliments on the thorough academic approach to these issues. We connected already, but I’ve haven’t had time to respond yet due to the finishing up my study into the effects and implications of deliberate congregational disengagement.

    I enjoyed your debate with Dr. Michael Brown recently (the Alisa Childers podcast).
    Here are a few thoughts:

    I think Doug made an important statement that was brushed over too easily by Dr. Brown. He said, ‘The anecdotal element is not trivial, because this is the effect that the movement has on people and their lives.’ Yet, somehow, this is not allowed to be part of the argument — which shouldn’t be so, in my view — I liken it to the anecdotal report of the widows in Acts 6, causing the apostles to take action by having people select 7 wise men to take care of this issue. The report, may also not have been directly delivered, but people murmured about it which stirred leaders of that day to action BECAUSE this murmuring was a valid argument.

    In my research into the effects of excommunication, I found that the common complaint and frustration among those that deliberately disengage from a congregation, is that their story cannot be told and will not be listened to. Not by the leaders they disagree with, and, consequently, not by the rest of the congregation. Their voice is ever dismissed in similar fashion as Dr. Brown did: as incidental, judgemental and unloving/without grace toward LEADERSHIP.

    Strikingly, literally half of my interview participants disengaged from a church that embraced NAR-principles, while I did not select them because of this connection.

    For Dr. Brown to be saying: ’There is hardly a hierarchical thing, it exists here and there…’, is trivialising the issue that is undeniably a real and growing phenomenon — by now even here in the Netherlands.

    There was a lot of stress on the shock of stigmatising leaders Dr. Brown personally knows. What got bypassed in doing so, is the stigmatising of people that are murmuring (if you will). Worse than that, negating the fact that there is extensive documentation of mature christians that are worked out of the ministry or put in their place (so to speak) by leadership within their church (often publicly), that are not allowed to have a voice or simply cannot have a voice, due to the fact that their narrative is considered redundant, incidental, or biased for personal reasons. The latter is baffling as the Church is all about personal lives and relationships.

    By now, I wonder how such people will ever be heard when the few compassionate fellow Christian leaders that are willing to speak up on their behalve, are dismissed as reciting secondhand anecdotes and, therefore, not presenting a valid argument. Many a participant in my research confessed to be so numb trying to get somebody to hear, that they gave up. The Body of Christ at large still underestimates the effect on an individual when leadership puts in their shoulder to silence unpleasant feedback — especially when backed up by fellow (well respected) leaders.

    According to Dr. Brown, the function of apostels and prophets is to serve the Body — to which I agree. Yet, if this is truly the case, then why is there not more attention paid, or unbiased research done, once cries come from the flock suggesting that such people appear not to be serving the Body?

    As a side note:
    Dr. Brown’s defence in brings out alleged positive aspects of the churches and ministers under discussion, by presenting them as having brought in ’a massive harvest of souls…’. However, this argument cannot be brought forth as proof of the wholesomeness of the Pentecostal Charismatic movement. Not everything that grows on the body is healthy. What is more, I have witnessed an incredible influx and exit of believers in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches in the last 20 years. In my observation, this is due to the fact that making disciples are not priority, but rather a gathering of believers in big meetings around figure heads (apostle, prophet, spiritual father, or what not) in combination to a worship service format that is focusing people on what happens on stage (and dimming the lights is but one way to achieve that). As quick as the Pentecostal movement is to claim success based on numbers, the gathering of saints in a building or meeting does not equate the ability to make disciples. The fact that people show up in mass numbers, can be seen in Islam as well, with like fervour, dedication and upright motives. My time as a missionary in Nepal and the Middle East has taught me that many will flock together when something out of the ordinary will take place — and a lot of miracles are legit as Dr. Brown rightfully concludes around, even around the ministers in question that have charisma and display supernatural phenomena. This may attributed to the Holy Spirit who is eager to bless despite someone’s character (e.g. Balaam). But once character can no longer be examined, that is when leaders have implicitly elevated themselves above the rest.

    (Back to the interview)
    What causes a stalemate position in the plight of those trying to raise their voice is indeed the authority factor, as you correctly identified. However, it is not the a question of acknowledging the office of apostles and prophets in order to be blessed that is the issue, as Dr. Brown suggests. It’s more subtle than that. It’s precisely the cloak of spiritual fathers and mothers, the (one-way-only) ‘culture of honour’ which gradually creates a consensus among the flock that you ought to submit to ‘your’ leaders, thereby showing you’re harmoniously in line with how God set up his family.

    With the rest of the Body accepting the fact that leaders are spiritual fathers and mothers, it is implicated as ‘not done’ to correct your parents as children. This unofficial, patriarchal doctrine breeds a patrionizing leadership culture wherein any criticism can be easily dismissed as merely childish, or worse, as rebellion. This belittling attitude toward mature congregants is not taken into the equation.

    It is also not for nothing that Kris Vallotton keeps promoting his view about the Catholic church not having had church splits due to the fact that they view and call their leaders pater (meaning fathers). Despite his ignorance of historical facts — there have been schisms and splits + such a statement denies the fact that Luther split off not as a protestant, but as a catholic — it also conveniently forgets to mention that nobody dared to disagree due to the inquisition that took place, including all kinds of inventive torture techniques. That fear factor is still in place, be it not for physical harm, but rather for being ousted and stigmatised.

