10 Reasons Why I Reject the NAR 

Part 1

In recent years, the so-called  “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) has garnered attention, controversy, and debate within Christian circles.

It was originally a term that Professor Peter C. Wagner gave to describe a global phenomenon related to apostolic visionary leaders launching Christian-based movements independent of typical denominational control. The modern understanding of this was launched in parts of Africa in the early 20th century, exploded in China in the mid-20th century (after the communist government threw out the Western missionaries), and gained popularity in North America in the late 20th century. (For more on this, see my book The Global Apostolic Movement and the Progress of the Gospel.)

Unfortunately, some detractors of the so-called NAR have made it out to be a global conspiracy, ignoring its spontaneous supernatural global development. 

Its detractors have labeled everyone who uses the term apostolic (as a description of their function) to be part of the so-called “NAR” and placed them all under the same category as those who espouse extreme teachings and who do not represent much of the global apostolic movement (I.E., many falsely accuse a pastor or leader of being part of this dangerous NAR movement merely because they embrace terms like “apostolic” and “prophetic”).

I have also been connected to the NAR merely because I founded the “United States Coalition of Apostolic Leaders” in 2013, even though USCAL distanced itself as a movement from the 10 points mentioned in this article. 

(One person said I was a part of the NAR because I used the term “New Apostolic Reformation” in a book I wrote more than a decade ago regarding “Essays in Apostolic Leadership,” a term many were using at that time to describe a sociological ecclesial development before the so-called NAR became the new bogeyman of cessationists and far-left progressives. )

Furthermore, many who oppose the NAR were shocked to learn from me that many of the notable people mentioned who fit their characterization of the NAR were people who were never a part of USCAL.

(Some thought that the “NAR” was unified under the USCAL banner and that folks like  Dr. Michael Brown and I were responsible for all leaders classified under their NAR banner, something we find laughable! There is no such unity in the so-called NAR!)

In light of the general concerns and classifications of the so-called “NAR,” I also have several fundamental concerns with its assumptions and teachings. Here, I outline why I reject the framework of many tenets of concern with the NAR and seek to clarify key theological points that are often misunderstood by some within the movement.

(Please note, when I use the term “NAR” in this article, I am not conceding the existence of a global unified NAR movement. I merely use the term to show how I disagree with some of the extreme teachings practiced by some leaders classified within the framework of the NAR. )

1. Misunderstanding Church History and the Restoration Movement

One of the NAR’s central claims is that the ministries of apostles and prophets were lost or absent until their “restoration” in the mid-20th century. This assumption shows a lack of understanding regarding the history of the church. The Ephesians 4:11 ministry gifts, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers have existed since the early church and never disappeared. 

Throughout church history, we can find countless examples of individuals exercising apostolic and prophetic ministry, even if they weren’t always labeled as such. In the earliest centuries, the term “apostle” evolved into different structures and titles, but the function remained. The NAR’s narrative of “restoration” creates an unnecessary rupture in the church’s history, falsely suggesting that the Ephesians 4:11 ministry gifts of Jesus were absent for nearly 2,000 years.

2. Bishops Succeeded Apostolic Ministry in Church Tradition

By the second century, the church established the role of bishops to succeed the original apostles and oversee city-wide churches. The office of the bishop functioned in a manner that reflected the apostolic role, providing leadership, teaching, and governance for the early Christian communities.

To suggest that the title “apostle” needs to be revived as a distinct office today in order for it to obtain legitimacy is to overlook the historical continuity of the church’s governance. The term may have changed, but the apostolic function continued through the bishops. Therefore, I reject the notion that the use of the title of “apostle” is the only way to continue apostolic succession since the ministry continued without any gaps under different names and forms.

3. The NAR Conflates Politics with the Kingdom of God

A troubling trend, with some classified as within the NAR, is the conflation of the kingdom of God with politics, particularly in the United States. Some leaders within the NAR movement promote that advancing the kingdom of God is intrinsically tied to electing politicians to their political party or voting a certain way.

However, the kingdom of God transcends political systems and national governments. While Christians are called to be engaged in the public square and work for justice, the reign of Christ is not established merely through political means. Equating revival or the spread of the kingdom with voting for a particular party distorts the true nature of the gospel and risks turning the church into an appendage of a political party rather than a spiritual body.

(Of course, I also believe Christians should elect officials that best reflect God’s moral law as expressed in the Ten Commandments.)

4. Lack of Sound Biblical Exegesis

Another issue I have with some identified with the NAR is the frequent lack of sound biblical exegesis. Many teachings within the movement rely on “proof-texting,” taking verses out of context to support preconceived ideas rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself.

One common example is the “sheep and goat nations” teaching, based on Matthew 25:31-46. Some in the NAR suggest that entire nations can be classified as “sheep” (righteous) or “goat” (unrighteous) This is a misreading of the passage, which speaks about individuals’ actions in the context of judgment, not the salvation status of entire geopolitical entities. Such interpretations oversimplify complex theological issues and can lead to dangerous conclusions, I.E., those who live in a sheep nation will receive eternal life (Matthew 25:46).