When it comes to the moniker NAR, it might be useful to understand how this acronym began to morph into its present usage. To review briefly, C. Peter Wagner, in the late 1990’s through the early 2000’s, initially coined the phrase as a descriptor of ecclesiology and not a theological camp. He meant by its usage that there were a significant number of churches globally that were rapidly growing which had similar markers. These included a shift away from denominations towards relationally built ministerial associations. These associations were normally led by a strong pastor who was leading a larger church with resources to help those smaller churches connected to it (or more accurately, connected to him). Many, but not all, of these networks were continuationists in their theology and were open to the ministry of apostles and prophets, as well as affirming the ongoing manifestation of signs and wonders. The key initially was that Wagner did not present NAR as a formal denomination or centralized organization. It was more a movement ecosystem. He often described it as “the most radical change in church structure since the Protestant Reformation.”
In that sense of the phrase, many independent, Charismatic ministries accepted the label. Ironically, thousands of pastors in various denominational structures began to explore the validity of this “new wineskin” of governance and decision making. I know of one denomination which made important systemic changes to their church polity to help encourage and empower pastors in their leadership. This dynamic in the beginning was not only “non-heretical”, but actually a breath of fresh air for many denominations hemorrhaging pastoral leadership.
I am aware that every local church, ministerial fellowship, and denomination believes they have the most biblical form of church governance. I have taught church government courses at both the collegiate and graduate level, so I am also aware that there are several options when it comes to church governing. Each one has elements that can be derived from Scripture. Each one has pluses and minuses when it is implemented. Each one may have elements which fit local cultures and customs in a more credible or confidence-building way. The point is, an accusation of heresy based solely on church governance is suspect. I can assure you that every form of church polity has endured pastors, elders, deacons, trustees, and stewards, who have manipulated it or abused it to their selfish desires. Sins of every kind have been committed under every form of government. Charismatics are not special when it comes to leadership failure, I can assure you. That said, when leaders under ANY form of government are committed to godliness and integrity, the Lord can also bless that mightily.
The use of the acronym NAR spread through the 2000’s. During this phase, “NAR” became associated less with a technical church-growth theory and more with the concept of modern apostles, prophetic culture, revivalism, dominion theology, and supernatural ministry models. Large charismatic churches became “hubs” for local independent churches to connect with and find relationship and “covering”. These hubs had varying levels of balance and credibility. Some were astonishingly effective at equipping and resourcing pastors for credible ministry work. Others tended to use their visibility and influence for their own distinctives and ministry agenda.
This is where the meaning changed dramatically. Critics, especially cessationist and Reformed evangelicals, began using “NAR” much more broadly than Wagner originally did. A major critic included John MacArthur, who through his books and conferences started to specifically challenge Charismatic practices and doctrine in a more direct way. It was through his influence in particular that the term gradually expanded to include almost any charismatic church affirming apostles, prophecy, signs and wonders, dominion, spiritual warfare, or revival culture. As a result, “NAR” became both a theological category and a polemical label.
Beginning around 2010, critics increasingly connected NAR to Seven Mountain Mandate ideas, Christian cultural transformation, political influence movements, and end-times kingdom expansionism. This became especially prominent during charismatic political mobilization, prayer rallies, and later American political movements in the 2010s and early 2020s. It was through this connection that the term “NAR” began appearing frequently in journalism and documentaries discussing charismatic political activism, prophetic election claims, and Christian nationalism debates.
But it is also at this point and important irony developed…
Many leaders accused of being NAR denied belonging to “NAR.”
Why? Because there was never formal membership, no central governing body, no official doctrinal statement, and no universally recognized hierarchy. Some charismatic leaders argued “NAR” became a vague catch-all term. They said that critics exaggerated uniformity and very different movements were being lumped together. For example, some leaders accepted modern prophets but rejected dominionism. Others embraced apostolic networks but rejected extreme prophecy culture. Others denied being “apostles” entirely. So by the 2010s, “NAR” often meant different things depending on who was using the term. Hence, the reason for these posts.
“NAR” became controversial because it touches multiple sensitive issues. Things like:
authority,
revelation,
political theology,
church governance,
miracles,
prophecy,
and spiritual power.
To supporters it may represent restoration of New Testament ministry. To critics it represents theological instability and extra-biblical authority structures. To scholars it is a fluid, decentralized restorationist-charismatic phenomenon that resists easy categorization. In many ways, the term evolved from a specific missiological theory into a broad cultural-theological shorthand for modern apostolic-charismatic Christianity and its controversies.
So, in conclusion, the modern usage of NAR usually functions in one of four ways:
- Technical usage – This refers to Wagner’s church structure model.
- A broad Charismatic category – This refers to Charismatics in general.
- Polemical -or- “Discernment” usage – This refers to critics who use it as an epithet to warn against authoritarian leadership, spiritual abuse, dominionism, and continuationist theology.
- Media -or- political use – This refers to journalists who describe charismatic political influence movements.
The last post will deal with how critics have exploited and broadened its definition to render the moniker useless.
See you then!
No Comments