Transcription
[music] >> Hi everyone. I have a special guest with me here today, Aaron Maybs. Aaron is a pastor with the Assemblies of God at Prineville First Assembly in Oregon, and he is here to talk about his concerns about the significant new apostolic reformation influence within the Assemblies of God churches, and also his leadership to push back on the encroachment of NAR doctrine in those churches. And Doug Geivett, my co-author and I, have talked a lot over the years as we've written books and done podcasts and interviews about the fact that the Assemblies of God actually has formal position papers against NAR doctrine, and we've commended the Assemblies of God for that. At the same time, though, we've had many of our listeners and readers of our books say, "Yes, but it was in an Assemblies of God church where I was first exposed to NAR doctrine, or my Assemblies of God church was just completely enmeshed in NAR and taken over by NAR." And so, I thought it would be good to bring Aaron on here today to talk about this because he has observed NAR influence first hand. He's witnessed the fallout, but at the same time, he's also observed a growing number of Assemblies of God pastors becoming aware of this movement and becoming concerned about it, and also seeing for themselves the harmful effects of the new apostolic reformation NAR doctrines and practices coming into their churches. So, thank you so much, Aaron, for agreeing to come on my podcast today and speak with my listeners. >> Yeah, thank you, Holly. >> And I just wondered if you we could start off by you just telling our listeners just a little bit about yourself. >> Yeah, well, probably first and foremost is I'm fifth generation Assemblies of God and I have some pretty well-known family members, grandparents who served doing a lot of missions work down in the nation of Brazil, which many people may not know this, but that's one of the largest Pentecostal movements in the entire world, nearly 20 22 million adherents. And so some significant work and I'm probably one in a in a long line of family members who have served in some form of ministry with the Assemblies of God. And in in fact, I now pastor the church that I grew up in and at one point back in the late '90s, there was some significant NAR influence that came in and really did significant damage to the church. So, this is also a very personal thing for me, but I it would be important to state that there were at least I'm going to say about 50% of the churches in my geographic region that have had some amount of significant NAR influence over the past 20 to 25 years. And thankfully, by the grace of God, all of those have have continued to thrive and have come out of that and are now healthy and on a path to restoration. >> Do you do you recall how we first met? Did you I think maybe you contacted me. Do you remember that? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's right, Holly. Yeah. >> Yeah, okay. >> So, we were experiencing what was very much a a NAR attempted takeover of an Assemblies of God church down in in the Bay Area in California. And and I had come across your blog and I reached out to you cuz I thought, "Wow, what a what a great way to maybe bring some awareness and to help that particular congregation have some resources where they could learn about what the NAR is and uh some of the uh the teachings that they were beginning to witness firsthand and were beginning to question where where is this found in the scripture? So, so that's how we met and through that process we were we had several opportunities to interact through the through the years specifically about about the NAR and in some ways it's influence on the Assemblies of God or on maybe on Pentecostal movements in general. >> Yeah, and I really appreciate that and I know Doug has appreciated as well all of our opportunities to talk with you now over the years and just you know, really appreciated it developing even a friendship with you. I wanted to mention that. I remember recommending that to Brandon Kimber that he reached out to you when you know, he was reaching out to people to work on the the American Gospel documentary about about this movement. I just thought that you would be a great addition to that because you are Pentecostal and you know, so many leaders in this New Apostolic Reformation movement will try to imply or or they'll state that their critics are all just cessationists that their critics are just people who don't believe that the miraculous gifts continue today like prophecy and speaking in tongues which really isn't true and in fact Doug and I have been very clear in all of our books um >> [snorts] >> we try to make it clear in all of our interviews that we are not arguing against NAR from a cessationist standpoint that whether the gifts of the Spirit like prophecy and tongues and healing continue today or not really has no bearing on our argumentation against NAR and that that really becomes a distraction we feel like to our arguments against against the core NAR doctrines that there are these governing offices of apostle and prophet today which historically Pentecostals and charismatics have have rejected as well. But yeah, that was just something that as I was preparing for this interview I remembered that as well, your participation in the American Gospel project. And now it's fun to see that come to fruition. >> Yeah, in fact, just today, Holly, I was actually watching episode 3 in the Bethel Redding series, which happens to be primarily about prophecy, with my high school students that I teach every day. And so that was kind