Why do Leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation Insist on Denying its Existence?

My friend and colleague, Luke Geraty recently (4/22/24) posted on X (i.e., "the Social Media platform formerly known as Twitter" - sorry Elon, sorry Prince) some thoughts on John Wimber along with some of his concerns about problematic theology and abuses within the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement. And he got this response from Cindy Jacobs:

I’ll be honest with you; this drives me absolutely batty!! Why do leaders of the NAR insist on denying its very existence? I’ve previously seen/heard Bill Johnson do the same thing: ‘NAR? What’s that? Never heard of it. It doesn’t exist!’¹ This just feels like a smoke screen to me.

Perhaps what they are trying to say is that the NAR isn’t an organization and therefore it does not exist. I agree in that the NAR is not an organization. But to say that it doesn’t exist is just silliness to me!

You can’t join the NAR. Your church can’t become an affiliate congregation of the NAR. The NAR has no bylaws. It has no president, no board, etc. It is not an organization. The NAR is a network of churches/ministries and their leaders who share common doctrine, beliefs, praxis, and approach. They speak at each other’s churches and share the stage at conferences. NAR is a body of teaching. And no, not everyone in the NAR agrees on every single point of doctrine. But that doesn’t mean that the NAR doesn’t exist!

Name a denomination or Christian movement where everyone agrees on everything (… crickets). Do all Evangelicals agree on theory of atonement? Do all Charismatics agree on the doctrine of ‘separate and subsequent’ with regard to tongues? No, and no! But that doesn’t mean that Evangelicalism doesn’t exist (OK, it is getting hard to define these days - I’ll give you that). And it certainly doesn’t mean that the charismatic movement doesn’t exist, at least as a category.

This would be like saying that not all Reformed denominations agree on everything and therefore Reformed Theology does not exist. No one would say that, right? There are 5-point Calvinists and others who would identify as 3-point Calvinists. And others who would say ‘if you don’t accept all 5 points, you’re not a Calvinist!’ But none of that means that Calvinism doesn’t exist! There is the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, as well as a kinder, gentler PCUSA denomination, and the more conservative, confessional Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). There’s even Lutherans too! But again, none of that means that Reformed doctrine does not exist!

As far as I know, no one among critics of the NAR is claiming that it is an organization. Again, it is a body of teaching (of which its history can be traced out) that many have serious concerns about. And it is useful as a category in describing the movement and one’s concerns about its theology & doctrine, and the implications thereof. And NAR adherents are free to state publicly that ‘I believe in this NAR doctrine, and this one, but not this other one over here.’ And there’s nothing wrong with that.

It’s not my intent to offer my own critique of the NAR here, nor to even define it here (but Wikipedia has a pretty decent article… you could start there). I just don’t understand why denying that it exists is offered up as a defense for critiques of the NAR. Perhaps someone out there knows better than me - why this apologetic?!? Let me know in the comments below! If nothing else, I feel better having just gotten this off my chest (whew!!)

1. First, I’m using single quotes to indicate that this is not a direct quote from Bill Johnson. This is just my own loose paraphrase from memory. Second, I’ll apologize for not providing a proper citation by source. I think it was from a CT article I read a few years back. So, if anyone is able to provide me with a correct citation ple-eeeease, drop it in the comments below (otherwise, I might have to finally break down and pay the $9/month digital only subscription fee).

---