3 Key Facts Christians Should Know about the New Apostolic Reformation

In some respects, it is difficult to identify the New Apostolic Reformation. If you do a quick online search, you won’t find an official New Apostolic Reformation website listing the their leadership or official positions. The New Apostolic Reformation isn’t a formal organization. The movement has often been defined by influential leaders, such as C. Peter Wagner, and ministries that promote similar beliefs. The New Apostolic Reformation is primarily made up of small groups and local church plants that are independently functioning without a larger controlling congregation. As such, it is less of an identifiable organization with a formal membership and headquarters than a coordinated network with some commonly held beliefs. Each of these beliefs stands in tension with the orthodox Christian faith.

Photo Credit: Nagesh Badu/Unsplash

There are certain humans who have authority or occupy positions of authority (Gen 41:35; Num 27:20; 2 Chron 8:10; Matt 8:9; Rom 13:1). There is no human who exercises autonomous authority apart from God. All authority is delegated by God. As we too often witness, however, authority can be distorted.

In the case of the New Apostolic Reformation, the claim is that certain modern-day apostles and prophets have received a special revelation that is given to guide the church in its mission. While those in the New Apostolic Reformation would not necessarily put modern-day apostles on par with the first apostles, the dynamics created by their claims functionally minimize the tradition and traditional orthodoxy in favor of the teachings of modern-day apostles and prophets. The people of God have always been bound to exercise authority under the direction of God’s revelation. For instance: 

• After God rescues Israel from Egypt, he gives them the law. Israel was not freed to determine their own course, but to serve the Lord.
• In Deuteronomy 17, the law contemplates a time when Israel will have a king. The law requires the king to write a copy of the law and to have it approved by the priests. The act is intended to ensure that the king is familiar with the law. In having it approved by the Levites, it would be clear that the king’s copy of the law was correct and had not been changed in ways that would lead the king away from following the Lord (17:18-20).    
• When Israel returns from exile, Ezra focuses on reviving Israel’s traditions and re-instituting the law (Ezra 7:10).
• While the New Testament writing were not not available to the church during the time described in Acts, the church recognized the Spirit’s expansive work in line with the Old Testament and Jesus’s teachings. Even when the church was “surprised” by the Spirit’s work, they not only received visions but recognized those visions were aligned with he words of Christ (Acts 11:16). The church also confirmed new movements by sending trusted members of the body to observe the work of the Spirit and to teach new converts in the faith (Acts 11:22-26).
• Finally, we see in the New Testament writings that the community of faith continued to be guided by the Old Testament. For instance, Paul quotes the Old Testament law multiple times in his letters (1 Cor 9:9; Eph 6:2).

None of these examples deny human authority or strip the authority away from certain offices. Instead, they situate the authority under the revelation of God.

Those in the New Apostolic Reformation might argue that they are not departing from this pattern. They might say that the closure of the canon does not mean there can be no new revelation (i.e., new revelation does not necessarily involve adding to the canon of scripture or even putting new revelation on par with scripture). The New Apostolic teachings tend to blur the line between the authority of the biblical text and that of new revelation, even though most would affirm the closed canon of Scripture. Whatever one may think about the issue of new revelation, no new vision can contradict the teaching of scripture. As we will see below, the NAR’s visions often contradict biblical teaching.

Before considering these teachings, however, we should also note the problem with apostleship. When the eleven sought to replace Judas, they limited their choices to those who had been with Jesus and had seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:21-22). Though he was not with Jesus during his ministry, Paul’s encounter with the resurrected Christ (Acts 9:1-19; 1 Cor 9:1), as well as God’s calling (Gal 1:1), He was also later recognized by the other disciples (Gal 2:9).

Whether one believes the office of the apostle continues today, one must surely acknowledge that there is also the possibility of false apostles who only claim to work on the terms of the true apostles (2 Cor 11:12-13). Such disciples work outside the authority of God by claiming an insight that goes beyond the scriptures. At the very least, then, it would seem wise to exercise caution in accepting the claims of the New Apostolic Reformation, particularly given that their teachings are not always aligned with the Bible.

Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Open Theism has had a relatively strong influence on the New Apostolic Reformation though not all those who adhere to the movement would necessarily hold the position. Open theism redefines God’s omniscience by suggesting that God knows all that can be known, but because the future has not happened, it is unknowable (even for God). In addition to redefining omniscience, open theism strips God of his atemporality (i.e., God’s position outside of time). Open theism suggests that God experiences time in a way similar to humans. Though he also knows the past and present exhaustively, the future is “open.” 

