< Browse > Home / Bill Hamon, Bill Johnson/Bethel Church, C. Peter Wagner, Che Ahn, Kris Vallotton, Michael Brown, Mike Bickle, Size and Influence of the NAR / Blog article: The New Apostolic Reformation: Movement or Myth?: With Doug Geivett, Holly Pivec, and Michael Brown

The New Apostolic Reformation: Movement or Myth?: With Doug Geivett, Holly Pivec, and Michael Brown

I was excited to be part of this important discussion with my co-author, Doug Geivett, and Michael Brown. Thanks to Alisa Childers for setting this up and moderating.
What is the New Apostolic Reformation? Is it a growing movement that is influencing and impacting the body of Christ … or simply a myth? Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Doug Geivett, and Holly Pivec discuss and debate the relevant issues on today’s podcast. Listen here. I’d love to hear your thoughts!


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

35 Responses to “The New Apostolic Reformation: Movement or Myth?: With Doug Geivett, Holly Pivec, and Michael Brown”

  1. R. R. Says:

    Wonderful job Holly. I have seen that the NAR are now claiming they don’t exist. If Michael Brown isn’t involved in this, why promote Jennifer LeClaire, Heidi Baker, Sid Roth, and the 100’s who are? Why is there video of Brown at Brownsville. What about Bickles blue print for prophesy? They now call the 7 mountain mandate the 7 mountain underground. Why? because eyes are being opened. Thanks for the expose. More apologist need to stand up. Joseph Mattera just released a paper and mentions the name NAR by name. Do they think we are stupid! Sorry, these people are not my brothers and sisters in Christ.

  2. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Holly, I listened to the podcast and thought that you and Doug presented a strong case. I posted a longer response on Alisa’s site. I was really disappointed in Dr. Brown’s comments and accusations but having seen other posts about his take on the NAR, I wasn’t overly surprised. Keep up the great work and thank you! Grace and blessings.

  3. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Holly, just a follow-up regarding Joseph Mattera

    Joseph Mattera is currently the Presiding Bishop of Christ Covenant Coalition and Overseeing Bishop of Resurrection Church in New York. He is also serving as the United States Ambassador for the International Coalition of Apostles, and as one of the founding presiding bishops of the International Communion of Evangelical Churches.




  4. Mike Lightsey Says:

    Dr. Brown is in this movement up to his eyeballs. He twist scripture himself by saying that 2Timothy 3:1-5 was just talking about people of that day and not today. He bases this on a vision he had of a world wide revival back in the 90’s. Instead of bringing his vision in line with the Bible he try’s to realign the Bible with his vision. This is typical NAR but as evasive as he is on the issue you would never get a straight answer from him on this scripture twisting.

  5. Richard Gault Says:

    Michael Brown tore your NAR conspiracy story to pieces. Holly you really looked openly hostile and not showing any kind of Christian love at all.Just all attack and defending your wrong theory of a NAR conspiracy. It’s not there. Most Pentecostals and Charismatics wholly reject any kind of false apostolic authority.

  6. Stephanie14 Says:

    Dear Holly and other readers,
    I decided to use logic to determine if one of the churches I go to is NAR. I will nickname it ThisChurch. Here is how it went:
    ThisChurch was founded by a couple from Christian International Apostolic Network (Bill Hamon).
    Spiritoferror.org says that Bill Hamon is a NAR leader.
    Therefore ThisChurch might have NAR beliefs in its roots.
    ThisChurch uses Bethel Reddington’s curriculum.
    Bethel Reddington is NAR.
    Therefore ThisChurch is probably NAR.
    ThisChurch says that its related ministries include MorningStar Ministries (Rick Joyner), IHOP (Mike Bickle), and Bethel Reddington (Bill Johnson).
    According to spiritoferror.org – Rick Joyner, Mike Bickle and Bill Johnson are all NAR leaders.
    Therefore ThisChurch is NAR and/or associated with NAR organizations and churches.
    After all that I concluded that it would be safe to say that ThisChurch is a NAR church.
    Now to use emotion: I’ve been going to ThisChurch for many months; seeing some family friends and making some new friends there. About half of my close family members go to the ThisChurch meetings that I come along to. I am currently writing on why ThisChurch is NAR and am planning on showing it to my family (and possibly friends). But that might not help unless I also write about the problems with NAR (help me reader, I forgot what the problems were). Other than that I don’t really know what to do. Basically everyone around me wants me to participate in the Activations (i.e. prophesying over people, being prophesied to, praying for healing), and most of the time I do. What do you suggest I do? Please respond. Thanks.

  7. Diane Woerner Says:

    Dear Stephanie,

    I think your example is more common than you realize, and your question is harder to answer than you’re hoping it will be. This movement, whatever its name and whatever shape it takes, is powerful at a spirit level and is not merely a matter of misguided theology.