of fun to to connect those dots. And I remember in the interview with with Brandon down there in in Redding, I made this specific statement that you don't have to be a cessationist to be concerned about the NAR teachings. And and I think a lot of times the NAR leaders will use that as as kind of a thought-stopping mechanism or a deflection to say, "Well, our critics are all just critics of of the move of the Holy Spirit. Our critics are just people who are cessationists and and don't share our core values." And that just simply isn't true, but that becomes a very convenient way to deflect criticism. >> Okay, for those in my audience who don't know, what are the Pentecostal distinctives? What are the Assemblies of God distinctives? I think many people don't know exactly what Pentecostals believe believe in relation to um charismatics. Uh and you know, I think I've had so many people ask me, "What are the What's the difference between a Pentecostal and a charismatic?" And then also, what do you see as the differences between Pentecostals and charismatics and people who are part of the New Apostolic Reformation? I just said the way that Doug and I view it, you know, that these in NAR, they emphasize that there are these governing offices of apostle and prophet, and that's really the core teaching that sets people in the New Apostolic Reformation apart from other charismatics or Pentecostals or or just all other Christians in general. Can you explain in you know, how how you see all of that? >> Yeah, sure sure, and I'll start with I think maybe a more classic definition of Pentecostalism because I think the charismatic movement is has come along and maybe added added to that or broadened the the spectrum of of expression of gifts of the Holy Spirit within the broader evangelical movement. But I would say classical Pentecostalism in the Assemblies of God would fall under this category would be churches and believers who who believe that that there is a second act of grace completely from from initial salvation where we would all agree that that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit happens in that in that moment. Something that we could look at very clearly say in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 where Paul is talking about that we're all all baptized into into one body. So that that's a that's a completely distinct experience from what what would be considered a Pentecostal experience of a baptism with the Holy Spirit was is the language which I try to I try to use as opposed to baptism in the Holy Spirit because Paul uses that particular language to talk about the global body of Christ and how we're all a part of that. So this would be a second act of grace where where a believer is is is is endued with with with power to be to be witnesses. It is an opportunity for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to work with the and this is something I always emphasize is primarily Acts 1:8. It's told us that we have the power to be his witnesses. Meaning that there's an extra boldness that is that is given to the believer as they are as they are actively pursuing as they're actively pursuing their relationship with with Christ and and asking for this boldness. And along with that of course classical Pentecostal doctrine would have a distinctive that says that the that the evidence of that experience would be the the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues. So, that would be classical Pentecostal doctrine is in terms of the experience of the Holy Spirit is that God has not ceased operating in in the gifts today. And with that then is is this second work of grace in the life of a believer who's pursuing that very specifically. And and the evidence that that that experience has happened is is according to Pentecostals classically the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues. >> Okay, yeah. Thank you for explaining that. So, to clarify for my listeners because I've I've heard people say that Pentecostals believe that you have to speak in tongues in order to be saved. >> Correct. >> And so, from what you are saying that would not be accurate. >> That's right. There are some streams of of Pentecostalism that have taught that which leads to a lot of confusion. That's maybe one of the harshest criticisms that I hear on a regular basis, which for the most part simply isn't true. Certainly isn't true in the largest Pentecostal movements in in in the world. I I often think of the the Foursquare movement, the Assemblies of God movements. Those have never affirmed that somebody must speak in tongues in order to be in order to be saved. There are some fringe movements that have some other doctrinal teachings that for the most part don't fit in with broader Evangelicalism. I think it's the United Pentecostal Church that holds to a oneness doctrine, an alternate view of the Trinity, actually denies the doctrine of the Trinity. >> I believe that's right. >> affirm that somebody must speak in tongues as evidence of salvation. That's not something that that's taught by most Pentecostals. >> And that's from what I understand what Torben Søndergaard are you if you're familiar with the the Last Reformation movement, Torben Søndergaard? >> Mhm. >> I believe he teaches as well that to have full salvation one must speak in tongues. Um >> Yeah. >> as well, but I was talking about >> an errant doctrine we don't find in the scripture. However, that doesn't keep some from, you know, from perpetuating it nonetheless. >> Right. Right. Okay. And so, and and we've touched on this, I think, but in your view, what separates