I’ve not had time to write much over recent weeks, but I have been doing plenty of reading. Here’s some of the things that have caught my attention:

The charismatic debate rumbles on, but this time its the cessationists who are continuing, just …

I think that whole “office” or “gift” debate might be too sharp a distinction. It might be easier think in terms of “ministries”.

Offices and giftings ought to go together, but we all know it doesn’t always work like that. You can have the gift of teaching and not have the office of “teacher” and likewise there are those with the office but lacking in the gift. What’s more, like Paul himself, there are many who do not fit neatly into one “office” - was he an “apostle” an “evangelist” a “teacher”, a “prophet” (or even “a worker of miracles”?)

I would say that a healthy church needs a wide diversity of spiritual gifts in operation, but that there is no need for offices to be created to supply each one (e.g. you do not need to appoint a church “tongues-speaker”). Similarly, a healthy church should have those exercising each of the leadership ministries listed in Eph 4 and 1 Cor 12. Their “office” may simply be “elder” or “deacon”, but the ministries, like the gifts, each build the church in their different ways. There may be some whose gifting and ministry in one area is so strong that they are called “prophet” or “teacher” or “apostle” etc, but I do not think you have to choose between offices any more than you have to choose which one gift you will have, or one fruit of the Spirit you will demonstrate.