At 31 minutes we begin to see what part of the problem is with the approach Holly and Doug took. Holly defines the NAR but only the apostolic side. No mention of dominionism which is now the core theology. For most NAR preachers, politics is far more important than the apostleship aspects. The false apostle paradigm was central to the founder of the NAR, C. Peter Wagner but that has evolved over the decades. What this did is allow Brown to pigeon hole the disagreement into only the apostolic realm and largely let him off the hook for what the true NAR is today. Between 34-38 minutes there is an exchange where Holly rattles off an exhaustive list of absurd quotes about apostles commissioning angels and Brown again tries to claim it is only a handful of folks and tries to give cover to his buddy Mattera, who is neck deep in the false apostle paradigm. Holly quotes Mattera saying there are only a few true apostles in the world but Brown asks if he can push back but again, he offers only the fact that he has worked side by side with the heretics as a defense that they are not. This remains irrelevant!
At the 41-minute mark, Brown abuses Proverbs 6 to infer that Holly and Doug are sowing division among brothers. It is because they did not take a hard stance on false versus true, they are left to accept this abuse of scripture. You cannot start this by saying well we haven't labeled everyone NAR or that it is solely those who insist on false authority of apostles because you wedge yourself into that position and Brown will manipulate it so well. Next, Brown says he is a weekly witness to the mischaracterization of this one is a NAR leader and that one. He makes the ridiculous claim that because Holly read a series of quotes that she is saying they are all guilty of all the quotes and it ends up being divisive. The correct response would have been to point out that Romans expressly teaches division is brought into the body through false teaching as well as to point out the sheer lunacy of the assertion that Holly suggested they all were guilty of all the quotes.
At 47:55 Brown says this is how they are missing the point - that they are operating as outsiders who put the worst interpretation on quotes. Holly and Doug should have returned to the quotes on how apostles commission angels and ask him how any interpretation would result in anything other than these quotes being heretical garbage. Brown is allowed in this discussion to continually use the "well I know what they really meant" defense by making the accusation that simply reading what they have said is somehow insufficient. At 48:48 Brown ends up looking sincere when saying he has not been given equal time. Doug keeps saying well one more thing and when he does, he validates Brown's complaint. It is ironic because this is what Brown does to every guest on his radio show. Emboldened, at 49:17 Brown accuses Doug of being defensive and not allowing interaction. While the charge is laughable because of how Brown debates, he ends up looking right here. At 49:40 Brown actually says - "you should be saying oh Michael, you know these guys tell us where we are missing out as opposed to saying that's not fair you've had more time." This is too far gone at this point if Brown feels comfortable enough to make such a silly statement. Brown is the one that whined about equal time! Furthermore, this is not about the fact that he knows heretics. It is about the fact that they are heretics. Now he has them on their heels defending their integrity because he knows full well, he lost the substance argument ten minutes ago.
At 52 minutes Dr. Brown says that he believes in the restoration of apostles. He needed though, to be challenged on who decided self-claimed apostles were in fact apostles. He tries to muddy the waters and say that oh some just believe in a different organizational construct. No! They are saying that God is naming apostles again and oops, I'm one of them. He is constantly defending Mattera because they are friends but c'mon. Mattera leads an international coalition of apostles! A few minutes later, Brown accuses Holly and Doug of painting with a broad brush. This broad-brush narrative is nonsense but he is allowed to constantly offer it up. If I directly quote heretics spouting heresy how in the world is that a broad brush? Part of the problem again is they put themselves in a box with a very narrow definition of NAR and allowing Brown to pretend they and everyone else thinks the NAR is like an official movement with quarterly meetings and local offices. It is not. It is a collective of flawed theology with apostleship, false authority, fake signs and lying wonders and dominionism at the heart. At the 56-minute mark Brown tries to set up a strawman argument by saying if you define the NAR as believing churches must be submitted to apostles, and I tell you someone says they do not believe that then by definition they are not NAR. Bzzt. No, thanks for playing. I know a whole swath of teachers that could care less about the apostleship portion of NAR. Mario Murillo, Greg Locke, and even Bill Johnson do not actively push apostleship but they are clearly NAR. Brown is winning a lot of these points because he has compartmentalized their opening statement and simply using second hand, "I've asked them" nonsense to dismiss it out of hand. It seems Doug and Holly are locked into their churches being under apostles point and so much gets lost in Brown's weeds. Is the problem with Che Ahn that he believes in apostleship? Not really. On apostles we would be better arguing the fact that they have self-declared and the silly false authority claims with angels and such then bantering over how churches ought to be governed. Brown wants this fight in the middle of these weeds because he wins here.
