[OBW]

I understand the general meaning of the word that we translate "apostle." And there is some evidence that there were many who laid claim to being an apostle because there was reference made to those who call themselves apostles, yet no clear definition of what they considered the criteria unless we assume that the "have seen Jesus" was an implied requirement.

But the most important thing that I see is that there were some who were designated as apostles and that is not something that can be clearly repeated. This is not to say that there is no such thing as an apostle in a general sense. But to declare that you are an apostle seems a little like claiming to be an oracle. Not entirely so, because while God spoke clearly to say there are no oracles other than those he has declared to be so, he has made no clear statement on apostles. But he did designate some, and then it would appear that some others designated themselves.

I'm more prone to accept that in this day and age, there is not something called an apostle that stands in the way that Peter, John, James, Paul, and a few others did in that day. For that reason, the alternate term of "missionary" is highly preferred because to me it places bounds on the calling and commission of the "sent one." To say "apostle" seems to presume broad power and authority that there is no evidence actually exists. And it seems to be used almost exclusively in the context of leaders of small groups who have an exalted and authoritarian leader — like Lee. And used by the person claiming the authority (even if a back-door claim — like Lee).