NAR and the Asbury Revival: Why We Should Be Concerned

 NAR and the Asbury Revival: Why We Should Be Concerned

Written By Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett

What should we make of recent events at Asbury University? Did a genuine revival occur there or not? We’ve heard a lot of opinions and perspectives, but, surprisingly, one thing we haven’t heard much about is the considerable influence from the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) that cropped up at the revival.[1]

We are not saying the Asbury Revival was a NAR revival, from start to finish, because Asbury University is of the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and is not a NAR institution. However, we do suggest that NAR influence at the revival was significant. And this is a cause for concern.

NAR teachings that apostles and prophets must govern the church are extreme. They are not merely historic Pentecostal or charismatic teachings about the miraculous gifts (such as speaking in tongues and prophesying). In NAR, the role of authoritative apostles and prophets in revival is pivotal. There cannot be true or lasting revival without apostles and prophets. So the concerns we share here are specifically about these NAR teachings. Some have falsely accused all NAR critics of being “anti-charismatic.” But we are not anti-charismatic. Rather, we draw attention to what is aberrant in the NAR movement.

Also, we acknowledge that many people who are part of NAR are sincere, genuine believers. But anytime there is NAR influence, there is a danger that people will be drawn into NAR with its unbiblical and harmful teachings and practices.

The NAR influence at Asbury came from participants and some of the revival’s leaders.

NAR Influence

Messages

At least one public presentation given during the revival was filled with NAR doctrine and jargon. This message, delivered during the Collegiate Day of Prayer event—the highly publicized and widely disseminated capstone of the revival—set a NAR tone for that event and the larger revival.

The message was given by Allen Hood, a graduate of Asbury Theological Seminary (which is located across the street from Asbury University and maintains a close relationship with the University). Hood served for more than 15 years on the leadership team of an overtly NAR organization, the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Missouri (IHOPKC).[2] It is noteworthy that IHOPKC/NAR doctrines and themes figured conspicuously in Hood’s message. These include:

Dominionism, which is the teaching that the church, under the leadership of present-day apostles and prophets, should rise up and take dominion of society

A significant role for present-day apostles and prophets, understood as those who govern the church and give authoritative revelations

An expected “billion-soul harvest” (or great end-time revival that will occur under the leadership of end-time apostles, as prophesied by the NAR prophet Bob Jones)

Allusions to NAR teachings about the global church rising up in miraculous power to usher in Christ’s return (for example, references to the church “walking in fullness” and coming to “maturity”—NAR buzzwords)

Not everyone present would have picked up on these NAR doctrines. But they were immediately recognizable to those who know NAR teachings and are familiar with NAR buzzwords.  

“The Collegiate Day of Prayer”

The Collegiate Day of Prayer, a long-planned event, was closely intertwined with the Asbury Revival and became a pivotal part of it.[3] And the Collegiate Day of Prayer exhibited a strong NAR aspect.

Partnering Organizations: The organizations that partnered with the Collegiate Day of Prayer included a curious mix of well-known and mainstream Christian organizations (such as Cru, InterVarsity, and The Navigators) along with NAR organizations (including Jesus Culture, The Call, and Awaken the Dawn). See the list of “partner ministries” here.

Reference to Dutch Sheets’ Book on the Collegiate Day of Prayer Website: On the homepage of the Collegiate Day of Prayer website there is featured prominently a quotation from Dutch Sheets’ book An Appeal to Heaven. This is noteworthy because Sheets, a NAR leader, has been called the “apostle of right-wing Christian nationalism.”[4] And Sheets’ “Appeal to Heaven” movement—which he signifies with a white flag featuring a green pine tree beneath the phrase “Appeal to Heaven”—became very controversial when it was revealed that Appeal to Heaven flags were present at the January 6 United States Capitol Riot. In other words, the flag—which was originally used during the American Revolution—has recently become viewed as a symbol of “Christian Nationalism” and “Christian Dominionism.” And Sheets’ Appeal to Heaven teachings have been seen as one factor fueling the riot.

Lou Engle as Spokesman for the “Collegiate Jesus Fast”: A 40-day fast, called the “Collegiate Jesus Fast,” was held in the lead-up to the Collegiate Day of Prayer. For some reason, the controversial NAR prophet and dominionist Lou Engle was chosen to be spokesman for this fasting initiative. In a video message featured on the Collegiate Day of Prayer website, Engle urges university students across the nation to join the Collegiate Jesus Fast, which he describes as 40 days of fasting and prayer “leading to a new day of an outbreak of evangelism, massive signs and wonders and miracles.” As a result of Engle’s prominent role in the Collegiate Day of Prayer, Christian students throughout the United States were introduced to this polarizing NAR leader.

