the n.a.r.'s most radical claim
the n.a.r.'s most radical claim
THE NAR'S MOST RADICAL CLAIM
July 23, 2026
There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Critics often focus on healing ministries, prophetic words, unusual spiritual practices, or individual personalities. While those topics deserve discussion, I don't believe they represent the movement's most significant theological claim.
The real issue is far more fundamental. It concerns the nature of Christ's Church itself.
To be clear, believing that spiritual gifts continue today is not unique to the New Apostolic Reformation. Millions of faithful Christians—including many Pentecostals, Charismatics, and members of the Vineyard movement—believe God continues to heal, speak, and distribute spiritual gifts without embracing NAR theology.
The defining claim of the movement is not that God still performs miracles.It is that God restored the government of His Church through modern apostles and prophets after nearly two thousand years of deficiency. That is an entirely different proposition.
C. Peter Wagner argued that the Church entered what he called the "Second Apostolic Age" in 2001. According to Wagner, the governing offices of apostle and prophet had effectively been absent since the first century but were now being restored. If taken seriously, this claim has enormous historical implications.
It suggests that for nearly nineteen centuries the Church lacked its intended government. Augustine ministered without it. Athanasius defended the deity of Christ without it. John Chrysostom preached without it. The medieval Church, the Reformers, the great missionary movements, and countless faithful believers throughout history all functioned without what Wagner believed to be Christ's intended form of church leadership. That is an astonishing, and let's be honest - a ridiculous assertion.
Historically, Christianity has seen a number of movements built around a similar narrative:
The original Church possessed something essential.
That essential element was lost.
The Church remained deficient for centuries.
God restored the missing element through a modern movement.
This pattern has appeared in various forms throughout church history. Recognizing the pattern does not automatically prove a movement is false, but it should encourage careful examination. Any claim that the Church fundamentally lost its God-ordained structure for nearly two millennia bears a tremendous burden of proof.
Jesus promised, "I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Christians have understood that promise in different ways, but any theology that implies the Church existed in a fundamentally defective state for most of its history must explain how that claim fits with Christ's promise to preserve His people.
The practical implications are just as significant. Wagner did not describe modern apostles as inspirational leaders or particularly gifted pastors. He understood them to be governing authorities over networks of churches, exercising oversight over prophets and ministries. Authority therefore shifts.
Rather than flowing primarily through Scripture, historic Christian teaching, local elders, or established church structures, authority increasingly rests in recognized apostles who receive fresh direction from God. Although Wagner insisted these revelations did not add to Scripture, they nevertheless exercised practical authority over the life and direction of the Church. That is why the debate is ultimately about ecclesiology rather than spiritual gifts.
As someone who has spent years in charismatic circles, I appreciate the work of the Holy Spirit and remain convinced that God continues to act powerfully today. I do not believe the only alternatives are cessationism or the New Apostolic Reformation.
The central question is much simpler: Did Christ faithfully preserve His Church throughout history, or did the Church lose its intended government until it was restored in our generation? If Christ truly preserved His Church, then claims of a newly restored apostolic government deserve careful scrutiny.
If He did not, then every Christian tradition—Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Evangelical alike—must explain how the Church functioned for nearly two thousand years without the government Christ intended. That, in my view, is the real question raised by the New Apostolic Reformation. It is not primarily about miracles or prophecy. It is about whether Christ kept His promise to preserve His Church.