Talk:New Apostolic Reformation

Talk Intro
Zarove: This entire article needs to be rewritten. Poor church history and poor analysis and written with your POV. The fact that you only read Peter's book without the proper eye to understanding his theology in relation to the movements that have influenced him, proves the poor scholarship of this article. The G12 movement was part of a larger small group movement in which South American Missionaries were influenced by 1) Sunday School Movement of Billy Sunday and the SBC churches of Latin America, 2) the Sharon Schools Movement of of Latter Rain beginnings which placed missionaries throughout Latin America, 3) Traditional Pentecostal Theologies which emphasize the apostolic and Apostles, and finally, 4) Local Missionaries like Randy MacMillan (Cali, Columbia, the Father of the missionaries who founded the G12 movement.) Randy had planted over 60 churches before anyone had noticed, and pretended that the G12 movement was a part of any broader movement of God. In Fact, Randy and Marcy (Randy has recently passed on to be with the Lord) through Mission South America were quietly doing the works of God that Pentecostal missionaries for many decades before the NAR even emerged. Randy was sent our by Joel Osteen and traditional missionary organizations to Columbia and he and Marcy lived across from the notorious drug lords of Cali Columbia. Quite and Apostolic feat if I might say so.

Check your history and your source material and re-write. Thanks. Rev RDP

I've done a lot of research and am composing the article slowly as I needed to revise what I had. Please let me finish the article, and post it tomorrow. I will post it tomorrow.

ZAROVE 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Randy was sent our by Joel Osteen [...]". That's hardly a ringing endorsement, given that Joel Osteen wouldn't know the Gospel it it bit him on the backside...

Merge with Third_Wave_of_the_Holy_Spirit
Should this page be merged with the Third_Wave_of_the_Holy_Spirit page? They seem to be the same movements. NZUlysses (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NAR and third wave are vastly different. Third wave is a merging of broader evangelical traditions with the pentecostal/charismatic traditions. NAR is also wildly disputed as to what it actually is. Most individuals who are considered to be leaders of "NAR" didn't know that it was even a thing until recent years. True, there is a growing segment that views Ephesians 4 (five-fold) as offices to be held with an emphasis on the role of apostles. But to say that it is an organized movement with a specific agenda to "establish a fifth branch of Christianity" is baseless as far as I can tell. Groups considered to be NAR are mostly within protestantism and (with some exceptions) are brothers in Christ. Don't get me wrong, there are some heretical theologies, but not for the most part. 69.174.135.176 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Tone of Article
The tone of the article seems somewhat critical vs. informative. I hope to see that improve. Coffeeboy 21:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sory, been busy these last two weeks. IT sill, Im using the basic informaiton ight now. Im not trign to soudn Cynical, jut informative. But I dsoemtiems ocme accorss that way because of the manner of speech I employ. ( It happens even when discusisng what I actually beleive. )

After the Gen beelifs and such are added tomorrow evening ( Have them nearly completed in word proccessor programme) I will then turn it over for correciton on thr wording.

ZAROVE 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

2017
The tone of the article has gotten notably worse since I first looked at the page over a year ago. When one does any kind of Internet search on NAR to see what rises to the top, what is seen is the following: you cannot find anyone in recent years using this term as a self-identifier. Wagner is dead, so even he is not championing the cause any longer. Wagner defined this term in a nebulous way and did not create an actual group with membership. That he called ICA which is now ICAL and membership is based on money and getting current members to sponsor you. You could argue that NAR is now a dead term, something only from history. Or that it has merely devolved into a pejorative.

What is going on with the term in 2017 is that there are two distinct groups that both are using the term as a pejorative. The first, and original, is a group of conservative Christians who label those they have a theological disagreement with as NAR, where they act as prosecutor, then they act as jury, judge and executioner. No evidence is presented to even prove that this person or group is NAR. They simply receive a summary execution without evidence. All this based on a disagreement over what an Apostle really is, what his office is or is not, if they have been extinct for millennia, should they stay that way and what their duties are. In their book NAR = Heretic.

The second group is very different. This is made up of those on the political left who care nothing at all about the theological argument I described. They claim that essentially NAR = Dominionist. They follow the same procedures where they act as prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner because "Dominionists are essentially all evil." They also present no evidence that anyone has ever applied this label to themselves. Indeed, their are famous Christians who are both politically active and have condemned those they label as NAR for being heretics. I am waiting to read an article where someone on the left labels them as NAR and then condemns them. We Christians believe that we reap what sow (Karma) so it is going to happen if it has not already. This shows a clear problem with what is happening: there are people who are dominionists who are not, in way shape or form, proponents of NAR. So who gets to label certain leaders? The leaders themselves or merely critics?