    The first thing I recommend is what you’re doing, which is to read and digest what is being taught so you won’t be unprepared for the arguments or justifications you’ll hear. A lot of that preparation also comes through really understanding the Scriptures both in their own context and in the context of historical Christian doctrine.

    The second thing I would do is pray–not in panic, but for wisdom and for God’s grace to be active in any conversations you may have.

    But the third thing, I believe, is to understand what I call the visceral draw of these ideas and experiences. People today are very drawn to leaders who speak with authority, who consistently affirm the hearer’s spiritual value and potential, who demonstrate inexplicable powers, who appear to be knowledgeable about the Bible, and who seem to be affirmed in God’s eyes by the crowds they can draw.

    By contrast, those who might speak against them are easily construed to be negative, divisive, judgmental and even nit-picky. Taken at face value, the second group has very little appeal to anyone who is forced to “choose sides.”

    I would recommend reading Teasi’s comments on Alisa’s blog site, as she has walked the harder path and has deep insight into what it means and requires. I would also find some friends who can support you as you venture into the task of warning people you love. God is powerful to open eyes, but there are no guarantees. The “rewards” of embracing the NAR type community are immediate and deep. But Christ calls us to look for a different reward (see Luke 6:20-26).


  8. Teasi Cannon Says:

    I’m so thankful for this podcast and this continuing conversation. After listening, I have some thoughts:

    I began to study this movement over 3 years ago. I’ve read several books, countless articles, and watched countless teachings and videos in order to be as intellectually honest as I can be. I’ve said this before…I started studying this with a desire to prove the claims wrong…to defend teachers like Bill Johnson or Todd White (who I believed were powerful and inspiring). As I continued to study I could no longer deny the dangerous teachings of the leaders associated with the NAR (sometimes called the Third Wave or Mystical Miracle Movement).

    One of the most dangerous characteristics of this group is the vast amount of doctrine (teaching) they ADD to the true biblical teachings… leading the masses to so many practices that are nowhere found in the Bible (such as charging people thousands of dollars to learn how to practice a spiritual gift, proclaiming visions and dreams as if they are instructive for the church at large today, a huge focus on signs and wonders, pumping up the individual’s majestic calling to be an end-times super-hero, proclaiming a massive pre-second coming dominion of the church…and these are just a few that Jesus himself taught directly against). Some of these prophets and apostles might agree with the essential doctrines, which is deceptive because we think they’re safe. It’s what they ADD that is dangerous…and what they add is misleading masses…growing the followers’ dependence upon ridiculous extra-Biblical teachings that often make complete fools of them (ex: having women get down in their birthing position to birth the new move of the spirit). The Bible is so abundantly clear that no one is to add to its teachings in such misleading ways. Don’t add to or take away from (Rev. 22:18-19, Gal. 1:6-9, 2 Cor. 1, Deut. 4:2).

    All charismatic churches are vulnerable to these abuses…especially those who chalk it up to “good ole Pentecostal charisma.” All charismatic believers are vulnerable (as I am) because we don’t want to “miss out on anything God has” or we are impressed by anyone who claims to have a direct tap into heaven or who seems super spiritual. But it’s a dangerous setup…a very slippery slope. I cannot encourage people to really, honestly, study. Please don’t dismiss this as if you already know all about it (especially if you’ve only read a couple blogs). Don’t dismiss this because of your own personal experiences. The Bible is clear that our hearts are deceptive. Boy! Do I know that from experience!! We all need to see very clearly where the line is being crossed…when solid, Biblical charismatic teaching evolves into something altogether other.

    The best question to ask (as Doug says at the end of the podcast) is “Where is this practice/claim taught in the Bible?” Which obviously requires reading the Bible in context and knowing the true Gospel (entire Teachings of the NT). Especially when anyone (anyone) says “The Lord told me that this is what you/we/the church need to do.” That is a very bold claim! God does not take claims like that lightly. In fact, there’s a commandment against taking the Lord’s name in vain. 😬😬

    In this podcast you’ll hear a conversation between some key voices in the NAR “debate.” There is great food for thought here.

    I have to say…I was very excited to hear from Dr. Michael Brown (whom I have great respect for as a Biblical language scholar) when I saw that he was part of the conversation. But…I’m truly disappointed in the weakness of his position here. What I took away is that his position on NAR boils down to: “I don’t like the name NAR, and I don’t think it should be called a movement. And my contacts (with whom I rarely speak) deny being a part of it so it doesn’t exist.” I am so confused with why he won’t address the abuses coming out of Bethel Redding or the unbiblical origins of the Passion Translation written by one man who claimed to have a personal visit from Jesus who commissioned him to rewrite the Bible with more emotion. (Google it).

