As People Flee NAR, Michael Brown Defends NAR Leaders and Compromises His Status as Spokesman for Charismatics and Pentecostals

By Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec

Michael L. Brown, radio host of The Line of Fire

Over several decades, the Christian radio host Michael Brown has fashioned a narrative with himself starring as a high-profile representative of charismatics and Pentecostals. And for a long time this was his reputation with quite a number of his followers. But that narrative is unraveling.

His zealous defense of the controversial New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement—including his support for his friends who clearly are NAR and his attacks on the critics of NAR—has revealed that he is not the advocate for the charismatic and Pentecostal mainstream that he claims to be. He is out of sync with the mainstream, and a growing number of charismatics and Pentecostals in that stream recognize what Brown denies—that NAR is real and dangerous.

Brown’s Response to Exposure of NAR

His Support for NAR Leaders

Though Brown has long defended extremist expressions of charismatic/Pentecostal practice, and was even a leader of the controversial Brownsville Revival, he has perhaps been better known for his work as a Messianic Jewish apologist and debates with gay activists. And he does often insist that he has called out fringe leaders in the charismatic movement when they have gone too far off-center. So until recently he has perhaps been perceived as a reliable spokesman for the mainstream charismatic movement, thanks to his comparatively unnoticed extremism of the past. But that has been changing with his strenuous defense of NAR leaders.

NAR leaders Brown defends include some of the movement’s most controversial figures:

• Bill Johnson: “Apostle” and senior leader of the globally influential Bethel Church in Redding, California—a church known for its failed resurrection attempts, failed predictive prophecies, and other bizarre practices like “grave soaking” and wrapping children in toilet paper like mummies to teach them to raise the dead.
• Ché Ahn: “Apostle” of Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena, California, and author of the NAR manifesto Modern-Day Apostles, which details the “extraordinary authority” today’s apostles are believed to possess.
• Mark Chironna: NAR apostle who teaches that every church should be governed by apostles and that such apostles function at an unparalleled “level of genius.”
• Sid Roth: Host of the wacky It’s Supernatural television program, where guests frequently claim to receive appearances from Jesus, make trips to heaven, and receive messages from God to deliver to the church.
• Brian Simmons: Author of the notorious Passion Translation of the Bible—one of the most deceptive “translations” of the Bible ever produced, subjected to criticism by numerous credible Bible scholars.
• Mike Bickle: Founder of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Missouri (IHOPKC), who claims to have gone to the courtroom of heaven, where God told him that, if he were found faithful, he would be an end-time apostle with immense authority bringing divine revelation. Bickle also teaches that Christians in the last days will take vengeance on their persecutors by making prayer declarations that will “loose” the judgments of God described in the book of Revelation. And Bickle claims that God spoke to him through Bob Jones, a scandalous sexual abuser prophet, who gave him a message for the global church—a message about Jesus’ “fiery love” for believers, based on a bizarre interpretation of the Song of Solomon in the Bible.

It’s confounding that Brown would defend leaders with such extreme teachings and practices. But when asked about these and other NAR leaders, he says they could never possibly teach the things the critics say they teach. Why? Because they are his friends and he knows they would never do that. This is his resolute stance even when he has been presented with direct evidence of their teachings from their own writings and sermons. And Brown’s years-long defense of Mike Bickle and his organization is especially noteworthy in this moment, when Bickle and his organization are presently embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal involving disturbing allegations concerning multiple women and fostering grave misgivings about leadership’s management of the crisis.

Michael Brown’s routine defense of these and other prominent NAR leaders is an endorsement of individuals who lie far outside the boundaries of mainstream charismatic and Pentecostal teaching and practice.

His Attacks on the Critics of NAR

Brown responds to critics of NAR with unwarranted attacks. Many have noted his recourse to ad hominem name-calling (by denying that the NAR movement exists and asserting that critics are “conspiracy theorists”), shaming and scolding, and pleading a morally superior high ground, often quoting the Bible in his rebukes and admonitions. He adopts language of extreme censure in response to those who have noted his tendency to obfuscate, accusing them of the sin of slander.

