Krissi

I particularly enjoyed reading the responses for this question. It's delightful that so many people perceive themselves as growing in character, that they are not today what they were months or years ago -- transformation has occurred! I do think that character change is directly proportional to time spent in His presence, but then again, most things in life get better when time and effort is put into them. I guess I'm saying I'm not surprised that people grow in faith and character when they prioritize their quiet time. But, if I spent two, four or six hours in prayer and study, would my spiritual growth would double or triple accordingly? I don't think so. Time needs to pass as well as the time to practice what has been learned. Testing from God happens, too. I need to study, wait and practice what I learn from Him and then endure His tests. Personally, I've been through four years(!) deepening relationship with God as I am slowly deal with anguish, despair and suffering. I can say that my character has changed, perhaps substantially, though I dip into hopelessness and despair occasionally. I would love to feel His presence, hear His audible voice, and have a peaceful, confident faith that this time will end. My fear is that God is good to many, but not to all: some people were born and died in captivity; the godly apostles all died gruesome deaths, etc. There's no guarantee that a better character will yield a more fulfilling, joy-filled life. My other fear is that once character has been developed, God will test it in ways severe and overwhelming. I fear growing in Him because ... this sounds horrible ... because of He may force me to endure more of what I've already been through.

This is just fascinating. So, there were a group of "Jewish sympathizers" who were culturally Jews and may have held many Jewish theological beliefs, but were not full converts, most receptive to evangelistic outreach. It seems, then, that for some, faith in Christ may grow incrementally, that the ground of the soul was plowed and fertilized before being sown and reaped. (I wonder why Cornelius didn't convert to Judaism. What held him back?) Cornelius seems like a morally good Christian before he accepted Christ; he behaved before fully believing. But he was also a searcher -- a man who prayed -- not just a generous and kind person. (I know a few good secular people who may be Corneliuses waiting to hear the gospel, but I also know many kind and generous secular people who most definitely are not Cornelius-like, but are, instead, hostile to the point of belligerence.) Was he more worthy of salvation, you ask? No, of course not. No one is worthy. But Cornelius was prepared and readied for living a Christian life in alignment with Christian beliefs. In our everyday parlance, a missionary would describe Cornelius as "low hanging fruit."

Abiding is staying in His presence, perhaps in His shadow, talking and listening, sometimes sitting quietly. Abiding is personal. Individual. It's not fellowship or corporate, but one-on-one with God. It's one grape to a twig, not a bunch to a branch. As I commune by sticking to the twig, He comes into me like water and nutrients. I am fed by Jesus. He also abides in me but does not receive nourishment from me, as I do from Him. His abiding in me is fundamentally different than my abiding in Him. I'm not a branch to Him, though he is a branch to me. I'm just a little grape. He is my life-giver. There is, however, a flow from me to Him and that is my waste products which could be poisonous if not carried away by the branch. Life circulates, then. He gives me sustenance as well as takes away my bad stuff. He gives me food and water and minerals and whatever I need to live-- I give him my spill-off, the toxins that have built up in me. Because of this circulating, I can grow and mature. I sweeten. Fatten. Change colour. Become useful. -- Fruits are not souls saved. That's the harvest taken as a whole. Fruits are individuated. Grapes may grow in bunches but they are only singly fruit.To bear fruit means to grow a fruit to it's readiness to be used. A small grape is worthless -- hard, sour and inedible. A ripened grape is soft, colourful and sweet. I have to ripen in Him so He can use me.

Thank you, KR, both for this comment and the one a couple days ago. I also appreciate your prayers, more than you know. Too, it's nice to discover a kindred soul, even if online. Carry on in Him, dear brother/sister!

Two good people were healed by Peter and crowds of people believed in Jesus' power and existence afterward. If someone was healed today, would there be a resultant revival?Assuming God still heals, which I believe he does, should not God's healings, today, also lead to revival? Maybe revivals do happen but I'm unaware of them. Maybe, too, we instantly attribute healings to medicine and science, not God, so the revivals that would have followed never take place. Raising someone from the dead ... would people discount this, today, too? Probably. I wonder what God would have to do to stun the sensibilities of contemporary secularists. Maybe we've passed an era when healings can draw believing crowds. How sad it is when God heals and we attribute it to anything-but-God. I do not have the gift of healing.