Pentecostalism then from charismatic belief? >> Yeah, I think that's a that is a great question, Holly, because I think the spectrum of of charismatic movement is is I said probably far more reaching across a broader spectrum than than just classical Pentecostalism. And so, there's definitely the same emphasis on the idea that there are gifts that the believer can operate in that are distributed by the Holy Spirit as He wills. Not something that we can learn, not something that we can that we can teach, but something that the Holy Spirit does sovereignly through the work of of of of those gifts in the life of the believer for the edification of the church and for ministry. And I think maybe one of the things that broadens that definition in the charismatic movement is a may or may not actually hold to a distinctive of that evidence being speaking in tongues as a as a particular evidence. They may hold to a variety of different ideas of what that expression of of baptism of the Holy Spirit looks like and and the evidence may be for that for that experience. And there really is a I would say maybe more in the charismatic movement a focus on on the pursuit of giftings and a variety of giftings. I think that's where we continue to see that branch out more and more is more in the in the broader charismatic movement of which Pentecostalism I think is is probably a subset of that. There's so many different definitions for charismatic that it's hard to nail one definition down, but I would say it's it's certainly a broader evangelical movement encompassing a greater number of of with a variety of different views on on the gifts of the Spirit and their and their usage in in the church and in the life of the believer. >> Yeah, and when one way I have understood the difference too is that classical Pentecostal they have their classical Pentecostal denominations like the Assemblies of God where you know in in this you know you were touching on this but whereas charismatics can be found across denominations it's not like there's just charismatic denominations but you can have charismatics within mainstream denominations or yeah. >> I think that's a good distinction certainly I would I would say that you even have a lot of non-denominational churches and movements for example that that would be labeled charismatic that are not more your traditional structure which even your Assemblies of God churches we refer to ourselves as a voluntary cooperative fellowship but there is more formal structure and it's and it's seen as a you know the Assemblies of God movement is seen as very specifically as a Pentecostal fellowship as opposed to maybe a broader spectrum of of charismatic influence in in a variety of different churches. >> And one interesting thing about with charismatics is you know the new apostolic reformation as C. Peter Wagner started to identify it as was emerging out of independent charismatic churches and so the draw was you know well these churches were seeking some kind of oversight because they're independent charismatic churches and so there was an attraction to the idea that they could join networks and come under networks led by apostles and so apostles started rising up over these independent charismatic churches so so just an interesting history there. >> It conveniently fit their worldview and their you know and their and their emerging doctrine that will maybe we'll call it but that's not completely also brand new there's a lot of history behind these movements that dates back, uh, you know, well into the into the of emerging movements that were actually trying to formalize a a version of what we would come to recognize now as NAR doctrine with the restoration of apostles and prophets as offices of the of the church. So, that's not something new and I I think that, of course, uh, had a, um, you know, had quite an impact on Pentecostalism as it was an emerging in the, uh, in the early to mid-1900s. And, uh, and this is not the first time that the Assemblies of God has actually confronted this issue of charismatic doctrine leading to the establishment or attempted establishment of, uh, practices that we saw, for example, with the New Order of the Latter Rain. I think what would then separate classical Pentecostalism from from the NAR is is very specifically this this focus, uh, and somewhat of an intense focus on the idea of, um, establishing offices of apostle and prophets to help lead the church through, uh, an end-times eschatology that doesn't typically align with most Pentecostal beliefs about end-times eschatology and, in fact, much of the time conflicts directly with what has been considered classically Assemblies of God doctrine on eschatology. And so, there is a an, um, emphasis or maybe an overemphasis on elevating man and these positions and these offices as we see the end times approaching in a way that that differs significantly from a lot of other Christian movements. And NAR is very distinctively about how these, um, these apostles and prophets who will help establish and lead the end-times church through various different visions of what that could look like. >> Right. Yeah, the idea that they are giving new revelation, new strategies for the church to take dominion of the earth prior to Christ's return, which really would be at odds with what other Christians believe about the end times and particularly the Assemblies of God from what I understand which would hold to the pre-tribulational rapture as as really a core doctrine. Am I right about that? >> Yeah, I would I would say that the pre-tribulation rapture is is probably a a primary