"Let me also use this article to call on you, Holly and professor Geivett, to distance yourselves from the hyper-critics, since you say that you, too, are "saddened" by some of their rhetoric. Let's start with the categorical statements by Wretched Radio that, "The world's fastest growing sect of Christianity is not Christian at all." And, "The New Apostolic Reformation worships God drunk in the spirit and they teach scant amounts of truth." Will you state clearly that those are not your sentiments?" -- Dr. Michael Brown
This is exactly what I was just talking about. One part of Brown's strategy was to divide and conquer. So he creates this dichotomy that does not really exist between legitimate discernment ministries and extremists. Are their wingnuts on every side of every debate? Of course but you do not use them to smear all that disagree. Then Brown gets cute. Wretched Radio is hardly an extremist ministry. Brown does not like them because they routinely call out errors in Charismania. Do not lose sight of the fact that this "categorical statement" came from a video he found on their website store regarding being drunk in the spirit, a manifestation that Heidi Baker embraces fully. So without apologies, these statements are true. The NAR theologies are the fastest growing sect of Christianity in this country and around the world and there is nothing Christian about them at all. Guys do not take this bait. A little leaven leavens the entire lump. Brown still believes that sincerity trumps doctrine. He is wrong.
"Also, since I was never listed in your research, and since I do not affirm what you present as the core tenets of NAR--in other words, based on your definition, I'm not part of NAR--will you distance yourself from websites like this and this and this which list me as a "NAR apostle"? And will you state clearly that you do not believe that the Jesus of NAR "is not the Jesus"--in other words, that the alleged leaders of NAR are not believers at all and are preaching a false gospel? This is some of the rhetoric that concerns me." -- Dr. Michael Brown
The three sites he had linked to were Pulpit and Pen, Church Watch Central and Pirate Christian Radio. These are three of best discernment ministries today. I have dealt personally with Jordan Hall (P and P)and Chris Rosebrough (Pirate Christian) and while we may not see eye to eye on every single topic, they are brothers in Christ trying to do the will of the Lord. My opinion of them is not enough however. Go see for yourself on their websites and see the painstaking detail they go to when they present what is false. Now, we can differ on whether Brown is an "apostle" of the NAR. I would probably say that could be a bridge too far but I understand how they come to those conclusions. To me Brown is a gatekeeper for the NAR and everything that is false in Charismania. He may speak correctly against theologies of the NAR and Charismania but those are hollow, empty words since he refuses to call anyone out for teaching them. As for the "rhetoric" of another Jesus -- Michael can take it up with God:
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. -- 2Corinthians 11:4 (ESV)
"But I ask you to do this for your sake, not mine. When critics wrongly attack me, it only encourages me to keep honoring the Lord and His Word. But I would hate for you and professor Geivett to be grouped together with them, and to the extent I was guilty of implying in that in my article, I certainly apologize. Again, if you look at the wording, I think you'll see that was never my intent. So, let's continue this conversation on the air as brothers and sisters in the Lord, and let's bring clarity to God's people as best as we can. Do we have a deal?" -- Dr. Michael Brown
Finally, the martyr card. Above all else, Dr. Brown wants to sound reasonable. Maybe deep down he truly desires to be reasonable. This open challenge to you was really not though. He misrepresented quite a bit. I am not saying you cannot handle your own against him just be prepared for what goals you want from the exchange. There is enough on the record, in his books from Che Ahn that you do not need to discuss any anecdotes. Why does Brown denounce Lakeland yet support Bill Johnson who prayed over Bentley that night and oversaw his "restoration." How does he justify silliness like sneaky squid spirits? Why does he continue to hedge his bets about the mere existence of the NAR when his good friend Joseph Materra is now in charge of it! How does he defend the teachings of Joseph Prince, Bill Johnson, Benny Hinn, Jennifer Leclaire and countless other absolute charlatans? Is there anyone in the mind of Dr. Michael Brown worthy of the title of wolf?
Thanks for listening.
Rev. Anthony