    Dr. Brown admits to the abuses and the problems being out there in small measure, but will not admit to the abundantly well-documented abuses committed by colleagues he says are great men of God (Bill Johnson, Che Ahn, Mike Bickle, Brian Simmons). It’s so confusing. I can only assume it’s because he either hasn’t dug in enough to witness what’s truly going on (he readily admits he hasn’t been to these places in years) or he in fact thinks fire tunnels, destiny (tarot) cards, spirit tuning forks, wakening sleeping angels in the desert, acting literally “drunk in the spirit,” and spirit mapping (just to name a few coming from or endorsed by Bethel) are all Biblical practices.

    Some other questions I have are …how many added and false teachings does a ministry/teacher have to promote before we call that entire ministry false teaching? How many abuses do we accept by leaders before we say they aren’t true leaders? If a false teacher is a really nice guy, does that make him not a false teacher? After all, most cults teach lots of truth and are started by really nice folks. (I grew up in one…LOVED the founder!). And…Why are people who call out false teachings disdained in the charismatic church…when the New Testament is replete with commandments to call them out and to turn completely away from them?

    I personally have NO desire to be a heresy hunter, and my true friends know my heart. I just love Jesus with my everything. And when Jesus himself says there will be MANY false teachers who look nice and sweet who come out from AMONG us…and many will say they’ve done miracles in His name, but He will say He never knew them…and not to seek after signs…well, I’m just crazy enough to take Him seriously. And I’m honest enough to know I could be deceived. If we think we never could be, we’re deceived already.

    If we get honest…what we deem “the prophetic” these days honestly resembles New Age mysticism more often than anything Biblical. I can’t think of one true prophet of God who was popular and followed by the masses. In fact…Jesus says the biggest crowd will be those who fall away. (Matt. 7).

  9. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Teasi, excellent response and excellent questions! And you managed to write your response without the cutting negative adjectives, while at the same time calling out what needs to be called out. It’s never easy questioning the doctrine of those who are supposed to be our brothers and sisters in the Lord. The Apostle Paul admonishes us not to argue about things that are disputable (Romans 14:1), like honouring a specific day over another etc but what we have in the NAR movement with regard to doctrine, goes way beyond disputable topics and is indeed, in my perspective and many other highly regarded Christian theologians, a different Gospel from that which was originally delivered to us in the New Testament and, most importantly, to which we are responsible to hold fast to. I, like you, am indebted to Holly and Doug for their dedication and their professional manner of addressing this critical issue. I sincerely thank you for adding your heartfelt input to this discussion. Grace and blessings!

  10. Stephanie14 Says:

    Thank you for responding to my comment!
    Thing is, I haven’t found anything ThisChurch is explicitly teaching that is off the deep end. Unless you consider any of the following as so:
    ThisChurch believes that God communicates through the eye gate, ear gate, and heart/sense gate. “Close your eyes and imagine you see a purple elephant with a green baseball cap on…” They suggest/explain that Holy Spirit often sends you a picture; that is the eye gate. Ear gate… they didn’t explain that one in detail the week I was there, but I’m assuming it would be the first word(s) that come to your head. Again not so sure what they explained it as. Sense gate would be what you are sensing, like if they sense fear they would say God is giving/going to give you peace. When in the case of (physical) healing an example would be: when you feel your arm hurting when it doesn’t usually hurt, that means God wants to heal someone whose arm is hurting or injured (usually who is) in the room.
    When prophesying (from what you receive from one or more of the “gates”) most of the time you are permitted and sometimes encouraged to use First Person — like God would be saying it. Example: instead of “I believe God is trying to tell you He loves you and is giving you peace” they would say something like “God says: I love you and I am giving you peace”.

  11. Diane Woerner Says:

    Hi Stephanie,

    I think I didn’t quite read your original question right and assumed you were disturbed by the things you were being taught. But for anyone reading my comment who is concerned about friends and family members who are unaware of the dangers of NAR type churches, hopefully my thoughts were of some benefit.

    Regarding your second question, I am curious to know what scriptural support your leaders are giving for these sorts of instructions. I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible where all believers are encouraged to seek detailed communications from God for one another as a matter of regular practice. My understanding is that prophecies were initiated by God according to His timing–and often there were long time gaps between these revelations. They also seemed to be usually characterized by warnings and admonitions rather than simply words of acceptance or promises of blessing.

    I mentioned Luke 6 in my last comment. It is my belief that Christ tells His people that along with grace and peace and hope they should also expect suffering and humiliation and rejection and sometimes even death, which characterized His own life and the lives of His early followers. If all your church is doing is emphasizing the blessings without regard for the costs we’re called to anticipate and embrace, then they are not accurately representing the Christianity of the Bible.


  12. Fred Says:

    You may want to get in touch with Costi Hinn, Benny Hinn’s nephew, who came out of the Word of Faith, NAR movement and is now a pastor in Tustin, CA. He has written a book specifically addressing the heresies of NAR called Defining Deception.

