Oh, like that never happens around here! ;-)
I think there should be accountability within the broader context of the church. I think it provides credibility and a safety net to insure sound doctrine is preached.
A question arises here: Were the evangelists always Apostles or church officials directly commissioned for such work? That is, did God require a succession under formal church authority? Or were the evangelists merely identified as anointed, thus going about God’s business on His terms, with the corresponding blessing of their fellows? I do not pretend to answer the question authoritatively. This is an honest difference between Presbyterians and historic Reformed Congregationalists, such as the American Pilgrims and later their neighbors the Puritans. Acts 6:8 declares, “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” Did he receive this power from the church, or did the church merely recognize Stephen’s gifts when they called him to the deaconate? We know that Stephen’s great power to witness of Christ became manifest after his ordination as deacon. Then there is Philip. After Philip evangelized Samaria, the church sent Peter and John to them (Acts 8:14). Nothing in the text indicates the church specifically sent Philip, but rather, “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them” (Acts 8:5). The language seems to indicate personal volition.Authority to Establish a Work of God by Ronald Kirk