Shawn Bolz, Prophet of the New Apostolic Reformation—Part 1: A Peculiar Twist in the Data Mining Controversy

January 30, 2025 Leave a comment


Perhaps you’ve heard of the New Apostolic Reformation. This movement promotes the view that certain divinely anointed individuals exercise significant authority for the church in their capacity as apostles and prophets for today. Shawn Bolz is a NAR prophet with close ties to Bethel Church (Redding, California), including the apostle Bill Johnson and the prophet Kris Vallotton.

For quite some time now, Shawn Bolz has been accused of data mining when prophesying about individuals in attendance at his various public events. In 2017, Stewart James Felker explained in detail how he came to this conclusion about Bolz. Felker gave a step-by-step analysis of a single incident during one of Bolz’s prophecy rallies. In our book Counterfeit Kingdom, Holly Pivec and I discuss a different case in Bolz’s prophetic career dating back to 2019. Thoughtful observers have been aware of this data mining dependency for several years.

Recently, further information has come forward that makes it even more difficult to deny that this is Bolz’s modus operandi as a prophet for this generation. And rumor has it that Bethel Church leaders have cut ties with Bolz now that more details have come to light. Bethel’s reaction is indeed further evidence that the allegations are true. Not because NAR prophets at Bethel are keen to expose error in order to protect the flock, but because of blowback against Bethel’s own prophetic pretenses, blowback that must be managed with aggressive action. Wolves in sheep’s clothing are sometimes sacrificed by fellow wolves when their own neck is on the line.

Data mining involves the extraction of useful information from large sets of data, often using internet technology. By leveraging this technology, Shawn Bolz can access a wealth of information about individuals that provides context and validation for his prophecies. But exposure and strained relations with his prophetic pals at Bethel has led to some scurrying behind the scenes. That is a story in itself. But one outcome is an emendation made to the Bolz Ministries website, dated January 17, 2025. The new “Statement of Prophetic Integrity” outlines guidelines that Bolz and associates plan to use in all future prophesying. Without mentioning data mining explicitly, Shawn Bolz seems to have changed his mind about further dependence on this prophetic technique. But get this: the new guidelines are, in effect, prophecies that Shawn Bolz has made recently about how he and his affiliates will prophesy in the future. We’ll see if this prophecy comes true.

Now you may think that calling Bolz’s new prophesying policy a prophecy itself is just sarcasm on my part. But it really is not. He says he will not be issuing prophecies that reveal certain types of personal information about individuals. But how can he know that unless he knows that God will not call upon him (or anyone on his team) to reveal such things? And wouldn’t advance knowledge of that sort have to be prophetic? Bolz purports to know in advance what God will have him prophesy. Who told him that, if it wasn’t God? So Bolz makes a prophecy about what he will and will not be revealing in future prophecies.

Of course, there is another possibility that must be considered. If Shawn Bolz has been data mining for the content of his prophecies, maybe he is data mining now for the criteria to be used in his new policy regarding all future prophecies. If Bolz has formed the intention never to resort to prophesy certain things, he can simply “data mine” his own brain to ground his prediction and issue new and improved prophesying guidelines for future prophesying! Old habits die hard.

But I think Bolz, who’s in the revelation business, revealed a deep truth about himself without intending to. Apparently, he didn’t think people would notice that Shawn Bolz had decided what God could and could not reveal through him if God wanted to keep using him as a prophet.

Most people, especially if they’ve read the Book of Jonah, know that Bolz has it backwards. God decides who the audience is and God decides what the message is. So the new prophesying policy, now available for inspection, lets the cat out of the bag. Bolz is the source of his new revelations.

And if you’ve watched Bolz perform, you realize this kind of makes sense. His prophetic utterances have the same texture as all those mentalism shows you see where the showman acts like he’s getting a vibe about someone in little pieces, starting with vague generalities and then groping from there toward something more specific.

Have you ever wondered why the Hebrew prophets didn’t do that? It has so much more entertainment value.

For all the amazing similarities between professional mentalists when they perform and Shawn Bolz when he prophesies about individuals in his audience, there are two main differences between them. First, mentalist entertainers aren’t speaking for God. They don’t claim to speak for God. They don’t launch into soul-stirring messages about how God plans to use specific members in their audiences. They just wow the audience with their amazing knowledge of specific details about strangers in the auditorium. Bolz seems to have decided that he can improve on what the typical mentalist does by making it a religious exercise that has the stamp of God’s authority. It’s a bold idea, but easy to execute. All he has to do is claim that God is speaking through him. With Bolz, you can get all the same entertainment value as you might with any experienced mentalist, but drive home after the show believing that God has spoken. With Bolz, you get wow plus worship.

That sounds like a difference that could catapult Bolz into the stratosphere way above most mentalists in demand today. And it might be, if it weren’t for the second difference.

The second difference between Bolz and professional entertainers in the mentalism racket mitigates the value of what Bolz does in comparison with the best mentalists, who don’t even have God helping them. The best mentalists on TV, the most impressive performers on the Vegas strip, really are convincing. A good mentalist will have you wondering, how in the world does he do that? And even though you know the mentalist does not have a hotline to heaven, you find it hard to think that it’s just clever trickery. This is because the pro performer is so smooth and so well-spoken that you couldn’t figure out what the trick is if your life depended on it.