Brown treats thoughtful critics like they are imbeciles, while they patiently present the evidence, document their claims, and stand ready to be corrected on reasonable grounds. Meanwhile, in dialogue with critics, he has admitted, on direct questioning, that he has not read their work. Nor, apparently, has he read the works of those he defends! His “knowledge” of their views is grounded in personal conversations, he says, but this is nothing more than hearsay as far as third parties are concerned, and it is trumped by a trove of published books, articles, podcasts, sermons, and the like by the NAR leaders we identify. He has dispensed with the routine work of acquiring detailed knowledge of the NAR phenomenon and loudly excoriated critics who have done their homework, never offering a detailed analysis of their specific arguments.

But people are not blind to Brown’s deflection. Following an informal debate we had with Brown on Alisa Childers’ podcast in 2018, one listener noted the many unscrupulous tactics Brown employed and wrote this:

He comes off as a skilled debater who chooses to rile and rattle his opponent rather than to come to an informed and well-discussed knowledge of the truth. He may not be a NAR apostle, but he is most certainly its foremost apologist. In conclusion, Dr. Brown can obviously deflect solid points against his position so that he is not easily pinned. However, he cannot avoid the fact that individuals who listen to or read his words are appalled by his cunning avoidance of truth and truthful conclusions.

Following a 2022 interview he did about NAR, this exchange appeared in a comment thread on YouTube:

I find it very hard to believe that Dr. Brown isn’t familiar with the craziness in the NAR movement. Che Ahn, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner—he’s got to be familiar with these men. I mean, he’s appeared with his good friend Sid Roth on It’s Supernatural multiple times. He filibustered this entire interview.

—–

He does interview after interview having never heard of these things. The interviewer tells him, and then the very next interview he’s never heard of or seen it again.

—–

Yes! It becomes hard to see it as anything more than him being deliberately misleading and I really hate to say that. As for Kat Kerr and Sid Roth, you couldn’t slide a piece of paper between them that’s how close they are in their nuttiness.

—–

He knows full well and he’s not fooling those who think as you (and I) do.

Comments like these are frequently found in online discussions of his many appearances on behalf of NAR. (When they are posted to his own social media platforms, such comments swiftly disappear.)

Brown’s Message about NAR Rejected by Charismatics and Pentecostals

There are multiple indicators that Brown is out of step with mainstream charismatics and Pentecostals.

Brown’s Message is Repudiated by Charismatics Who Have Fled NAR

A host of people have left NAR and given testimony after testimony of the very things we and other critics have described—pertaining not only to NAR theology, but also the painful effects it’s had in people’s lives. That’s an empirical reality that Brown will not acknowledge. Some have reported experiencing the equivalent of PTSD. Many express sorrowful repentance for their former association with NAR groups. Recovery groups have formed to assist in the emotional healing of NAR refugees.

These people cannot be dismissed as cessationists (who believe the miraculous gifts, such as prophecy and speaking in tongues, have ceased). Rather, most remain within the continuationist fold, affirming the continuation of the miraculous gifts but seeking a more stable and theologically sound environment. Clearly, they aren’t listening to Brown. You can hardly expect them to track with his message about NAR, that It doesn’t exist, there’s nothing to see here. The growing exodus from NAR groups is a repudiation of that message.

Many of those people have left NAR churches and found new home churches in safe environments that are more moderate. But where is Michael Brown’s pastoral concern for the many who have been injured by prominent NAR groups and abandoned them in favor of mainstream alternatives? Why has he sided with those who have injured them?

While Brown may not know the difference between NAR and mainstream charismatic teaching, these people most certainly do. His denial that there is any substantive difference between his NAR friends and associates on the one hand and the charismatic mainstream on the other hand simply is not believable for people who have lived through the ordeal of NAR’s destructive teachings and practices.

Mainstream charismatics have not taught prayer declarations, they have not taught apostolic decrees, they have not taught prophetic activation exercises, they have not taught that it is always God’s will to heal (with no exceptions), they have not taught dominionism, they have not taught strategic-level spiritual warfare, they have not taught that apostles are officers governing the church today, and they have not taught that these offices have been reinstated in these “last days” to coordinate a miracle-working army and bring God’s kingdom to earth. Nothing Brown says to defend those who teach such things will change that fact.

The critics know better. The victims of NAR theology and practice know better. And those leading the NAR movement—including Brown’s friends who have used the label NAR of themselves in the past—know better. Is Brown the only one who does not know better? He’s positioned himself more as a spokesman for NAR than for the mainstream charismatic movement.

