Thoughts About the So-Called New Apostolic Reformation

Because of its impact upon current events, at both the political and congregational level I want to discuss one of the more headline-grabbing developments in contemporary Christian life. Specifically, the “New Apostolic Reformation.”  I will get right to the point. This movement brings to my mind the Holy Roman Empire which was once famously described as being “Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire” Similarly the “New Apostolic Reformation”, (Hereafter abbreviated to NAR), is not new, certainly not Apostolic in the sense implied, nor is it a reformation. I will discuss each of these identity markers, in turn, ending with the middle term.

    Despite its current popularity and cultural impact, the kind of theological gerrymandering exemplified in the NAR is not new. The first charismatically driven power-grab of this type arose with Montanism in the Second Century. While maintaining broad theological alignment with the Great Church tradition Montanism was distinctive for its teaching regarding the “new prophecy” couched in ecstatic experiences. This new prophecy, combined with a conservative personal ethic presented itself as an alternative to the then current biblically derived model of Church leadership. Montanism and the NAR share the distinctive perspective of new revelatory experiences as supplanting the New Testament prerequisites for leadership. This has also been the norm in the first and second waves of the neo-charismatic movements. Rather than relying on the shared, reviewable, public information found in the Bible, the model for leadership is an individual or individuals who elevate their experiences above Scripture. 

    This brings us to a quick look at the term “reformation.” The idea of reform implies that the body you have may not be perfect, but it is fixable. It was not the intent of Hus, or Wycliffe, or the morning stars of the reformation to create a new ecclesiastical structure. They wanted to fix what was broken and refocus what had become distracted in the Church as they knew it. The same is true of Luther’s first attempts at reform. It is not until the reformers received pushback and threats that it became apparent that new ecclesiastical bodies would come into existence. Even then the goal of the reformers was to purify and reform the single universal Church founded by Christ. 

    The NAR functions almost entirely by founding new or breakaway bodies rather than seeing its role as bringing new life to the historic, unified Church. It has risen with the expansion of independent, “evangelical”, congregations with little if any historical, theological, or ecclesiastical moorings, aligned only to the “prophetic revelations” of the founder/Pastor/CEO. The broader movement is coordinated by like-minded founders/prophets who are accountable only to themselves. This is not reformation in the traditional sense. 

    Finally, let’s think about the word Apostolic. The NAR believes and teaches that their movement is based upon the rebirth of the Biblical office of Apostle. By this, they mean that the prophet/leaders of the movement are equal in authority and inspiration to the Apostolic band called by Jesus and authorized by being witnesses to His Resurrection. There are two lines of argument which show this to be wrong.

When we correlate Acts Chapter 1 with 1 Corinthians 15.1-11, we find the minimal requirement for the Apostolic office was individuals who had seen the risen. Christ. It is possible to extrapolate that the alignment of these two texts implies that Paul had seen Jesus (presumably in Jerusalem) during His ministry and did not respond in faith. Clearly, the NAR prophets cannot be qualified as Apostles in the same way that the NT Apostles were. They fail to meet the requirement of having witnessed Jesus' ministry and/or His resurrection appearances. 

    The second line of argument is historic and requires further reflection on the era of the Reformation. One of the central arguments of the Reformation was the locus of “Apostolic” authority. The Roman Catholic position is that the structures of Episcopal succession, the scriptures, and tradition were the repository of the Apostolic witness. This was embodied for the Roman Church in the Bishop of Rome, the presumed successor of Peter. 

    The Protestant (both Lutheran and Reformed) position is that the Apostolic authority is found in the Scriptures. Ecclesiastical councils and structures are only authoritative to the extent that they speak with the voice of Scripture. These positions are well known, and yes,  I realize that I have left out more than a third of the global Christian community, in that the Orthodox Church did not have a dog in this particular fight, but the fact of the matter is that during the Reformation both sides had a clear understanding of what they meant by “Apostolic.” And it did not ever, occur to anyone, on either side that what was really needed were new Apostles. Why? Because they could read the same two texts I alluded to earlier. Each side assumed the same Apostles, it was the path back to and definition of Apostolic authority—not identity, that was at stake. 

    Wouldn’t it have been a whole lot easier for Luther to simply decide “Hey! I’ll just declare myself a new Apostle and found the whole thing upon myself?” They called Calvin the Pope of Geneva, if he thought it possible and passible why didn’t he just claim to be the Apostle to Switzerland? 

    Because it is silly and absurd, that’s why. The idea that something which never occurred to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, or the Campbells—in far more threatening circumstances—only came to light in the 20th century through the work of C. Peter Wagner and his cronies begs credulity and speaks volumes about the Biblical and theological gullibility of the contemporary Church. 

    So now we have healings, words of knowledge, prophecies (social, political, and economic), predictions, demonic exorcisms, demagoguery, and profiteering and a broad part of our culture thinks that it is both Biblical and normal, when it is neither. 

    How do we respond? First of all, don’t argue. These folk are impervious to scripture and reason and their conception of the “great tradition” is almost entirely hostile. There is no Biblical or theological authority that can reach someone whose personal pastor has convinced her/him that his words are equal to scripture. Secondly, bear fruit. The best argument for Biblical Christianity is the fruit of the Spirit

“Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22–23 ESV)

There are lots of people who may want to argue with you, far fewer who will argue with Paul.

    Finally, to the extent that it is up to you, carefully consider what your church hears musically and acquires for its youth and other educational programs. The NAR, by its nature, is a well-funded and invasive theological species. The best way to fix problems is to avoid them. If you preach use clear, understandable language to layout theological concepts. When the Bible is oblique, make it as clear as you can without being inaccurate. Preach, teach, and lead in such a way that the mature are expected to act with maturity and the immature can be nurtured in their growth.  

    Jesus died for the Church. He asks us to live for her. Faithfully, lovingly, and kindly—but with determination. Let’s do that this year, shall we?