UNBELIEF could well be the main sin of the "severe critics" of NAR

Note: I define a "severe critic" as someone who because of their presuppositions is unwilling to listen to any evidence that challenges those preconceived ideas/beliefs about a particular topic. To use Jesus' description, they are those who have "no ears to hear".

In recent years a doctrinal "witch hunt" has been underway against Charismatic Christianity by a growing number of "severe critics" (spearheaded by some Christian apologists) who are attacking a movement they call 'NAR' (standing for the New Apostolic Reformation). 

This new 'crusade' against the "so-called" NAR really began back in 2014 with the publication of a book entitled, A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement by Douglas Geivett and Holly Pivec.

The irony is that the actual modern movement referred to as the New Apostolic Reformation began more than 20 years earlier. The NAR term was coined by the late C. Peter Wagner in 1994 and he was attempting to describe something that had been developing for years before that. 

And so in many ways, Geivett and Pivec's 2014 book is somewhat anachronistic as they are about 20 years late to the discussion but are often referred to as "whistleblowers" as to the dangerous and heterodox aspects and elements of the phenomenon known as "NAR". Whereas they may well be the catalysts in the past 10 years for bringing the "NAR" term into more of the Christian mainstream and even into the secular culture's awareness, they are not the first critics of the excesses found within churches and leaders who are actually part of the movement that more accurately began with C. Peter Wagner in the 1990s. 

There were numerous voices calling out the excesses of the new movement back in the 90s and early 2000s from within the Charismatic and/or Pentecostal camps. I think one excellent critique was Rick Joyner's 2004 book The Apostolic Ministry which is from someone "within" the Prophetic movement and one who believes that prophets and apostles continue to function within the Church.

As a Charismatic, I saw many jump on the NAR bandwagon back in the 1990s and early 2000s. I saw people, churches, and ministries all seeking to "align" themselves with people they believed to be Apostles. I watched those who were now so "aligned" criticizing those who were not "properly covered". I attended a church in the Middle East that was part of the South African Apostolic Network known called New Covenant Ministries International. We saw and experienced personally some terrible abuses.

With regards to abuses and excesses, this is not at all uncommon in new movements - be that Charismatic/Pentecostal and/or in other Evangelical parts of the Church. And this represents one clear problem with Geivett and Pivec's critique of the so-called "NAR". They portray (often accurately) abuses and excesses they have found (and/or been made aware of) in modern Charismatic churches/movements. What they don't seem to see is that some of the same problems (abusive, manipulative leadership and/or aberrant doctrines) exist in other Evangelical churches. They exist in the modern Reformed movement. They exist in the non-Charismatic megachurch movement. They exist in Baptist circles. And the list goes on and on - mission agencies, the home school movement, and just about any other type of Christian ministry.

But for today's "NAR" critics, they seem to almost portray these types of errors and abuses as unique to the Charismatic churches they identify with NAR. I have found that their work has created a growing number of churches/leaders who have joined the "NAR witch hunt" and are now painting with a careless and broad brush many things as being "NAR-infected".

How do I know this is happening? Because I was invited to be a speaker at a Men's Retreat in a charismatic church. I was subsequently 'uninvited' because one of their elders found a message of mine online from back in 2009 where I was speaking in the church of a "NAR-labeled" theologian (ironically himself a strong, vocal critic of the very excesses in Charismatic/Pentecostal that NAR critics speak of endlessly). Beyond that, I shared a story wherein we had hosted a team from another movement that has been labeled as "NAR". And then in 2022, a full 13 years later, I somehow get labeled as "NAR-infected" (ironically, I too have been a vocal critic of the same excesses). 

Sadly, for Geivett and Pivec and their growing 'heresy-hunting' tribe, for all intents and purposes, missed the helpful critiques that came from within the Charismatic/Pentecostal camp more than a decade before they published their first book. They seem to be tone-deaf as to the current Charismatic critiques. They are using 'unequal weights and measures' not seeing that exactly the same types of critiques could be made of churches within their less Charismatic Evangelical camp (not sure if they are Cessationists, but they seem to be close to that if they are not actually in it). 

For example, they blast the NAR prophets and apostles for "inventing" new doctrines and practices, but don't say a word about the "aberrant" doctrines that Augustine introduced in the 5th century! Doctrines UNKNOWN to the Church before that time; doctrines which originated within heretical Gnostic groups (like the Manicheans) as well as from Neo-Platonic and Stoic pagan sources. Why are the Reformed/Calvinist churches today not being called out by Geivett and Pivec for having "invented" new doctrines and allowing them into Christianity? Why? Because Geivett and Pivec have a massive blind spot as to their own theological traditions! Talk about "the kettle calling the pot black". 

I've said quite a bit, but I now need to get back to what I believe is one of the most basic issues for today's NAR critics. Many of them are simply trapped in their own unbelief. I've read and heard a lot of the material from NAR critics, especially Holly Pivec's work/interviews. In the most recent one, it became clear to me that she most likely had never seen a person miraculously healed. I don't believe she has ever received an accurate prophetic word and/or word of knowledge. She "claims" to not be anti-Charismatic citing Pentecostal and Charismatic churches who applaud her work and supposedly agree with her critiques and assessments. But I am sure if she visited a classic Pentecostal healing meeting where she witnessed someone being "slain in the Spirit", she would write it off as a "NAR excess"! She would label historic Pentecostal and Charismatic prophecies that didn't come to pass as being given by "false prophets" just as she pummels the "prophets" in today's NAR circles. 

Unbelief is sin. And for that, I would call these "severe critics" to repent. Even as I seek to repent for the unbelief in my own life as a Charismatic. Even as I would call those around me and in the church we lead to repent for unbelief, I would tell the NAR critics the same thing. 

The Charismatic movement today has a lot of problems. In many ways, it always has. The Corinthian church had some of those same problems in the 1st Century that Paul wrote to them to address. We can walk through Church History and find EVERY SINGLE new movement had these same problems. And the movements that arise in the future will also have these same problems. 

NOTE: I am a vocal/tough critic of the doctrinal errors/aberrations/practices that are tolerated in my own Charismatic world. (from the Prosperity Gospel, to the False Grace message, to Spiritual Warfare practices, to unbiblical Divorce and Remarriage practices, to extreme "Hebrew Roots" practices, to misuses and abuses of Prophetic ministry, to so-called "Progressive Christianity"...the list goes on)

My suggestion is that we "police our own camps" so to speak. In other words, let us Charismatics/Pentecostals address our own shortcomings, errors, and abuses. And let the Cessationists/non-Charismatics address theirs. 

And in the end, may we ALL recognize and address our own unbelief. And let us all have this prayer ever upon our lips, "Lord, I believe help my unbelief".