Brown’s Message is Contradicted by Classical Pentecostals

The largest Pentecostal denomination in the world, the Assemblies of God (AG), recognized the emergence of NAR and acted deliberately to curb its influence in their ranks with an official statement on Apostles and Prophets. Those who have read this document know that the “apostles” Bill Johnson and Randy Clark are outside the pale of acceptable teaching about apostles from the AG point of view. This is why, in March 2023, when Johnson and Clark were invited as guest speakers for one of the most influential AG churches in America, many AG pastors were disconcerted and a firestorm ensued.

Brown’s denials of NAR’s existence and his posturing in support of NAR leaders are not appreciated by these pastors. Because of their opposition to NAR, many Pentecostal pastors have expressed appreciation for our critique of NAR and recommended it to others. They have joined the resistance that we speak of in the final chapter of Counterfeit Kingdom.

Brown’s Collapsing Narrative

In short, by denying the existence of NAR and directly supporting individuals like Mike Bickle, Brian Simmons, and Bill Johnson, Brown has compromised his claim to represent the charismatic/Pentecostal mainstream, squandered the opportunity to offer a well-informed and realistic appraisal of NAR, and relinquished all moral authority to speak for most continuationists. He certainly has nothing to offer the throngs who have fled NAR in search of a more authentic experience of God.

The more Brown defends NAR leaders and portrays them as mainstream charismatics, the more he alienates mainstream charismatics who know better—and that number is growing. The same goes for Pentecostals, like those in the Assemblies of God. Brown has effectively crossed swords with them, too.

Additional Resources

For more examples of Michael Brown’s alignment with extreme NAR leaders, see our “Response to Joseph Mattera and Michael Brown, Statement on ‘NAR and Christian Nationalism.’” Our article analyzing the Mattera/Brown statement exposes several tactics that Brown and company have adopted to provide cover for NAR leaders and their extreme teachings.

To learn more about NAR and influential NAR leaders, see our three books on this topic, including especially the most recent: Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church. Our forthcoming book, Reckless Christianity: The Destructive New Teachings and Practices of Bill Johnson, Bethel Church, and the Global Movement of Apostles and Prophets, is soon to be released.

About Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec

Doug Geivett is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Biola University in Southern California. Holly Pivec is a researcher of new religious movements and has a master’s degree in Christian apologetics from Biola. Together, they have co-authored four books about the New Apostolic Reformation movement: Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church; A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement; God’s Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement; and, the forthcoming Reckless Christianity: The Destructive New Teachings and Practices of Bill Johnson, Bethel Church, and the Global Movement of Apostles and Prophets.

‘Born Bad’: How the idea that we’re all sinners has shaped Western culture – The Washington Post

‘Born Bad’: How the idea that we’re all sinners has shaped Western culture – The Washington Post.

Read this book review by Michael Dirda and consider where the argument about original sin and the history of Christian doctrine errs.

Your observations are welcome. Feel free to share using the comments box below.

Coincidences of Life – Ender’s Game and a UPS Truck

UPS Truck . . . without a driver

This afternoon I was waiting at a red light (northbound on Palm at Central in Brea, CA, if the coordinates matter) and listening to the audio-book for the sci-fi novel Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card. Just as the light turned green, one character said to the other, “I drive a truck for the United Parcel Service.”

This struck me as odd, showing up in a work of science fiction. But stranger still, as I shifted my motorcycle into second, a UPS truck passed me in the intersection going south.

Was it a coincidence? Of course it was. It was quite literally the coinciding of an auditory reference from one source and a visual reference from another source to the same company, UPS. These sensory experiences occurred simultaneously. They each conveyed information, and the information conveyed referred to the same thing. I heard a guy say through my headset, “I drive a truck for the United Parcel Service” just as I waved to a guy driving a truck for the United Parcel Service. (Well, actually, I didn’t wave.)

Uncanny?

Sort of.

The Merriam -Webster Dictionary defines “uncanny” in this way: “seeming to have a supernatural character or origin,” or “being beyond what is normal or expected: suggesting superhuman or supernatural powers.”

The concurrence of two causally unrelated references to the same informational content attracts our attention. It is so incredibly unlikely that this would happen, it seems almost to have been planned. Was it planned? And if so, who arranged it? It might take superhuman or supernatural powers to make it happen just so. What other explanation could there be?

“Coincidence,” we say, with palpable matter-of-factness. But of course it’s a coincidence. Saying so merely reports an observation of fact. The real question is, what kind of coincidence is it? What is the explanation for this coincidence?