Currently I can find no live proponents using this label. So there is no one to defend this movement any longer. The movement is nebulous at this point, and may no longer exist except in the minds of those using the pejorative. To be clear, I am not a dominionist nor am I a proponent of Wagner's term myself. I have not read any of Wagner's materials. I cannot say for sure that I know that what this page claims about him is true. Wagner did promote some dominionist ideas, but was that separate from NAR or was it included inside of it? Perhaps it would be best to let this page die and simply remove it? Let it die with Wagner? I say this because how can an encyclopedia remain neutral about this subject? The only people who want to make changes are using the term as a pejorative. How can there be a neutral page that holds to the internal standards that are supposed to be here? The page on Dominionist Theology is in much better shape because proponents who actually publicly claim the title and own it keep the page balanced. But this is impossible here. NAR has become a ghost and a Strawman to beat up on. The term is often used as a "fallacy of misplaced concreteness." Some write of it as if it were a real organization, with actual members. Instead it has become an abandoned term.

What I am not saying is that there are not heretics in the church, nor am I saying that there are not some dominionists who have really bad ideas and ideology. What I am saying is that the usage of the term has changed very quickly and that Wikipedia should note that.Mr Jesperson (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

2024

 * Care to review your stance that NAR does not exist?
 * https://www.salon.com/2024/01/02/meet-the-new-apostolic-reformation-cutting-edge-of-the-christian-right/ 24.72.217.98 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

apostolic churches tend to be
As such, apostolic churches tend to be small; liberated yet at the same well governed; consisting of dedicated believers; who all function and carry weight in the church; working together toward the commission and vision of the local church. I think this line seems a bit POV. Can we rewrite in some way without the church specific use of terms -- for example "liberated" which for most of the world would imply Liberation theology which is I doubt what is meant. jbolden1517Talk 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging article into Global Harvest Ministries
I am removing this suggestion as ridiculous. People have been called apostles for decades in the Pentecostal movement, there is also a "New Apostolic Church" - http://www.nak.org/en/about-the-nac/history-of-our-church/ - which has a long history.

And now, a parachurch ministry, founded in 1991, having a "leadership institute" which has a total of 61 graduates (I happen to know what some of such "educational institutions" look like, and those might have ten times the graduates) is suggested to be considered an "owner" of a whole movement, just because the leader of the ministry decided to write a book on the subject???