Samuel is such a sweet child. It is easy to imagine him waiting to hear God's voice, and then finally believing it is God Himself who is speaking. --To be a servant is to be like little Samuel. Samuel had to obey Eli before he could obey God, interestingly. He had to be willing to say the words that Eli told him to speak. --To be a servant is to see yourself in a lesser role, one less influential, powerful or important. Powerful people don't surrender, only those who know they are weak or lesser, so surrendering and servanthood are attitudes that conflate.

YES!! Debate!! Debate has advantages other than bringing people to Christ. For one, debating non-believers hones your faith. It makes you stronger. Quicker on the uptake. Secondly, thinking aloud through issues that are contentious, even in the body of Christ, only makes the body of Christ stronger. It is my wee opinion that there's not enough of debate in the church today, that we're too timid and unwilling to correct or be corrected. Am I prepared? I'll never be prepared enough, but yea, I'm prepared, so repeatedly God has put me in circumstances in which I'm the only Christian. Some Christians are called to serve within the body -- others stand on the threshold between Christianity and secularism, as emissaries more than missionaries. I need to do more.

Yes, God initiated Saul's conversion, as, perhaps, he initiates the conversion of all of us. Saul was jerked out of a hostile, bigoted mindset by being suddenly blinded by God. Saul's blindness is both figurative and literal -- Saul was blind to God and his own hatred, thinking what he was doing to Christians was good and moral; he was also physically blinded. I have seen people "blinded" by God, not physically but in finances, health or relationships. Sometimes people are pushed off His path by adverse events -- but other people, myself included, who have suffered greatly, have turned to God with greater fervor and desire. This may be His pattern: God brings us closer to Him using horrible events and suffering. He could do otherwise, but chooses our suffering. Ananias restored only Saul's physical sight as an agent of God. God Himself, presumably, dealt with Paul's attitude. God could have restored Saul's sight, but chose to use Ananias. -- I'm curious why God chose Paul. Obviously he's a man of many abilities, learning and sophistication, but God also chose men of lesser ability including many of the disciples. -- I'm also curious why God tasked Ananias, an ordinary believer, to be His instrument to restore Saul's sight. After Ananias listened to God -- he must have heard a clear, audible voice -- he hesitantly obeyed. I'm so relieved to read that God wasn't angry at Ananias' doubts and worries. When God told him that Paul had been chosen, Ananias must have heard those words clearly and then obeyed. -- I'm not particularly impressed with power, status or money, so yes, I believe God can use me in this way. I also hope he uses me with people of less power, status and money. My fear is that I won't hear His voice clearly and will therefore miss His assignment. I pray to be open and obedient like Ananias. To hear clearly. To respond promptly.

I'm not sure there's much of a difference between God's voice, particularly if it is small and still, and nudgings, but I can understand a difference between inaudible-voice/nudging and a very audible voice. In some of the OT figures as well as the NT, the voice seems to have been heard, not intuited. I have never heard God's audible voice but I am getting sensitive to the little promptings within me that tell me to do or not do something. Sometimes it's me, not God, or so I think. The ambiguity concerns me. I'd like to be sure it's God, not my own stray thoughts or imaginations. The big question remains, however, which is this: If God wants to communicate with me, why doesn't He just do so? Why the gaming and error and fear, on my part, that I'm getting His voice right? Why does God talk in a voice I can barely hear and often mis-hear if He has something to tell me?

I have had a very regular, systematic quiet time for several years yet do not feel that connection to God of which you write. During my devotional times, my own mind seems to scream louder than the Holy Spirit’s still small voice: I am haunted by thoughts and by thinking itself. I journal thousands of words daily. To make up for quality, I’ve added quantity – I spend hours, every day, studying, thinking and trying to pray. Yet God still seems far. I don’t know Him viscerally; I do not hear His voice though I feel his promptings, or think I do, and am trying to act on them, not matter how irrational. I believe God will honour my intention, which is to obey what I hope to be hearing from Him. Oftentimes, I think my mind is a hindrance, not a help. Some people seem able to get past their minds, to enter into a heart-relationship with God, but because He is an abstraction, or an abstract thought, I find it difficult to “love” Him. I so wish I could say, honestly, that I loved God and He loved me, but I don’t “feel” this love, and to claim a love that isn't in my heart is to fool myself. What does it mean, anyway, to love God, to have a relationship with the divine? I can love a man and know what that feels like, but I can’t grok what it is to love Jesus, a man as well as God. To really love Him. Right now, I am in the little prayer room at my church. In the background, Christian music is playing. It seems so repetitive and saccharine, like a shallow love: “Hold me in your hand, I will praise you…” What does this mean? What are other people feeling I can’t feel? Why do I distrust their emotions, their love for God? I sat in the back of the church, yesterday, and watched people lift their hands to Him. I didn't doubt their sincerity, but did wonder what they were thinking and feeling, and whether they were transferring their this-worldly experience of love onto the other-worldly, ever-present God. To sing, “I love you because you are worthy …” means what? What sort of love is this? I want a God who is big enough to reach down into my over-active mind and speak loudly and clearly enough to hear. I want a God who is real enough to love, not merely abstractly as I do now, or in that shallow and repetitive manner found in many Christian lyrics, but with a real love. I want a God who understands that when I think of the cross, I see suffering, not love, and when I think of the lives of many people, including my own, I see suffering, not love. It should be love that connects us to the mind of Christ; my mind to His mind, mediated by the Holy Spirit, actuated by love.

