Another shock for charismatic Christians has made headlines this month.
Mike Bickle, founder of the International House of Prayer (IHOP) in Kansas City was accused by a group of former executives of sexual misconduct, based on the testimonies of several victims. Bickle has denied the allegations, but in a recent statement, IHOP confirmed that an outside law firm had been retained to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations. In the meantime, Bickle left the public prosecutor’s office.
Bickle was a leading figure in a loose and diverse movement in world Christianity known as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). You may have seen negative references to NAR on social media. This is in part due to serious accusations of moral misconduct leveled against some key “apostles.” For others, the NAR is controversial because of its theology or because its executives such as Paula White-Cain and Lance Wallnau have been strong supporters of former US President Donald Trump.
The Toronto Blessing was an important catalyst for various apostolic networks
To those with some knowledge of church history, it may seem like an exaggeration to describe this movement as a “reformation.” But make no mistake, over the past few decades, the NAR – often through remarkable growth and expansive media – has changed the face of Christianity. This is leading to a revolution in the way many churches view authority.
Where does NAR come from?
In its origins and contemporary form, the New Apostolic Reformation tended to attract Pentecostals and evangelicals who sought a more authentic expression of New Testament Christianity. Their opinions on end time have generally focused on restoring the Church to more biblical models of practice and leadership, and a resurgence of Christianity in society and in the public square.
The roots of the movement go back several years. But for now, let’s start with America’s Latter Rain revival of 1948, when a group of Christians became convinced that Pentecostalism had lost touch with the authenticity of the New Testament – and as a result lost its spiritual power. They taught that the “latter rain” described in Joel 2:23 did not refer to the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2, but to an end-time revival.
This included the idea that Spirit-empowered Christians (sometimes called “Joel’s army” in NAR) would lead a victorious Church toward revival and renewed influence in the world. The leadership of this resurgent Church would come from the apostles and prophets, in tune with the “new thing” that God was doing and not bound by traditional structures.
As I describe in my book The Age of the Spirit: the charismatic renewal, the Anglo-Saxon world and global Christianity, 1945-1980 (Oxford University Press) The Latter Rain revival faded, but its key principles were given a second life through the charismatic revival of the 1960s and 1970s. While some charismatics were determined to renew their denomination – Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, etc. – others emphasized restorationist thinking. In the UK, USA and many other countries, new independent networks of house churches have emerged, with the same emphasis on apostolic and prophetic leadership. This gave rise to large church movements still active today, such as Newfrontiers, Pioneer, and Vineyard.
Controversies and reform
In the United States, in particular, some – but not all – practiced “shepherding,” a sort of pyramid of power and responsibility in which authority (usually male) descended from a leading national (or global) figure. plan down to local pastors. , and even through a pastoral chain of command between the faithful.
THE the pastoral movement eventually exploded in an explosion of allegations of coercion and abuse. However, the rise of independent churches and networks – many of which were thriving – led by apostolic and prophetic figures was here to stay.
In the 1980s, the movement was further boosted by the arrival of new leaders, centered around figures such as church growth guru C Peter Wagner. These placed even greater emphasis on the role of prophecy – particularly concerning politics and the life of the nation – and dominionism. It is the idea that, through the practice of spiritual warfare, the Church would exercise power over the “seven mountains” of religion, entertainment, business, education, family, government and the media.
Leaders such as Bickle had enormous influence, teaching that an “army of Joel” would be victorious for Christ and giving a platform to high-profile, and sometimes highly controversial, prophets such as Paul Cain and Bob Jones.
Make no mistake, the New Apostolic Reformation changed the face of Christianity
By the late 1990s, the NAR, as we might recognize it, was taking shape. THE Blessing of Toronto The year 1996, considered by many to be a time of global renewal, was an important catalyst for various apostolic networks, including Randy Clark’s Global Awakening, Ché Ahn’s Harvest International Ministries and Iris Ministries of Heidi and Rolland Baker.
The reach of such networks is remarkable. Global Awakening, for example, has a network of more than 600 congregations around the world. Iris Global (as it is now known) claims to have planted more than 10,000 churches. Their radical leadership and teachings – combined with their strong numerical growth – suggest that “reformation” may indeed be an apt description of this new global Christian movement.
Pros and cons
Those who support the NAR argue that the movement’s adherence to biblical models of authority is a strength; in particular, the leadership of the apostles and prophets anointed and guided by the Holy Spirit. There are also pragmatic arguments for more centralized forms of leadership, as might be the case in business or politics. Does the leadership of the apostles increase dynamism and responsiveness? Or, to put it bluntly: can they get things done better?
At the same time, some wonder about potential blind spots. What about inheritance, for example? There are many successful Christian networks that have struggled to maintain viability when the original leader, often very charismatic and beloved, is no longer in charge.
Second, from a theological perspective, some have questioned whether vesting significant authority in a single person reflects a realistic view of human decadence. Additionally, when one or more individuals are considered anointed by God, is it easy to challenge their authority or correct them? Could NAR’s tendency to centralize authority – and potentially place people on a pedestal – give leaders more opportunities to act in unethical or moral ways?and at the same time make it harder for those around them to ask difficult questions?
Tragically, whenever an NAR leader fails, difficult questions about the movement as a whole – as well as human nature, the spiritual anointing, and the responsibility of the Church – are inevitable.
