Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 8
Joel and Drew contrast Acts’ pattern (“message first, signs follow”) with leg-lengthening and unverifiable healings; what would it change in your church if signs and wonders were treated as secondary confirmations rather than a primary measure of maturity, and what uncomfortable recalibrations would that force?
Another way to ask: They compare Acts (“teach first, then signs follow”) with showy but hard-to-check healings. How would your church change if signs were treated as a backup confirmation instead of the main proof of maturity, and what hard changes would that require?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests it would re-center church life on the kingdom message, obedience, and fruit of the Spirit, treating miracles as God’s confirmation rather than a scoreboard of spirituality. That would force uncomfortable recalibration away from hype, performance-healings, and measuring maturity by experiences.
- Joel: in Acts “the signs followed. It wasn't the focus… more on the message of the kingdom. And God confirmed it.”
- Drew: in Acts, signs are “clear, easily verified,” not “somebody feels 20% better… neck pain” or “lengthening somebody's leg.”
- Drew: maturity is “being like Jesus… love and unity and patience… holiness,” not signs as “the primary mark.”
- Joel calls leg-lengthening “a sleight of hand trick,” used to pass as healing.
- Joel warns of teaching that healing depends on “enough faith,” noting Paul and companions were not always healed.