I think -- but am not sure -- that the bond between believers and Christ, or the church and Jesus, is the Holy Spirit. When Christ left the earth, in bodily form, after Pentecost, He left us the Holy Spirit. As part of the trinity, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. I'm not wording this well because the concepts are murky in my mind. I guess what I'm trying to say is the essence of Jesus has been left in us as the Holy Spirit so hurting the church is hurting Jesus who is one with the Holy Spirit, that is, of one essential "stuff." This idea comes, in part, from I cor: Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple. 1. If anyone destroys God's temple (the church?) God will destroy that person. Destroy is a strong word. a. Will those who harm the church (COVID hysterics who shut down churches come to mind, here) and, perhaps, would have destroyed it if they could, be destroyed by God? b. How about internal church dissension that may not destroy, but does divide the church -- are those involved destroyed? 2. God's temple is sacred. You together (believers in the church?) are that temple. But the body, too, is described as a temple God. So there's an individual sense of being God's temple and a corporate identity as well. Here, it is clear that "you together" is corporate -- elsewhere, it is just as obviously an individual temple.

What pattern do you see emerging in Jesus’ prayer life? Why do you think he spends Quiet Time with the Father before the day begins? How does this prepare him for his ministry? I skimmed some of the responses above and was struck by how many people believe Jesus prayed in solitude, or near solitude, as an example to us. I believe that Jesus prayed as a man, that His human needs -- not divine needs -- included communion and prayer with His father. As a man, He escaped the crowds to re-compose Himself. As a man, He turned to His father for advice and leading, to know how to conduct His ministry. As a man He awoke early to commune with His father. If there is an example for us, here, it must be in the importance of frequent, sincere and uninterrupted time alone with God in prayer. To start the day in prayer is to receive strength and instruction as to how to live and what to do that day. God's instruction. I start every day with, alone, in prayer and study. Mentally, it centres me. Though I do not hear divine instructions for my day, I pray He will speak to me more clearly in the near future. I desperately need to hear His voice. Why does Jesus minster through the power of the Spirit instead of in his own power? Because He's a man? And as a man, His own power was somehow lessened/negated/ignored while on earth. Clearly, He gains strength and wisdom from His father; just as clearly, He ministers through the Holy Spirit. There are all sorts of trinitarian issues here I cannot resolve, as well as issues regarding the dual nature of Christ. I'm overwhelmed by his humanity, not his divinity, in the passages you gave, Pastor Ralph. I see Him as a tired, over-worked, needing-of-direction man who used the power of the HS, not His own equal power, to minister to the ill and needy and preach.

This is a hard set of questions. Jesus' righteousness is a consequence of his sinlessness on earth, but it also preexisted his sinlessness. God is sinless, but we expect this of Him. Jesus came into the world as a man, so righteousness was not expected. His righteous is imputed to us in salvation. This is from the Westminster Shorter confession: Justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardons all our sins and accepts us as RIGHTEOUS in is sight, only for the RIGTEOUSNESS of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. (caps mine). Honestly, I don't understand this very well but it seems that Jesus' righteousness/sinlessness could be imputed (legally transferred) to us because He Himself was righteous while on earth. His righteousness is like a bridge to God over the gap caused by our unrighteousness. I'm not sure if Jesus righteousness challenges our sinfulness as much as negates it, if we are believers.