  13. roger olson Says:

    I listen to the broadcast and thanks for posting it. i somewhat agree with both sides. figure that one out i guess as in 1st Corinthians chapter 14. Paul wrote to pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy”.

    that is for everybody today. as Paul said all the Gifts of the Spirit are here until the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    that is my problem with those who reject this is for today. Now do i want to go the way of Bethel. nope. Our final authority is Scripture alone.

  14. Delkin Says:

    Hey Holly. I listened to the podcast and I’m in the position of Dr. Brown on this one. I do have a simple question that I’d love to hear your thoughts on.

    If this really were a large movement reshaping Christianity and potentially leading millions astray, why are there virtually no proponents of the movement speaking up on your blog?

    I mean, if you were blogging about say, birth control in the church, you would have comments representing the full spectrum of beliefs and a very active dialog. But just looking through your posts, 95% of the comments are either other discernment ministries or people who have been hurt by the church in some form or fashion and are calling it “NAR”. The other 5% is basically people like me who stop by to say “you guys don’t fully understand our views.”

    The sheer lack of silence from “the other side” really seems to be a very strong indicator that there may actually not be “another side.”

    I’d love to hear your thoughts.

  15. Holly Says:

    Delkin, I receive comments, all the time, from defenders of NAR, whether they call their beliefs NAR or not.

  16. Delkin Says:

    “…defenders of NAR, whether they call their beliefs NAR or not.”

    You call people “NAR” even if they don’t consider themselves in the “NAR”?

    “I receive comments, all the time…”

    Maybe you could consider allowing through more criticism onto the blog…because this thread only has one other critic in here, so it sure doesn’t look like there are many. It could be healthy for both sides to foster a more active dialog.

  17. Holly Says:

    Delkin, you’re speaking outside of your knowledge base. I approve every comment I receive, no matter how vigorously they disagree with me (unless they’re outright promoting heresy, such as arguing for Mormonism), unless they’re slandering someone (like accusing them of being a child molester with no evidence to support their claims), or using foul language. You may have noticed that I allowed your criticisms through. People who support NAR beliefs have thanked me for allowing their comments through, despite their differences with my views. As far as your question about calling people NAR whether they consider themselves NAR, I addressed that issue adequately in my opening comments during the podcast.

  18. Delkin Says:

    “Delkin, you’re speaking outside of your knowledge base. I approve every comment I receive, no matter how vigorously they disagree with me”

    Well, this is my second name to post on your website. I spoke with you a bit about 6 months ago and a number of my comments (and some from your supporters) were deleted as you worked out a few website issues (I think around November). Ever since then, all comments from that name immediately disappear without a “pending moderation” comment whenever posted – you might have a few other users caught up in that situation.

    “As far as your question about calling people NAR whether they consider themselves NAR, I addressed that issue adequately in my opening comments during the podcast.”

    If you haven’t listened to Dr. Brown’s latest podcast following up on your discussion, he hits our objections pretty solidly. I’d be interested to hear your response (maybe a topic of a future post?). The “New Pizza Reformation” analogy perfectly captures what we’re getting at.


    I think we can all stack hands that some of the crazy teachings you’ve found in your research are indeed heresy. We just disagree as to who holds them. The way things are being run now, either millions of Christians are in deception or a few discernment ministries are bearing false witnesses. There has to be a different way.

  19. Holly Says:

    Delkin, yes, my blog had some technical glitch happening that deleted some older comments. I’m not sure what was going on there. I’m sorry about that. Michael Brown has basically said that Doug and I are lumping many people together, including those who don’t hold to NAR beliefs. But we’ve actually been razor-sharp in our focus critiquing those who advance the notion that apostles must hold formal offices governing the church because their new revelations are essential to the church’s mission in the world. Listen again to my opening talk in the podcast. This is what we said, and I haven’t heard Michael respond to that yet. He’s been talking about other issues. Our emphasis has been on teachings about the necessity of the present-day office of apostle. It’s not fair to say we’re lumping everyone together when we’re not.

  20. Al Persohn Says:

    Dr Brown needs to be informed that the Passion Translation is called a Translation NOT a paraphrase:

    Why is The Passion Translation described as a “translation” rather than a “paraphrase”?

    Similar to such functional or dynamic equivalent translations as the New International Version and the New Living Translation Bible versions, The Passion Translation is a new version of God’s Word that is considered a translation because it uses the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts to translate the essential message of the Scriptures into contemporary English.

    Is the TPT considered a good translation for serious study?

    The Passion Translation is an excellent translation you can use as your primary text to seriously study God’s Word because it combines the best aspects of what is called formal and functional equivalence Bibles. It is a balanced translation that tries to hold both the Word’s literal meaning and original message in proper tension, resulting in an entirely new, fresh, fiery translation of God’s Word. Furthermore, this is the first modern English translation to use Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the disciples, as a lens through which to view God’s original Word to us, a word of truth and love.