viewpoint that is held by most Assemblies of God and affirmed by most Assemblies of God pastors historically. I think that there has been some amount of over time maybe if some slightly different variations of that, but absolutely the doctrine of the rapture itself is is codified into fundamental truths. So, when we start talking about dominionism for example and this idea that that somehow the church must accomplish a seven mountain mandate just using that particular language from the from the NAR. That that would definitely go against what the teaching of the Assemblies of God would would be comfortable with in in its pulpits. >> Right and and new apostolic I wasn't even planning on going into all this, but it's just this is all so relevant and fascinating to me, but new apostolic reformation leaders like Chris Vallotton for example, the prophet at Bethel Church in Redding, the most prominent NAR church today, the most influential probably in the world and and as many know is also under heavy criticism right now and exposure, but Chris Vallotton, the prophet at that church and and many other leaders NAR leaders will really go after the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture and they actually see it the idea that believers will be raptured first prior to the establishment of Christ's kingdom on earth. You know, that just really flies in the face of NAR doctrines and our teachings that that it's under their leadership that Christians will usher in God's kingdom and really establish at least much of it prior to Christ's return. >> Yeah, if Bethel calls their their viewpoints on end times as as victorious eschatology, which we would all agree God wins, right? There's no there's no question about who is ultimately in authority. And when we see the redemptive arc from Genesis to Revelation, we see that there is a, if you will, a train for all of history heading in a specific direction. But the NAR would certainly make it sound as if God is waiting very and maybe even some of the language says he cannot or will not be able to return until we have accomplished certain things given to us to accomplish. I think it was even maybe in in one of Bill Johnson's books where he said something to the effect of God has dreams that may not come true if we do not do our part. And that's just a very unorthodox view of the sovereignty of God without question. And certainly doesn't paint the picture that we see in the scripture where we see a God who who sees beginning from end and calls things into being exactly as and on the exact timelines that that are that are determined. So, with that in mind, I think that NAR definitely has a unorthodox view of the sovereignty of God. And that certainly is is influential in their understanding of end times and and so-called victorious eschatology where the church must conquer all these specific And you know this well from your research, too, Holly. There's a lot of debate on what that means, like how sufficiently do we have to conquer? Which mountains do we sufficiently have to conquer and to which degree? And there is no understanding or consensus from these so-called prophets and apostles on that. But the fact that that that just differentiates or I'm sorry, differs so much from much of orthodox, you know, Christianity, evangelical Christianity that it it it definitely is a seemingly a distinctive of the NAR. >> Yeah, regardless Yeah, regardless of your view of the timing of the rapture, you know, pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, post-trib, um you know, regardless of your view, uh NAR doctrine deviates uh significantly from uh from all of those his you know, historic or or um the those typical understandings of those doctrines. And even even many NAR leaders will claim to be uh postmillennialist, some claim to be amillennialist like Randy Clark, Mike Bickle claims to be premillennialist, >> Mhm. >> but but their understandings of those historic doctrines, premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillennialism deviate significantly from the those doctrines historically and and they put a NAR twist on all of them which you referred to as as victorious eschatology. >> And always requires on some level uh apostles and prophets to lead us there regardless of that particular viewpoint. >> Right. Apostles and prophets are essential to to all of those views, yes. Okay, well, that was a a rabbit trail I wasn't planning on going into, but good. Okay. So, why would you say that Well, would you say I I think Pentecostals are especially susceptible to NAR, Pentecostals and charismatics. >> Yes. >> Although NAR now is you know, it's not limited to Pentecostal and charismatic churches, it's it's entering into all kinds of churches even outside of Pentecostal and charismatic churches now. But would you agree that Pentecostals and charismatics are particularly susceptible to NAR and if so, why? >> Yes, and I think there's a there's at least one obvious, you know, answer to that would be that typically when you have a uh a movement that's that leans in in a cessationist viewpoint, there would already be a rejection of the idea of restoration of uh of gifts or even sign gifts which a lot of the movement of the NAR relies heavily on emphasizing what their view of prophecy is. And so, the idea that the gift of prophecy would be essential if you're going to have prophets and apostles would be something that that maybe a cessationist would not necessarily be so susceptible to, which is I think why so often they'll label their critics as cessationists, whether that's true or not. Which makes it important