Transcript of Brown ‘Debunking NAR Hysteria’ where Brown confesses being 100% NAR?

Want to spot all the deceit, half-truths and manipulative tactics of Michael Brown downplaying his involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) but advocating their false theology? Streamed live on April 23, 2018, Brown did a podcast titled ‘Debunking the NAR Hysteria’.

When you actually read what Brown said, you will note that he failed to debunk or bring clarity to anything about the NAR. Instead, he offered opinions mixed with blatantly false information about the New Apostolic Reformation.

But Brown’s program actually mainstreamed the core teaching of the NAR which NARpostles call the ‘new apostolic paradigm’.

What is the New Apostolic Paradigm (aka Apostolic Paradigm, Paradigm Shift)?

In other words, Brown came out of the apostolic closet by fully exposing his New Apostolic Reformation position:

“Well, I have believed for decades in what we call ‘Five Fold Ministry’. I have believed in decades for Apostles and Prophets today.”

This was his attempt to ‘brainwash’ those listening to think that the office of modern day Apostles and Prophets is a legitimate Christian teaching. By downplaying the new apostolic paradigm as though it was just a normal I have believed for decades’, belief, he insists it’s biblical. (C. Peter Wagner explicitly stated that what set the New Apostolic Reformation APART from Protestant Christianity was this ‘new apostolic paradigm shift’.)

Browns-Vain-Protests

It was the New Apostolic Reformation movement that drew a line in the sand, setting themselves apart from orthodox Christianity with their ‘greater’ and ‘new’ authority structures. And Brown has made it clear he is not interested in this orthodox Christianity but rather the ‘new thing’ God is doing, with the ‘new wine skin church’, the ‘new wine’, ‘new revelation’ (the 7MM) and the ‘new breed’.

There are other points worth noting in the transcript below but the major issue is the deception of Brown in his podcast. It is so hypocritical that he takes on the issues of homosexuality when he himself has lied about his own ‘spiritual identity’ for so long – only to come out of the closet by demonstrating he is a part of the New Apostolic Reformation, holding to their new apostolic paradigm.

[Note: In recent weeks, Brown’s NAR side has been on full display with his political coverage of Trump moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. We know NAR apostles have been very active to move the arm of the US President to take this action. But we were surprised that Brown would cover it since his recent exposure being discovered as a “legitimate apostle” and Council Member of Matttera’s NAR-driven USCAL.]


DEBUNKING THE NAR HYSTERIA

Dr Michael Brown: “It is time we put an end to some of the hysteria about the so-called New Apostolic Reformation.

[Intro]

Welcome to today’s broadcast. Friends, you’re going to find today’s show very helpful, clarifying, edifying. I’ll get into our subject matter momentarily…

A moment of background. I did a 2 hour interview last on a podcast by a woman named Alysa Childers. And on the show were Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett, who’d written about what they would term the New Apostolic Reformation. And I was on the show. We did 2 hours. I think it was constructive. For me it was eye opening, not only just doing it, but seeing the comments afterwards. And I’m going to do my best to give clarity once and for all on this broadcast as to my issues with the term New Apostolic Reformation.

Alright. But first, I want to talk to you about dealing with constructive criticism. Over the weekend, I tweeted this out:

‘It’s far more productive to spend one hour teaching serious disciples than 1000 hours responding to critics who have already rejected you and your position.’

Let’s say you’re a pastor, and you have a thriving congregation but you have some disgruntled former members who don’t like your method of teaching the word, or think you’re majoring on the wrong subject. So they quit coming to your church and they start a blog criticizing you. Alright, your congregants come, they love the Lord, they really appreciate your ministry, they love your teaching. So you think they’re coming to hear you talk about the critics and why the critics are wrong, and why the critics are missing the point? No, they’re there to be fed and nurtured and taught because they appreciate your message.

Let’s say you own a restaurant, and you’ve got regular customer who have been coming for years, and you’ve been doing your best to provide them with a healthy menu and an enjoyable menu and you’re well priced, that’s why you have faithful customers, clients who have been coming for years, alright? Now you have some food critic that doesn’t like your food, doesn’t like your method of cooking, doesn’t like the ambiance, doesn’t like where you’re located. And he blasts you on a website, alright? Do you think that people that come there regularly want to hear you get up and walk around from table to table and tell you why their critics are wrong? Or do you think that those people that are there, are there so that they can get the food that they like?