With Bolz, on the other hand, the performance is very amateur in comparison. His use of his smart phone is not cleverly integrated into his performance as a prop that enhances his persuasiveness. Rather, the device he clutches is wielded like an embarrassing crutch, and, in his execution of the art, Bolz looks like a wannabe magician practicing in front of a mirror at home in his den while his mom shakes her head in despair and suggests that maybe he should get a real job.

I reckon that Bolz, determined to make it work, discovered a way to compensate for his ham-handed showmanship. That gets back to the first difference I’ve mentioned, plus an insight into his mostly Christian audience. By playing the religion card, Bolz cleverly incorporates an ingredient that redirects audience focus in a very natural and convincing manner. This is the “sleight of hand” that isn’t available to the professional mentalist. Bolz is banking on audience expectation and character traits specific to Christian audiences. That’s where the magic comes in.

Because of their religious outlook, most of those attending Bolz’s rallies are expecting a word from God. That will sound amazing to a lot of people, but it’s absolutely true, and it’s critical to Bolz’s success. Those who attend his rallies are among those Christians who think that God has anointed certain men and women today to be prophets to this generation. That gives Bolz a huge advantage. In addition, Bolz’s niche audience is willing to give this minister, who seems to love Jesus and to exude genuine godly warmth, whatever benefit of the doubt they must to help carry off the charade. They are decent people who fear the malice of suspicion. So they check any “critical spirit” that may be lurking in their souls as they enter the revival arena. They aren’t put off by the amateur quality of the performance. Why not? Because they are already primed to believe, and they have committed to suppressing any doubt that might inhibit deeper faith in a miracle-working God. Their very presence at the rally indicates that they are heavily invested in Shawn Bolz’s success as a modern prophet. For many, that was a decision they made before they showed up. If it was entertainment they wanted, they would be in Las Vegas instead. (Not that a prophecy rally isn’t sometimes entertaining.)

Shawn Bolz has a host of NAR leaders to thank for his success, including the tribe of Bethel prophets (in Redding and at large around the world). They have helped to construct a narrative, embraced by many Christians—about the nature of faith in connection with expectation, about the power of God at our disposal today, about God’s plans to mobilize an army of victorious believers poised to wage effective spiritual warfare.

We’ve seen this movie before, literally—recall Burt Lancaster in the film Elmer Gantry (1960) and Steve Martin in Leap of Faith (1992). But the fiction of modern-day prophetic revivals still captivates a segment of the Christian world when practiced in the wild.

Other posts in this series—“Shawn Bolz, Prophet of the New Apostolic Reformation”—will explore the advantages of data mining for NAR purposes and suggest that perhaps Shawn Bolz should stick to data mining rather than resort to a less reliable technique of prophesying That has gotten other NAR prophets into trouble.

Stay tuned.

For more on NAR and the prophetic, see chapter 4, “Jesus’s Overlooked Warning,” in our book Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , , ,

Michael L. Brown, Ché Ahn, and the Brownsville Revival

July 16, 2024 Leave a comment


In August 2022, Holly Pivec and I met with Michael L. Brown for a Roundtable discussion that was released July 15, 2024 under the title “NAR: Myth or Movement?” The release of that discussion for public viewing was delayed for nearly two years for reasons that may eventually come to light. In the end, the three of us were invited to record final summary statements that would be attached to the end of the original production by American Gospel producer, Brandon Kimber.

In our joint summary statement concluding the Roundtable, Holly describes five errors or misrepresentations that we identify to illustrate problems with Michael Brown’s factual claims during the Roundtable. In the fifth instance, we comment on Brown’s response to the NAR apostle Ché Ahn.

In his book Modern-Day Apostles, Ahn recalls his conversation with Peter Wagner about the shortage of revivals in America, compared with other nations. “Peter said, ‘The reason why I don’t think it happened is because pastors are not the ones with the highest level of authority in the church. It’s apostles.’” Ahn then writes, “I realized that wherever revival has broken out it was because an apostle led that revival. This was true whether it was John Arnott in Toronto; John Kilpatrick in Brownsville; or me in Pasadena at Mott auditorium, where we had nightly meetings for three years; or Bill Johnson in Redding, California.”

After Holly quoted this passage from Ché Ahn’s book, Brown pushed back and disputed Ché Ahn’s point about the Brownsville Revival. Brown says,

I was part of the Brownsville Revival that was mentioned there. There was not a syllable ever about John Kilpatrick being the apostle over this. He was pastor of a local church. And God birthed the revival within this pastor of a local church. Someone else now is putting an interpretation on it and now you think, Okay, well John Kilpatrick held to that. No, no. That was someone else looking at it, whereas the people involved would say, “No, this happened through prayer and through a pastor and an evangelist working together. That’s how God poured out his Spirit in revival.” . . . . This is someone else’s opinion. . . . That’s Ché’s opinion about what happened at Brownsville. People within Brownsville differ with that. . . . I was there. I was a leader. . . . That’s his interpretation. (“NAR: Myth or Movement?”)