    From thepassiontranslation.com

  21. Holly Says:

    Yes, Al, you’re correct. Brian Simmons, himself, describes it as a dynamic-equivalent translation and a tool for serious study. In this interview with Jonathan Welton, Simmons says one of the biggest misunderstanding people have about his translation is that it’s just a “paraphrase” and not a bonafide translation: http://podcast.weltonacademyonline.com/podcast/brian-simmons-the-man-behind-the-passion-translation/

  22. Alfredo Says:

    Doug and Holly

    Thank you for your bravery. Each of the testimonials I have heard in this and other podcasts are real, I have witnessed them in ministries like generacionenconquista.org that do not belong to NAR

  23. Delkin Says:

    Hey Holly, I just want to point out that both of your key tenants of the “NAR” are directly answered by Dr. Brown in his discussion on Line of Fire.

    “…critiquing those who advance the notion that apostles must hold formal offices governing the church…”

    If you listen to the 22 minute mark, Brown describes how the formal organization which Wagner used to lead (what can rightly be called “NAR”) has changed its theology from what it once was. Brown is quoting this statement:


    Here is the quote, straight from the leader of The United Coalition of Apostolic Leaders (Wagner’s formal group):

    “The present apostolic paradigm will correct the autocratic top down hierarchical government of many in the NAR and mimic the servant leadership style of Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many!”

    I mean, these are the real organization that could rightly be called “NAR” and they are distancing themselves from teachings that are being attributed to them.

    “…because their new revelations are essential to the church’s mission in the world.”

    At the 20-22 minute mark, he quite literally said that he doesn’t know a single person in all of charismatic Christianity (including those who call themselves apostles) who holds to this view.

    I literally can’t think of any other options – either he’s lying, he doesn’t know enough people in his own movement, or something is being lost in translation.

    This is very troubling. If we are going to call people “NAR” who do not agree with the beliefs of the real “NAR” and attribute theologies to the “NAR” that the real organization doesn’t hold, then this is no longer Wagner’s NAR but a new entity defined by whatever the discernment ministries want to call “NAR”. It’s loosely piggy-backing on a real organization to throw whatever charismatic practices (real or imagined) we don’t like under the bus and punch away.

  24. Holly Says:

    Delkin, I won’t be able to keep going back and forth with you in this comments thread simply because I’m so limited in my time. But I don’t I agree that Brown adequately addressed my concerns about apostles holding a formal office governing the church. It’s just a fact that they claim to hold a formal, governing office. They themselves would not dispute this. Bill Johnson’s church is very open about him being an apostle over that church and their belief that apostles are to govern the church. Statements made by leaders saying that they don’t envision apostles as hierarchical and that they are to be servant leaders do nothing to change their teachings about apostles holding a formal, authoritative, governing office. This office is governmental and authoritative and hierarchical by nature. The same leader Brown cited (Joseph Mattera), said in the very same article that “The church will go from being pastorally led to apostolically led and prophetically inspired.” The teaching that apostles, not pastors, are to be the highest office in the church are common in NAR. They’re documented in our books. I also don’t agree that Brown adequately addressed my concerns about the apostles’ new revelations being seen as essential to the church’s mission. Brown said he doesn’t know anyone who holds that view; but I know of many. We cited some of them in my opening talk on Alisa Childers’ podcast and more in our books. I also give several quotes by Bill Johnson about the need for new revelations on my blog here: http://www.spiritoferror.org/2018/01/why-bill-johnson-says-the-bible-is-not-enough/7702 Simply saying, “That’s not what those leaders meant when they wrote those words” isn’t enough. We must be shown what, exactly, they did mean.

  25. Delkin Says:

    Absolutely understand – time is precious. Last thing then I’ll buzz off…feel free to ignore me! 🙂

    Hopefully there will be more discussions between you, Doug, Brown, and the leaders you’ve identified as NAR. I hate division in Christ’s Body. Especially when misunderstanding seems to be the root.

    Even your take on Johnson seems based on misunderstanding. I’m full on Bapticostal and read this as “we need the active guidance of the Spirit”. I’ve read many of Johnson’s books – and I’ve never gotten the message you’re saying he’s giving.

    When we say “revelation” in the main charismatic circles, we are speaking of something of less authority than Scripture. Your dream from 11 years ago is “revelation” according to us:


    Were you adding to Scripture? No. Were you seeking something that would carry you beyond the Bible? No.

    It seems you caught what could be God’s vision and purpose for your ministry and your heart responded. We’d call this revelation (God “revealed” something to you in a way you understood). Your dream is Acts 2:17 coming to life according to us – God’s Spirit came upon you and now you are His dreamer. We’d say you prophetically heard God’s heart regarding the purity of His Bride and your response seems to be “here I am, send [apostle] me”. Add on a desire to be actively led by God and I’d say you’re seeking “new” and “fresh” revelation.

    We charismatics could say: You prophetically heard the voice of God revealed to you through a dream encounter with His Spirit, and now you are an apostle, sent by God to bring purity to His Bride.

    Funny how words can mean entirely different things to different people.