So here’s my point, by nature I’m a debater alright? For better or worse. I love to interact with those who differ, if I had my druthers, I prefer getting calls from people that differ with me, than people who agree with me. If I had my druthers when I go to give a talk at a campus, I would rather do a debate than just do a talk. I love to have my views challenged, I love to interact. That’s not the issue. And I’ll reach out patiently to those who differ as much as I have the opportunity to.

But there are folks who are critical, they have rejected your position or my position. They’re not in our camp. I won’t ever satisfy them. You will never satisfy them. I’m not saying they’re bad people, evil people, I’m simply saying, in most cases it is a waste of time.

I tweeted this out as well, ‘One thing I’ve learned recently when it comes to refuting myths and exaggerations and misconceptions. It’s a lot easier to start a fire than to put one out. Conspiracy theories are hard to debunk.

If someone is going to claim that I’m a 33 degree Mason, or whatever it’s called, and I said I don’t know anything about being a Mason, you go, ‘Ha ah. That proves it, you’re denying it.’ It’s very difficult to rebuke that kind of nonsense. And what I’m seeing as I do my best to define things, to address things scripturally, to address things based on experience and what I know, if it doesn’t fit the conspiratorial theory, it’s going to be rejected out of hand. It’s going to be further proof that I’m part of the conspiracy. How do you deal with that? How do you refute that? And is it even worth your time to try to dispel someone of a false notion that’s not based on truth?

Let me go a little further. I tweeted this out, ‘Just as a restaurant tailors it’s menu to its customers rather than to its hostile critics, so also pastors should focus on nurturing their flocks, rather than trying to please their hostile critics. Catering to critic is a trap.’

Here, I have folks call the show and say, ‘Dr Brown I love your broadcast, I listen regularly, I agree with so much of what you say, but I have concerns about this, or I have concerns about that, or I don’t know why you work with so and so.’ Okay, great, that’s an honest question and I’ll give the most honest answer I can.

Someone else calls, ‘Dr Brown I’m really wondering about this, could you sort this out for me?’ I do my best to answer honestly, only to find out it’s some critic, whose now going to pull that and put this up on a YouTube site to try to expose me. That I find completely unethical. Call and say, ‘This is so and so, I differ with you, my positions are against yours, I’m not Charismatic, I don’t believe in this and that, and I would like to ask you honestly about this.’ Great, we can have a conversation.

But the other stuff seems to be so non constructive and with a predetermined outcome. In other words, if I fend off that accusation with a truthful answer that satisfies, doesn’t change their position, just means they go to the next question. In other words the verdict is already made up. That I find to be constructive criticism, rather than constructive criticism.

I was talking to a friend the other day, and I mentioned to him how many positive reports I get, people thanking me for being gracious in my debates and things like that. And he said, ‘don’t just listen to the ones that speak positive things, listen to the critics to.’ And I said, ‘Oh trust me, for every positive word I get from my wife, I get 100 constrictive critical words. Trust me, I’m hearing that day and night.’ And I welcome it. I welcome it from my team, I welcome it from strangers. If it’s constructive, if it’s life giving, if it’s not just to satisfy your predetermined outcome, wonderful.

But here, let me lay some things out for you, alright? Why is it that virtually all of the critics who call the show, who write articles, who have websites attacking me, putting out YouTube videos etc. Why is it that virtually all of them are non-Charismatic or anti Charismatic? Where are the Charismatic critics blasting me for my friendship with Southern Baptists? Where are the Charismatic critics putting up YouTube videos about my association with strong Calvinists? Where are the Charismatic critics blasting me for teaching at non Charismatic seminaries? Notice the criticism is from one particular camp, or groups in a particular camp. And they are all coming from one direction, which fundamentally has an issue of the things of the Spirit today. And with some of the abuses in the mist of the genuine moving of the Spirit.

Here’s a question for you? Since when am I accountable for whatever my friends and colleagues practice and say? Here, I am ten times better friends, one hundred times better friends with James White than Bill Johnson, alright?

