Churchwatchcentral, finding allies in critics Don Veinot, Ron Henzel of Midwest Christian Outreach, and Holly Pivec, have reproduced a video that attempts to convince the viewer that the fake NAR is actually the real NAR and that Dr Michael Brown is hiding something when he says he is nothing to do with the fake NAR, but knows of the existence of the real NAR.
Don Veinot, making things up as he goes along:
“Michael Brown, it seems, is a defender of the NAR, or at least claiming that there really isn’t such a thing as a New Apostolic Reformation; and if there was, they’re not claiming to be apostles; and even if they were claiming to be apostles, they wouldn’t be claiming to be inspired apostles; and even if they were claiming to be inspired apostles, they’re not claiming new revelation.”
Michael Brown, in the very video they are discussing:
“Alright, the New Apostolic Reformation as you are familiar with it. We don’t deny its existence, we never have.”
“Peter Wagner led a movement that was widely identified as New Apostolic Reformation. And I had differences with that, I was never part of that, appreciated some of it, differed with other parts. And now there’s this other thing called NAR, where everything is put under this heading, and that is what I say does not exist, this worldwide conspiratorial movement.”
Do you see what’s happening here? Veinot and Henzel are so absorbed in the fake NAR that they can’t see what C Peter Wagner was talking about and what, subsequently, Dr Michael Brown is talking about.
They’ve obscured their own view with their conspiracy theory. At least Pivec gets some of the facts right, even if she later veers off into tangent of opinion.
Henzel actually makes the following statement:
If it has its own Wikipedia page, doesn’t that mean it exists?
LOL! I’ll let that statement sink in.
A simple read of the page will tell you that the Wikipedia entry was obviously placed there by the fake NAR critics. I mean, please. Even Wikipedia states at the top of the page that the entries should be checked for neutrality, because there is arguably some kind of bias to the claims on the page.
Do your research people. Do your research. All of your google god info out there and you still get it wrong.
Holly Pivec, bringing some sense into the discussion:
If I understand him properly, he would say that there is an historic New Apostolic Reformation, with C Peter Wagner and the organisation he lead.
However, he would say that the term New Apostolic Reformation should not be used today in reference to leaders, churches and organisations, but only in reference to the organisation that C Peter Wagner once led.
And he thinks that many critics of the New Apostolic Reformation are claiming that things that leaders of this New Apostolic Reformation do not teach, such as that the apostles and prophets are having extraordinary authority, bring crucial new revelation to the Church.
He’ll say that this is a misrepresentation of the apostolic leaders today. And so the New Apostolic Reformation as the critics define it doesn’t really exist is what he’s saying, I think.
Nicely said, Holly. Not quite right, but at least a decent and honest version of what Dr Brown actually says, and a refutation of the comments with which Henzel and Veinot prefaced their program, and, incidentally, a nice rebuttal of the lead presented by churchwatchcentral in their article.
Here’s some head-scratching critic logic in response from Veinot:
But people are using the name, aren’t they?
No, really. He said that as if it was a great piece of reasoning.
If you do a serious check on the critics’ google god you will notice that the vast majority, maybe up to 99%, of entries on blogs about the New Apostolic Reformation, or the NAR, are so-called discernment sites, polemics sites and critics sites. There is no site for the New Apostolic Reformation run by the New Apostolic Reformation, only sites criticising the notion.
So, yes, people are using the name, Don, but please note who. It could even be you. Lord help us!
Watch this neat little switch ushered in by Veinot. People using a name, or even the existence of a Wikipedia entry is not evidence of much at all. It’s simply base logic to try this ploy.
Right that’s right, so the US Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, which can out of the International Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, they both se the term NewApostolic Reformation very freely, and on their websites they’ll say that they’re seeking to usher in a New Apostolic Reformation, and they tie their movement to C Peter Wagner, very clearly, and Michael Brown is actually a council member of the US Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, this organisation that is saying it is seeking to bring in a New Apostolic Reformation.
Yes, but not the one the critics are baying about, Holly. You just switched from the real NewApostolic Reformation to the fake NAR. They’ve already said they know of the existence of C Peter Wagner’s version. They just reject the fake NAR of the critics. You just said so.
Did you see how this is switched from one version of the New Apostolic Reformation to the fake NAR of their own contrivance? Proving Michael Brown’s point.
Not in full agreement
Michael Brown is on record as saying he didn’t agree with all C Peter Wagner says. I would concur with him. I do not agree with every aspect of his proposals. A lot of what Wagner pointed out was useful and helpful, but I don’t accept the need for a New Apostolic Reformation. Wagner, an evangelical, made an observation and gave it a title.
I don’t believe anything has changed Biblically since it was presented to us by the Holy Ghost. We don’t need a new reformation, be it apostolic or prophetic. We have the New Testament based on better promises. That’s all we need. The New Testament was always apostolic. It is written. It’s the cessationists who struggle with Biblical principles.
So I agree with Michael Brown that some of what C Peter Wagner said was Biblically discussible, but I know when someone is being badly misrepresented by critics who have set up their own version of what Wagner said, completely ignoring the written record he left behind that refutes their claims at every turn, and then turned their observations into a completely different version what he presented.
Veinot, cottoning on:
OK, so he admits that exists, just not as the critics define it…or…?
He’s almost getting it, here. A bit slow on the uptake, even tough Holly, a critic of the fake NAR, is doing her best to be honest about Dr Brown’s perspective on the issue. So why didn’t churchwatchcentral add this comment thread in their lead? They are usually obsessively fastidious at producing transcripts of videos.
Pivec, perplexed by Veinot’s persistence at this tack when she’s already so clearly explained it:
That’s how I understand he’s saying it. he’s saying that, really, the critics have created a conspiracy theory, and… an Illuminati type conspiracy theory, and what the critics describe does not exist.
OK, then. That’s cleared it up. Brown’s saying that the New Apostolic Reformation exists, but not in the form that the critics have devised.
That’s what I’ve been telling churchwatchcentral for yonks, yet he’s still pushing out his conspiracy theory, of which he is one of the primary authors, incidentally, and bashing away at Dr Brown day after day with the same old fake information.