These decisions to make Lou Engle the official face of the Collegiate Jesus Fast and to include the quotation from Dutch Sheets’ book threaten the efforts by Asbury officials to protect the revival from being “hijacked” by people with competing agendas.

Music

Student-led worship was a central feature of the Asbury Revival. And many of the worship songs chosen by students were from the NAR music label Bethel Music; others were by Hillsong and other NAR-influenced groups. (Some of the student worship leaders wore sweatshirts featuring the IHOPU logo, revealing their ties with that NAR organization.) The use of songs from NAR labels is not surprising given that many churches use them in corporate worship. But NAR theology, emphases, and buzzwords are laced throughout the lyrics of these songs, as we show in chapter 8 of our book Counterfeit Kingdom.

In short, NAR music provided much of the soundtrack for the Asbury revival, endlessly infusing it with NAR lingo and themes coursing through the music. (NAR doctrines and emphases incorporated in NAR music include dominionism, “prayer declarations,” and an unbalanced emphasis on miracles.) Presumably, this music played a significant role in conditioning participants’ expectations, emotions, and experiences of God during the revival.

Institutional Influences

The NAR influences we’ve listed above came mainly from Asbury University students or speakers and partnering organizations. But Asbury Theological Seminary has a statement on its website that invites investigation into the school’s own views about present-day apostles and prophets. It might explain, too, why NAR visitors (see below) expected their descent upon the premises to be welcome.

The statement is found on a page titled “Our Defining Values and Strategic Vision.” Under No. 6, the following stands out: “Only through the full recovery of the five-fold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers can we effectively strengthen and extend the Church of Jesus Christ.” Notice that this statement insinuates that all five ministries, including apostles and prophets, are needed for God’s work to be accomplished. And it speaks of recovering something that apparently has been missing. Those who have studied NAR know that the “five-fold ministry” doctrine historically has been associated with the NAR movement (and the Latter Rain movement, a precursor to NAR). Some will wonder why this controversial doctrine appears to be embedded within the seminary’s “Defining Values and Strategic Vision.” Others will simply take it to be an expression of full-fledged sympathy with NAR teaching.[5]

Now some may say that the seminary’s views are not relevant since it is a separate institution from the university. But there are close connections between the two schools, and multiple seminary faculty have spoken publicly in support of the Asbury Revival. And Timothy Tennent, president of Asbury Theological Seminary, represented the university during an informal debate about the Asbury Revival on the Unbelievable? podcast.

Onsite NAR Participants

In addition to the internal NAR influence at the Asbury Revival, collateral NAR influence came from the many NAR leaders who attended the revival or promoted it from afar.

NAR Leaders: Some influential NAR leaders made the trek to Asbury to take part in the revival. These leaders included “missionary evangelist” Daniel Kolenda (president and CEO of Christ for All Nations) and “apostolic-prophetic voice” Jennifer LeClaire (author and former editor of Charisma magazine). (The discredited NAR leader Todd Bentley also showed up, but it’s been reported that he was required to leave.) Some of these NAR leaders shared live Facebook videos from the revival. Kolenda, for example, described the events at Asbury as “extraordinary” and urged his 935,000 Facebook followers to “jump on board” and “embrace this moment of visitation.”

Emerging NAR Leaders: Following the glowing endorsements from NAR leaders, many of their followers and emerging leaders traveled to Asbury. Testimonies from these NAR participants abound on social media. Videos show some of them taking part in NAR practices at the revival and claiming to receive divine revelation while there. See, for example, this Facebook post where a “missionary-evangelist” shares the “visions” and prophetic revelation he claims to have received while attending the revival. (Note that the type of revelation he claims to have received is not merely the type of revelation many charismatics may claim to receive (such as words of encouragement for an individual or a local church). He claims to have received revelation about how the Asbury Revival relates to a specific NAR doctrine (an “end times harvest”) and he applies that revelation to the global church when he says, “And it’s not just happening with Pentecostals and charismatics. It’s happening to the whole body of Christ! Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and so on.”) Also see this video in which a married couple, Australian “revivalists,” sought to “release impartation” of the revival to their viewers in other cities by making “decrees and declarations” (a type of NAR “prayer”) from the balcony of Hughes Auditorium.

If only a few NAR enthusiasts attended the revival, that would be little cause for concern. But the number of NAR participants present in Hughes Auditorium was considerable. And they brought with them their distinctive NAR theology and practices, adding them to the mix of what occurred at the revival and lending a noticeable NAR flavor.

Offsite NAR Promoters

Bethel Music’s Jenn Johnson: Numerous NAR leaders who did not visit Asbury promoted the revival from afar. One of those leaders was Jenn Johnson, who, with her husband Brian Johnson, co-founded Bethel Music. Jenn Johnson certainly took notice of the many Bethel Music songs used during the main revival events in Hughes Auditorium. And she made a rather strange statement on Facebook. She wrote: “I had a dream last night that Brian and I flew to the Asbury revival to be apart [sic]. I just got their worship team together and prayed over them and asked how we could help and what they needed. I bawled my eyes out as I prayed. I really hope that actually happened in the spirit because that’s exactly what I want to do.”

Johnson’s statement that she hoped “that actually happened in the spirit” will sound odd to many people. But it will make more sense to those who have read chapter 3 of our book Counterfeit Kingdom, where we explain how Bethel leaders promote New-Age type practices, including “spirit travel”—when a person’s body remains in one physical location, but their spirit travels to heaven or to other nations on earth, and can even travel to events in the past or future. This practice appears to be what Jenn Johnson had in mind when she recounted her dream.

 Doubtless Jenn Johnson’s post, mentioning what would surely be a supernatural experience of transport in the spirit, caused many of her social media followers (412,000 on Facebook and 425,000 on Instagram) to detect a divine stamp of approval on the revival. And Johnson exploited the revival to advertise a bizarre NAR doctrine about “spirit travel.”

Other NAR Promoters: Other apostles, prophets, and NAR leaders who took to social media to promote the revival include Lance Wallnau, Kris Vallotton, Shawn Bolz, James Goll, Lou Engle, Dutch Sheets, and Sean Feucht. Many NAR leaders took special interest in this revival because it seemed to them to fulfill a NAR prophecy about the Super Bowl, the Kansas City Chiefs, and a coming revival. In the 1990s, Bob Jones reportedly prophesied that when the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl, God’s “apostolic chiefs” (apostles) would rise up over society and bring about a great end-time revival known in NAR as the “billion-soul harvest.” Many NAR leaders have directly tied the Asbury Revival to this prophecy and the recent Kansas City Chiefs victory (February 12, 2023). They therefore consider this revival to be confirmation of the truth of a NAR prophet’s revelation about the future.

Of course, many non-NAR leaders endorsed the revival as well, and Asbury University is not responsible for who chimes in with support of the revival. But in giving their endorsements, these NAR leaders inspired more of their followers to travel to the revival hot spot, and this further expanded the NAR influence. Indeed, given their large followings, these NAR leaders’ endorsements may have inflated the numbers of visitors in dramatic fashion. Who can say how large the crowd would have been if their followers had stayed home?

A NAR and Non-NAR Mix

So was it genuine revival? Many people, on both sides of the debate, agree that only time will truly tell whether there is lasting fruit of genuine revival. But determining its genuineness is not the purpose of this article. Rather, we’re showing that what recently occurred at Asbury clearly included a mix of NAR influences. (Concerns have also been raised about the participation of “progressive Christians.”)

We wish to highlight a few noteworthy features of the NAR connection with the Asbury Revival.

The participation of NAR agents at Asbury confirms what we have often noted about the NAR movement: the opportunistic impulse of NAR leaders who seek to gain visibility and further their NAR agenda.

 The contrast between a Wesleyan/Holiness model of revival and a NAR approach to revival is dramatic.

Many NAR leaders went to the revival specifically to “catch the fire” of revival and “carry” it back home with them. And now many reports have been made of revival breaking out at other universities and churches. But it is important to realize that NAR has a different paradigm for revival than the Wesleyan-Holiness paradigm. So while NAR leaders have spoken positively about the revival and been diplomatic in their public comments about it in order to build bridges, the unspoken truth is they think the revival at Asbury—though a good start—is subpar in comparison with an apostle-led revival. NAR movement leaders have different expectations when it comes to revival and they have much more ambitious aspirations for revival—they seek to “bring heaven to earth.”

So when NAR leaders seek to bring the revival back to their own churches and ministries, they aim to take it up a notch—or several notches. This can be seen in this video that “apostolic-prophetic” leader Jennifer LeClaire shared about an outbreak of “revival” she and her team experienced on the road, after they left the Asbury Revival. The video, titled “After the Asbury Revival, this Happened!”, shows her team taking part in more typical expressions of NAR revival.

The point is, many people attending the Asbury Revival, operating under a NAR paradigm of revival, were not truly on the same page (despite outward appearances).

 The “big tent” feel of the Asbury Revival provided an entre for NAR leaders and their message. This is seen especially in the pervasive use of Bethel Music throughout and in featuring appearances by Allen Hood and Lou Engle in connection with the Collegiate Day of Prayer.

 Bethel Music was used to flavor the worship and to guide participants’ understanding of what the Holy Spirit was doing during the revival. Bethel Music lyrics provided one of the major message inputs, acting, in effect, as a catechism for revival participants.