Brown objects to Ahn’s “interpretation,” as he calls it: that John Kilpatrick was an apostle who led the revival in Brownsville. Brown says, “There was not a syllable ever about John Kilpatrick being the apostle over this.” But of course, this misrepresents what Ahn has said. Ahn does not say that John Kilpatrick was identified at the time as the apostle who led the Brownsville Revival. In the passage Holly cited, Ahn only asserts that “wherever revival has broken out it was because an apostle led that revival.” And Ahn believes that was true of John Kilpatrick at Brownsville.

To dispute Ché Ahn’s claim regarding the Brownsville Revival, Brown must establish that no apostle played a role in the leadership of the revival period at Brownsville. Brown cannot simply assert that no one stepped forward as an apostle during the Brownsville Revival or that no one was ever dubbed an apostle of the revival during revival events. For it is at least theoretically possible that an individual functioned as an apostle leading the revival, without ever calling himself or herself an “apostle,” or without being regarded as such by anyone else, at the time. In that event, Ché Ahn would be correct, that an apostle did lead the Brownsville Revival and this apostle was John Kilpatrick. And Brown’s claim—“There was not a syllable ever about John Kilpatrick being the apostle over this”—would be completely irrelevant. Brown’s rejoinder to Ahn misrepresents what Ahn is saying in the passage we quoted.

That is Brown’s first mistake. But Brown’s comment is also factually mistaken.

As anyone can see from the video clip shown in our summary comment about this matter, a prophet, who was invited by John Kilpatrick himself to speak a word from the Lord, explicitly declares that Kilpatrick is more than a mere pastor, that he is in fact an apostle, whose leadership ministry during the Brownsville Revival is evidence of Kilpatrick’s apostolic calling. This prophet further reveals that Kilpatrick will go on to lead future revivals following the same pattern of authority, with events marked by similar phenomena as those manifested during the Brownsville Revival.

So, as a matter of fact, someone uttered a whole string of syllables expressing what Ché Ahn alleges—that John Kilpatrick, a pastor at Brownsville Church, was also an apostle who led the Brownsville Revival, as evidenced by the phenomena that occurred during the revival. And the person who said this did so from the pulpit at Brownsville Church, with John Kilpatrick present, after being introduced by John Kilpatrick as a prophet of God invited to bring a word from the Lord.

If you wonder whether “apostle John” accepted this designation, or thought that it applied to the role he played during his leadership of the Brownsville Revival, you need only consult a sermon that Kilpatrick preached at Calvary Christian Center in Ormond Beach, Florida (uploaded to YouTube Feb 13, 2022). Kilpatrick says,

I remember in the Brownsville Revival I didn’t understand the apostolic, or any of that stuff, until God poured out revival at Brownsville. And when God came and poured out His Spirit there, and the world began to come to our church, and they were drawn to that presence and that glory of God, I began to feel and understand and hear about the apostolic. . . . Somebody said, “You’re an apostle.” I said, “What do you mean by that?” . . . . So I had to begin to look into the apostolic and begin to try to get an understanding of it. [43:53]

In other words, John Kilpatrick, a noted leader of the Brownsville Revival, gradually learned during the course of the revival that he was indeed an apostle. He had exercised apostolic authority without fully realizing it. He studied the apostolic and reflected on the supernatural phenomena exhibited during the Brownsville Revival, and on that basis he concluded that people who had called him an apostle were correct.

So Ché Ahn’s so-called “interpretation” of events is shared by John Kilpatrick, of all people. And it is Michael Brown’s interpretation that is called into question.

We’re not quite sure how to account for this discrepancy between the Kilpatrick-Ahn account and Brown’s understanding. But Brown’s interpretation has all the appearance of being revisionist. It will be interesting to see if he can persuade either of these luminaries of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)—John Kilpatrick and Ché Ahn—that they have misdescribed the situation and that there was no apostle giving leadership to the Brownsville Revival at all.

In any case, the prophetic utterance—given in the clip we exhibit in our concluding comment for the Roundtable—establishes that Brown is indeed mistaken when he says, “There was not a syllable ever about John Kilpatrick being the apostle over this.” And he is mistaken when he says that this is merely Ahn’s interpretation that would be disputed by “people within Brownsville.”

This fuller account of how it came to be understood that an apostle was specially designated by God to lead the Brownsville Revival creates additional problems for Michael Brown. He is well-known for his vigorous defense of the Brownsville Revival (which is a head-scratcher in itself), and his claim to be a prominent participating and authoritative eyewitness of what took place at Brownsville. But due to some conflict between himself and leaders at Brownsville, Brown was relieved of his role as president of the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry and left before the Revival petered out. That Brown emerged as a leading spokesperson for the revival in the afterglow of its eventual extinction is a testament to his capacity for reinventing himself. But his interpretation of events and his denial that an apostle played a crucial role is at odds with the narrative propounded by the most significant living leader of the Brownsville Revival, apostle John Kilpatrick.

In addition, Brown, who calls NAR a “myth,” must now find himself defending a phenomenon—the Brownsville Revival —that, by official accounts, critically depended on the leadership of an apostle for its manifestation. Brown was a proud participant in a major NAR event. Fancy that!

***

Michael Brown has repeatedly sought to defend his NAR friends in response to critics of NAR. But so far, that has not gone well for Michael Brown—or for his NAR friends. In so many instances, where he has objected to our identification of individuals as NAR, Brown has invited further scrutiny of their NAR bona fides and exposed them to further trenchant criticism.

