Acts: History for history's sake?

So, what do you think? Are some bits of Acts just there because it's helpful for us to know what happened in some parts of the early church? Or is every event there trying to get across some truth that will instruct and change the hearers?

In essence, what is the rhetorical force of the more 'difficult' bits of Acts? Some don't seem to readily give up application. It's a discussion which brings up all sorts of things, including what you expect that God would have included in Scripture, and why.

Debate. Discuss. Rant!

I'll join in soon. Or when no-one else does.