Ridiculous. Latreia (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, glad to see someone with expert knowledge on the subject has turned up. If you have a look at the edit history, this article was originally full of copyrighted text about Wagner's group. When I searched Google for the name: http://www.google.com/search?q=New+Apostolic+Reformation, all I could find was links about Mr. Wagner's group and his current project "Global Harvest Ministries".  If you know of other church groups going by this name, please add referenced material to clarify this.  Note that this article is still mostly unreferenced, and looks like original research. Thanks, OttoTheFish (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Otto. I wouldn't venture to say I have expert knowledge on this particular subject, I just happen to have some understanding of what pieces of knowledge warrant or don't warrant a certain statement or aligning of concepts. In general, I think the term "New Apostolic Reformation" is too unclear for the very reason that (1) it can be applied to the general tendency, present in some Pentecostal sub-movements, to have people who are called apostles, however one assesses this (here - http://www.csmovementchurchusa.org/aboutus.htm - is a denomination where there are "Most Senior Apostles", "Senior Apostles" etc.), and (2) it overlaps, name-wise, with the "New Apostolic Church" which is a separate, exclusive (viewing itself as the only legitimate church, since salvation is possible, in their view, only by receiving sacraments administered by their apostles only) denomination.
 * The more general movement, i think (or, as far as I know), cannot be defined in terms of a list of "church groups that go by this name", because we are talking about different denominations or sub-denominations. In some of them, it may be said that Such-and-such is serving as an apostle to a nation (a city, a region, whatever), but this would not be a full-fledged "title" (that is, they are not regularly called "Apostle John Doe", "Apostle John Smith"). In some, yet again, as in the link above, these are fixed titles. Again, it seems to me that Wagner has just written extensively on the subject and is promoting the term, but certainly not championing the movement. We have (1) a phenomenon in the real world, that is, this tendency or broad movement; (2) a term that a certain group has a tendency to use. While the group (Wagner's) may have some activity going within the movement, and may have exceptional visibility of its use of the term, they do not cover nor champion the movement. As you can see here - http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/newapostolic.html - some people (whatever one thinks of this site and its contents) have an understanding of "new apostolic" as something that includes more people than just C. Peter Wagner. Here - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rseaborn/New_Apostolic_Reformation.html - a former AOG Superintendent is quoted as speaking of the movement as reaching back to the 40's and 50's, or even the beginning of the previous century.
 * With that, I'd like to say that I would need to do a lot of research to write a solid article, for which I do not have much time at the moment :), but I see enough to remove the suggestion to merge the article into Wagner's organization; he is just a streak in a current, and the term, even if he coined it or is actively promoting it, is not the only one that describes the movement. If anything, the article could be merged into "Third Wave of the Holy Spirit" article, b/c the usage of terms sometimes overlaps, but I'm not suggesting it now.
 * I might return to this article some time later and build on what I have written here on the talk page, but not now :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latreia (talk • contribs)
 * The articles you cite talk about apostolic ministries, but I can find nothing in them citing a movement called the "New Apostolic Reformation" (note caps) prior to Wagner. It seems there's some disambiguation required here: New Apostolic Church, Third Wave of the Holy Spirit, etc.
 * Wagner's sense of the term, at least, should be merged to one of the existing articles on his work. So I'm going to tag the article for expert attention, perhaps from WikiProject Christianity. Thanks, OttoTheFish (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nearly three months have passed since this was discussed, so in the absence of any evidence that there is a group called "New Apostolic Reformation" outside of Wagner's group, I have restored the tag. If nobody objects, I'll merge this article as proposed.  Thanks, OttoTheFish (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to merging, as this will prevent mention of the Latter Rain Movement antecedents, the relevance of the British New Church Movement and the Australian Assemblies of God experience - will add when I get time. Hyper3 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful resources
I came across this group via an alternet article: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/145796 It clearly has a "left" POV. However, it may be a good starting point for getting more references. Also, here is a site that reports on religious movements and such has some more links: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/722-new-apostolic-reformation Jcurious (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Although this article is clearly opinionated as opposed to factual, there are some good points. Firstly the churches who have accepted the idea of modern apostles have mainly been pentecostal and charismatic. Peter Wagner did play a massive role in promoting NAR and his ministry has been subject to a lot of criticism. A recent example of this is his endorsement of Todd Bentley. The NAR has saw many people convert to Christianity and has produced several books, videos, cd, television shows. Many other Christians however refuse to accept the idea that these men could be apostles and use the Bible for guidance as opposed to their prophecies. Regardless of what view you take on this, it cannot be argued that many influential people within the NAR movement have created scandal within the church as well as making a lot of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.149.182 (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
This section needs to justify its inclusion a bit. Who are Marsha West and "leaders" (of what?) Cindy Jacobs and Lou Engle? What is EmailBrigade.com? Why should we care? The second paragraph also seems misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.44.2 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right. I've moved that second paragraph, but I intend to dig around a bit more before I remove the criticism completely. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Leaders" means "leaders of the movement". Lou Engle leads The Call, while Cindy Jacobs is a co-founder of Generals International. StAnselm (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section is lacking. I came here as a user, not an editor, and I would like to know what the criticisms are, not just that they exist, who criticises it, and whether they think that it is a damnable heresy.  I am sure that I believe several things that some other people think are damnable heresies, and, to a lesser extent I hope, vice versa. Sterrettc (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This section has been removed, I believe rightly, and has stayed removed. I've made a list of seven differences between the NAR and traditional Protestantism, taken from an article by one of the movement's leaders. I believe that many "traditional" Christians and nonbelievers will find many of those differences (except for the seventh) alarming, so a separate criticism section is still not required. – Herzen (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Apostolic governance
New Section: I think that it would be helpful if there was a section that explained the differences between how mainstream Christianity has normally used the term 'apostle'  Traditionally an apostle was one who was a missionary, church planter. The big difference today is that those who follow C. Peter Wagner believe that these modern apostles actually have the same status as the foundational apostles in the Bible. Obviously Wikepedia cannot be used as a means of arguing one way or the other however surely this is an important reality that has to be mentioned. 58.168.214.0 05:51, 6 March 2013


