At 11:23 Brown says, “The reason I denied the other part is because the other part is simply non exists” (sic). He stumbles over his words here. (Smart guy. I probably do the same thing.) It’s a big vague as to which part is ‘the other part.’)

His problem seems to be with lumping everyone who believes in ‘apostle’ as a contemporary ministry with the whole NAR network, doctrine, dominion theology, etc. It’s a fair point. NAR is a lousy term for it. Calling IHOP NAR, Brown NAR, Wagner’s post-mill or kingdom now followers ‘NAR’– it’s not all the same philosophy, strategy, or beliefs about apostles.

I believe the Lord may appoint and send individuals as apostles who minister in ground-breaking evangelism which results in new churches being born. This would be along the lines of Watchman Nee’s idea of apostleship, and also the Assembly of God’s position paper, though I do not insist that we only speak of ‘apostolic function’ without using the word ‘apostle’ to describe such folks.

Are churches in China that were in Nee’s movement, churches in the US, whether Witness Lee’s Local Church Movement or other churches that aren’t a part of that part of the NAR? Is the Assemblies of God part of the NAR? If you are premil can you rightly be considered ‘NAR’?

Wagner’s might have considered it part of the ‘New Apostolic Reformation’. I recall reading that he had researched that some churches in China had certain ministers they considered to be apostles. I wonder if any of those an idea of apostleship strongly rooted in scripture as Watchman Nee’s was, as opposed to an apostle just being the big anointed leader who is going to lead many people into the great predicted future that is just over the horizon.