I’ve sat, in terms of my total conversations, face to face, with Bill Johnson, I would say just the two of us talking face to face, total in our lifetimes, 10 minutes maybe? The longest conversation we ever had was when he was on my radio show, when he spent an hour on my show. That’s the longest conversation we had. But face to face, just the two of us, a few minutes here and there.

You say, ‘Why do you say you’re friends?’ Because I’ve known him in different circles for years. I’m friends with friends who have worked close with him, closely with him. We have a common heart for revival and the things of the Spirit. But if I was there all the time, I might differ with half the sermons preached. I might differ with half the books written by his team, I might differ with lots of stuff. Okay?

In the same way with Dr White, we spent hour’s fellowshipping together face to face, we’ve worked out together. We’ve had meals together. We’ve debated each other. We’ve debated side by side against others. We’ve interacted regularly off the air. We’ve been on one another’s shows. And yet there are many things he differs with me. And I differ with him. Why, how come I’m not accountable for everything he believes? Since when do you judge someone based on how they respond to their circle of friends, associates and colleagues?

I teach at numerous seminaries, some of them have beliefs that you don’t agree with. Am I accountable for what the seminaries teach? I work with different publishers, on radio stations where you’re listening, or the TV station you’re watching, there are all kinds of shows. Am I responsible for all of those?

I recently did a conference for a friend of mine whose one of the most prominent Southern Baptist Pastors in the country. Am I now responsible that he teaches, ‘once saved always saved’, as a Southern Baptist, I presume he does. Are you going to blast me for that? See it’s not a matter of wanting to hold me accountable for friends and associates, it’s completely bogus!

Look, I written 32 books or something like that. I’ve written well over 1000 articles, we have well over 1000 videos out. I’ve preached thousands of messages, how many radio shows have we done? God knows. Hold me accountable for that. Judge me based on that with joy.

But please, if you hear that so and so, I preached at so and so’s church, I preached there a few times, and they had another guest speaker and the guest speaker, that’s not my business okay? Call that church. If I endorsed a book, and the book has some problems, challenge me on that. Because now I’m endorsing it. But I have a large circle of friends, Charismatic, non-Charismatic, Calvinist, non-Calvinist, some denominational, some are outside of denominations. I have friends who are absolute mega church friends, they’re a mega church all the way. I have others who are house church all the way that wouldn’t go near a mega church, and they’re all friends.

I have friends who have written books who are the exact opposite sides of major issues. Not issues that we divide over in the faith, but major issues that cause great discussion. And I’m friends with both and work with both, because of the common good of the Gospel.

So come on friends, let’s go deeper, let’s grow up, let’s focus on serving a dying world. And building up the body and helping one another and glorifying Jesus. And let’s judge fairly and righteously, and not get caught up in this silly, meaningless, non-productive, destructive drivel.  We’ll be right back.”

[Ad Break]

16:20 “Alright, we say sometimes on this show that we serve as your voice of moral sanity and spiritual clarity in the midst of a society…. I want to do my best to bring you some spiritual clarity. Here’s the number to call if you have any question relating to anything we are talking about, or a Bible question in general. [Says phone number]

Let me do my best to bring you some clarity about the so called New Apostolic Reformation, otherwise known as NAR. I’m going to give you an analogy as I see it. I’ve been really trying to think of simple ways to convey this, that everyone can take hold of and then evaluate.

Let’s go over to the Mall. Let’s go over to the food court in the Mall. There is one of the food court options. You know, you’ve got your Burger King, McDonalds, or whatever the Chinese one is, or some healthy option, or whatever. Whatever the different options are for food. So there’s one we’re going to call the NPR the New Pizza Reformation, alright? And this one says that the going thing now is this new pizza that they are making. And really this is the food, this is the way to go, alright? It is the way to go, it is the most important one there, the NPR, the New Pizza Reformation. Alright, that’s what it’s called.

Well, now you have the rest of the food options in the Mall, okay? And those food options, think that pizza’s great, they enjoy pizza, and believe that pizza is good for today, but it’s just one of a number of different food options.