    Okay, I’m done! Thanks for engaging with me…I’ll leave these lands for a while.

  26. Holly Says:

    Delkin, the claims Johnson is making about new revelation are in no way comparable to the dream I shared. Look again at what he wrote: http://www.spiritoferror.org/2018/01/why-bill-johnson-says-the-bible-is-not-enough/7702. He’s talking about hidden meanings in Scripture that are yet to be revealed. The dream I shared, in contrast, was not uncovering anything new, but simply contained biblical imagery. I certainly did not take it that I was a “sent one” to bring purity to the church. That is something you read into that earlier post. Nor was it the inspiration to start my blog, which had already been going. While I was encouraged by the dream at that time, I don’t live or die by it. In fact, I forgot that I even had it. But the truth that the church needs to be ready for Christ’s return is a very biblical one, indeed. And not novel. This is not new revelation or a restored lost truth.

  27. Delkin Says:

    It’s amazing how easily we can misunderstand one another 🙂

    Blessings sister!

  28. AriseMyLove Says:

    Here is a post I vaguely recall from sometime after the 2008 Election. Let’s not forget Dutch Sheets’ false prophecies over Sarah Palin at that time…


    Dutch Sheets, New Face of the NAR & Info on the US Apostolic Alliance

    Posted by pjmiller on January 31, 2009

    Been wondering where all the members of the false apostle posse have been hold-up lately?

    Well, apparently they’ve been meeting behind closed doors, plotting, planning, and passing the mantel and crown of leadership on to Dutch Sheets.

    Mariam, at endtimespropheticwords gives this update today: Dutch Sheets in Driver’s Seat Of New Apostolic Reformation

    This latest is from Dutch Sheets:

    “My dear friend and partner in ministry Chuck Pierce stated prophetically to me that there was a major shift coming to the Apostolic Reformation. He then challenged me to hear from the Holy Spirit as to what this new phase looked like and what my leadership role in it was to be.

    Chuck felt that this new assignment for my life was what Dr. Peter Wagner had seen in a dream concerning me. In Peter’s dream I had moved into the driver’s seat of a vehicle in which he and I were riding. We were left to interpret what that “vehicle” represented. The three of us now believe it was the Apostolic Reformation with all three of its components.

    The plan involves taking the apostolic, prophetic and prayer movements to a much more practical level, resulting in regional transformation.

    Most of us in the Apostolic Reformation have been transformed by the movement individually, as have our congregations and networks. However, if we are honest, we must acknowledge that for most of us this has not resulted in regional cultural change.

    For this to occur, we must expand from relational apostolic networks primarily, to functional apostolic alliances, as well. God has given us (Dr. Wagner, Chuck Pierce, Robert Henderson, and me) a blueprint to accomplish this.

    This new phase is not just for the apostolic leader of a local congregation or network, but for all of us who consider ourselves a part of this movement. If our stream has realized anything in the past 15-20 years, it is that the walls must come down between the pulpit and pew.

    We are all called to ministry! If you consider yourself a part of this Apostolic Reformation and are ready to see it move into its reforming stage, we invite you to align yourself with the United States Apostolic Alliance.

    Dutch Sheets”


    Went browsing over at the US Apostolic Alliance page. In case you don’t know what it is, below is some info on their up-coming conference, etc.

    These people live in their own little fantasy world..


    I want to invite you to what could be one of the most important gatherings you’ve attended in a long while – the national conference for the United States Apostolic Alliance. I realize that statement could sound arrogant and self serving, but I believe as you read on you will know this isn’t the case.

    For those of you who are not aware of what the U.S.A.A. is, you can find a complete explanation on this website, but here is a short description:

    · U.S.A.A. exists to provide a structure through which we – those embracing the apostolic, prophetic and prayer movements – can work together to see awakening and reformation in America. Our mission is, “Awakening in our Day, Reformation in our Lifetime.”

    · U.S.A.A. is NOT a vertical apostolic network that provides accountability, oversight and covering. (It is an attempt to help all in any and every apostolic network work together.)

    · U.S.A.A. is NOT something you can join – only partner with through your efforts and activities. (*that means send $$$)

    · U.S.A.A. is already making a huge impact. We have 29 state coordinators and 20 state councils in place, several state conferences scheduled for ‘09 (17 planned), great strategies are coming forth to transform states and a true spirit of cooperation is emerging.

    Why do I feel this conference is so important? Because the need for awakening and reformation in America is so desperate…

    No one group, denomination, apostolic network, prayer network, congregation, etc. can accomplish this alone. Nor will our individual efforts simply be transformed by God into a corporate whole, while we continue to “do our own thing.” This wrong belief is poor theology and has cost us greatly. We must do a better job of working together – on purpose. And we can!

    Another goal for this gathering is to further the process of the charismatic church becoming the apostolic church.

    · Apostles understand the need for and function of all five ascension gifts, therefore they are coordinators and facilitators.

