NAR critics are right, but they’re missing the real problem

Say the phrase “New Apostolic Reformation,” or “NAR,” among Christian circles today, and the conversation will center on questionable doctrine and leadership, ranging from accusations of unchecked authority and abandonment of Scripture to conspiracy-level political intrigue and cult-like spiritual control.

Those are serious accusations, particularly in light of viral interviews about these subjects occurring on Christian podcasts, and they deserve serious examination. I understand the confusion and the problems articulated in these podcasts, but examination requires precision and honesty on all sides.

Yet, as one who has had a front-row seat to this milieu, permit me an explanation and allow me to posit some questions that every Kingdom-minded Christian should be asking about this complex subject.

What has become known as “NAR” is not a denomination, an organization, nor a consistent set of beliefs binding everyone associated with it, but a broader label for diverse, decentralized ministries and leaders emphasizing contemporary apostles, prophets, spiritual gifts, and church mobilization. The phrase “New Apostolic Reformation” was first coined by Fuller Theological Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner, who was describing a series of specific changes he observed — and generally agreed with — that were occurring within the Body of Christ.

Now, experience should never be a substitute for Scripture or evidence, but neither should sweeping accusations substitute for accurately understanding those within the so-called NAR.

The first issue is authority, specifically that of contemporary “apostles.”

When I speak of apostles today, I am not suggesting that they hold the same foundational authority as the original apostles, such as Peter and Paul, or that their words carry the authority of Scripture. The canon of Scripture is closed. No contemporary apostle can add to it, revise it, or claim authority equal to it.

With that said, I affirm a continuing apostolic calling to pioneer Kingdom work, establish and strengthen churches, equip believers, and help advance the Kingdom. Such a calling carries genuine spiritual authority and responsibility, exercised under Scripture and with accountability. Today’s apostles serve the Church by building upon the foundation already laid, never by replacing it or laying a different one.

Ephesians 4:11–13 identifies apostles alongside prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in the list of offices that equip the Church. Scripture establishes these giftings, modeled in the 1st-century church, and provides no clear basis for claiming they ended. In fact, even John Calvin references them.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, Wagner, the purported father of the New Apostolic Reformation, argued that this era’s biggest change was restoring the apostle’s role and the spiritual authority entrusted to the individual. But the key word there is "spiritual." His premise was that apostles wield spiritual authority for advancing the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, rather than literal hierarchical authority over others.

In Wagner’s writings, apostolic alignment was relational and voluntary, never about control, submission, or hierarchy. Instead, it involved coming together and combining gifts to equip the saints for advancing the Kingdom, as described in the New Testament church.

This distinction also addresses accusations of “self-appointed apostles.” From within the movement, apostles are recognized by their relational peers as having an apostolic anointing and calling. A true apostle cares little about titles and focuses on the Kingdom’s advancement, not their own. An apostolic title does not establish infallibility or authorize control over another’s marriage, finances, friendships, or movements. Nor does it establish an intermediary through whom another Christian receives access to God.

1 Timothy 2:5 identifies Jesus Christ as the mediator between God and humanity. Apostles can teach, equip, counsel, and correct, but they cannot take Christ’s place.

Yes, excesses and perversions of this gifting exist today. I wholly believe certain individuals, like Kathryn Krick, are not genuine representations of modern-day apostles. Her teachings, actions, and relationships reveal an unhealthy and impure counterfeit of apostolic ministry.

And what about accountability?

Paul confronted Peter when his conduct contradicted the Gospel, as recorded in Galatians 2:11–14. In Galatians 1:8, Paul declared that even his own preaching must be rejected if it contradicted the Gospel already delivered.

If Peter could be confronted and Paul’s message tested, no contemporary leader receives an exemption either.

In his book Churchquake!, Wagner expressed dissatisfaction with unclear accountability arrangements and emphasized accountability among peers. He considered accountability necessary and created various forms of relational accountability for those within his sphere of influence. The basis was always in a relationship, not an organizational structure.

Then there is prophecy and revelation.

Any genuine Christian with an apostolic anointing recognizes Scripture’s authority for all matters of faith and practice, while affirming that God continues to communicate with His people — His sheep know His voice (John 10:27). Thus, any prophetic insight that is revelatory in nature cannot and will never contradict the written Word.

Moreover, 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21 require that prophetic utterances be weighed and tested within the Body. The habit among some charismatics of saying “God told me” or “God says” as a conversation-ending declaration actually signals an unhealthy, immature leader, not a genuine apostolic or prophetic gifting.

And if a prophetic insight cannot survive examination against Scripture, responsibility belongs to the person making the claim, not the person asking questions. A person’s title does not remove the responsibility to substantiate teachings in Scripture. Spiritual gifts must also be distinguished from spiritual maturity, evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit.

Some Christian subcultures highlight spiritual gifts, freely given rather than earned, but forsake the spiritual fruit. This is a dangerous oversight because fruit comes through maturation: a seed grows into a tree, which produces fruit through continued growth. Those elevated for their gifts without the Spirit’s fruit evident in their lives will struggle under the weight of those gifts and their notoriety, and it is one reason so many “gifted” people succumb to moral failings — they have been elevated for the gift they were given, not who they became through spiritual growth.

In Matthew 7:22–23, Jesus describes people appealing to remarkable works performed in His name while lacking the relationship they claim. 1 Corinthians 13 makes love indispensable even amid supernatural sign gifts.

A compelling prophecy does not cancel dishonesty. A healing testimony does not excuse sexual misconduct. A growing congregation does not establish its leader’s qualification to remain in office.

Another concern about NAR involves spiritual “covering” and alignment.

Wagner described apostolic relationships as voluntary and allowing for multiple alignments. This was a feature of what he called the New Apostolic Reformation: moving from organizations and denominations toward relational networks. But that transition has been difficult to see in operation.

Consider that renaming a church an “apostolic center,” or calling a senior pastor an “apostle,” does not mean anything has functionally changed. The structure and operations are likely much the same.

Accusations against apostles as intermediaries or hierarchical authoritarians are equally applicable to traditional churches and pastors. A non-NAR-affiliated pastor might be just as much an inappropriate intermediary to God as someone labeled an “apostle.”

I believe we need to broaden the conversation and ask some deeper questions, mainly — is the Church’s current form the real problem? Regardless of whether it’s a traditional church led by a pastor or an apostolic center that operates identically?

Might we also ask if we have created a model incompatible with the New Testament? One measuring success through attendance and programs, producing a spectator-centric church where 5% work and 95% observe, instead of a true Ekklesia as described in the Book of Acts? Instead of departing radically from the ineffective, unbiblical spectator model, we have applied an “apostolic overlay” to the same old church model?

These are not merely questions of what we call our leaders, but whether the people around them are being equipped to participate in the work of ministry or are remaining dependent on someone else to do it for them. Changing the title without changing that relationship leaves the underlying spectator model intact, along with the problems that prompted the need for reformation.

The same problems, with new titles, produce today’s identity crisis and perpetuate the opportunities for the inherent failures and weaknesses we see playing out in this world.

I believe that the Church should be returned to the New Testament model, where each of us brings our gifts and contributes equally to equipping the Body for advancing the Kingdom.

We need to operate as a congregation, motivated and encouraged by one another in community, rather than a country club of spectators watching a pastor or apostle work while depending on their “covering” or “connection” to God.

That is what the New Apostolic Reformation was supposed to be about, but what we see today is something else entirely. The criticisms now being shared about “NAR” are often valid, but they are too narrowly focused on symptoms rather than the root issue.