for people who are who are not cessationists, of course, to be willing to to come into the conversation and say, "Wait a minute. That's That's not necessarily the defining factor here. In fact, it's it's it's it's actually errant doctrines or deviating doctrines that are the primary concern, not whether somebody is is cessationist and and to a degree." And I think also that the NAR knows that that language resonates with with people who are Pentecostal or charismatic. And and there's a lot, I think, of misunderstanding of of maybe the broad range of what is often labeled cessationism is is often misunderstood in Pentecostal and charismatic circles. But the fact that Pentecostals and charismatics affirm the gifts and the NAR makes that central to their theological framework, even if those gifts are are done or expressed in a way that that cannot be found in you know, in the pages of scripture, that is, of course, going to be a draw and an attraction to Pentecostals and charismatics who affirm that those gifts are are still in operation in the church today. >> You told me before that you think you may be somewhat of a paradox within the Assemblies of God. What did you mean by that? >> That's a great question, Holly. People who will be from outside the Assemblies of God will say, "Oh, I I haven't necessarily met somebody who who articulates things the way that that you articulate them." And and I would say probably some of that comes from uh the fact that Stephanie and I when we were before we came back into the Assemblies of God for ministry, we actually stepped outside the Assemblies for a few years working with the Calvary Chapel movement and during that time was in a an amazing elder-led church which is uncommon for both Calvary Chapel and Assemblies of God to have plurality of elder models. But in that there was a great diversity in that leadership team which came from a variety of different backgrounds. Some cessationist, some non-cessationist. And through that process we had to navigate what does the word of God say about all of these things as we're putting together our own doctrinal statements for the membership of of that Calvary Chapel church which as you know Calvary Chapel is definitely part of the charismatic movement. And and so but we had a such a diverse array of viewpoints that we spent a lot of time listening to a diverse set of people within broader Christendom. Some who were really you know active in in missions and global missions which the Assemblies is well-known for. And and then some who were from a reformed framework, some who were from various different backgrounds but all part of that broader Christendom. And and I think in [clears throat] in doing so it just >> [snorts] >> opened up a lot of opportunity perspective. I find that even though I'm careful about which resources I recommend to people in my congregation for example to listen to so that they aren't maybe a lot of in a different direction doctrinally. I found that those were really helpful to me to understand a lot of those perspectives that are out there that are not necessarily from the Assemblies of God stream. And and I think that has been maybe one of the influencing factors of just seeing a broader spectrum and experience than the one I primarily grew up with and knew for the majority of my of my life. >> Earlier you mentioned that you had seen some fallout from NAR related to a a church split. Can you just share briefly about that? >> I Yeah, I sure can, Holly. So, the shorter version of that would be that in the middle to late '80s, the church that I was that I was I grew up in and I now pastor was going through a pastoral transition and during that pastoral transition a new pastor came in and that pastor had I believe really great intentions. I I do not question motive or intention, but really wanted to see a revival happen in our church and in our city. And of course that is the language of the NARs constantly talking about revival. Many of the NAR leaders themselves were seeking supposedly revival when they went and received their impartations or whatever other language that one might use there for revival. And so there was an emphasis on bringing a lot of revival speakers who were coming from a a broad spectrum of charismatic background to the church. And that included at the time a very early version of Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry and and Chris Vallotton bringing students and teams up to the church and attempting to teach people how to prophesy. Something that they were doing in their supernatural school of ministry. But that's just one of many NAR-like ministries that were emerging at the time that were that were coming here. But they were very influential and and over time it caused a lot of division within within the within the local church here and what was a healthy church of probably about 250 to 300 members in the span of just a a few years dwindled down to about 80 members and and just saw some really significant ramifications of straying from what was biblical and classically Pentecostal in doctrine and teaching and really embracing a lot of what I would call these NAR doctrines from some who are now very visible in the NAR leadership including including Bethel Redding. So I watched that really do deep damage to my own home church that I grew up in for so many years. >> Yeah, well, that makes sense why why you have so much personal concern. Now and it's interesting too how you know, they often in NAR they often talk as if embracing the NAR doctrines is going to cause your church to grow and I think that >> Mhm. >> that's why