While you may speak for post-evangelicalism–there are other voices, if there is something to be said that is. In other words, I appreciate the definitions you provide but there may be others with something to add or subtract from what you have contributed (i.e. “here and here”).

[Mod edit]

You write (and it’s even understandable for a simpleton like me), “The point doesn’t need to be labored: whose Jesus? The Jesus of classic orthodoxy is wholly Biblical and sufficient and needs no contemporary revision.”

Jesus needs no revision or a 21st century makeover as you point out Michael, as he needs nothing–never will. Our calling remains: It’s we who must preach Jesus and his gospel, and anything short of that is wasted airtime–and can be ultra-devastating to those who happen to be weaker and impressionable and still listen when and if we are get off the genuine gospel and might even preach “another” one.

A favorite scripture might apply here (1 Corinthians 1:11-13, NIV), “My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?”

Jesus says he has set us free… what do we say? Not a one of who truly trusts in Jesus and follows him can claim him or his gospel as our own, no matter our affiliations or lack thereof–”Post-Evangelical” or “the Calvinistic resurgence” for that matter. It’s “his gospel” and it is “one gospel”–even if it takes on different forms (no doubt it does).

I’m happy that there are so many different types of churches, celebrating life and God’s love in various ways. I am not a very demonstrative type of person (raised Catholic) so it may take some “breaking in” before I could “do church” in the manner of St. Gregory’s. I am happy with the way we do Mass at my little Catholic church. Jesus is proclaimed; confession is offered; various groups are available for people who want them.

What I find perplexing is a tendency of some evangelical ministers to read something from Catholicism here or Orthodoxy there to include in their preaching and sound deep and studied and interesting. Unfortunately, this really doesn’t work terribly well. While in some sense this border crossing and return can be very edifying (it has been for me), it can too easily be yet another exercise of the ego, a way to bring some new tricks to the trade, a way to stand out and appear unusually spiritual compared to the rest.

This, of course, can be said as well of a Catholic priest who claims some evangelical influence in his preaching. I am aware. The difference is the Catholic who finds a particular avenue to speak about a conversion to the person of Jesus is touching a reality that is as simple as it is profound. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox liturgy, devotional life, doctrine or spiritual traditions can be easily approached without some significant study. What is risked is a presentation of certain aspects of the ancient faiths that hides more than it discloses of them.

There is an infamous YouTube vid of an Episcopalian church in San Francisco which does just this sort of thing. The odyssey of Eastern chant, African drums and Shaker dances ends up being less a spiritual abandonment to Christ than a self-conscious act of multiculturalism and for its participants a distilled exercise in “interestingness.” It is, admittedly, a worst case scenario, but it is telling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5wYkFAfPs4

For the minister who seeks a meaningful crossover experience, a certain humility is necessary so that it not become a service to his ego. The same is true for the Catholic.

Of course I’s say the exact same thing reverse(!), but the book is a fascinating: John Wesley in the Evolution of Protestantism. Maximin Piette. Sheed & Ward. 1938.

What I’ve learned about Wesley since has not been so bad (Such a liberal theology could not thrive in the Bible Belt, had the practice not been changed). But the Methodists I know (those still at my church at home, plus those I know from playing music at a university Wesley Foundation) do not seem to believe in God’s ultimate sovereignty. Not to be Calvinist, but you simply cannot question God’s sovereignty. I mentioned it once in a small group bible study and got some funny looks, even from our preacher. At least my dad, a Methodist minister until I was 12, agrees with me on that point.

From what I understand, while Calvin started with God’s sovereignty, Wesley started with God’s love. Two very different positions, yet both are very correct in their own way. My disagreement starts when one side begins to refute the other. I don’t know if Wesley himself ever said anything about God’s sovereignty, but most of the Methodists I know have forgotten it. And while Calvin was certainly lacking grace (for everyone, anyway) in his theology and practice, most of the New Reformists (or whatever you want to call them) I know embrace grace and love.

Perhaps Wesley himself may be good model, but, in my opinion, today’s Methodists are not.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818195622/http://praiseofglory.com/heartswarmed.htm