He co-authored with Joseph Mattera a statement on “NAR and Christian Nationalism” and recruited signatories whose approval of the statement is incompatible with their NAR commitments, including Joe Mattera himself. During the Roundtable, he challenged our claim that his friend Mark Chironna is NAR and pressed us to produce evidence for it. We’ve done that. (See our article “Response to Joseph Mattera and Michael Brown, Statement on ‘NAR and Christian Nationalism.'”) Brown has parted company with Ché Ahn, in no uncertain terms, when pressed about the differences between their views about apostles. And now his friend and former colleague, John Kilpatrick, is brought under the spotlight for special scrutiny by Brown’s attempted revisionist characterization of the Brownsville Revival, which is actually a paradigm instance of NAR revivalist theology and practice.

In each case, the effort to characterize NAR as a “myth” and to defend his friends against NAR allegations has only subjected Brown’s friends to the revelation of further blinding evidence in support of our claims.

***

There is one further irony to this story. When Holly quoted the passage from Ché Ahn (cited above), the purpose was to make explicit Ahn’s own view about the authority of apostles as a requirement for revival today. She was not especially interested in what Ahn had said about John Kilpatrick and the Brownsville Revival. For her specific purposes, it wasn’t the least bit relevant whether Ché Ahn had given the correct insider’s interpretation on Brownsville. The Ahn quote was one of a series of quotations Holly presented to Brown to elicit his response. Following her recitation of these several passages by different NAR individuals, Brown immediately accused the two of us of adopting a faulty methodology. And one example he offered in support of this claim was our use of the Ahn passage. Note, again, what Brown says to us: “Someone else [Ché Ahn] now is putting an interpretation on it [the Brownsville Revival] and now you think, Okay, well John Kilpatrick held to that.” But that is not what we thought and that certainly is not what we said. So it is Brown’s methodology that goes terribly awry. And thanks to Michael Brown, whose chastising comment inspired us to research John Kilpatrick’s role during the Brownsville Revival, we now do believe that Kilpatrick indeed came to consider himself to be an apostle whose leadership as such facilitated the Revival. That’s an interesting conclusion, to be sure, though it is not germane to our purposes in quoting Ché Ahn during the Roundtable.

Doug Geivett is co-author with Holly Pivec of four books on the New Apostolic Reformation: Reckless Christianity: The Destructive New Teachings and Practices of Bill Johnson, Bethel Church, and the Global Movement of Apostles and Prophets; Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church; A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement; and God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

As People Flee NAR, Michael Brown Defends NAR Leaders and Compromises His Status as Spokesman for Charismatics and Pentecostals

December 19, 2023 2 Comments


By Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec

Michael L. Brown, radio host of The Line of Fire

Over several decades, the Christian radio host Michael Brown has fashioned a narrative with himself starring as a high-profile representative of charismatics and Pentecostals. And for a long time this was his reputation with quite a number of his followers. But that narrative is unraveling.

His zealous defense of the controversial New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement—including his support for his friends who clearly are NAR and his attacks on the critics of NAR—has revealed that he is not the advocate for the charismatic and Pentecostal mainstream that he claims to be. He is out of sync with the mainstream, and a growing number of charismatics and Pentecostals in that stream recognize what Brown denies—that NAR is real and dangerous.

Brown’s Response to Exposure of NAR

His Support for NAR Leaders

Though Brown has long defended extremist expressions of charismatic/Pentecostal practice, and was even a leader of the controversial Brownsville Revival, he has perhaps been better known for his work as a Messianic Jewish apologist and debates with gay activists. And he does often insist that he has called out fringe leaders in the charismatic movement when they have gone too far off-center. So until recently he has perhaps been perceived as a reliable spokesman for the mainstream charismatic movement, thanks to his comparatively unnoticed extremism of the past. But that has been changing with his strenuous defense of NAR leaders.

NAR leaders Brown defends include some of the movement’s most controversial figures:

  • Bill Johnson: “Apostle” and senior leader of the globally influential Bethel Church in Redding, California—a church known for its failed resurrection attempts, failed predictive prophecies, and other bizarre practices like “grave soaking” and wrapping children in toilet paper like mummies to teach them to raise the dead.
  • Ché Ahn: “Apostle” of Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, California, and author of the NAR manifesto Modern-Day Apostles, which details the “extraordinary authority” today’s apostles are believed to possess.
  • Mark Chironna: NAR apostle who teaches that every church should be governed by apostles and that such apostles function at an unparalleled “level of genius.”
  • Sid Roth: Host of the wacky It’s Supernatural television program, where guests frequently claim to receive appearances from Jesus, make trips to heaven, and receive messages from God to deliver to the church.
  • Brian Simmons: Author of the notorious Passion Translation of the Bible—one of the most deceptive “translations” of the Bible ever produced, subjected to criticism by numerous credible Bible scholars.
  • Mike Bickle: Founder of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Missouri (IHOPKC), who claims to have gone to the courtroom of heaven, where God told him that, if he were found faithful, he would be an end-time apostle with immense authority bringing divine revelation. Bickle also teaches that Christians in the last days will take vengeance on their persecutors by making prayer declarations that will “loose” the judgments of God described in the book of Revelation. And Bickle claims that God spoke to him through Bob Jones, a scandalous sexual abuser prophet, who gave him a message for the global church—a message about Jesus’ “fiery love” for believers, based on a bizarre interpretation of the Song of Solomon in the Bible.

