As a disciple, Peter was not the kind of guy you'd go to in the clutch, to use sports terminology. In his early years, whenever he opened his mouth, it was usually to change feet. He was the one who, when the spotlight pointed his way, ended up embarrassing himself.

On the day of Pentecost, a holy and historic moment in front of a large crowd, Peter had something to say--of course. But would it be something appropriate or totally off target? His track record wasn't good. Peter didn't have a history of rising to the occasion.

If I'd been there as Peter stood, I'd have cringed. Oh, no! What's he going to say now? But Peter said exactly what was needed. His powerful words pierced the hearts of the crowd, and (Acts 2:41) says that "those who accepted his message were added to their number that day."

It was the high-water mark of his ministry.

On the other hand, consider the man named Stephen, whom the Bible describes as "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom." His character was deep and sound. In addition to his spiritual depth, Stephen was also an educated man. When he spoke in public, he was persuasive--so much so that those who opposed him "could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke." This led those who opposed him to drum up false charges against him.

(Acts 7) contains Stephen's self-defense to the authorities who called him in for questioning. His message was every bit as direct, pointed, and scriptural as Peter's sermon at Pentecost. Like Peter, he was called upon to bear witness to Christ in a tough setting, and like Peter, he was equal to the task.

But unlike Peter, the results were far different. When Peter finished, the crowd responded with repentance and faith. When Stephen finished, the crowd responded by dragging him outside the city and killing him. As far as we know, no one accepted his message that day. In fact, (Acts 8:1) says, "On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem."

It doesn't seem fair! Peter's message led to mass conversion, while Stephen's led to mass persecution.

As a result of his sermon, Peter surfaced as the preeminent leader of the early church. As a result of his sermon, Stephen didn't surface--he ended up six feet under.

Ironically, Stephen is the one who had shows more spiritual maturity. He deserved success. He hadn't failed Christ as Peter had. He hadn't been a public embarrassment to his Lord. He hadn't displayed his pride and concern with "greatness." Stephen had agreed to assume the low-profile, no-limelight position of distributing food to needy widows. He was questioned by the authorities because he faithfully obeyed the mandate to be a witness. It was this faithfulness that killed him.

From surface appearances, we'd label Peter's ministry a success and Stephen's a failure. Peter got the response and the recognition. As far as we know, only one individual who saw Stephen die became a believer, and that not directly because of Stephen's witness.

It doesn't take much imagination to transport these two into the twentieth century. Peter would have his picture in magazines and be a keynote speaker at church conferences. Stephen would have his ministerial life summary in the obituary section of the denominational magazine. While we'd admire his willingness to die, a number of us would say, "You know, I always thought he'd amount to more than he did."

In the stories of Peter and Stephen, I learn a great deal about success in ministry--in God's eyes and in ours.