We’re going to liken that now, to those who agree with certain point of what would be the New Apostolic Reformation which we’ll define more clearly, but do not agree with other points. Then you have the rest, the whole Mall that I’m going to liken to the whole Charismatic/Pentecostal church.

You say, ‘you’ve lost me.’ So let me back it up. New Apostolic Reformation was the name that was used by Peter Wagner, who’s with the Lord now. Peter Wagner, he was a Professor for many years at the theological seminary. He’s been a missionary before that. And he felt that he was raised up by God as an Apostle that God was raising up Apostles all over the world. And that God wanted Apostles to be in their proper place in the church and that was essential for the good of the church.

There were many things that he taught that I’d agreed with, that I thought were positive and biblical. There were other things that I differed with. He had a particular network of leaders that he oversaw. I was never part of that network of leaders. One reason being, I differed with some of the philosophy.

Now that’s the NPR, the New Pizza Revolution. Pizza is it. The way we make it, pizza, that’s it. Well, I have believed for decades in what we call ‘Five Fold Ministry’. I have believed in decades for Apostles and Prophets today, based on reading the New Testament, based on seeing the fact that prophecy was to continue until Jesus returns. Based on the fact that others outside the twelve were called ‘Apostles’. And based on Ephesians 4, which said that Jesus gave Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, teachers until a certain point. And we haven’t’ reached that point yet. So as I’ve looked at scripture, I thought well they’re still here today. When I saw the way Peter Wagner defined it, I agreed with some parts and differed strongly with other parts. Alright?

So, the ‘food court’ of the ‘Mall’, that’s everybody who believes Five Fold Ministry is for today. But they don’t agree with everything taught by the NPR, alright? So in my analogy, they believe, ‘yeah pizza’s good and healthy, but pizza is one of many different options, NPR says, ‘No pizza is the way.’

Then you have the rest of the Mall, it’s just massive, that’s a lot of other stuff, and that’s the whole Pentecostal/Charismatic church. Much of which doesn’t even know about the discussion about Apostles, Prophets today, or how it works out. Or doesn’t use that terminology. For example, some of the largest Pentecostal denominations of the world don’t use the terminology of ‘Apostles’ or ‘Prophets’ today.

Alright, so it’s very simple to me. There is something very specific called The New Apostolic Reformation, which would have a certain number of people which would strongly identify with its principles. Then you make a bigger circle around that, a much bigger circle, that’s all the Charismatics/Pentecostals who believe in Five Fold Ministry today, but most of them have ever heard of NAR. Many don’t know who Peter Wagner is and many would disagree with many of the points taught by Peter Wagner.

Then you’ve got the biggest circle, that’s the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement as a whole. From what I can see, the critics of NAR are taking all the abuses and problems in the larger Pentecostal/Charismatic movement, and grouping them together under NAR. And then saying it is somehow networked or has common beliefs or whatever, and this untrue, it’s exaggerated, and it presents very false pictures.

Now, ask yourself a question, why did I write an whole book called, ‘Playing with Holy Fire – A wakeup call to the Charismatic/Pentecostal church,’ just came out earlier this month? Why did I write a whole book, ‘Whatever happened to the Power of God’ in 1991? Why did I write these whole books as well as other books over the years that have interacted with abuses or things I’ve differed with in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement? Including calling out the overuse of terms like, ‘Apostle’, making everybody into an Apostle and abuse of authority and things like that. Why would I address all these things freely? And yet deny my alleged association with NAR, it doesn’t make any sense. If these are the abuses and I’m addressing them head on, then why would I deny the other part? I deny the other part, because the other part is simple non-existent.

Here, let me give you an example. Let’s look at this website, ‘Six Hallmarks of a NAR Church,’ The Berean Examiner. The Six Hallmarks of a NAR Church posted June 7 2016. So you scroll down, and number one is this:

“Apostles. We’re in a “Second Apostolic Age.” There are new Apostles on the earth today, anointed y the laying on of hands to represent and speak for God here on Earth. These “Super Apostles” are equal to the original Apostles – the ones who witnessed Jesus death and resurrection and were appointed by Christ Himself to the office. Since then these new apostles by God, their authority may not be questioned.”