It’s confounding that Brown would defend leaders with such extreme teachings and practices. But when asked about these and other NAR leaders, he says they could never possibly teach the things the critics say they teach. Why? Because they are his friends and he knows they would never do that. This is his resolute stance even when he has been presented with direct evidence of their teachings from their own writings and sermons. And Brown’s years-long defense of Mike Bickle and his organization is especially noteworthy in this moment, when Bickle and his organization are presently embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal involving disturbing allegations concerning multiple women and fostering grave misgivings about leadership’s management of the crisis.

Michael Brown’s routine defense of these and other prominent NAR leaders is an endorsement of individuals who lie far outside the boundaries of mainstream charismatic and Pentecostal teaching and practice.

His Attacks on the Critics of NAR

Brown responds to critics of NAR with unwarranted attacks. Many have noted his recourse to ad hominem name-calling (by denying that the NAR movement exists and asserting that critics are “conspiracy theorists”), shaming and scolding, and pleading a morally superior high ground, often quoting the Bible in his rebukes and admonitions. He adopts language of extreme censure in response to those who have noted his tendency to obfuscate, accusing them of the sin of slander.

Brown treats thoughtful critics like they are imbeciles, while they patiently present the evidence, document their claims, and stand ready to be corrected on reasonable grounds. Meanwhile, in dialogue with critics, he has admitted, on direct questioning, that he has not read their work. Nor, apparently, has he read the works of those he defends! His “knowledge” of their views is grounded in personal conversations, he says, but this is nothing more than hearsay as far as third parties are concerned, and it is trumped by a trove of published books, articles, podcasts, sermons, and the like by the NAR leaders we identify. He has dispensed with the routine work of acquiring detailed knowledge of the NAR phenomenon and loudly excoriated critics who have done their homework, never offering a detailed analysis of their specific arguments.

But people are not blind to Brown’s deflection. Following an informal debate we had with Brown on Alisa Childers’ podcast in 2018, one listener noted the many unscrupulous tactics Brown employed and wrote this:

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.

Following a 2022 interview he did about NAR, this exchange appeared in a comment thread on YouTube:

I find it very hard to believe that Dr. Brown isn’t familiar with the craziness in the NAR movement. Che Ahn, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner—he’s got to be familiar with these men. I mean, he’s appeared with his good friend Sid Roth on It’s Supernatural multiple times. He filibustered this entire interview.

—–

He does interview after interview having never heard of these things. The interviewer tells him, and then the very next interview he’s never heard of or seen it again.

—–

Yes! It becomes hard to see it as anything more than him being deliberately misleading and I really hate to say that. As for Kat Kerr and Sid Roth, you couldn’t slide a piece of paper between them that’s how close they are in their nuttiness.

—–

He knows full well and he’s not fooling those who think as you (and I) do.

Comments like these are frequently found in online discussions of his many appearances on behalf of NAR. (When they are posted to his own social media platforms, such comments swiftly disappear.)

Brown’s Message about NAR Rejected by Charismatics and Pentecostals

There are multiple indicators that Brown is out of step with mainstream charismatics and Pentecostals.

Brown’s Message is Repudiated by Charismatics Who Have Fled NAR

A host of people have left NAR and given testimony after testimony of the very things we and other critics have described—pertaining not only to NAR theology, but also the painful effects it’s had in people’s lives. That’s an empirical reality that Brown will not acknowledge. Some have reported experiencing the equivalent of PTSD. Many express sorrowful repentance for their former association with NAR groups. Recovery groups have formed to assist in the emotional healing of NAR refugees.

These people cannot be dismissed as cessationists (who believe the miraculous gifts, such as prophecy and speaking in tongues, have ceased). Rather, most remain within the continuationist fold, affirming the continuation of the miraculous gifts but seeking a more stable and theologically sound environment. Clearly, they aren’t listening to Brown. You can hardly expect them to track with his message about NAR, that It doesn’t exist, there’s nothing to see here. The growing exodus from NAR groups is a repudiation of that message.

Many of those people have left NAR churches and found new home churches in safe environments that are more moderate. But where is Michael Brown’s pastoral concern for the many who have been injured by prominent NAR groups and abandoned them in favor of mainstream alternatives? Why has he sided with those who have injured them?

While Brown may not know the difference between NAR and mainstream charismatic teaching, these people most certainly do. His denial that there is any substantive difference between his NAR friends and associates on the one hand and the charismatic mainstream on the other hand simply is not believable for people who have lived through the ordeal of NAR’s destructive teachings and practices.

Mainstream charismatics have not taught prayer declarations, they have not taught apostolic decrees, they have not taught prophetic activation exercises, they have not taught that it is always God’s will to heal (with no exceptions), they have not taught dominionism, they have not taught strategic-level spiritual warfare, they have not taught that apostles are officers governing the church today, and they have not taught that these offices have been reinstated in these “last days” to coordinate a miracle-working army and bring God’s kingdom to earth. Nothing Brown says to defend those who teach such things will change that fact.