you know, revival and everything will make will increase numbers but it's so many times I've heard stories of churches being taken over by NAR and it was just the opposite. Churches that were once thriving and full of people are now virtually empty. So so not that numbers are you know, validation one way or another. There can also be NAR churches where like Bethel Redding that are extremely popular and have thousands of people too. But it but it's an it's an interesting thing I've observed. How do you see NAR coming into other AG churches? >> That's a great question Holly. I think because as you already mentioned that some of the largest NAR churches, the flagship churches in this movement, some of them have actually come directly out of the Assemblies of God, left the Assemblies of God. So there's one relational connections that continue even when you have a church that that decides to leave a movement. There's decades of relationship that's been established and and at times sometimes at high levels of of leadership. And so you have relational connectivity and I think that continues to carry a significant amount of influence. I think also because these NAR churches are very familiar with Pentecostal doctrine and terminology that that becomes a gateway into accepting NAR teachings and practices into what would be considered, you know, classical Pentecostal churches. I think one of the of the terminologies that's maybe been in my in my perspective most influential is the use of the language of of the fivefold ministry. Which many people don't understand and know that while it's it's perfectly okay to use that as a description for the functions of gifts that we see in churches or as even as a movement, the language itself has very NAR-like roots. And so when you go back to those who were popularizing the term, it was people who were even going back to the 1800s advocating for the restoration of apostles and proph- prophets as offices that were absolutely necessary for the restoration [snorts] of of of events that would lead to the second coming of Christ and the church's role in that. And so while some of these started as really obscure groups that were kind of on the fringe, that language was adopted by uh people who were who were growing in popularity, a lot of healing ministers and others. And we kind of mentioned the New Order of the Latter Rain, mentioned people like William Branham who is just got some awful bizarre teachings, but because was using the language of Pentecostalism and was using similar kinds of of language of fivefold ministry, attracted quite a crowd and let and let a lot of people astray. In fact, you'll hear Bethel today still talk about desiring the mantle of William Branham. But if you go and look at this man's teaching, that raises a lot of questions about why you would desire a mantle of somebody who clearly had some some pretty demonic doctrines that they were >> [snorts] >> uh that they were holding to. >> Yeah. >> And I find that that is uh is one of the primary influencers is is co-opting language in a way that uh that allows these these teachings to begin to um to come into our our churches. I saw this actually in the Facebook group that we started inviting Assemblies of God pastors who were concerned about the NAR. There were a number of people early on that started coming in, and one of their one of their criticisms was trying to advocate for apostles and prophets, even though the Assemblies of God has positional papers that that say we don't we don't recognize those offices. But, because of the term fivefold ministry, they were advocating more it doesn't really matter what the Assemblies says, this is what we believe and and and keying in on that particular language. Which fivefold ministry is is a term that if it weren't being co-opted by the NAR, could be very descriptive of the function of of apostolic ministry, of the work of of God prophetically in and through the body of Christ. But, but it gets co-opted and used in a in a way that that that uh what's the word I'm looking for? It's not cohesive or in alignment with what the Assemblies of God has has determined is is correct doctrine. >> Yeah, a couple things I've I'm really glad you raised there. One is the the fivefold ministry language. Now, you described that just now as being co-opted by NAR. The way I viewed it is as um uh language that came in through the early nights, you know, these movements you're talking about. That early movements that were seeking to restore these offices like of apostle and prophet. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> the latter rain movement used this fivefold ministry language from what I understand, and then through that it came into NAR. And so, what I would say is is that fivefold ministry is is really is this latter rain or NAR terminology that now has become being you know, now it's being used by people who are some people who are not NAR, but I I think the use of that language by people who are not NAR is is now problematic because because it is so historically it was NAR, you know, it came through NAR and it's been used almost exclusively by people who who were part of NAR and now now as someone might want to say, well, you know, we can have a refer to fivefold ministry as just the, you know, gifts of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, not the offices. But and even in our first book, A New Apostolic Reformation, A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement, we we made an allowance, I think in a footnote or something, we said, you know, some people use this term fivefold ministry