At 59 minutes Doug finally calls Dr. Brown on claiming to not know what Bethel's stance is on apostleship. This is an old tactic of Brown's, to feign ignorance about things he knows damn well. One minute later Holly again reels off devastating quotes on apostleship from Bethel leaders and Brown says by all means investigate but when you lump in Mattera and his apostle fellowship or Mark Chironna they end up being labeled all guilty of the whole. Another specious argument. Mark Chironna is responsible for what Mark Chironna says, same for Mattera. Brown knows this. He says, scrap the NAR thing let's deal with what the individuals teach. No Michael. NAR is a term that your industry created, not the critics. Essentially, Brown is saying to not make the obvious connections on false doctrine. Why? We do that for prosperity gospel preachers. Word faith teachers are collectively dealt with. Fake healers. It makes it far easier for people to properly discern. Brown just does not like his friends being called out, as we can tell since he refuses to call any of them out. This is his strategy. To sound reasonable by whittling everything down to disparate issues. So instead of Bill Johnson being a NAR leader who must be avoided, you just give a little here and there, say yeah, I don't agree with that one point or this and he is still allowed to continue leading people to hell.
At 1:07 Dr. Brown says that in one of his books he tells people the signs of bad leadership and tells them to run if they see them in their church. This is another common defense Brown employs. This is the basis for his latest diversion, the silly unequal weights argument, that he is somehow better because he challenges false teaching on his own side. The problem is that he may call out teaching but rarely calls out teachers. Again, writing about the evils of hyper grace while calling Joseph Prince a good brother in the Lord renders the book meaningless. A minute later Brown says the reason he pushes back is people are grouped together and held for the same things, which he claims are not true. Except it is true. It's just that he disagrees with the definitions.
Another absurdity at 1:16 - Brown tries to downplay his involvement in Mattera's Council of Apostles even saying he never read the statement of faith? Holly points out that he is actually a council member, cold stone busting his lie, and he actually says, "am I council member?" C'mon. They all laugh but this is not a funny moment. Brown is allowed to folksy charm his way out of any serious discussion throughout this debate. This moment should have been a moment to fully expose his duplicity. How in the world does someone not even know they are listed as a council member? It does not pass the smell test. At 1:21 he again pleads to separate out false teaching from the term NAR and it is starting to look like a clear pattern or gameplan. You must understand that the primary criticism against Brown is NOT that he teaches NAR principles, although he now is doubling down on dominionism, but rather that he allows, platforms and makes excuses for those that do. So, if he can get people to stop using the term NAR then he escapes a lot of the criticism because he is really good at deflection. Without the term NAR for example one could point out false teaching from so and so and Brown could just say, oh yeah, if that's true I disagree and walk away still endorsing and supporting the false teacher. A minute later he asks what would be wrong with dropping the NAR language and focusing on the individuals and their teaching. This tired argument is allowed to be repeated because it is never properly dismissed. Without the organizational principle of what the NAR focuses on it just becomes semantics about a bad teaching here or there.
At 1:23 Brown discusses Jeremiah Johnson and how he "repented deeply" and "shut down aspects of his ministry" over his false Trump prophecies as a "public act of contrition." Yeah, that is not what JJ did. Brown continues that he wondered what made him a NAR prophet as it seemed again there was that broad brush. This is again derived from the problem of narrowly defining NAR and not including dominionism, which is now the core feature. Jeremiah quit the false prophesy side of his con because he was wrong on the Trump prophecy! That is why he is NAR. He immediately opened a new flock-fleecing career however so save me the repentance nonsense. Yet none of this is even challenged. I understand the need to seem genial and have productive conversations but Brown got practically everything he wanted from this discussion and was not called out on most of his egregious talking points, including the absolutely indefensible, Jeremiah Johnson. The next huge problem comes when Brown continues to claim that he sees on the ground that the term NAR does damage to good people, hurts people and gives fuel to the hyper-critics. Doug's response validates Brown's assertion about hyper critics! You have got to be kidding me! This assertion by Brown is nonsense and should have been called out as such.