Frankly, I don’t know anybody who believes that. There’s no one that I’ve worked with, including people that were part of Peter Wagner’s organisation that would be called New Apostolic Reformation. I don’t know any of them that believe that. If Peter Wagner believed that, I’m not aware of it. If he did believe that, I categorically reject it, alright? But I don’t know anyone who uses the title apostles today, I don’t know any of them that believe that. So this would exclude every church I’ve ever worked with anywhere in the world ever in my life. Because I don’t know any that hold to that. And some of the so-called NAR leaders today, alright, I don’t know any of them that hold to that definition either. That would go in that direction at all.

Here, let’s go down to number six:

“NAR denies the sufficiency of Scripture. NAR adherent may believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, but God’s breathed-out Word is just not enough for them. Jesus’ sacrificial death for our sins is not good enough, the premise of eternal life in Heaven is not good enough.”

I don’t know anyone that believes that. I’ve never worked with a leader in the world that believes that. You say, ‘but aren’t they constantly seeking new revelations?’ First my question is whose the ‘they’? Who is ‘they’? You say, ‘Well anyone who believes they are apostles today.’ Hang on, hang on. My friend Bishop Joe Mattera, now leads the U.S. Council of Apostolic Leaders. Which was originally Peter Wagner’s organisation of ‘Apostles’. Joe Mattera said, ‘I’ll take it over but first, I’ll lead it, first condition is you have to change from ‘apostles’ to ‘apostolic leaders’. First change he made.

Why? There are reasons for, and he just wrote an article. This is the man who is leading, so just like leading a network, a fellowship of leaders helping to facilitate, coordinate, bringing them together, okay? He is leading the organisation Peter Wagner used to lead, and he has a major critique of many things commonly associated with New Apostolic Reformation. He doesn’t agree with these things. For example, and if you’re watching I can’t pull these quotes up for you right now, but he said this:

He said, “The present apostolic paradigm will bring a course correction to the New Apostolic Reformation, and view the apostolic as a ministry function not as an office. As an adjective, not a title.” He said this, “The present apostolic paradigm will correct the autocratic, top down, hierarchical government of many in the NAR.” So he’s talking about the NPR, the New Pizza Revolution, in other words as rightly defined the NAR, “and mimic the servant leadership style of Jesus who came not be served, but to serve, and give His life as a ransom for many.” Dr Mattera writes this, “This present apostolic paradigm will not spout triumphalist dominion rhetoric, like the church is called to take cities. When rather the church is called to love and serve our cities. Those who serve the best are the best problem solvers who eventually lead anyway.”

And then he point out in Genesis 1, when God told Adam to take dominion over the Earth, it was over the cattle, the animals, and the world. It wasn’t over people. Our goal is not to take dominion over other people. So here is a recognised leader, leading the organisation that Peter Wagner once led, that you could rightly call ‘New Apostolic Reformation’, this is our narrow picture here, alright? And he is bringing major correction to errors in it, and yet he would be called part of quote ‘NAR’, even though he is rejecting much of what NAR stood for.

This is a big problem. The ambiguity of definitions, the guilt by association, the casting a wide net by which everybody is guilty of this nefarious plot, when it’s simply doesn’t exist.”

[Ad break]

31:22 “Thanks so much for joining us today on The Line of Fire. I want to open the phone lines, you’ve got questions, we’ve got answers…I want to help bring clarity to some controversies within the body today. (Takes calls)

35:54 “…There are folks who have called the show with honest questions, and I do my best to answer honestly. There are folks who call that I know are critics and who differ with me, and we’ll have a dialogue and if seems to be fruitless, I’ll stop it at a certain point. But otherwise, we’ll have a dialogue. There are others who call to try and set me up for something, or try to catch me on a word quote something that’s going to make me look bad if I don’t respond the right way. That, what’s the use of that? I’m not helping them, I’m not helping the listening audience, and we’re not advancing the cause of truth. It’s just like a silly game. So you have to deal with each one accordingly.

It’s interesting in the book of Proverbs, you have two verses back to back. The first one’s saying, ‘answer a fool according to his folly otherwise he is going to go on in his folly.’ The next, ‘don’t answer a fool according to his folly otherwise you’ll end up caught up with him.’ I’m paraphrasing. I’m not calling these people fools, I’m just using this analogously. That basically what happens is that, I believe that those verses are both speaking truth… and each one depends on the situation and setting….