The critics know better. The victims of NAR theology and practice know better. And those leading the NAR movement—including Brown’s friends who have used the label NAR of themselves in the past—know better. Is Brown the only one who does not know better? He’s positioned himself more as a spokesman for NAR than for the mainstream charismatic movement.

Brown’s Message is Contradicted by Classical Pentecostals

The largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, the Assemblies of God (AG), recognized the emergence of NAR and acted deliberately to curb its influence in their ranks with an official statement on Apostles and Prophets. Those who have read this document know that the “apostles” Bill Johnson and Randy Clark are outside the pale of acceptable teaching about apostles from the AG point of view. This is why, in March 2023, when Johnson and Clark were invited as guest speakers for one of the most influential AG churches in America, many AG pastors were disconcerted and a firestorm ensued.

Brown’s denials of NAR’s existence and his posturing in support of NAR leaders are not appreciated by these pastors. Because of their opposition to NAR, many Pentecostal pastors have expressed appreciation for our critique of NAR and recommended it to others. They have joined the resistance that we speak of in the final chapter of Counterfeit Kingdom.

Brown’s Collapsing Narrative

In short, by denying the existence of NAR and directly supporting individuals like Mike Bickle, Brian Simmons, and Bill Johnson, Brown has compromised his claim to represent the charismatic/Pentecostal mainstream, squandered the opportunity to offer a well-informed and realistic appraisal of NAR, and relinquished all moral authority to speak for most continuationists. He certainly has nothing to offer the throngs who have fled NAR in search of a more authentic experience of God.

The more Brown defends NAR leaders and portrays them as mainstream charismatics, the more he alienates mainstream charismatics who know better—and that number is growing. The same goes for Pentecostals, like those in the Assemblies of God. Brown has effectively crossed swords with them, too.

Additional Resources

For more examples of Michael Brown’s alignment with extreme NAR leaders, see our “Response to Joseph Mattera and Michael Brown, Statement on ‘NAR and Christian Nationalism.’” Our article analyzing the Mattera/Brown statement exposes several tactics that Brown and company have adopted to provide cover for NAR leaders and their extreme teachings.

To learn more about NAR and influential NAR leaders, see our three books on this topic, including especially the most recent: Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church. Our forthcoming book, Reckless Christianity: The Destructive New Teachings and Practices of Bill Johnson, Bethel Church, and the Global Movement of Apostles and Prophets, is soon to be released.

About Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec

Doug Geivett is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Biola University in Southern California. Holly Pivec is a researcher of new religious movements and has a master’s degree in Christian apologetics from Biola. Together, they have co-authored four books about the New Apostolic Reformation movement: Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church; A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement; God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement; and, the forthcoming Reckless Christianity: The Destructive New Teachings and Practices of Bill Johnson, Bethel Church, and the Global Movement of Apostles and Prophets.

Filed under Christian Leaders, Christianity, New Apostolic Reformation, Other, People, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , ,

New Book: Counterfeit Kingdom

September 13, 2022 1 Comment


My new book with Holly Pivec, Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church, is about to be released. It can be preordered now at Amazon.

Filed under New Apostolic Reformation, Other Tagged with , ,

Doug and Holly Book Recommended on Stand to Reason

September 5, 2016 1 Comment


On his radio show “Stand to Reason,” Greg Koukl recently took a call from a 14-year-old young man from Washington state. David had just listened to an interview I did with Greg a year or so ago. He called in to talk about the New Apostolic Reformation. David wanted counsel about how to approach a friend who has been drawn to the movement through the work of Bethel Church in Redding, CA. They talk for ten minutes at the end of the show, beginning at minute 00:46. If you’re interested in the discussion, click here.NAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)

In his conversation with David, Greg recommends the book I wrote with Holly Pivec, God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement. He encourages David to see if his friend will go through it with him.

You may know someone who has been lured into the network of contemporary prophets and apostles. Or you may have some other interest in learning more. Have a listen to the interview, then get the book God’s Super-Apostles. It gives you all the basic information you need to understand this movement and make a reasonable assessment of its claims. If you’re looking for something a little more in-depth, the book to get is A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , ,

My Interview with the Good Book Blog about the New Apostolic Reformation

May 3, 2015 Leave a comment


Last week I was interviewed by the Good Book Blog about the New Apostolic Reformation. This blog publishes articles written by faculty of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

To read the interview, follow this link.

Talbot Good Book Blog

Note: This is post #500

Filed under Other Tagged with , , ,

A New Apostolic Reformation? Bellevue Slide Presentation

May 3, 2015 3 Comments


I spoke recently at the annual Worldview Apologetics Conference in Bellevue, Washington (April 17-18, 2015). Other speakers included Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, and E. Calvin Beisner.

Two of my four presentations focused on the New Apostolic Reformation, the subject of two books I’ve co-authored with Holly Pivec.

One book is brief and introductory. It’s called God’s Super-Apostles. The other is an expanded treatment with more detailed discussion and extensive documentation. It’s called A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement.

You can access my presentation slides by clicking on the following link:

A New Apostolic Reformation?

RDG-NAR Presentation Slides-Title Page

This is the first presentation link I’ve posted to my website. Your feedback is welcome!