    · Apostles understand spiritual government and the need for sound doctrine, therefore they bring strength and stability

    · Apostles are kingdom in their thinking, not “territorial” (except in the sense of an understanding of their spheres of authority), therefore they gender unity and cooperation.

    · Apostles build, therefore they understand the need for long term planning, not just short term explosions.

    · Apostles understand and believe in discipline and accountability, ethics and integrity, therefore they maintain purity.

    The apostolic movement must now provide apostolic leadership!

    God has been giving much insight to leaders in the body of Christ concerning all of these matters.

    I have labored much over who should speak at this year’s conference and though you may not be familiar with some of those chosen, they are outstanding. Much revelation and strategy will be released.

    “Awakening in Our Day – Reformation in Our Lifetime
    National Conference”

    March 30 – April 2, 2009

    The above article is linked at the top. I post it here just to show Holly knows EXACTLY what she’s talking about.

  29. Samuel Lamonde Says:

    After my conversion(12 years ago), I joined a pentecostal church, grew up in the faith there with brothers for 2 years than had to leave Quebec(work related), I must say, I never considered myself as a pentecostal and never even “speak in tongues”, but the good providence of God brung me there, and I thanks him cause it was truly a good church.I didn’t know, at that point, anything about the movement(NAR) and all the craziness, Since Toronto wasn’t to far from us, I knew that some people were barking like dogs but that’s it..I remember have talked the subject and a brother told me that a ‘mam at houses prayer meetings did once start to do that kind of weird things as animal noise, than it came quick to the knowlegde of the pastor, that disolve the meetings and took good care of the problem. Jump in time,I started (3 years ago) to look and learn more about what’s happening in today’s “churches” and mouvements, from the very beginning of my journey I couldn’t believed that first the Church so messed up, and second that people so blind.. Then I by the same time, become interested in debates and apologetic, that bring me to dr. James White and of course dr. Micheal Brown. Find is a good apologist and like is debates against jews. Started to listen is radio for a little, and straith from the beginning, I just didn’t understand, how he whitewashed and defended ovious falsehood, cause he knows well is Bible. Today, there’s just no doubt in my mind that he’s not honest and probably more dangerous that the most heretic of NAR leader.. We got to see the good side of all this, I sense that christians get more and more tired of this “new christianity” going more and more of track, and NAR make it even more obvious cause it’s not even christianity anymore but gnotism…, and anybody knowing church history knows there’s sadly no exegeration in my words. That being said make me strongly question the good of all those even historicals revivals and such, seriously what’s the point if it is for greater confusion..???, I thing we all should have stay attach to Ausbourg or de la Rochelle confessions of faith since it is true catholic faith, defenitively my next church is going to be a conservative lutherian church. God bless you brothers and sisters.

  30. Bill Hardesty Says:

    Hi Holly,

    I commend you for your work on the NAR. I have followed the Sovereign Grace debacle for years. “Apostles”, like Larry Tomczak, Che Ahn, and Lou Engle came out of this cult. I find your reporting on the NAR most helpful.

    Many thanks.

  31. dean Says:

    This from chrisma.com

    These people report being overcome by intense joy that can’t be expressed with words. I have watched thousands of people all at once overcome by this manifestation. It’s fun to witness someone who is really serious encounter this experience. Again, I have never experienced this condition myself, but I have carried my wife out of several meetings when she was so “spiritually drunk” that she couldn’t walk.

    Weird you say? Yeah, I agree, it looks that way to me too. I love what Angela Monet said: “Those who danced look quite insane to those who didn’t hear the music.” I think this quote applies here. Again, it’s very hard to attribute this to Satan when the fruit of this manifestation is always positive in the people having the experience

    Kris Vallotton is the writer – notice how he acts as if its wierd but accepts it as from God… like he is using decernment but still draws in people who are on the fence and bring them onboard…..He like you has never done it and hes on your side but still draws you in with his wife having done so…. I had never heard of him till this site… the mentallity seems to reason well laughter is good and God is good so it must be from God…

  32. dean Says:

    To add: I see this kris guy like this in quote above: there will be people who wont come into the laughing venue unsure about what is taking place inside, so he stands at the door with it open (for you) and acts like its weird and he like you is unsure also, he is on your side But he is starting to warm to the idea and maybe you can both go inside as buddys and watch out for each other, all the time his hand is on your back gentle but firm pushing you towards his goal…shouldnt this guy feel like the Holy Spirit wants nothing to do with him since it hasnt happened to him? Oh yeah he has a part to play, hes the sideshow barker….

  33. Bruce Cooper Says:

    Hi Holly, just in case you needed additional documentation on Michael Brown I ran into this little puppy: https://churchwatchcentral.com/?s=michael+brown&x=9&y=9



  34. Holly Says:

    Thanks for the link, Bruce!

