Articles by Kevin Baird

It’s that time of year folks and Exodus 18:21 remains valid because it is not fundamentally about Israel’s government as some suggest; it is about God’s design for trustworthy leadership. Governments change. Constitutions change. Political parties change. But the need for leaders who fear God, love truth, possess competence, and reject greed never changes. The qualifications endure because they are rooted in the unchanging character of God and the unchanging realities of human nature.

One can easily make the case that modern nations are not necessarily obligated to adopt the entire civil, ceremonial, and religious codes of ancient Israel. (Although, this would be an important discussion as well.) The principle of E18 endures even though the covenantal context has changed. I would suggest the following reasons to uphold this standard for Christians going to ballot boxes to vote.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

Contrary to how cessationists frame much of their arguments and criticisms concerning the New Apostolic Reformation, not all Pentecostalism is the same. To sloppily tag all continuationism with the moniker, NAR, is simply lazy polemics. It betrays theological prejudices. To rightly understand how the term has evolved, one must take a moment and understand the history of Pentecostalism.

Pentecostalism might be best understood with the concept of “waves”. There were theological shifts which I will mention towards the end of the post, but allow me to frame the evolution (or what might be better termed, restoration) of this movement.

Continue Reading

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. 

Continue Reading

I’ve had a few folks reach out and ask, “who’s Wes Huff?” He is a Canadian Christian Apologist, Reformed Baptist Theologian, and public speaker. His speciality appears to be in the history of ancient biblical manuscripts. Huff is currently pursuing a PhD (may have finished) in theological studies and sacred and canonical texts at the University of Toronto. He has been recognized for his work in apologetics and cultural engagement. As a contemporary Church Historian trained in Reformed Theology, he has become a contemporary sensation after his interview with Joe Rogan. I personally enjoy listening to him on many platforms and I have found him to be a tremendous Kingdom asset. So, I encourage readers to listen to him as opportunity arises.

He recently waded into the discussion of “tongues”. It has caused a significant “dust-up” as he suggested several things which continuationists in general, and Pentecostals in particular, might challenge. He claimed he wasn’t a cessationist, but used all the cessationist bullet points in dismissing GLOSSALALEO as unknown or unintelligible language. He also appealed to Church History by mentioning the so-called “heretic”, Montanus and his second century movement. This is the same historic appeal John MacArthur would make in his multiple reprints and revisions of Charismatic Chaos (1977) and subsequent Strange Fire (2013) books. I mention this as there needs to be some pushback on the use of Montanus as an historical illustration to the error of continuationism.

Continue Reading