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

God’s Super-Apostles: An Interview with Doug Geivett

April 30, 2015 Leave a comment


Yesterday I was interviewed at the Good Book Blog about my two recent books on the New Apostolic Reformation. Here’s the interview:

God’s Super-Apostles: An Interview with Doug Geivett.

The Good Book Blog publishes posts by the faculty of the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.

Filed under Other Tagged with ,

Beware of Prayer—New Apostles and Prophets on the National Day of Prayer

April 25, 2015 1 Comment


Holly Pivec is my co-author for two recent books, God’s Super-Apostles and A New Apostolic Reformation? Today she writes a column I’d like to share here. It’s about the upcoming National Day of Prayer and three worrisome emphases within the New Apostolic Reformation: the practice of “warfare prayer,” the practice of prayer “declarations,” and the doctrine of a Seven Mountain Mandate. Holly’s words are a call for caution and discernment. We commend the designation of special occasions for prayer. But we also stress the need for a biblically-grounded theology of prayer. And we encourage awareness of efforts by NAR leaders to infiltrate the ranks of traditional evangelical churches and organizations.

“The ‘NAR-tional’ Day of Prayer?”

Churches across the United States are gearing up for the National Day of Prayer. More than 40,000 prayer gatherings are expected to be held on May 7 in observance of this annual event. But has the National Day of Prayer been hijacked by the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)?

The official promotional video, being played in Sunday morning worship services, gives no hint of NAR influence. But the influence can be seen if you look closely at the National Day of Prayer literature. The following NAR teachings and practices are being promoted.

Warfare Prayer

One NAR practice being promoted is “warfare” prayer. The National Day of Prayer website features an article titled “What is Prayer?” which is excerpted from a book titled The Front Line: A Prayer Warrior’s Guide to Spiritual Warfare written by John Bornschein, vice chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force. This book is promoted heavily in the National Day of Prayer literature. Included in the article’s list of the types of prayer “the Holy Spirit wants to lead us into” is a form of prayer known in the NAR as “warfare” prayer.

What’s “warfare” prayer? It involves verbally addressing demonic spirits and issuing direct commands to them. The National Day of Prayer website describes it as “prayer directed against the powers of darkness. … We pronounce against them the written judgment by reading the Scriptures of judgment against them (Psalm 149:9), we command them to be bound or to leave their positions of influence or authority in the name of Jesus (Matthew 16:19; Mark 16:17).” Yet nowhere in Scripture is prayer ever directed to demonic spirits. Prayer is always directed to God. They seem to be confusing “prayer” and “exorcism.”

Of course, Scripture does indicate that Christians have been given authority to cast out demons from individuals. Yet it gives no hint that they’ve been given authority to cast out demons from cities and nations. Those familiar with NAR teachings about “strategic-level spiritual warfare” will recognize immediately how warfare prayer relates. The idea of commanding demonic spirits to “leave their positions of influence or authority” seems to be a not-so-veiled reference to NAR teachings about the necessity of casting out evil, powerful “territorial spirits” that are believed to exert rule over specific geographical regions, such as cities and nations.

But the Bible gives no support for the teaching that territorial spirits must be cast out before a city or nation can be reached with the gospel. There’s not a single example in Scripture of God’s people seeking to cast out a territorial spirit or engage such spirits in any way. Nor is there any teaching about the need for such engagement. Contrary to NAR teachings, Scripture indicates that rebuking such high-ranking spirits may actually be dangerous (Jude 1:8-10; 2 Peter 2:10-12). Why, then, would the National Day of Prayer Task Force ever be compelled to promote “warfare” prayer?

Faith ‘Declarations’

Another NAR practice that’s being promoted by the National Day of Prayer is that of making faith “declarations.” A declaration is not asking God to do something, which is how prayer typically has been viewed by evangelicals. Rather it involves declaring that such-and-such a thing, that is believed to be the will of God, will happen. It’s believed that Christians have been given the power, through their spoken words, to bring a desired reality into existence–much as God had creative power to speak the universe into existence.

Literature circulated to churches in Alaska, by the National Day of Prayer Alaska state coordinator, invites believers to gather at noon on May 7 “in one voice of victory declaring Jesus as King and Lord over Alaska and America.” It urges Alaskans to plan to “go someplace where you can easily make a loud declaration … and boldly proclaim into the atmosphere across our state and into the lower 48 [states] that Jesus is King and Lord over this great land.” My hunch is that similar directives have been issued in other states.

Some will wonder what can possibly be bad about declaring Jesus to be King and Lord. Certainly, there’s no problem with simply stating that Jesus is King and Lord because he already is–whether or not anyone states that fact. The problem is found in the notion that–simply by speaking these words–a new reality will somehow magically be created. That’s not the traditional, and biblical, view of prayer as petitionary. I’m pretty sure it’s not what most churches have in mind when they encourage their members to take part in the National Day of Prayer.

Seven Mountain Mandate

A third possible NAR influence could be found in the striking resemblance of the “7×7 campaign” to the “Seven Mountain Mandate.” The National Day of Prayer website encourages people to get involved in the event by downloading free prayer guides for each of the “seven centers of influence.” Clicking on the link provided takes people to the website of Pray for America (a project of the National Day of Prayer Task Force) and a description of a 7×7 campaign to pray for the “seven centers of power, seven days a week.”