and we want to be clear that not everybody who uses this term is NAR. But but now I I, you know, I want to stress to people that most of the time when people use this term they are NAR. >> Correct. >> Or at least historically. So, it really is a red flag. I I see, you know, the term fivefold ministry is a flag, at least that somebody needs to really pay attention and dig deeper and be sure that they're not using that terminology in a NAR-like way. Would you agree with that? >> I would agree with that 100% and I think that is the Like I said, I think that's one of the the biggest challenges for for what I see happening within the Assemblies of God is is an affinity for of course the gifts of the Spirit and wanting to to recognize functions um of you know, of the Holy Spirit at work through the body of Christ in ways that are that are that are that are biblical, but when we begin to adopt language that is being propagated or used to mean something very specific, that begins real quickly to open up the door to all kinds of of errant doctrine even unintentionally. It's the same thing when somebody hears the word prophet these days, what, you know, what comes to mind? Well, at this point in time it usually comes up with somebody who's using that title in a way like Kris Vallotton is using that title and it's typically associated with a very NAR-friendly church. And same thing with the office of apostle, people don't normally run around calling one another apostles unless they're directly connected to or have an affinity for the NAR movement. So, we have to be careful the language that we use that it doesn't begin to smuggle in other ideas and beliefs along with it that that were maybe not intended initially by the person using the term, but the people who coined the term absolutely have a different understanding and meaning with that. And so, that's one way that those teachings easily get smuggled into movements like the Assemblies. And that's what I was seeing with pastors coming into [snorts] the you know, to the Facebook group and and even though they would say, "Well, those those position papers aren't aren't binding." And they're looking for reasons to name these as offices even though the Assemblies has put out position papers saying we do not recognize those. But that I believe is absolutely the the influence of of terminology like fivefold ministry where it begins to mean something uh diff- than maybe the person who's using the term thinks it means. >> Right. And and you know, just be clear the smuggling of NAR doctrine into Pentecostal Assemblies of God churches is intentional by NAR leaders. You know, they know that that well, if we say fivefold ministry, you know, people won't well, the Assemblies of God people won't necessarily think that means NAR. And so, we can use that terminology and we mean it in a NAR sense, but that's a way to smuggle in NAR NAR doctrine to unsuspecting churches. Um Uh you know, Doug and I had a had a extended conversation with a a very influential apostle in this movement and he told us that he knew that the term office was now regarded with suspicion if apostles referred to themselves as having an office. So, they were intentionally shifting their language to like saying a function of apostle. But they mean it in the same way. Their meaning, you know, they were they were still teaching it as if it was an authoritative office, but just switching the term office to function to get it past, you know, Assemblies of God people and and people like that. >> Right. >> So, that's something that people need to be very alert for, especially, I would say, in within Pentecostal churches, where where their, you know, NAR leaders are seeking to do this and make inroads. >> Yeah, and this [snorts] is very calculated. Uh when you look at Bethel, uh you know, first year, second year, third year type, um progressive path, uh the idea and the intention is what you're learning here, we want you to take into those environments, wherever those environments might be. You and I actually covered uh a while back, several years ago now, about six years ago, I think it was, there was an Assemblies of God church that was uh that was actually calling its ministry school this uh Bethel Supernatural School of Discipleship. And it was absolutely directly connected to Bethel Redding's School of Supernatural Ministry, even linking directly to uh to pages in within the Bethel school uh to uh to point to its doctrine and its beliefs and and all of those different things. Uh and yet, it was being operated out of a uh an Assemblies of God church and maybe even a network of Assemblies of God churches. I never got the full picture of that, but it seemed like there were several campuses, but one of the main campuses served as the hub for that school. And it it's it's you know, also part of that, so people understand that relational aspect, was it was Kris Vallotton's daughter who was is married to an Assemblies of God pastor, who was who was setting up this school. And they were advertising that as a place for Assemblies of God students to come and actually get their credentialing with the Assemblies of God. So, you can see the intentionality there and what could easily happen when you send your students to uh this school of discipleship that is also granting or or or stating that they will grant Assemblies of God credentials or at least the studies that you need to take those exams and yet your entire influence has come from from Bethel not from the Assemblies of God. >> Okay, let's talk about James River Yeah. church for a second. What's your view of that? Was