It was Philip Powell who made the observation that the rise of scandals in Christianity was due to the Charismatic phenomena pertaining to the NAR cult promoting their totalitarian, apostolic regime on Christ’s church.
C. Peter Wagner had been writing and documenting about the rise of the ‘New Order of the Latter Rain’ offspring. He called it the New Apostolic Reformation and helped lead the direction of this anti-Christian movement. He was specifically single-minded about old wineskins (old/pastoral/traditional/doctrinal/denominational/law abiding churches) being replaced with New Wineskins (new/Apostolic driven/innovative/forward thinking/vision casting churches).
In essence, Wagner encouraged Christian churches to reject the biblical model of Christian leadership, accountability and ecclesia and promoted that his idea of the ‘true church’ (new wineskin) be led by the restored end-times NARpostles. However, with the re-invention of the church, Wagner was ignorant as to who his Apostles were to be accountable to.
This explains why false teaching runs rampant in the NAR. (Research Brian Houston, David Yonggi Cho, Phil Pringle, Kong Hee, Sunday Adelaja.)
The following excerpt is from Wagner’s book ‘Churchquake’:
WHAT ABOUT APOSTOLIC ACCOUNTABILITY?
The question of how apostles are accountable is even more sensitive than the issue of the accountability of new apostolic pastors. We dwelt on pastoral accountability at the end of the last chapter, and apostolic accountability must be discussed before this chapter comes to a close.
I wish I had a more definitive word. For local church pastors who are in apostolic networks, the accountability structure is relatively simple. They are accountable to their apostles. To whom are the apostles accountable? In my association with some of the top leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation, I frequently raise the question of accountability, and I must say I have not received consistently clear answers. One thing, however, is clearly consistent: apostolic leaders, virtually without exception, recognize that they need genuine accountability. Most of them also recognize that whatever accountability structure they are using, if any, does not meet the standards of strictness they ultimately desire.
Some have formed apostolic teams or apostolic councils within their networks, with whom they work closely. This provides a certain level of accountability, but to a point. It is still essentially the relationship of a leader to subordinates, just as is the pastor’s role with the local church elders.
Barney Coombs, in his fine book Apostles Today, does talk briefly about the problem. He says that apostles are accountable in three directions: (1) They are accountable to God; (2) They are accountable to peers; and (3) They are accountable to the local church that originally sent them out. In my opinion, the peer-level accountability is the one level on which the future integrity of the New Apostolic Reformation will undoubtedly stand or fall.
David Cannisttaci analyzes this in some detail:
What we observe in the New Testament is this principle of mutual accountability wherein the “generals” become accountable to one another. This principle mandates that people become accountable to their top-level peers as well as to their ultimate head. It creates an effective relational network whereby authorities (especially in positions of headship) maintain openness, communication and teachability with one another. Within this arrangement, submission to one another is practiced and abuses are avoided.
As we will see in the next chapter, some apostolic networks are being formed by bringing together a number of already recognized apostles under the leadership of an overseeing apostle. This is a step in the right direction, because the apostles who decide to join such a network have thereby placed themselves under the authority of the overseeing apostle and have accepted the accompanying accountability. The question remains: To whom is the overseeing apostle accountable?
Fortunately, several dynamics are now under way that are providing opportunities for apostles to relate creatively and in depth to their peers who lead other apostolic networks. To the degree that friendship and trust can develop from this process, there is realistic hope that many apostles will voluntarily and publicly submit themselves to an accountability structure of legitimate apostolic peers. On this one, the jury is still out.
Source: C. Peter Wagner, Churchquake, Publisher: Regal Books, (Ventura, California, USA: 1999), pg. 122-123.