Churchwatchcentral’s pathetically inert pursuit of evidence tying Dr Michael Brown to the fake NAR is becoming bizarre, with the latest batch of posts actually claiming some kind of criminality by association with the NAR.

You don’t believe this failed logic could possibly be true? Get this for histrionics…

Despite providing ample evidence of his involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and NARpostolic office, Dr. Michael Brown has persisted in engaging in classic NAR rhetoric, attempting to destroy the credibility of those demonstrating his obvious association. Doing everything in his power to deny his apostolic involvement in the New Apostolic Reformation, Michael Brown portrays those who exposed the NAR as ‘unhinged conspirators’. CWC has thoroughly documented incriminating evidence of his involvement as a NARpostle in the NAR…

‘Incriminating evidence’? Of what ‘crime’, then? Being a continuationist? Being a Pentecostal with lots of charismatic friends in ministry? Dear me, what a lot of hot air about a nothing. Churchwatcher needs to get a life.

This is laughable, really. Whose ‘reputation’ is Dr Brown trying to ‘destroy’? The anonymous churchwatchcentral ‘team’? They have a reputation? Oh, that’s right, Pulpit & Pen think they’re the bees knees of journalistic efficacy and integrity. A reputation with the polemicists counts for everything, apparently.

And what is ‘classic NAR rhetoric’ when it’s at home? Someone says to Dr Brown, “you’re of the NAR!” He replies, “I’m not of the NAR.” End of. That is not rhetoric. That is a dismissal of a false claim. If he were of the NAR there would be no reason for him to deny it.

Someone says to Dr Brown, “you’re a NAR apostle!” He replies, “I’m not a NAR apostle, and I don’t know what a NAR apostle is.” That’s the conclusion to the discussion. No rhetoric. It’s not even classic. It’s just a reply to a silly suggestion. We’re done. Move on.

Tedious

However, having stuck their necks out so far, the chooks won’t take no for an answer, even when the question is proven to be nonsensical and irrelevant.

So far churchwatchcentral have published reams and reams of inconsequential, long, boring, tedious articles, posts and opinionated claims to get exactly nowhere in their attempt at lining Dr Brown up with the NAR, and to make him into a ‘NARpostle’, whatever that is.

I mean, think about it for a moment – why they couldn’t have demonstrated his involvement in a single spread is beyond fathoming. His face-to-face rejection of their claims is a real problem for the polemicists.

The truth is that he has taken the time to earnestly respond to their false claims following churchwatcher’s hapless twitter exchange in which Dr Brown challenged churchwatcher to real himself and his church affiliation before he would interact further in the conversation.

Churchwatcher, of course, failed to give either his identity or church background, claiming in the exchange that people close to him might be persecuted if he revealed his own identity, which is a bunch of phooey. He hides behind anonymity, then hides behind a pathetic excuse, which hides behind contrived vulnerability. A severe case of lack of conviction.

He was subsequently blocked from commenting. What churchwatchcentral called ‘damage control’ is actually the house rules for a twitter feed. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so pitiful.

The claims of the anonymous come to nothing…

The anonymous claims dictate that Dr Brown is under no obligation whatsoever to respond to any of churchwatchcentral’s accusations until such time as the hidden one reveals himself – as all earnest Christian men with a claim of offence against another believer should do – and brings his case before impartial elders on their (Biblical) terms.

Yet churchwatcher feels he has the Christian right to continue his false claims against someone he attempts to name and shame in public whilst himself being anonymous. There has to be a certain vanity to that position – to think that you’re so important that you have to remain anonymous whilst attempting to name and shame others.

It’s interesting that churchwatcher has, in his statement above, unwittingly taken upon himself the title of ‘unhinged conspirator’, which was coined by Phil Johnson, in fact, and taken up by Michael Brown who responded to Johnson’s conversation with Todd Friel, neither of whom are great fans of Dr Brown.

Johnson’s point was that some of the anonymous claims against ministers were out of order and not godly and showed signs that some of the conspirators were, indeed, unhinged.

How is it possible to destroy an anonymous person’s credibility?

Churchwatcher now considers this an attempt by Dr Brown at ‘destroying the credibility’ of the critics. It’s their anonymity that does the damage to their credibility, in fact, which was the point being made both by Dr Brown and Phil Johnson. They were calling for integrity from critics by at least being up front about who they are when they name people in their critiques.

As for the claim that Dr Brown is ‘doing everything to deny his apostolic involvement with the NAR’ – well, any sensible person reads this illogical statement and wonders if they actually edit the stuff they write and test its viability.

If Dr Brown was of the NAR and was engaged in promoting it to such an extent that he considered himself an apostle, why would he even think of denying it? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to make such a pointless argument.

If he were a NAR apostle, he would be announcing it in the assemblies when he gives talks, and promote it, as all good apostles should. He would consider it to be from God that he was called and sent as an apostle to help build the New Apostolic Reformation. He would take some kind of ownership of it. He would even consider the polemicists remarks to be mere persecution and get on with it regardless. He would have no rational reason to be secretive about it.

He has nothing to lose if he is being accused by insignificant players like churchwatchcentral. He can ignore them and carry on by saying that he is of the NAR and he is an apostle and there is phenomenal growth amongst the NAR movements, and he is part of it. Logic 101.

There would be absolutely no advantage to anyone in a denial.

Has anyone seen the missing plot?

The churchwatchcentral mob have really lost the plot over this. They have been soundly rebutted by Dr Brown, but scramble around the blogosphere, searching for anything and everything they can on their ‘google god’ browser, in a vain attempt to drag up some ‘evidence’ that Dr Brown, despite his protestations, must be a NAR apostle. Why? Because they said so.

Anyway, there follows. in their latest post, a lengthy load of speculative attempts at aligning Dr Brown with a group he has never claimed to be part of, based on loose associations and spurious connections.

Now, after I told them about it some several years ago over at another blog, they have finally cottoned on to ICAL, there being no actual online reference to a NAR organisation part from the fake version compiled and regurgitated by the critics, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel for some link that ties Dr Brown, even though he has plainly and clearly told them he is not of the NAR.

What else does he need to say? Especially to an anonymous critic. Nothing. And yet, being certain of his call and who he is in Christ, he takes time to explain what he knows about the NAR. He doesn’t actually get it right either, but that is simply further proof that he isn’t and wasn’t of the NAR in the first place.

The only joy I can get out of this is the fact that the polemicists are spending so much time on this wild goose chase that they are too preoccupied with proving a mute point to aim rocks at the real Church.

Praise God!

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Advertisements