I've been in many churches in which the vestry or board of elders is composed of wealthy, older men, that is, men who donate. Wealthy people have "proved" their capabilities by the fact of their wealth, I was told. The connection between wealth and God's favour is strong in some people's minds. Calvin himself hinted at this in his Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism, a book which logically connects thrift and hard work to earthly prosperity, then further associates these values with Protestantism. There is some truth in the book -- hard work often, though not always, creates wealth. Good investing creates wealth, too. BUT hard work and smart investing, though they can be Christian virtues, are not exclusively Christian. Secular individuals also work hard and amass wealth. Furthermore, some Christians work hard without remuneration, or do not invest well. When does wealth become a hindrance to faith? Personally, I ask two questions of myself when I acquire an expensive object: First, "Do I have to own it to enjoy it?" If I borrowed the sports car for day rather than own it, would I have just as much fun? If I viewed the painting in a gallery rather than on my wall, would I appreciate it all the same? Second, "Does it show?" Wealth hidden seems less damaging, at least to me, than wealth displayed. If no one knows I'm wealthy because I live humbly and (hopefully) give much of my wealth away anonymously, the pride factor is reduced. So, back to the elders. I would choose men and women who live humbly and modestly than those who live in a overtly "rich and famous" style, even if it's well within their means. -- Simony has been practiced in the Christian church for as long as it's been institutionalized. Offices such as bishop and even heads of monasteries were bought, amalgamated to concentrate power, and given to relatives. Pews were bought in Protestant churches. One of Luther's main gripes was the selling of indulgences. The list is long, sadly. These are the more overt examples of simony. The story above of having a board of elders composed of only rich men is a softer form of simony. Both are wrong and deeply offensive both to God and potential or prospective Christians who may be looking at the church critically.

What spiritual gifts has God given you, and how are you using them to his glory? I took the test, Pastor Ralph. The results are unambiguous. I got zeros in most categories, particularly in the ones that women usually score highest — hospitality, for example; and got four middlin’, ambiguous scores in prophecy, evangelist, faith, and poverty. The only scores that were suggestive are these: 1) leadership – 14 2) teaching – 13 3) knowledge – 13 4) wisdom – 11 5) administration – 11 I group these five scores into two clusters (leadership/admin) and (teaching/knowledge/wisdom). Here's my problem: I'm not leading or teaching anything but am caring for my dying, blind father and have been for the past three years. So, if God gave me these gift-clusters, why isn't he giving me a venue in which to use them? I'm being forced to do what I score a ZERO on in this test, in fact -- my weakest traits. I find it most interesting that Peter doesn't distinguish between natural and spiritual gifts, but Paul does. I wish you elaborated more on this for it's a stumbling block to me. The use of the gift, according to Peter, sorta sanctifies it or makes it from God. Thus, the impetus comes from the person to God -- I choose to use certain gifts and, similarly I choose to submit these gifts to God. This seems backward. Doesn't God have the plan and God gift us according to that plan?

Jesus Himself had already made a pass through this area, so in a way, Jesus prepared His own way via the preaching of Philip. Philip was preaching on ground Jesus had already sowed or prepared. So both Jesus and Philip were instrumental in the conversion of the Samaritans. I'm not sure why the Holy Spirit did not come at the time of their water baptism. The two baptisms were separated in time which mimes, perhaps, the way the Holy Spirit didn't fall on the disciples until many days had passed after Jesus' resurrection. This lends credence to the idea that there are two baptisms -- water and spirit -- which can be combined into one. Peter and JOhn were more prominent disciples. Perhaps they showed up to see for themselves how God was moving among the Samaritans. To convince them of His expanding mandate to offer salvation to ALL the nations, they had to be brought to Samaria. Thus, Peter and JOhn may be there for for their own edification than the gifting of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans. -- Had Peter and John not come, would the Samaritans never have the Holy Spirit?

For me, the important lessons to learn from this verse is everyone has a gift. Every single Christian! Those who do not know their gifts must still possess one. The choice of gifts is not ours, and the giver of gifts is the Holy Spirit Himself.