that a NAR takeover of a of a flagship Assemblies of God church? >> I I think unequivocally yes. That was certainly a NAR takeover and I could recall Holly when I when I saw the advertisements for the week of power and saw that Bill Johnson and Randy Clark were the featured speakers to come to that. I reached out to you right away and said I can't believe this is actually happening and one of our flagship churches. So that was something that had been developing over time. Apparently John Linnell and Bill Johnson have had a had a growing friendship and and relationship there but there was a definitely a drift that was beginning to happen and and I've even talked to a few people who were in that church and who left that church as they saw those things beginning to happen. But yes, I would I would say that definitely was a NAR takeover as evidenced by the fact that James River is no longer affiliated with the Assemblies of God. Just like Bethel, it has left the movement and that was a rather large church, one of our largest churches actually and right there in in Springfield, Missouri. And so that was definitely I think a picture of what can happen as these things begin to take hold or take root inside of our churches. I think one of the one of the concerns I had was that was that John had not only invited these speakers in but there was an incident that has become very well-known now called show me the toes. And there was a uh a massive media push that said, "Hey, this uh there were these toes that were healed a regenerative miracle." Both Bill Johnson and John Lindell proclaimed that from the pulpit directly. Uh and uh and said that there were there were eyewitnesses claimed that they knew that that was true. Uh when questioned about it, even though they utilized that person's testimony to draw more people to the the services and to the you know, to the week of a revival and awakening, they were more than willing to use that testimony as a draw. However, when it became suspected that maybe said such miracle didn't actually happen, there was a circling of the wagons saying that we don't actually want to exploit, you know, this this woman and her testimony. Uh and uh and really there was a a knowledge that that didn't happen. And yet, there was still a doubling down saying it did. And it wasn't until later that actually the full exposure of that came to forefront. In fact, I think Brandon might have even included clips of that in the American Gospel Spirit and Fire series. But, the reality was that there wasn't a miracle that took place. But, the challenge for me in that was that there was a willingness to uh to deceive and and to say things from the pulpit that weren't true in order to protect what was happening during that uh during that time and during that experience. >> Yeah, and people can go, you know, you can still go to showmethetoes.com, a website that someone put up for the purpose of you know, ask asking for evidence. And there's still, you know, that was never that evidence was never put forth. So, um yeah, that's >> Yeah, and there's reasons why the evidence was never put forth. It's because it didn't actually happen. I think the troubling thing to me was that is that one, you know, that those speakers were were uh you know, essentially um allowed and and validated. And then even after the criticism, there was a doubling down on that and and I and I think that there would have been a great opportunity there instead of James River controlling the narrative about why they left the Assemblies of God to have been able to maybe just make a firm statement about how these things are deviating from from our practices and and as opposed to allowing them to just continue to control that narrative as they left. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so I mentioned that the Assemblies of God has put out position against NAR doctrines going way back to we were talking about the Latter Rain movement. This was a revival that started in Canada and spread to the United States and some other places. But this essentially what you had is is NAR doctrine before it was called the New Apostolic Reformation. It was the Latter Rain movement. They were promoting the idea of these apostles and prophets and all of these doctrines. And the Assemblies of God issued a statement condemning this movement. And Nick, it was quickly shut down the Latter Rain movement and it went underground really. And then these teachings started resurfacing as I mentioned before in independent charismatic churches in the 1980s, 1990s, apostles and prophets started coming up in churches. By 2001 >> Mhm. >> so many churches had started embracing apostles and prophets according to C. Peter Wagner that he declared that was the beginning of the second apostolic age. And he's the one for those who don't know who who coined the >> Yes. Coined the term. >> New Apostolic Reformation. So it was a a name that was given by an apostle in this movement. It wasn't put on the movement from outsiders like like you know, the people in NAR now like to claim. But anyways, and so the Assemblies of God quickly condemned those teachings. And then through the years they've issued some other position papers going against NAR teachings. And most recently in August of 2025, I believe both of the a new position paper on apostles and also on prophets, right? Those both came out in August. And um so I was wondering if you could speak to those position papers, maybe talk about the uh the newest papers, and do you think that they go far enough to protect AG churches [music] in your opinion? >> [music] [music] [music]