37:12 “Before I go to the phones, let me illustrate something for you, alright? I have been trying to bring clarity to the issue of NAR. So called New Apostolic Reformation. And as best as I understand things, this was a particular spiritual movement, or philosophy of leadership that was led by Dr Peter Wagner, the Late Dr Wagner, that held to specific understanding of apostolic and prophetic ministry for today. Some of which I agreed with, some of which I disagreed with. I was never part of his network of leaders for that reason. Alright.

So that’s the smallest circle, and how many hundreds, thousands of leaders does that affect, it’s relatively small. Then you have a bigger circle, which is those who believe apostolic prophetic ministry exists today but don’t know about NAR, aren’t part of NAR, wouldn’t agree with many of the parameters that Peter Wagner set. Alright? But the critics put them all together, you’re all part of NAR. Then the big circle, the modern Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. And then what happens is, if you see an abuse in the modern Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, it now becomes part of NAR, and NAR’s this world-wide massive thing having all this influence, that’s what I call a myth.

Is there something called the New Apostolic Reformation? Yes of course, of course, no one denies that. And it was led by Dr Peter Wagner and it had certain beliefs and parameters. Alright? We can define that, we can discuss it, here’s where I agree, here’s where I disagree. There is something larger, which is those who believe in apostolic and prophetic ministry for today, and then larger than that the Charismatic/Pentecostal church which is what six hundred million plus worldwide. But the actual NAR New Apostolic Reformation is a relatively small movement, with relatively small influence.

Do I believe God’s raising up apostles, prophets for today around the world? Yes of course. Do I agree with much of what C Peter Wagner said? No once again to repeat. Let me give you an example, Holly Pivec and her and co-author Doug Geivett, last week on Alisa Childers podcast, she has on her website, ‘Spirit of Error’, ‘Five tips for identifying NAR Churches’. So she says, ‘search the internet and look for words like apostolic or fivefold Ministry.’ Well hang on, hang on, on another website, and we’ll just scroll down to where it says ‘5 Tips for identifying NAR Churches’ and leave that on the screen for a minuet okay.

So on another website Holly refers to a very positive review of the book she wrote with Doug Geivett. By leading the Assemblies of God, calling NAR ‘Hyper-Charismatic and saying that Pentecostals and Charismatics need to watch it carefully. And yet the Assemblies of God believes in ‘Apostolic’ or ‘Prophetic’ Ministry, they just strongly disagree with principals taught by NAR. And The Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination worldwide. Okay. She said, ‘Read their Statement of Faith but the problem is they might have an orthodox Statement of Faith so that won’t really give it away. Well then pay attention to guest speakers and to how they are introduced, are they referred to as ‘apostles’ or ‘prophets’?’

Anyone that happens to believe that there are prophets today, now they’re part of NAR? What kind of reasoning is that? Based on whose definition? I asked once again. And then check this out, ‘Look for distinctive NAR practices, such as church hosting SOZO sessions.’ Which is kind of like a holistic ministry for people struggling, be it addictions, or problems, or things like that.

Or ‘operating a 24/7 prayer room.’ Wait a second, 24/7 prayer is NAR? 24/7 prayer is a distinctive NAR practice? Where is this coming from? I’ve been in churches with 24/7 prayer since I got saved. Alright, some might have a 24/7 prayer meeting once a month, ministries I’ve worked with overseas… one person praying 24/7 for decades, crying out to God for souls and for His work. Since when, were the Moravians part of NAR because they had a hundred year prayer meeting? One hundred years straight continuous prayer. This is what I find frustrating.

So here, we go to another website okay. And I’m trying to sort this out, because so much time is wasted over this. Go to the website, Alisa Childers website, she was gracious enough to host a very constructive discussion, two hour podcast. And then after I went and looked at the comments, normally I don’t do that just cause of the busyness and we are on so many different websites, and posted in so many places. But here I wanted to see the comments. So I found these interesting. For example, here’s one of the comments on the website:

 “Pastor Chris Rosebrough has rightly labelled Michael Brown as the ‘Apostle of Obfuscation’. Brown cannot openly admit that ‘so-called’ NAR has serious issues because he is part and parcel of it going at least as far back as the Brownsville Revival.”