What was the short-term effect of Saul’s persecution? What was the longer-term effect? The short-term effect of persecution was the suffering, persecution, torture and murder of First Century Christians. The long-term effect was the diaspora as well as the conversion of Paul who became the greatest of disciples. I am troubled by the people who suffered or died while caught up in God's desire to witness to the ends of the earth. It's easy for me to look at the wonderful results and see God's hand in them, but if I were Stephen or any of the unnamed, unremarked individuals who were martyred, I'm not sure I'd be proclaiming God as love. It seems to me that individuals are often "sacrificed" to the flow of divine history. Generations of Jews BORN in captivity, for example, were not culpable or responsible for the sins of their fathers, yet they suffered the consequences of those sins. In the case of the persecution of the early church, the Christians who were murdered were not the worst of the lot, deserving of a death worse than their peers. To be honest, the brutality endured by the early Christians makes me question not so much God's goodness, but his concern for the individual believer. I know I shouldn't write this, but this is my true worry. -- Given this, I'm not sure why I should give thanks in all circumstances. If I were a Hebrew slave, born into captivity, would I give thanks FOR the circumstances in which I suffer? Exactly what am I supposed to thank God for, if a brutalized slave? If God can save some, He can save all, and from my perspective, as a slave, I've been passed over by God. God did not save me out of my circumstances, in other words. I understand the distinction between NOT praising God for evil, but in spite of circumstances, but I question why God would permit those circumstances in the first place. I happen to be in dire, horrible circumstances right now. I am not at all sure why God has me here. I pray hourly to be "released." Can I praise Him through my suffering? Yes, but it's a muted praise, one of despair and defeat, not joy and optimism. I may be the 21st century equivalent of one of those slaves that never get sprung, or one of the First Century believers who were stoned to death. Frankly, this is not comforting. God MAY take stumbling blocks and turn them into stepping stones ... or He may not. It's His choice. But for us, here, wondering if we'll be the ones who get to step, it's a horrible feeling to know that God may look the other way. For Stephen, the blocks of stones were not those from which he could walk away. He simply died in a brutal and painful manner. Stones crushed him. Yes, God's will in human history was preserved, but at the cost of the death this godly man.

In the twentieth century we saw the evangelistic power of preaching combined with healing the sick. Where in Jesus’ ministry do you see this combination? Where in Paul’s ministry? In Peter’s ministry? In Philip’s ministry? -- Healing people, such as Jesus feeding the 5000 with healing and signs, seems to be the lure that brings them to actual message. It's like the music before the sermon ... not to be flippant, but it's the "appetiser" before the main course. Jesus even told people that they should believe in Him BECAUSE of the miracles he did: "believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him." Dramatic healings, such as the lame man, drew crowds. Once assembled, evangelization began. I've often wondered why Jesus heals some people and not others. If evangelism is the overriding purpose of many healings, then it seems logical that He would stop once the crowd gathered. Healing had a purpose other than the alleviation of physical suffering, it appears. I'd like to think that Jesus heals out of compassion without regard to how the healing would attract crowds, and there is evidence for this. But, His compassion seems limited. Not all are healed, obviously.

I have thought about the answer to this question for a few days, and still am unsure what to write. The consensus, above, is that we can have the same spiritual gifts as Jesus -- "to use Jesus as an example." I guess I'm not as willing to separate Jesus' essence (God AND man) from His gifts. Since these are spiritual gifts they must be associated with the "godness" of Jesus, not his humanity. We do not share Jesus' divine nature. We may taste it, but always imperfectly. To strive to have His spiritual gifts, with the expectation that His gifts are ours to have, seems futile. No human has Jesus' nature therefore no human has his gifts. Yet, we are to be "like Christ." In what way? Pastor Ralph, I'm confused.

What must a church do if its “senior pastor” doesn’t have the spiritual gift of pastor? I recently left a church in which the minister became increasingly corrupted, weak and lazy. The vestry (board) of the church had been handpicked by the minister because they were loyal to him -- in return for their loyalty, they were given prominent, high-visibility positions in the church. Since the pastor was more than retirement age, I thought I'd wait him out, that is wait until he left. Though his sermons were insipid, the liturgy sustained me. But as years passed, and the rector aged in place, he slowly dragged the church down. When COVID hit, the church had no spiritual reserve to spend ... it imploded or collapsed. Because of this experience, now I think it's very important that the head of a church, it's pastor, is a godly and spiritually mature individual. If not, a congregant has two choices -- leave to find another church or somehow get rid of him. Deference to authority is earned, not bestowed with degrees or ordination. It has to be constantly judged and merited. I understand that congregants can be petty and divisive, but a ungifted head of a church will inevitably gut the church from the inside out. How could a person have the spiritual gift of pastor or teacher without having an official position in a church? Having said the above, it seems to me that the office of pastor has to have some sort of external acknowledgment or validation, that is, his calling must be "proven" by the vote or approval of the congregation he serves. In some denominations, ordination accomplishes this, or is supposed to. So, can there be a lone wolf pastor? Someone gifted as a pastor but without congregational acknowledgement? No. I don't think so. How can you be a pastor without a congregation ... a shepherd without sheep? Can you be a teacher without students, too? If God gifts you as a pastor, He will give you sheep. If your church is shrinking, perhaps you're not pastorally gifted. If you have no congregation, you're simply not a pastor. The congregation's presence confirms the gift. Perhaps you can be between gifts, transitioning, say, between being a pastor and an evangelist, and so have the residue of one before the next is fully actualized, but honestly, I can't see how it's possible to be a pastor without a position in a church.