We do explain coincidences in various ways. Sometimes we say, “It was just a coincidence.” By this we mean that there’s nothing more to it than that, a mere coincidence, with no deep explanation. There is no intelligible cause, and no intelligent agent, involved. There is no meaningful answer to the question, “Why did this happen?”

But the question does present itself. It does to me, anyway. Trivial coincidences like this happen in my experience with remarkable frequency. I say “trivial” because I infer no special significance when they happen. And yet it is both remarkable each time it happens and remarkable that it happens as often as it does.

Why is it remarkable if the coincidence is trivial? It’s remarkable because the concurrence is so improbable. The degree of improbability varies depending on the specific character of the information presented. But the improbability of the concurrence does not, as such, warrant attribution of some special significance.

Why not?

The answer, I think, is two-fold. First, we can think of no special reason why the elements in our experience have occurred together. (Note: No one else in the intersection, I believe, actually heard or thought of the words “United Parcel Service” at that moment.) Second, we can identify no  causal mechanism that would ensure that they did occur together. In other words, there is no apparent point in their concurrence, and no obvious causal account of their concurrence. If we thought their concurrence served some purpose, we would naturally be curious about the cause. And if nothing else will serve, we might say that the cause was superhuman and personal. Given a general reluctance to attribute causes to occult entities, we require that a coincidence be specially significant. Also, if the concurrence was caused for our benefit, then we should find some benefit in their concurrence. That is, if we who experience the coincidence were meant to experience it, then there was some reason why it happened and why it happened in our experience. And this suggests that we should be capable of discerning that purpose.

What purpose could possibly have been served by the coincidence I experienced on my way home this afternoon? Nothing comes to mind. “It’s just a coincidence.”

But wait, now that I think that thought, I recall that there was a UPS package for me when I arrived home not two minutes later. Was the coincidence a warning, then? It certainly didn’t have that effect on me when it happened. In fact, when it happened, my thought was, This is something I could blog about. And in retrospect it doesn’t seem that a warning was required. The contents of the package were innocuous. Some clothing I had ordered. I don’t know if it matters, but the package wasn’t waiting on the front porch, as if it had just been delivered by the very same UPS truck. It had been carried in by another member of my household who wasn’t home. (I know she wasn’t home because no one was home. And I know it was a she because I’m the only he in the household. Aren’t you impressed with my awesome powers of deduction?)

I suppose now I might take care trying on the clothing that was delivered. But I can’t seriously entertain the notion that I’m in some kind of danger.

If there was a message, it was totally lost on me.

Could there be some other purpose, completely unrelated to my goals or interests, so that the purpose might be achieved quite apart from my cognizance of it?

(c) 2009 Katherine Gehl Donovan

Sure. A minor demon might have been taunting some innocent angel with her powers of manipulation, claiming to be able to cause me to hear “I drive a truck for the United Parcel Service” and, at the same precise moment, cause me to see a guy driving a truck for the United Parcel Service.

In that event, would it really matter whether I recognized the concurrence of the appearance of a UPS truck just as I was hearing that bit of fictional dialogue? I can imagine a neophyte angel thinking, How did you do that? What if the line I’ve quoted from the story isn’t actually in the novel?

And what if there wasn’t really a UPS truck crossing the intersection in the opposite direction? Maybe the demon’s game was to present me with visual and auditory data that did not correspond with objects matching the data. Who knows what minor demons are capable of?

The point is, if there was a purpose in the coincidence, I have no idea what it was, and this makes it less likely that, if there was a purpose, realization of that purpose depended on my discerning that purpose.

Now, what do I actually believe? Do I believe there was a purpose in the coincidence? I do not. But this is imprecise. Not believing that there was a purpose is not the same as believing there was no purpose. I might simply be agnostic about whether the coincidence served some purpose.

So am I agnostic? No. I believe that no purpose was served.

I should have a reason for believing this, shouldn’t I?

My chief reason for believing that no purpose was served by the event is that attributing a reason does not comport with my worldview. Or rather, my worldview provides no basis for attributing a reason for the coincidence.

What we make of coincidences often is a matter of worldview commitments. Some coincidences do, for me, invite an inference to the agency of some superhuman or supernatural agent. Apparent answers to prayer, for example.