Hang on, hang on, the Brownsville Revival? This took place at the Brownsville Assembly of God, Pastored by John Kilpatrick, ordained by the Assemblies of God. With the main speaker each night being Steve Hill, Evangelist Steve Hill, now with the Lord, also ordained by the Assemblies of God.

Bill Johnson, we’re told is a NAR leader, and one reason we know he’s a NAR leader is because he left the Assemblies of God. The Assemblies of God put out a review praising a book attacking NAR by Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett, which Holly sites on her website, Brownsville Revival was part of the Assemblies of God.

We would meet, even though I wasn’t Assemblies of God, we would meet every year with Thomas Trask who was then head of the Assemblies of God. The Assemblies of God is not NAR, the Assemblies of God reject certain fundamental principles that NAR holds to. Yet I’m part of NAR going back to the Brownsville Revival, and I deny it, therefore I’m the ‘Apostle of Obfuscation’. Can you see how ridiculous this is? Can you see how fruitless this is? And it is untrue, it is based on false information. Don’t people care about truth?

And where I’ve seen abuses I’ve addressed them for years. I’ve addressed abuses more than about anybody you will find in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. Whole books on it, get my new book, ‘Playing with Holy Fire,’ if you don’t believe me. And yet because I tell the truth about not being part of NAR, or rejecting certain things within NAR, or saying that NAR critics are exaggerating and even producing hysteria, now I’m quote the ‘Apostle of Obfuscation’ for telling the truth. Isn’t that utterly remarkable.

Hey tell you what, we’ll stay with the truth, because a hundred years from now, criticisms and the misunderstandings will be long gone. The good fruit of the gospel that I’m part of and many others are part of, that’s going to remain. We’ll be right back.”

[Ad break]

46:25 “Thanks for joining us on The Line of Fire. So I want to throw out a few things for you. By all means hold be accountable for what I teach, and preach, and believe. But don’t hold me accountable for everything my friends teach, preach and believe. Because I have friends in all parts of the body.

Here, I write regularly for The Stream, stream.org. To me the best place to go on a daily basis to get insight of what’s happening in the world around us, with a spiritual perspective. And I post articles there and many other websites. I write there regularly. Okay. Well there are folks on The Stream that are Catholic like Jay Richards and John Zmirak, and they are colleagues and friends. I’m not Catholic, I differ with their Catholicism, they differ with my non Catholicism, and we work together on The Stream.

You know one of my dear friends is Dr James White, a strong Calvinist and a non-Charismatic. Are you going to hold me accountable for everything he says? I’m friends with Dr Jack Graham, leading Southern Baptist Pastor… I spoke at a men’s conference for him there, with Dr Ronnie Floyd and other Southern Baptist leaders. They would differ with me on certain things, and I would differ with them on certain things.

So why is it, I’m only held accountable for what a Charismatic friend or a Pentecostal friend has to say? It’s because the critics are Charismatic/Pentecostal critics. They are critics of the things of the Spirit, or the things supposedly of the Spirit today, and cessationists So that’s where the criticism is coming from.

You’ve got an issue with something that Jack Graham teaches or James White teaches, or Jay Richards wrote, or John Zmirak wrote, or Bill Johnson said, or Che Ahn said. Reach out to them, interact with them. I work with a lot of people across the board for common good purposes.

So let me give you one last example, then I want to go back to the phones (phone number). There was a response to the two hour podcast on NAR that we did last week with Alisa Childers, Dough Geivett and Holly Pivec. I appreciate everybody’s time in doing that. And someone said this critical, that was listening:

“Dr Brown admits to the abuses and 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)…”

By the way, out of everyone there, I know Mike and Che the best. Okay. But I don’t know everything they teach or believe, or everything about their lives, okay. Nor do they know everything about what I teach and believe. So again hold them accountable for what they say, hold me accountable for what I say:

“…In any case, 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 angles 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 practise.”