"Stubbornness, hard-heartedness and resistance to God" are definitely my tendencies, though I pray and labour at changing my character. At times, by His grace, I am compliant, soft-hearted and open to His leading. This was a good section, Pastor Ralph. Are there contemporary parallels to the Jew's rejection of Stephen's arguments, not on an individual level, but within the churches or religions? I don't know much about the end times, but it's my understanding that the purpose of the seven-year period of tribulation is to give hard-hearted, resistant and stubborn Jews still another chance and perhaps the motivation to come to Christ. I am left with many unanswered questions: 1) Why did Stephen's face glow? 2) Why didn't God intervene to save Stephen from such a brutal death (and the rest of the apostles, for that matter)? 3) Were the members of the Sanhedrin swayed by Stephen's argument ... was there a Christian revival after his death among this population? 4) Mostly, I want to know if God still sees Jews as stiff-necked, resistant people.

How would you define the gift of prophecy? I like your definition, Pastor Ralph, that prophecy is revelation. In your cited article you dig deeper into the meaning of revelation, describing prophecy as 1) spontaneous, 2) God speaking to His people 3) for a particular, existing situation (crisis?), 4) spoken by the Spirit through a Christian. So, prophecy is the original revelation. Revelation itself, including prophetic revelation, is the primary source material to be used by teachers and preachers. Why do churches sometimes despise or prohibit prophecy? I've never heard a prophet and have no idea why anyone would despise a prophet. You mention that prophets are despised because people doubt the message ... and the messenger. Sounds plausible. Perhaps they despise prophets because they can't validate the prophecy, though it seems that any prophecy will, in time, "come true." What guidelines does Paul give here and in 1 Corinthians 14 to keep prophecy in a congregation healthy? Think about the prophecy. Does it seem plausible? Does it contradict scripture? Honestly, I'm very curious what a prophet sounds like. Does his voice change? Is it sorta spooky, or does it seem like an ordinary statement by an ordinary guy? I've been reading secondary lit on Elijah and it seems that he was a rather unusual man, shall we say -- crazy looking, perhaps frightening ... "hairy." I pray, Lord, to meet a prophet. No, I pray to BE a prophet.

Do you think there are modern-day apostles? If so, who might they be? Yes, if Wagner's definition is taken. If an apostle is something like a spiritual CEO or general manager, then heads of denominations, mission and evangelistic organizations and even Christian universities and colleges would be apostles. Having said this, I have met a few of these men and I'm not sure they rise to Wagner's definition because they are not "spontaneously recognized and appreciated" by the churches. If you don't believe there are modern-day apostles, identify some people who are doing some of the same things that the early apostles did. I listed a few categories, but not individuals, above. In past centuries, the leaders of the reformation could have been considered apostles, as well as all the revivalist leaders, such as Spurgeon, who ministered subsequently. It's troubling that I'm coming up blank on this question. Who are our apostles or church CEOs? I don't know. Denominational heads come to mind, but I've never met or deferred to them. Even though I attend, now, a denominational church, I have no idea who heads this denomination. Until quite recently, I attended a traditionalist Anglican church. In the bulletin, every Sunday, the denominational hierarchy was listed. We prayed for the archbishop, bishop ... down the line, as well as for political leaders. I met them once.

In the first question of this chapter, Pastor Ralph said that the apostles "were called to serve the word" and the seven "were called to serve tables." Here, he writes that the word is powerful when combined with miracles. In both cases, the word PLUS an action renders it most potent in the church and as a tool for evangelism. Stephen, in agreement with this observation, had the word ("full of faith and the Holy Spirit") and action ("signs and wonders") -- practical theology. I suppose preaching in conjunction with miracles is more effective than" just preaching" or "just miracles" because people use more than one sense -- they hear and see or touch. Also, a miracle validates the word in the eyes of fence-sitters or unbelievers. It's the "wow" factor that gets people's attention. Believers would see miracles, perhaps, as a confirmation that his gift of preaching and words spoken were real, though that should be the role of the Holy Spirit within them. If a Christian did only miracles with no accompanying word, his miracle could be interpreted as magic or even Satan, so an explanatory word is necessary. Most preachers today do not do miracles. If it worked then, why wouldn't it happening now?