 * The article already states: "Members of the NAR believe that some of their leaders are apostles, in the same sense that the original Twelve Apostles were." Why is this inadequate? The article could go into more detail, but there's lots of things it could go into more detail on.
 * That is the first of seven differences to "traditional" Christianity that I listed, based on an article by Wagner. So the NAR would appear to be an interesting case of a religious movement where members and non-members (such as myself) agree on the movement's beliefs. (This is in contrast to Mormonism for example, where Mormons often deny beliefs that non-Mormons ascribe to them.) – Herzen (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section
There clearly needs to be a section for controversy and criticism. These should not be discussed or alluded to in any other part of the article. We also need to include information about the Al-Jazeera News article calling NAR America's own Taliban as well as documented use of the term in connection with Republican presidential candidates. I am willing to do work on this article if no one else will. Flofor15 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have extensively rewritten and reorganized the article. If there is an edit that I made that was wrong of me, please re-add it. I took out statements that appeared biased, weren't cited or that didn't belong in the article. There were quite a few. I also took out quotes when they were cumbersome and made the article hard to read. If anyone has issue, please let me know. My goal was to make the article meet standards for POV and be more readable. I concede that the article still needs work. External links needs some work and so does the history section. Flofor15 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. The article is now much better than the first time I looked at it, about a year ago. – Herzen (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The NAR has been criticized not only by secular liberals, but also by its fellow Christians who accuse it of being either heterodox or actually heretical. For instance, this author argues that the NAR is essentially neo-Montanist. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I was accused of not being neutral for adding Brian Simmons to this page, but he absolutely should be added! He is one of the Core Faculty members of the Wagner University, founded by C. Peter Wagner, and he has produced a Bible called The Passion Translation that critics argue is infused with NAR theology. There are numerous articles and videos on this topic. This is not just one person's point of view. This is part of "accepted knowledge" on the internet. For example, here are a few articles on the topic, but there are many more: http://www.spiritoferror.org/2016/08/nar-leader-brian-simmons-reveals-a-new-chapter-of-the-bible/6247, http://readingthepassionbible.com/what-is-the-nar/, https://www.gotquestions.org/Passion-Translation.html. At least put it in the criticism section please. Most recently, a Calvary Chapel pastor, Mike Winger, has exposed Brian Simmons for lying about his qualifications as a Bible translator. The translation has been extremely controversial and should be mentioned on this page somewhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijessi79 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , none of those are reliable sources. Not only do you use poorly sourced assertions (this has WP:BLP ramifications when used against living people) but your prose takes an accusatory tone that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You were not "accused of being not neutral" because you added Brian Simmons, but because your description of him was out of bounds and not encyclopedic. Please read WP:RS for information on how to identify reliable sources. Self-published websites, run by one guy, with no editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking, are distinctly unusable here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: how many people subscribe to this movement? Is it up to 30 or 40 million in the U.S.? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

??
Is this article a well-made satire, or is that cult really existing? 2003:C0:DF11:4300:99B1:6E80:893C:5534 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Movement
The descriptor, "movement" is used in nearly every sentence. Not only is it overused, but it doesn't seem like the most precise word to describe the NAR. It is true for any group with strongly-held beliefs that they would desire to advance and build their group---which is what is meant when using the word "movement." But we don't describe Catholicism or Baptist as movements. It is better to describe it as a system of beliefs instead. 12.145.160.98 (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a kind of tendency which is not formally organized beyond the level of individual congregations, so certain words which could be used of Catholicism or Baptist denominations could not validly be used to refer to NAR... AnonMoos (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The bizarre thing here from my PoV is that usually followers/members/participants in a movement (a) join the movement in some way; and (b) confirm/advocate their membership. In this case, the opposite is true. There is no organising individual or entity for NAR and there are no followers/participants who subscribe to the NAR label. How can there be a movement with no participants? I think this would be more accurately called a "label" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.99.219 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Copeland
I don't think Kenneth Copeland sees himself as NAR. He sees his calling from God to teach people faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.244.162 (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

lousy sourcing
this article is heavily dependent on dubious sources, especially the views of C. Peter Wagner, who coined the term and is one of its leaders.

I think it needs a significant rewrite, which I will endeavor upon in coming days. I encourage others to participate.

soibangla (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this on - I went through and did a quick clean-up of references, external links, see also and minor copyediting - happy to look over any drafts of a re-write if that's helpful Superb Owl (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed to the rewrite suggestion. It seems like an anti-NAR page. I have no horse in this race; do not personally know anyone who is a part of it or who is an "anti". I landed here some months ago with a link to the group as a "cult." It doesn't sound exactly "cultish" to me, even though I do not hold to the attributed theological ideas. Seems like "cult" has become the catchword for "I don't agree with this person/group so it has to be a cult." Mikeatnip (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Superb Owl removal
, I disagree with your rationale for removal. They are not redundant, they each support specific content and they are not outdated because NAR is not a recent phenomenon, it goes back decades, it's just that few noticed it until recently. Please restore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Apostolic_Reformation&diff=prev&oldid=1211479372 soibangla (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to re-add the interview in all 3 places? Seems like it wasn't adding anything to well-sourced and more recently sourced areas of the article Superb Owl (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)