Open Theism allows New Apostolic Reformation leaders to mobilize their followers by placing a greater emphasis on the necessity of Christian decision to bring about the kingdom of God. As such, even though open theism isn’t necessarily accepted by all those in the NAR, the implications of open theism inform the practical outworking of much of the NAR. Christian decision is important. Even the Bible teaches that the holy character of God’s people “hastens” the coming day of God; however, there is a difference between holy character and an ambition to influence the world so as to bring about a desired future state. The former recognizes that the end will come…it is inevitable. As such, we must be prepared for it and offer witness to the hope we have in Jesus Christ. The latter pursues greater prosperity and influence now by expanding the means of cultural influence beyond the bounds of Christian discipleship (though that language is, at times, used by the NAR). 

Whereas the New Apostolic Reformation suggests that the kingdom of God can be made manifest by people of goodwill who seek to influence the culture, the Bible teaches that faithfulness, prosperity, and influence are not always linked. The movement, thus, promotes a false hope in so much as it assumes Christians can craft a destiny for the world that approximates God’s kingdom. Faithfulness is not always effective in reshaping the world. People, as we see in Christ’s crucifixion, can deny the proclamation of the kingdom and ignore the signs and wonders of Christ. As I note in Thinking Christian, “Christians will leave the world broken, perhaps more broken, despite our faithful efforts to live out the kingdom of God within it. We do not faithfully convey God to the world by fixing the world. We convey Him to the world by continuing to be faithful as we confront a world so broken only God can fix it.”

Photo Credit: © Pixabay/Eberhard Grossgasteiger

One of the more problematic teachings associated with the New Apostolic Reformation (though, again, not held formally by all those who would identify with the movement) is referred to as dominion theology. This theology suggests that Christians should attempt to institute God’s kingdom by conquering the “seven mountains” of society, which include (1) politics, (2) education, (3) media, (4) business, (5) religion, (6) family, and (7) entertainment. Popularized by Lance Wallnau and Bill Johnson in Invading Babylon, the Seven Mountain Mandate (7M) becomes the means by which Christians extend God’s Kingdom…we slowly but surely exercise dominion over the seven spheres of human life. 

Part of the challenge of 7 mountain mandate is that it lacks a strong biblical basis. First, the concept is drawn from Revelation 17:8-10 where the “seven mountains” language is associated with the beast with seven heads. The beast is a symbol of the ongoing battle between the church and those who oppose it untold Christ returns. The nature of that battle, however, has less to do with Christianizing the world than with being and making disciples capable of enduring faithfully till the end. As Joseph Mangina notes in his commentary on Revelation, “The church that imagines it has a successful strategy for confronting the principalities and powers on their own terms had better think again. It is not only that the church, by submitting to the court of human judgment rather than to the decrees of the just judge, will lose its own soul; ironically, it will not even gain the world.”

Dominion theology is flawed in that it suggests that Christians can fix the broken world. In doing so, it sets up a separate mandate from that given by Christ: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20). It is not that Christians won’t have any influence on the world. Rather it is that the only way for Christians to influence the world to move toward Christ is to conform more fully to him. Discipleship is the means Christians use to expand the number of people living under the authority of Christ. Faithfulness may well offer opportunities for us to influence the world; however, it may also result in loss and suffering. Dominion theology elevates influence to an improper level by placing it above endurance and redefining what it means to overcome the world.

The New Apostolic Reformation is problematic in a number of ways. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the New Apostolic Reformation is its “proximity” to sound teaching. To put it differently, the NAR tends to use the same words as orthodox Christians might, though with a slightly different meaning and within a different context than orthodox Christianity would. The interpretive shifts of the movement are, in this sense, subtle, though quite consequential. 

The New Apostolic Reformation has, like many other movements today, adopted an “ends justifies the means” sort of mentality. That mentality tends to distort the dynamics of authority so that the Bible is no longer guiding but justifying the actions and message of the movement. While the misdirected theological claims of the New Apostolic Reformation are problematic in their own right, the more basic challenge with the movement is related to the manner in which individual leaders claim authority and encourage the church to take up positions of authority rather than advocating for faithful living under the authority of Christ.  

Photo Credit: ©Akira Hojo/Unsplash