Prescription or description?

A while ago, Dave and I had a chat about my big question in relation to the amazingness of Acts. Dave mentioned that there is quite a lot of debate among theologians about whether sections of the New Testament like Acts are prescriptive or descriptive. In other words, is the way that the gospel is preached and shared by the apostles something that we should emulate and follow (prescriptive), or is Acts merely a description of the way the apostles preached the gospel in those days (descriptive)?

I feel like this has been a massive issue in thinking about my big question. I have thought, read, and spoke to people about how we should share our faith but whenever I try and think about the way the apostles have done it I find myself wondering how that fits into our time and whether we need to be doing it the same way that they did.

Dave mentioned that there should always be three things that you consider when trying to figure out how to apply things in the Bible to life:
1. What does it say?
2. What is the immutable, unchanging, universal basis on which that statement is made? What is the truth that the statement is expressing, that is not limited to the cultural or historical context from which it came?
3. What is the outworking of that universal basis/truth today? How does it look?

I have just finished reading 'Chasing the Dragon' and marvel at how word and action are so integrated in Jackie Pullinger's experience of sharing her faith. I wonder, what would that kind of power look like in Shirehampton, in the circles in which I move, with my family, with my friends? Is there one way to do it - the way the apostles did it in Acts and the way Jackie Pullinger did it in Hong Kong? Or is there loads of ways that you can share your faith - in less in your face ways, like Jill Rowe and Jen mentioned?

Are there contexts in which explicit preaching is not appropriate or not really powerful, and in which we share our faith through actions and then wait for conversations to happen? I am finding myself more and more unconvinced of this, because when I look at the way Paul and Jackie Pullinger preached the gospel - and with such results and such effectiveness - I never find them shying away from speaking about the truths which we sometimes fear would make people feel too uncomfortable. They just came out and said it while serving people, spoke the truth just as it was. They did that while coming alongside people. But the way they spoke the gospel was powerful and passionate and hard hitting.

I wonder what that would look like, here and now. In the Academies in which we work, in the broken communities and people we serve. Would God's spirit and power move in them the same way that it did with the drug addicts and triads in Hong Kong, with the people that Paul preached to?

I think in our heads we have been accustomed to thinking: no, it wouldn't. People wouldn't respond to it. That's over simplistic and too in your face, too exclusive, too conservative, too out there.

But what if that's all not true? What if God is just waiting for people who can share the gospel with actions and words, with true power, with no fear? With love that cuts deep into the hearts of people who are broken and weak and yearning for Him?

What if we are just making excuses because we're scared and we don't know how to share our faith?