Here’s a question for fellow theists who believe that God exists and is a personal being who created the universe and sustains it in existence, others like me who affirm a doctrine of meticulous divine providence:

How do you decided whether this or that ‘coincidence’ is the occurrence of an event serving some special purpose intended by a superhuman or supernatural being?

Bonus Question: Is the angel/demon image posted here too provocative? Is it poor judgment to use it here?

On This Date in 431: The Council of Ephesus

Today is an apt day for reflecting on the Christian doctrine of the two natures of Christ.

Do Miracles Happen Today?

In the comments section of a post I made some months ago, I was recently asked if I believe that a severely damaged eye could be restored immediately following a Christian prayer meeting.

Here’s my reply, made more accessible with a separate and exclusive post.

Best Books in Systematic Theology

Everyone should read some Christian theology. And the first thing to read is a systematic theology, that is, a work that treats all the major doctrines of Christian theology in systematic fashion. (This used to be called “Dogmatic Theology.”)

Recently I’ve been reading E. A. Litton’s 19th-century volume Introduction to Dogmatic Theology. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Litton to any serious reader who has time or shelf space for only one volume of systematic theology.

Here are my recommendations for different categories.

Am I a Calvinist? Not Exactly

Recently I received this note from a friend on Facebook:

Dr. Geivett,

What is your view on Calvinism, election, and free will? Do you have any good resources you could recommend?

Since I am occasionally asked this question, I thought it might be helpful to others to post my reply here, together with Amazon links for the reading I recommend:

Hi . . . ,

I’m not a Calvinist. I’m a libertarian regarding human freedom, and I reconcile human freedom and divine sovereignty on the basis of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge. I can recommend several books on this:

(1) Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge

This is an early primary source for the doctrine of divine middle knowledge. Luis de Molina was the first to develop the doctrine systematically. This is Alfred J. Freddoso’s translation from the Latin text. Freddoso’s lengthy introduction to the volume is an excellent sympathetic introduction to the doctrine. This is the ideal place to begin your study of middle knowledge if you’re prepared to read a fairly sophisticated treatment of the topic.

(2) William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God

William Lane Craig is an evangelical Christian apologist and a leading proponent of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge. This book explains the doctrine, contrasts it with alternative views of the relation between divine sovereignty and human freedom (e.g., Calvinist views), and includes careful examination of the relevant texts of Scripture. If you read only one book on this topic, this is the book to study. The topic is complex, so any exposition of the doctrine and related issues will generally be written above the popular level. This is the most accessible detailed treatment of the topic (at a very reasonable price).

(3) Thomas P. Flint, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account

This is an exceptional treatment of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge by a prominent Catholic philosopher of religion. Exposition and defense of the doctrine is more developed here than in William Lane Craig’s book, so it’s a good place to go next if you plan further study of the topic.

(4) Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., View Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World

For an application of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge to the question of the fate of the unevangelized, see the contributions in this book that I co-authored with Gary Phillips. Another source for this material is my chapter in the book Jesus Under Fire (see below).

(5) Michael J. Wilkins and JP Moreland, Jesus Under Fire

My concluding chapter to this volume presents the same material contained in my contribution to the book Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, on the fate of the unevangelized (see above).

The Religious Lives—and Questions—of Children

I know from experience that children think deep thoughts and come up with the most difficult questions. Throughout their childhood, my daughters plied me with questions about the nature of the universe, the existence of God, whether we have souls—that sort of thing. I have always been amazed by two things as a parent and a university professor. First, grad students in philosophy ask questions they probably had when they were three to five years old. They had’t forgotten the answers; they had forgotten the questions. Second, the quirky solutions young kids reach in answer to deep intellectual challenges are seldom more quirky than the ideas of philosophers and theologians about the same things. Come to think of it, their answers often bear a remarkable resemblance!

I’m not the first to marvel at this. My friend Jim Spiegel also teaches philosophy. He has twice as many children as I do, and they’re about half the ages of my kids. And his kids don’t let him relax from doing philosophy when he comes home from work. Fortunately for us, he’s written a spanking new book about his experiences in this arena.

It’s called Gum, Geckos and God: A Family’s Adventure in Space, Time, and Faith. My copy just arrived and already I’ve read the first forty pages. Jim is a talented writer and an insightful parent. He can tell a good story, and this book is loaded with them. He’s funny, too, and self-effacing. If you have children or grandchildren, or know someone who does, and you haven’t given up asking questions about faith, I think you might enjoy and grow wiser reading this book.