Is New Apostolic Reformation a misnomer?

A fantastic discussion regarding "taking our cities for Christ" and the apostolic movement (of the American and Australian flavors) is circulating in post-charismatic blogdom. I think this is a really important discussion. And it relates to my thoughts in the previous post on Power vs. Authority.

I believe the New Apostolic Reformation is a misnomer since it is based upon and embraces old wineskin culture, institutional hierarchy and other worldly perceptions of power (even if the intention is to utilize power to tranform localities in a positive way). I personally never attended a charismatic church that preached "taking our cities for Christ" but I assume this tagline is from Ted Haggard's book title back in the mid 90's. Having gone through a detox process not just from charismatic culture, but also from a lot of ungodly aspects of American culture (which is probably ongoing), I think I prefer "releasing the kingdom of heaven on earth" to "taking our cities for Christ".

The true church (a people) is completely submitted to the rulership and kingdom of the King of Kings. Therefore, they are not in a position to "take" anything, but rather to be agents that release the kingdom, which brings peace, reconciliation and healing. Without this full submission to the King (and the death to ourselves and our own kingdoms that it requires), we only perpetuate our cultural (and Constantinian) understanding of the church's relationship and expression of power. With this paradigm, we desire political leaders to come to us, we desire that our little church fiefdoms would expand to include the entire city, all in the name of "apostolic" leadership. Sigh. I think this is an expression of the colonial mindset in America and Australia. There is a foundation of colonialism which is deeply ingrained both on the psyche and culture of these nations.

Anyway, I do believe there is an authentic reformation underway. And I do believe that it includes a recognition of the functions of apostolic leadership. I personally feel that the missional movement in the UK, Australia and now here in America is coming into some of that. (And many other places as well, but since I only speak English, my exposure is limited). "Apostle" just means 'sent one' and it always has an external, expansional, and missional focus. The missional movement has rightly reminded us to take responsibility for the spiritual health of our neighborhoods and cities. This relationally-based movement calls us to stewardship of our communities. And rightly so. This outward, 'sent' focus makes this movement inherently apostolic. It also has born much reproach from the mainstream religious system - another mark of the apostolic (despised, without honor, slandered, scum of the earth, foolish, weak, etc 1 Cor 4:7-13). The missional movement (with its apostolic tendencies) seeks to undergird our communities, to serve them, to go lower so that we can push others up in love. That's the difference between the real apostolic and the false (IMHO). The false apostolic sees its function in terms of rulership and being an authority on everything, true apostolically-minded people see themselves as releasers and empowerers of others into their God-given gifts and functions (as servants ensuring the church reaches her potential).

I don't want to "take" my city for Christ. I want to be an agent that releases the kingdom of God in my locality and see HIS rulership expand, rather than man's (even if they are fellow believers who believe themselves to be apostles).