"Modern apostles"

Is belief in modern apostles a fringe position within the charismatic movement, or a mainstream position? In his debate with Waldron, Michael Brown affirmed the continuance of lower-case apostles–although he didn't define what he meant by that. From what I can tell, Brown is a representative voice in contemporary charismatic circles, although no one man speaks for such a huge movement. But how does his position compare with other academically-inclined charismatics?

Sam Storms defends modern apostles:

http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/are-apostles-for-today

Jon Ruthven defends modern apostles in Appendix II of the second edition of his monograph On the Cessation of the Charismata.

And Craig Keener defends modern apostles in Gift and Giver, 128ff. 

This, of course, raises some issues. Even if charismatics can stem the charge that modern apostles entail an open canon, you still have the question of apostolic authority. Do charismatics think modern apostles have the same authority as Peter, Paul, or John? If not, why not?

In his debate, Brown suggested that apostles have less authority than OT prophets, for, unlike OT Jews, all Christians have the gift of the Spirit, all Christians are potential prophets. Hence, it's a collegial relationship. 

However, I think it's abundantly clear from how Paul and John deal with their opponents that they don't think ordinary Christians are in any position to sit in judgment of apostolic teaching. Perhaps Brown will have more to say in his forthcoming book, but his explanation in the debate was unsatisfactory.

For his part, Storms says:

One reason people balk at the mention of modern apostles is based on their erroneous belief that NT apostleship entailed an absolute authority that required unquestioning obedience. But see Galatians 2:11-21 for a clear counter-example. Whereas no apostle ever made a mistake when writing Scripture, they did not live continuously under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in such a way that all their opinions and/or actions were infallible.

But that's a precarious argument. To begin with, there's a difference between teaching and action. Since the apostles were not impeccable, we know that their personal behavior might be an unreliable guide. That doesn't mean their teaching is unreliable. It's because we have the right standards that our behavior can be substandard. And, as sinners, living below our God-given standards is inevitable to one degree or another.

Moreover, it's not as if Peter was trying to set an example in this situation. He suffered a loss of nerve, which inadvertently sent the wrong signal. His action in that case was never meant to be exemplary. He wasn't attempting to be a role-model in that respect. 

Rather, because of his upbringing, he was reflexively uncomfortable in mixed company. The purity codes were ingrained by cultural conditioning. He had to overcome his deep-seated religious inhibitions. An integrated setting made him very self-conscious. That's an emotional reaction, not a doctoral position. 

Even assuming that charismatics don't think modern apostles can speak for the universal church, what do they think a Christian should do if a "living apostle" tells an individual to do or not do something?