    The fear factor toward his friends in leadership that Dr. Brown is so concerned about, should therefore be balanced with the fear factor many have toward ‘rebelling’ against church leadership. Not to mention the potential spin-off that is felt spiritually, psychologically and even physically when actually daring to make a stand against such leaders, as my research indicates.

    Dr. Brown is very keen on pointing out the wrongness of labeling leaders denying the NAR-mindset as liars, and demonising them. The fact that those doing such things are referring back to your research, is an argument that could be applied easily to people that behave excessively as students from IHOP, Bethel Supernatural School of Ministry or Fire. Yet, somehow, their seems to be a leniency toward such excesses, which are often (again) viewed as incidental — an argument this time benefiting the leaders in question.

    The best thing is not ‘to debate’, as Dr. Brown suggests in his final plea, but rather to investigate. Before claiming there is a ‘very small circle’ of abuses, one has to unbiasedly examine complaints. Not on the surface, but succinctly document and retrieve all information around such testimony, and see if there are patterns and connections. That is the proper academic approach.

    Merely talking about what all leadership parties and scholars can agree on, does not eradicate the harm done, nor iron out character flaws of leaders involved or tendencies to muffle complaints.

    Also Dr. Brown seemed very passionate about his concern to stop the generalisations and misconception about ‘fine man and women of God who love the Lord’. However noble this his intention, generalisations are also submitted by Dr. Brown, as he keeps referring to extreme expressions toward the NAR-philosophy. Meanwhile this negates the fact that arguments may be made by equally ‘fine men and women of God who love the Lord’ that have been stigmatised, publicly addressed in a derogatory way, excommunicated without a fair hearing, and sometimes found their lives and ministries wrecked by the same people Dr. Brown holds high. However, these cannot have a voice for some reason, for fear of discrediting the ‘fine men and women’ in leadership. The latter is likely just as biased and unacademic in approach as the accusation directed toward you and Doug of inciting a NAR-witch hunt.

    All in all, I suspect there is a element of being blinded by friendships that prevents Dr. Brown from taking an interest in the factual accounts of people that he, in like fashion, conveniently ‘generalised and grouped together’ as ones who are into ‘conspiracy theories’.

    Although I highly esteem Dr. Brown as a scholar, and I side with his take on miracles being for today (‘got 3-kids-that-shouldn’t-be-alive to proof it), I did not expect such a defensive and unacademic defense from a scholar like Dr. Brown.

    With that, hats off to the diligent work you and Doug are performing in service of wholesomeness in the Body of Christ.

  21. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Holly,
    Dr. Michael Brown was one of the speakers at the CFAN Light the Fire Again conference in Toronto 25-28 Apr 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=176&v=YDTtQ2Gc9GA


    Thought I would send this along just in case you weren’t aware.



  22. dean Says:

    Those who reach that they will take back the world for Christ need to hear jesus when he says of his return… will I truly find any faith?

    What do these people not understand about the one world governemt of the new world order? The tribulation is coming with its one world government…. did you know that when it tells us of 10 kings giving their power to the antichrist that the UN in the 70s divided the world into 10 regions they called kingdoms… just waiting on the kings.
    and I see the mention of the pope in some of these readings on this subject, who do they think Daniel speaks of in 9:26-27? Who is the Prince of the romans who destroyed the temple…. give you one guess..

    As bruce links above, light the fire is nothing but a demonic infestation on undecerning believers….. oh JESUS will find some faith but not alot….

  23. dean Says:

    The mission on azusa street was called Apostolic Faith, wasnt sure if you knew that….

  24. LisaC Says:

    One just has to watch the video of C Peter Wagner, Bob Jones, Mike Bickle, Bill Johnson, Che Ahn, Rick Joyner et al standing on a stage proclaiming their message and prophesying over Todd Bentley about the great work God would use him for (a couple of weeks before he left his wife and children and ran off with a worker from his crusade) to get the truth of who these guys are and what they’re up to. For them to feign ignorance of the NAR is completely deceitful. And now some of these men, along with the Arnotts, Heidi Baker,
    Patricia King, and others, are doing prophetic conferences with Benny Hinn and other prosperity preachers. These are not conspiracy theories. These seemingly disparate characters are joining forces under the apostle-prophet authority banner, usually touting dominion theology. I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit should be operational in Jesus’s church today, and I believe the five-fold ministry are Gods gift to the church for the building up of Christ’s body for the work of service. But that doesn’t mean authority, it means function; not rule, but servanthood. Jesus is our Chief Shepherd, and we are all kings and priests. We can all hear God and should all be ministering to one another to edify each other. I am horrified to see these false shepherds, false teachers, false prophets, and false apostles pushing their false gospel and building kingdoms for themselves. Thank you, Holly, for your courage and obedience. Jesus and His apostles spent a great deal of time warning us about end-time deception. We have to heed those warnings.

  25. Glen Holmgren Says:

    Well Folks, I admire all the hard work some of you scholars do and your sense of responsibility and penchant for protection of the through and the flock of God
    You could sum up Dr. Brown’s response as well as most of the others in that tired old used, MISused & overly abused phrase from the OT “Touch not the Lord’s Anointed!”

    These guys & gals utterly refuse Biblical exercise and accountability for the operation of their spiritual “gifting”.
    They hide behind the old saw and cower in their cloisters all the while wrecking havoc in the lives of sincere believers who only want to obey Christ and the Bible.


Leave a Reply

* Please read my Comment Policy