One of the consistent epithets hurled indiscriminately at various continuationist groups from highly visible cessationists is the label of NAR, or the “New Apostolic Reformation”. The acronym, NAR, has been successfully used as a synonym in recent years to paint continuationists as “heretics”. I’m quite sure the average Christian after listening to many self-appointed and self-anointed YouTube critics are not only thoroughly appalled at such a label, but undoubtedly thoroughly confused by it as well. If I were to ask the average American pastor, no matter their theological colors, to define EXACTLY what NAR means, it would solicit a fascinating response. I am confident most would fail at doing so accurately. They may parrot what the acronym has been leveraged and manipulated to mean, but I doubt seriously they could define it with any historical or originalist accuracy. In some ways, NAR represents the problem with many theological labels.
Labels, at times, can be a helpful synopsis of one’s general theological views. On other occasions, using a label solicits stereotypes and baggage which may not represent the person at all. This is why we must be judicial and charitable when it comes to “discerning” ministries. Jesus said, “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (Matthew 7:2). Nobody enjoys being labeled incorrectly. To do so might even constitute a “smear”.
As I pushback at cessationist critiques and “straw men” arguments, one must deal with the NAR bogeyman which has been created. Perhaps the best way to start is to hijack the familiar critique of the 18th century French deist, philosopher, Voltaire as he analyzed the Holy Roman Empire by stating, “It was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”. In much the same way, the NAR is neither “new, nor apostolic, nor a reformation”. I might also say, that my response to NAR critiques does not automatically mean I endorse everything people want to file under that acronym. My intent is to untangle intentional conflation and bad faith analysis. Much of the bad analysis and improper labeling stems from ignorances the cessationist movement exhibits concerning the various groups practicing continuationist understandings. This is why I detest labels at a certain level. One, or even a couple, rotten apples in the larger barrel of Pentecostalism does not spoil the whole barrel. It would be tantamount to sloshing all Calvinists or Cessationists with the problems of reconstructionist theology, theonomy, preterism, or determinism. It’s easy to avoid legitimate positions when you are conflating it with a heterodoxical cousin. This has often been the case with the use of the label, NAR.
The concept and label “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) emerged primarily in the late 1990s in the United States through the work of C. Peter Wagner. He did not originally use the term “New Apostolic Reformation” merely as a label for charismatic excess or modern prophecy in general. He intended it to describe what he believed was a massive structural transformation occurring in global Christianity, especially in independent charismatic networks outside traditional denominations. To understand Wagner’s use of the term, it helps to separate:
- What he actually meant,
- What historical streams are lumped into Pentecostalism,
- How the term evolved publicly,
- How critics later broadened it.
I think it might be beneficial to quickly lay out for the reader Wagner’s credentials. He was educated at both Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in 1977 and was ordained by the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference. (Not exactly the hotbed for charismatic activity.) He was the Director of SIM International, a notable missionary organization, and then served 30 years as the Professor of Church Growth at Fuller, succeeding Donald McGavran. He became the leading expert on global church growth and the Church Growth Movement. This, along with authoring over 80 books, provides a solid picture of his credentials to analyze the global continuationist movement. All of this is important as you see clearly the foundations of NAR.
Wagner’s worldview came from evangelical missions, church growth theory, and primarily charismatic renewal influences in foreign fields. He taught for years at Fuller Theological Seminary and was not primarily known as a Pentecostal theologian. He was a missiologist, church-growth strategist, and researcher of rapidly growing churches globally. During the 1980s–1990s, Wagner observed explosive growth among independent charismatic churches, non-denominational networks, and South American Pentecostal movements. He concluded that traditional denominational structures were being replaced by something fundamentally different. That “something” became what he labeled, the New Apostolic Reformation. Wagner deliberately used the word, Reformation, because he believed the church was undergoing another significant restructuring comparable to Luther’s era. Just as Martin Luther’s theology birthed a new ecclesiology (church structure), Wagner hypothesized that the 21st century church was being restructured around relational networks and flexible, post-denominational structures due to the renewal movement happening worldwide. The core argument of Wagner’s NAR concept was that God was restoring the office of apostle to govern the church in the last days. However, and this is important, Wagner saw the office of apostle as the proper identification for what the church had long been labeling a missionary.
All of this is important because the term, NAR, was not birthed from a theological departure of orthodoxy, but rather a restoration (or might I suggest a return) to a more biblical ecclesiology.
I want to also state in this opening post an important clarification. Many leaders associated (or accused) with NAR did not originally identify themselves with the term. In recent years, some charismatic leaders have rejected the label entirely, even while holding similar theological views about apostles, prophecy, and spiritual gifts. Sadly, cessationist critics often use “NAR” broadly to describe nearly any modern apostolic-charismatic movement. As I conclude part 1, I want to underscore again, this has become overly generalized and often times inaccurate. Therefore, we need to distinguish between Wagner’s specific organizational vision and theory, broader apostolic-charismatic Christianity, and independent continuationist movements that predate the term itself.
This will lead me to part 2, which will deal with the historical “streams” of pentecostalism which have confused cessationist critics in making these sloppy critiques.
No Comments