  35. Cedric Fisher Says:

    After listening to the debate between Dr. Michael Brown, Holly Previc, and Dr. Doug Geivett, Brown comes off as someone who is deeply invested in the churches and leaders that are directly affected by the exposing of the NAR.

    Dr. Brown began his response to Holly Previc with common dishonest debate tricks, such as hominem, shaming, and pleading a morally superior high ground. He takes issues with Previc for beginning with an anecdote, but then he used anecdotes to defend his positions.

    Brown used hyperbole to describe Previc and Geivett‘s book as a silly conspiracy theory comparable with the Illuminati Conspiracy. Given the diligent and scholarly work of Previc and Geivett, it was a very unbecoming of him. If he disagrees, let him present sound evidence to the contrary, not vitriol and ad hominem.

    He went on to portray his associates in question as “good and godly” individuals, thus making any challenge of their doctrine or behavior an attack on true Christians and in general an attack on the Body of Christ. Furthermore, he portrayed himself as a valid defender of truth by claiming to disagree with his associates on a few points. In other words, “I’m keeping my eye on them, so you folks back off and do something else.” Throughout the debate, he presented his relationship with NAR individuals as evidence that they were innocent.

    Brown claims that as an insider he’s never witnessed evidence of NAR inside the NAR. He’s either being dishonest, or he is deceived. How can anyone even associate with Bethel and Johnson, or with Che Ahn for that matter, and claim that their excesses are not evidence of their NAR affiliation, but rather are simply errors they need to work on.

    In other words, they have been given a pass by Brown and other ones who do not see their doctrine as works of darkness, but simply the common baggage that comes with operating a Charismatic or Pentecostal ministry.

    They should not get an exemption from being measure by God’s word. It does not matter whether a church or leader is Pentecostal or Charismatic, or not. When heresy, diabolical practices, and incredible unauthorized liberties are taken with God’s word, those works cannot be reduced to non-essential errors that have no reflection on the ones that bear the fruit.

    Brown calls the loosely connected Movement a great harvest and massive revival happening mostly in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles. Considering the doctrine of those individuals he mentioned, it is not revival and most certainly not a great harvest of souls into the kingdom of God, but a harvest into the Apostasy. He actually made the case for the success and expanse of the NAR.

    Brown insists that one cannot understand what NAR leaders really mean by their comments unless they are inside of those churches or inner circles of the leaders. Does one have to roll in a sewer to know that it stinks?

    So he positions himself as the defender between his friends against individuals armed with a plethora of facts and statements concerning NAR beliefs and actions. He claims that they don’t really mean what they say that they means. If he wishes to protect that shysterism from scrutiny, he is responsible to explain in a scholarly manner why it makes them innocent.

    Brown gives an example of a NAR leader changing the terms for clarity. So a leader changes the title from “apostle” to “apostolic leader,” and the phrase “taking a city” to “serving a city.” He claims that it was done to prevent misunderstanding. No, it simply is an attempt to obscure what is really meant by those replaced terms.

    Brown also denies that NAR apostles and prophets identify as such, thus they are not apostles and prophets. That’s like saying a pedophile is not a pedophile if he does not declare that he is one. So if they do not identify as heretics, they are not heretics?

    The bottom line is that the churches that are considered NAR are chock full of heresy and diabolical practices. A great part of the problem is that many professing Christians have become so calloused to the mountainous mess that they tend to marginalize how horrific it is.

    If Brown was truly concerned about the excesses and errors, he would recognize his friends and associates for the incredible danger they poses to innumerable susceptible Christians, especially the younger generations and unknowledgeable people in foreign nations.

    What Brown appears to ignore is that there is currently a great apostasy occurring. A significant contribution to that great apostasy are churches such as Bethel Redding. If Brown and his associates would rather that we use the term Great Endtimes Apostasy, then we should simply call them apostates instead of NAR leaders.

    Brown insists that the Body of Christ is being divided by Previc and Geivett. No, identifying heretics and their heresy is not dividing the Body. He insists that a lot of good and godly people are being attacked. No, Brown is characterizing valid scrutiny and exposure of heresy as an attack, and he is making the determination the individuals in question are “good and godly” when in fact they are not. They may indeed be compassionate, friendly, likeable, sincere, and have many other commendable characteristics, but that does not make them “good and godly.” They indeed may be his good friends, but that is not evidence that they are “good and godly.”

    It was a disappointing show on his part. He comes off as a skilled debater who chooses to rile and rattle his opponent rather than to come to an informed and well-discussed knowledge of the truth. He may not be a NAR apostle, but he is most certainly its foremost apologist.

    In conclusion, Dr. Brown can obviously deflect solid points against his position so that he is not easily pinned. However, he cannot avoid the fact that individuals who listen to or read his words are appalled by his cunning avoidance of truth and truthful conclusions. In my opinion he is very unhelpful in any discussion or effort concerning the vast and critical crisis of heresy and heretical individuals in Christianity.

Leave a Reply

* Please read my Comment Policy