Again, those familiar with NAR teachings will naturally wonder how closely the National Day of Prayer focus on the “seven centers of influence” resembles the “Seven Mountain Mandate” that supposedly has been revealed by God to NAR prophets as a strategy for the church to take sociopolitical control of nations. If there’s no connection, then the National Day of Prayer Task Force would do well to clarify its view and clearly distinguish it from NAR teaching.

Have you seen signs of NAR influence in your local National Day of Prayer events?

For more reporting on the New Apostolic Reformation, subscribe to Holly’s blog thespiritoferror.org. Read more of this post

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

NEW Amazon Giveaway for God’s Super-Apostles

March 11, 2015 Leave a comment


Yesterday an Amazon Giveaway for God’s Super-Apostles was announced here. Apparently, the interest was great enough for the contest to end within a few hours. The publisher is now sponsoring a NEW Giveaway that should take longer to expire. Everything depends on the number of people who enter the contest. To participate, click here.

NAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)

 

Filed under Other Tagged with , ,

Amazon Giveaway for God’s Super-Apostles—UPDATE

March 9, 2015 Leave a comment


Due to popular demand, the contest described below ended within a few hours. A new contest that should last longer is now in effect. For details click on this link.

***

I’m pleased to announce that our book God’s Super-Apostles is doing well and is addressing readers’ needs. Our two books, including A New Apostolic Reformation?, are in their second printing, and a third will be happening soon.

Today is the first day of an Amazon Giveaway contest for God’s Super-Apostles that ends March 16. You can enter the contest by clicking here for details at Amazon. If you’ve already purchased your copy, this will make a great gift for a concerned friend.

NAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)

Filed under Books, Doug's Publications Tagged with ,

Radio Interview on Stand to Reason—New Apostles and Prophets

February 24, 2015 Leave a comment


Today I’m doing a radio interview with Greg Koukl on his show Stand to Reason. We’ll be discussing the topic of my two new books about the New Apostolic Reformation. The show airs live at 4 pm Pacific Standard Time on KKLA 99.5. It’s also streamed live at the show website: str.org. After today, the interview will continue to be available online.

NAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)Our books, God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement and A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement, were first released in December and are now in their second printing. A third printing is planned in the next few weeks. Both books can be purchased in paperback or in Kindle format at Amazon.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , ,

Two Interviews with the Pilgrim Radio Network

February 1, 2015 Leave a comment


Those following the New Apostolic Reformation may want to tune into my interview with the Pilgrim Radio Network (pilgrimradio.com) in a two-part discussion of the subject of the New Apostolic Reformation. Part 1 airs Monday, February 1 at 2:30 am, 12:30 pm, and 9:30 pm. The second portion airs Tuesday, February 2, on the same schedule.

We’ll be talking about two books I’ve co-authored with Holly Pivec: A New Apostolic Reformation? and God’s Super-Apostles.

NAR Book Cover-Final-201 Both books are available

• in paperback

• on KindleNAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)

If you wish to schedule an interview with one of us about the New Apostolic Reformation, or review a copy of one of our books, please contact our agent Emily Varner at AcademicPS.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Reviews of “God’s Super-Apostles” and “A New Apostolic Reformation?”

January 22, 2015 Leave a comment


For more information about our books on the New Apostolic Reformation, you may want to read these reviews:

• Tim Challies

• Brian T. Dempsey

• George Paul WoodNAR Book Cover-Final-201 NAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)

• “Young, Restless, and Reformed, here and here

• Amazon, here and here.

If you learn of reviews that should be included in this list, please say so in the comments box below.

—————

Both books, God’s Super-Apostles and A New Apostolic Reformation? can be ordered at Amazon here and here, or direct from the publisher here.

Filed under Other Tagged with ,

Assemblies of God Ministers Newsletter Reviews God’s Super-Apostles

January 21, 2015 Leave a comment


In the January 2015 issue of the Assemblies of God Ministers Newsletter, George Paul Wood urges his Pentecostal friends and co-workers to read our books God’s Super-ApostlesNAR Book Cover-101 final (6-6-14)  and A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement. HisNAR Book Cover-Final-201 review begins on page 6. In addition to summarizing the message of the books and explaining his view of their importance for Pentecostalism worldwide, Wood presents his own summary of the central tenets of the New Apostolic Reformation.

What, then, is the New Apostolic Reformation? Its most distinctive teaching is that the end-times church must be led by apostles and prophets. In addition . . ., NAR promotes strategic-level spiritual warfare, apostolic unity, and the ability of all Christians to work miracles.

Wood notes that the Assemblies of God position paper “Apostles and Prophets” expresses concern about NAR emphases. To be sure, leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation very clearly have moved beyond classic Pentecostalism. Wood aptly refers to NAR leaders as “hypercharismatics.” As a Pentecostal leader himself, he implores fellow Pentecostals to resist  the excesses of the NAR movement, and to recognize how distant this movement is from the core commitments of classic Pentecostalism.

————

*The Assemblies of God Ministers Newsletter is circulated to some 36,000 credentialed ministers of the AG church.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts