Well I have done a little reading on this subject after I posted my thoughts
on this a while back.
Bear with me because I am just thinking this thru.
The first thing that pops to mind is the various fads that christianity has
gone thru in the last 40 years, mainly in the US amongst the charismatic
folk, like me.

I recall about 20 years ago everyone who had any word of knowledge, dream or
intuition was called a prophet. I guess the next step was the desire to be
an apostle. I certainly have nothing against wanting a deeper and more
vibrant relationship with Christ but that would also be embracing humility,
not power by ruler ship.

A major definition of apostleship is to have seen Christ with Paul being
somewhat of a slight exception. There were 12 apostles which represented the
12 tribes and the bible was completed thru their writings and ended when
they had passed. Otherwise it would have kept on being added to. So that
seems to be the foundation that God used. Though God's word continues to
live thru his people, we are therefore his living letters or epistles, not
apostles.

I see in some dictionary definitions that there were some additional saints
who were also given the title of apostle. That is those who set out to
evangelize great unknown territories, truely brave men. I am not saying that
this is necessarily an accurate definition but they certainly would have to
be all out Christians to have risked there lives like that.

So it is hard for me to imagine many of those today who call themselves
apostles because of the luxuriant life styles they live. The bibles
description of Paul being the most well documented example of one who
endured tremendous hardships and peril because of his zeal and calling for
Christ as an apostle. There is just no comparison to what I see today except
for those who truely endure such hardships, and that is not in the US. One
example I can think of is Richard Wurmbrandt, the founder of Martyrs for
Christ. He endured 14 years of torture in Romanian communist prison because
of his fearless stance for Christ in a Communist country. Yet he refused the
title of apostle because he truly was a Christlike man.

I have no problem with wanting to break thru dead traditions that hold
christians to a powerless walk. THere is nothing wrong with wanting a deeper
more 'real and tangible walk with christ". I do see that in many of these
groups who have also embraced this new christianese languages and additional
teachings. So I am not quite able seperate the wheat from the tares. I guess
I just see some real difficulties ahead, some need for great humility. Going
deeper with Christ with humility, not clinging to puffed up titles.

To be fearless and to realy call it the way it is despite opposition is what
a prophet is called to and so it seems that voice needs to come with backed
up authority to bring the discipline that Paul warned of, if you know what I
mean.