Okay, this is some of the nonsense that I personally find non-constructive. Totally non-constructive. What do I mean? Bethel does not endorse using Christian tarot cards, okay, first thing. And how many churches in the world, Charismatic/Pentecostal churches have ever heard of such a thing? One in a million? Seriously? Apparently, a ministry associated with Bethel, or some ministry that referred to Bethel somewhere, when doing New Age outreach would sit down with people and use these cards. Some of them had scripture, some of them had images on them, and say, ‘let me pray and see if the Lord gives me something,’ to try and reach these people, and then preach the gospel to them.

It may be a completely bogus practice, I don’t know about it. All I know is the little bit I read. Okay, but I’m not accountable for that. It’s complete idiocy to say, ‘well if they did something, somewhere, and I call someone a friend, and I’m accountable for everything they did’, that is complete and utter nonsense.

You should have been flooding me with calls after Los Vegas Massacre, when my friend Dr White, in true Calvinistic spirit, and using verses like Lamentations 3 that says, ‘If calamities come to a City surly the Lord has ordained it’. He said that the ultimate reason the Los Vegas Massacre happened was because God ordained it. You should have been flooding me with calls, differing, how could that be? And you differ with that. Well I understand why he said it, I understand his scriptural basis for say it, alright. And that’s his position based on scripture that many other Calvinists would agree with him. I understand where he is coming from, but I’m not accountable for that. Those are his words.

So if there is some practice, it could be the most idiotic, stupid practice. It could be a practise, if I saw it, I would throw the cards away and say, ‘what in the world are you doing, this is crazy, what are you doing? This is nonsense.’ I don’t know, I just read a little bit about it online. But this is not some, ‘Bethel endorses Christian tarot cards, why don’t you renounce it?’ Number one, I’m not responsible for renouncing everything Bethel does. If I was there I might agree with a lot, I might differ with a lot. That’s why it wouldn’t be my home church. Or someone from Bethel, Fire wouldn’t be their home church, that’s my home congregation. Because you have differences.

If I lived near James White, his church wouldn’t be my home church because it’s not Charismatic and it’s Calvinist. And if he lived near me, Fire wouldn’t be his home church, because it is Charismatic and it’s not Calvinist. And he’s not responsible for what we teach at Fire, I’m not responsible for what he teaches in his church. Please friends we’ve got to grow up. This type of silly criticism is nothing but silly.

So where there are serious abuses, I address them. I’ve been with Mike Bickle, I’ve been with his team and most of the stuff he’s accused of isn’t true. Simply isn’t true. That simple. What about Brian Simmons and the Passion Translation? Examine it as a translation, it’s a paraphrase really, examine it like you would any other paraphrase. And that’s how I’ll examine it, boy I like that, boy I don’t like that. Simple.

Friends we’ve got to move on. This stuff is just people who don’t know, people who don’t understand, people who are on the outside, people who are misinformed, people who have had one bad experience and then project it on the whole. It’s draining people. It’s creating hysteria.

And what I would encourage you to do is, okay, one Pastor said, ‘I spent hours and hours and hours and hours listening to Bill Johnson’s messages and reading his books,’ and sent us a long video of his critique. And I had somebody on staff watch it and send me an outline. I said, ‘yeah those are fair questions’. I’m glad he raised those questions. But they’re not mine to answer. Okay. Those are great questions. I think he did a good solid analyst, good job. And he wasn’t raising the silly stuff, he was raising real issues, do I agree here, do I disagree there. Well done, great. So now ask Bill about it, don’t ask me [Says the man whose website is ‘ASK DR BROWN’] alight? I’m just trying to help friends, and trust me I’m addressing this again because of the podcast last week, and then we’re moving on because there are far more important issues to focus on (phone number).

Yeah, you know what it reminds me of? The fake news stuff you’re dealing with constantly on TV. And then because the Alt-right supported Donald Trump, and because the Alt-right is often racist. Then if you voted for Donald Trump, you’re a racist. That to me would be a good parallel with the whole NAR conspiracy thing.”

(Takes a phone call regarding the book of Job)

End of program


Email all comments and questions to c3churchwatch@hotmail.com



Categories: Uncategorized

%d bloggers like this: