At long last the second Dr. Brown round table from American Gospel has been released...

::::::::

Click Here

As part of the American Gospel series, movie maker Brandon Kimber conducted a couple of roundtable discussions involving NAR gatekeeper Dr. Michael Brown. Originally, Brown claimed to be interested in allowing these to be part of the latest America Gospel movie but then backed out after many hours of taping and effort by Kimber. The first roundtable was with Jim Osman, Justin Peters and on Brown's side, Sam Storms. This was released several months ago and I did a full review then. The second roundtable was just released and is linked above. This one is with Dr. Brown, Dr. Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec. Let me first stipulate that it was almost three and a half hours long but my review stopped around two hours in. I just felt that the points were made by then. Let me also preface this by saying that it is easy for me or anyone to Monday morning quarterback something like this. I have dealt with Holly and Doug's work in the past and they are sincere in their efforts, I have no doubt. I have also appeared twice on Dr. Brown's radio show and I know how difficult it is to deal with him and the fact that he is very skilled at debating. That said, this second roundtable did not go as well as the first. Brown, in my opinion, did as he wished throughout this discussion. He used a lot of his tired old strategies and even had Holly and Doug declaring that they had never called him NAR. A great deal of the problem is Holly and Doug have a very limited view of the NAR, focusing only on the false apostleship paradigm that C. Peter Wagner started decades ago. The NAR has morphed since then however and the version we see today relegates apostleship to a very minor rung on their ladder. So let us reason once more together through the above linked video.

Let's start at the 2:20 mark. Brown starts laying down his strategy for this session. He starts with one of his favorite talking points, which is that there is no such thing as the NAR. He claims that if only the point being made was that there were groups of unrelated people who believe in apostles and prophets there are concerns about what they teach, then Brown would say amen. He wants it broken down to sub arguments because it is easier to deflect that way. He offers that the Internet is one of the evilest things today. He thinks this of course because it is what holds him accountable. It is what holds the NAR accountable. At 2:37 Brown says the NAR is a boogeyman that doesn't exist. He tries to bifurcate concerns from the actual movement. So, in typical Brown fashion, the NAR concerns he acknowledges but refuses to call it NAR. Whatever. It is such an in the weeds argument that should have been shut down but because it was not, he keeps bringing it up. Unfortunately, this would lead to more deception from Brown throughout this session. Holly and Doug were trying so hard to seem reasonable, that specious arguments such as this were allowed to muddy the entire session, which was the goal of Dr. Michael Brown.

At the five-minute mark, Brown tries some good old-fashioned guilt. He tries to make the argument he is only concerned that some might not be willing to hear him on his bible study or Israel teachings because of their NAR concerns. Now, it is true that Brown was once known for his Jewish outreach and for being a bible answer man but recently he has abandoned the "askdrbrown" stuff because he believes fighting the NAR culture wars are far more important. He is now known as a pro-Trump, dominionist gatekeeper of all false NAR teachings. He just hates being called on it. At the 5:40 mark, Brown lists those that label him NAR, which is quite an impressive list. Holly and Doug unfortunately never address how so many people could be so wrong. He also said he didn't know who 828 ministries was but he knows darn well because I have been on his radio program twice. He then tries some misdirection by saying that the charge against him is that he is friends with people who are viewed as NAR leaders - wrong! Some he claims to be close friends but the issue is that he defends them all and gives them cover. He says the other charge people level against him is he didn't call certain things out. But he says it is more broad guilt by association because he is known as a Pentecostal, Charismatic leader. Wrong again. The issue is he pretends to be such a leader but then maligns any criticism of him. Michael Brown has created a perfectly insulated bubble for himself. He openly claims that he welcomes any "constructive" criticism but openly dismisses all real criticism out hand by calling the critics unloving or accuses them of using "unequal weights." Again, whatever.

It is at the 7:30 mark that we run into real trouble. Doug says that he and Holly have not accused Brown of being NAR. This leaves the impression that Brown is right in criticizing all of those discernment ministries and that he really isn't NAR. This is a very poor foundation for this debate and Brown wields it as a weapon throughout the rest of the session. Breaking it down, Brown says that all the discernment ministries that accuse him of being NAR are wrong and suspect and the response from the other side is now officially, well, we haven't said you are NAR. The problem of course is that Brown is NAR and that is the point. That point was conceded just seven minutes into the debate.

At the nine-minute mark, Holly lists people that still use and own the NAR term, destroying Brown's talking point that the NAR does not exist. Brown actually had the nerve to say that she proved his point because it is only a small group of select people that will use this terminology but the rest around the world are fairly unfamiliar with the term which is proven by personal anecdote. Yes, you read that right. One of the favorite talking points Brown uses is that he knows someone, or has talked to someone and that somehow magically debunks what they have actually taught or done. He claims that he has talked to leader after leader that are supposedly the NAR and one of their first questions is what is the NAR. Anecdotes are not proof. Wolves do not say, hey I am a wolf. I might add that while some false teachers have historically supported the notion of NAR, it is not like a denomination. It is a collective of false teachings and beliefs. Espousing those beliefs and teachings is what makes you NAR, not admitting that you are or are not. These are common Brown tactics. First of all, Holly did not list a small list. It was a devastating list including many of Brown's pals, including Joseph Mattera, who he coauthored a declaration pretending the NAR didn't exist! Secondly, he always plays the "we don't know" card and uses third hand anecdotal exchanges that cannot be verified. Unless you are under a rock in the charismatic movement, you know what the NAR is. Thirdly, he acts surprised that no one would openly admit to him that they are NAR. Of course, they wouldn't! Ask Che Ahn if he believes in the office of apostle. Ask Lance Wallnau if he believes in the seven mountains theology. It is what they teach, not what they admit to.

The next disturbing exchange is at 15:50. Doug says they only refer to people as NAR who self-identify as such. I cannot express how that is really wrong. Discernment does not require admission. False teachers do not walk into a church with a "I'm a wolf" sign around their neck. We are to test everything and hold to the good, marking and avoiding that which is false. At the 19-minute mark we see Brown wield anecdotes again regarding whether Mark Chironna is NAR by saying the proof that Chironna is not NAR is that he asked him. We need to stop this kind of stuff. It does not matter that a wolf swears he is not a wolf. Mark Chironna is a wolf. Just do a simple google search. Moving on, at the 23-minute mark they discuss the Passion Translation but Holly and Doug avoid saying that it is not actually a translation. It is a dangerous tool used by many false teachers. The pushback however on using the Passion, was met with typical Brown distortions, claiming 98% people globally would never use the Passion. His goal is to continue to diminish the other side to make it seem like hyperbole. He is very good at it. I seriously doubt that only 2% of people he supports use the Passion as most false teachers love it. At the 28-minute mark Brown defends IHOP (this is before Bicklegate) by saying IHOP says they are not NAR. This pattern continued in this debate because it was allowed to. It is IRRELEVANT what Mike Bickle thought about the NAR. The only thing that matters is if his teaching supported NAR and it did. Brown glossed over Bickle saying IHOP doesn't teach dominionism? I beg to differ greatly. Dominionism was part of the core of that cult. Just ask the people who managed to escape. So, Brown's continued reference to NAR teachers finding the NAR "unrecognizable"; is not proof.

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.

At 1:27 Brown again returns to asking to eliminate using the term NAR. He again says that on the ground the term is destructive because of the broad brushing. Again, absolute rubbish. He adds that he works with some of the people they quote and they are not NAR. This is getting tiring. They never call him on it. Make him name some of the folks that he thinks are good solid teachers and let's adjudicate the matter. Mark Chironna? Bill Johnson? Jeremiah Johnson? Please. He next defends Daniel Kolenda, former student of his, as someone who loves Jesus and does great evangelistic work around the world. Kolenda in reality is as false as they come, associated with Empowered 21, Hillsong Channel, FIRE School of Ministry, and the Brownsville and Toronto demonic outpourings. This is just off the top of my head. This was never challenged.

At 1:45 Brown says this issue with prophets being fallible is not germane just to NAR but across the charismatic movement. That is true. I would not qualify someone as NAR simply because they falsely believe you can be a prophet and be wrong 35% of the time. I would call that person a false prophet period. If they are prophesying about politics however, that might lead me to assign the NAR label. Next Holly references Kris Vallotton giving a word for the body as a result of the absurd week of Bethel's school of the prophets but they never address the lunacy of making people pay thousands of dollars to learn what should only be given by the Holy Spirit. Time after time, there were ways to catch Brown and what he supports. Kris Vallotton should be low hanging fruit.

The final bit I wish to cite is at the 1:53 mark. Brown recalls that Che Ahn decreed COVID to stop and it didn't. He then says he did not air it so as to not make a mockery of it? Isn't the mockery Che lying about what God said? How many people went back to church early because stupid pastors claimed God said it was ok and then they died? There will be a lot to answer from for COVID for many pastors, John MacArthur at the top of the list by the way, so it is not just Charismaniacs. Back to Che however as unfortunately, Holly and Doug miss another golden opportunity to ask Brown why he would even vaguely support someone who lied about God telling them COVID was going to end, as well as the probable loss of life resulting from it.

It was at this point that I decided the point had been made. Dr. Brown had made so many specious arguments that were no sufficiently challenged. He is very good at what he does beloved. No doubt, Holly and Doug were trying extra hard to be courteous, as was Brown. The difference is that Brown uses courtesy to disarm those that would rightly criticize him. He constantly argued that we should toss aside the collective term NAR and just focus on the individual false teachings. He does this to allow compartmentalizing them to allow them to continue being false teachers. Even if some cross absurd and illegal lines like Ravi Zacharias or Mike Bickle, Brown still defends the teachings. Does Brown directly teach NAR doctrine? Not really except for dominionism. The real threat of course is that Brown platforms and defends everything Charismania and NAR and as such is a powerful gatekeeper. He has defended the Jennifer LeClaire's sneaky squid spirit nonsense. He has appeared for a week on Benny Hinn's program and still provides cover for him. He has called Bill Johnson and Joseph Prince good brothers in the Lord directly to me when I was on his radio program. In this two hour review he has defended Che Ahn, Bill Johnson, Joseph Mattera, Mark Chironna, IHOP and Jeremiah Johnson. Again, easy for me to Monday morning quarterback and I have immense sympathy for Doug and Holly as I know how slippery Brown can be but this was just a huge opportunity missed.

Reverend Anthony Wade - July 16, 2024

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.