It was also cool to know just what’s going on out there.

The best thing was, compared to how I would do a review, you were remarkably restrained in your criticism,which is shown in your rating system.

I liked it.

“Clearly, the good news that the disciples went to proclaim was not that Jesus had died for their sins, or that Jesus had died and is now risen, or that they could have a relationship with God through the Spirit of Jesus. None of these things had happened yet.”

In thinking about this, the only issue I have is with the above assumption that the gospel had a different meaning. You nailed it on the head when you pointed out that “they would happen” – John the Baptist was already preaching it in Mt 3:2, so there’s no reason why the Disciples couldn’t be proclaiming the Gospel before “these things had happened yet”.

In fact, considering Jesus himself was bold about his claims (think the six “I am” statements throughout John for example) and what would happen to him, it would be rash to assume that the 12 Disciples weren’t proclaiming Jesus’s imminent role in the salvation of the townsfolk they met.

I’m still trying to digest some new thoughts about Big Gospels and little gospels that Frank points out on his site. It sort of relates to this because what he’s saying is that aside from the major themes like atonement and salvation, the various exhortations of Jesus Christ and his disciples can be termed as little gospels. I don’t why can’t they just be termed as doctrine, or just plain commands we follow as Christians after we accept our gift of salvation. Perhaps it’s a postmodern way of reaffirming what’s in the Bible.

As I pointed out, some of my thoughts needed correcting given my limited scope of a one-off church visit, and I was grateful for the pastoral rebuke. I liked many things about Cityside that made it unique, and would be happy to visit if time ever allowed one day.

re: future reviews, probably not in the meantime, unless there’s a pull somewhere else. But that doesn’t mean I’m not involved in any more write-ups. As you pointed out, I appreciated the majority of the churches, and would not have minded making a number of them my home church. However, I’m not the only one that makes decisions…

“Clearly, the good news that the disciples went to proclaim was not that Jesus had died for their sins, or that Jesus had died and is now risen, or that they could have a relationship with God through the Spirit of Jesus. None of these things had happened yet.”

Implication: that they would happen

“I’m not suggesting that these passages are a total blueprint for defining valid Christian mission or practice. They’re too limited for that, which is to say, they’re firmly fixed to the context in which they took place.”

Implication: read it in context

“And, this picture of what Jesus sent his followers out to do is constrained by the fact that it is a pre-Easter message. It is good news of hope and forgiveness, and a call to repentance of heart, none of which depends on Jesus dying or rising. However, there are spiritual dimensions to life with God that come to us through the wider, post-Easter experience of a resurrected Christ. These dimensions are part of our ‘good news’ as Christians today. And they are, of course, missing from the story that the first disciples had to tell prior to the events of Easter.”

Implication: this is a pretty firm contextual set up, not a replacement gospel

And just in case you missed it in the introduction:

“And, as I mentioned before, I don’t see these three things as the totality of what it means to practice our Christianity today. But, they’re a useful tool, when we ask ourselves what we’re called to do in the world, as followers of Jesus.”

Implication: I think she made her point with abundant caution.

Not to undermine the sincerity of the reviews, the integrity of disclaimer and the care to be balanced and fair, I do think these specific passages from the sermon need to be highlighted to give balance. Not everyone can be bothered searching this stuff out. I am a sad media junkie who does.

Will there ever be any more reviews? They were interesting. And the journey was compelling if a little surprising with its outcome, given the breadth of appreciation otherwise expressed.

Disclaimer: I don’t go to Cityside Baptist. I don’t know anyone there. I don’t think I’ve met the pastor.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply – I must apologise for the misconceptions that I seem to have made with regards to your sermon. I’ll be the first to admit that I only intended to chronicle our ongoing search for a home church at the time, and didn’t expect much of writing up my experiences at the time. I think on the day we were fairly interested in finding out more about the sermon but didn’t get the chance to talk, so I’m really glad you were able to share the proper perspective from your sermon (if a little surprising in circumstance). I guess it would have been good to get your point of view as well prior to publishing the post, though you may have found it quite intrusive/unsolicited at the time.

I don’t use the term “social gospel” in a particularly dogmatic or judgemental way – in fact, I enjoyed the increased focus compared to other churches that rarely put doctrine into practice. And I wasn’t denying that Cityside has a focus on Jesus Christ, but from my limited window I didn’t pick out any strong profession of Jesus’s divinity and his most important message (that all might be saved). While I can now understand that your focus on the day wasn’t on that, to me, the gospel for us today should always include that as its priority.

I guess one of the limitations of a once-visit is that you may have covered the salvation message in more explicit detail another week that I wouldn’t have heard, although I did recall you terming “salvation” in quotation marks (though my memory is fuzzy as to what the context was).

In any case, I definitely don’t see Cityside as a purely social-gospel church, and I’m sorry if in trying to quantify the experience I described Cityside as a straight ‘emergent church community’. I found it notoriously difficult to pin down what type of church you were other than using the term ‘emergent’, but perhaps describing it as a church community with emergent facets might be more accurate?

Anyways, wordpress seems to be a pretty fluid format so I’m happy to tweak any gross inaccuracies that you might insist on. Thanks for the humble rebuke!

I’m pretty disappointed in your review of my sermon, however. I was explicitly
NOT talking about the great commission. I was focusing my attention deliberately on Jesus’ sending of the 12 in his own ministry time. I carefully explained that the gospel we have to proclaim after Jesus’ death is broader than the missionary activity of his disciples while he was still alive. Of course, the gospel for those of us who follow Christ today includes Jesus as the Christ, as risen Lord, as the one who died and rose. In this sermon, I was particularly focusing on the actions Jesus told his disciples to do when they went among the towns he sent them to.

I’m disappointed that anyone reading your review would have the impression that we preach an exclusively social gospel. We don’t. I expect that your prior assumptions about emergent communities led you to hear what I said through that filter.

Anyone who wants to read the text of the actual sermon is welcome to visit the Cityside website (www.cityside.org.nz) and look up the sermon titled ‘teach, heal, and cast out evil’ under the ‘words’ page.

While we welcome doubt as a normal and even important dimension of faith, we also affirm Jesus as the centre and heart of the Christian faith – the ‘image of the invisible God’. As followers of Christ, we don’t view him as merely a role model – and I don’t believe I have ever used that phrase in reference to Jesus.

Perhaps it would have been courteous to send a link to your review to me, so that I would have the chance to respond to your critique. As it is, I found your site by accident.

Anyway, I wish you well in your exploration of various churches.