Some Final Thoughts

Some of the revival’s defenders have said that most of the leaders at Asbury University do not know what NAR is. Their statements are meant to be reassuring and to show that the revival at Asbury wasn’t influenced by NAR. But there is a tension here. How could they be effective in keeping those with a NAR agenda away if they don’t really know what NAR is?

We anticipate that Asbury officials desire to affirm the classical Wesleyan-Holiness model for revival, and to protect it from agents that would pollute its pedigree. A deep understanding of the NAR alternative, and discernment of NAR incursions into the mix of events at Asbury, would help greatly. NAR leaders who wish to mainstream their teachings and influence the broader Christian community often do insinuate themselves into situations where they feel they have opportunity, and they often make friendly overtures to unsuspecting groups in order to foster goodwill and establish partnerships. Their past successes have encouraged some in their ranks to predict further accommodation to NAR ways of thinking about revival and the work of the Spirit. Greater awareness of this effort and fuller understanding of specific NAR teachings is to be encouraged.

We urge all Christians to become better informed about NAR so that they can spot the signs of NAR influence when they show up, whether at Asbury or anywhere else. Revival is a special point of vulnerability. NAR leaders are apt to exploit occasions when enthusiasm and emotions run high. When people hear respected leaders pronounce quickly, and with great certainty, that a revival is of God, and chide those who ask questions, many will lower their defenses against NAR and other harmful teachings and practices. Christians are hearing: “Just go with it. Don’t question. It’s a God thing.” But believers should never be pressured to feel that critical thinking will somehow inhibit the ability of the Holy Spirit to work in their lives. A true work of the Holy Spirit can sustain biblical and critical scrutiny.

Finally, we believe that during any revival, or awakening, or outpouring by the Spirit, resistance from our enemy, the Devil, is to be expected. Jonathan Edwards, a central figure in the First Great Awakening, wrote extensively about the need to separate the true from the false that may occur side-by-side during revival. Taking his warnings and his advice to heart, we should exercise vigilance in our assessment of recent events at Asbury. And we should not dismiss the threat posed by NAR influence. Alertness to this threat may even help in discerning the good work of the Spirit that has occurred (1 Cor. 11:18-19).

To learn more about NAR, see our book Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church. It includes an entire chapter about NAR counterfeit revival, setting forth 13 clues that show that a song, sermon, or event is promoting NAR revival. It also includes a chapter—titled “Toxic Worship Music”—evaluating NAR music.


Notes

[1] We will speak of “revival” and the “Asbury Revival” throughout this article, since these terms are widely used for what took place at Asbury University during the month of February 2023. Asbury University and Asbury Theological Seminary officials have preferred to use other terms, such as “outpouring” and “awakening.” Revival is often thought of as something that grows, and spreads, and bears fruit over time. An awakening might be short in duration and exhibit more temporary effects. Whatever term is used, NAR was influential, as we seek to demonstrate here.

[2] IHOPKC has a statement on their website downplaying their extreme teachings and claiming they are not part of the New Apostolic Reformation. It is titled “What is IHOPKC's Stance on the New Apostolic Reformation?” Nevertheless, they promote core NAR doctrines. Many NAR organizations, including IHOPKC, deny being part of the New Apostolic Reformation, likely because they do not want to be seen as part of a fringe or aberrant movement that has come under heavy criticism and scrutiny.

[3] Before the Asbury Revival began February 8, 2023, the Collegiate Day of Prayer had already been planned to be hosted at Asbury University—and live-streamed to other college campuses across the nation—on February 23, 2023. The stated purpose of the Collegiate Day of Prayer was to engage in prayer for “revival and awakening on college campuses in America.” With the breakout of revival on the Asbury campus only a couple of weeks before the Collegiate Day of Prayer, the two events blended together and the Collegiate Day of Prayer came to be regarded as the capstone to the Asbury Revival of 2023.

[4] A 2022 document titled “NAR and Christian Nationalism,” drafted by Joseph Mattera and Michael Brown and signed by many NAR leaders (but not Dutch Sheets), denies any affiliation with NAR or “a dangerous and unhealthy form of ‘Christian nationalism.’” Our response to their statement can be read here.

[5] One possibility is that the Asbury Theological Seminary statement does not regard present-day apostles and prophets in the way that NAR leaders do. If that is so, then seminary officials may now be moved to clarify their position with regard to the teaching of NAR leaders. In light of the origin and history of the term “fivefold ministry,” and its customary association with NAR, use of that term risks fostering the impression that the seminary affirms distinctive NAR teachings about the apostolic and the prophetic.

Holly Pivec and Doug Geivett