“Please note that post-evangelicalism isn’t a rejection of evangelicalism, but a rejection of the current way of doing evangelicalism and being evangelical.”

Thanks for the clarification. This was helpful. You have probably said it elsewhere, but I had not seen this before.

I must say one thing really bothers me about this whole post-evangelical nomenclature. Why do we have to change our labels? Why can’t we call them neo-evangelicals, the same way the less than orthodox were labeled neo-orthodox at the beginning of the previous century? Call me a pedant, but if words have meaning, isn’t it morally wrong to concede a label when others take it and wrongly appropriate it for themselves? Why can’t we, individually and collectively stand up and say “You are NOT an evangelical because you preach another gospel”? Does Galatians 1:6-9 mean anything here? What does eu-angelion mean, anyway.

I agree with your position, I just hate to see good, useful words loose their meaning. It’s one thing for words like “awful” and “cool” to change over time, but when Ulmus parvifolia stops meaning “Little-leaf Elm” and starts meaning “Bald Cypress”, then we can’t define anything any more. I guess that is why this age is called “post-modern”.

Pax vobiscum,

SU

I am not aware of any form of personal faith that does not include a component of personal authority as the basis for submission to another authority. Even the lowly Marine in boot camp decided to submit to the DI. There’s no way to completely escape the possibility of being wrong

We have to separate essentials and non-essentials. We have to have a sense of personal conviction on what is the teaching of the Bible on the crucial issues. We have to decide if we can live in a Protestant community where authority is not viewed or approached in the same way as in the RCC and EO.

A lot of miserable Protestants probably ought to become Catholics, or they ought to become more convinced Protestants.

peace

MS

I assume the best idea is to adopt those traditions that don’t conflict with scripture and that bring the reality of discipleship closer. (I think we can all agree on that one). But didn’t most older traditions exist to further a scriptural interpretation (or religious doctrine) that modern evangelicals disagree with?

For instance, the smells and bells of the old Catholic rites existed to make the Catholic Mass feel more like a representation Christ’s crucifiction. If an evangelical does not accept this interpretation of the mass, why employ the means used to convey it? The same could be said with the use of a liturgy, etc.

By looking back for “good” tradition, sometimes it feels like we are forgetting why those traditions existed in the first place. If we remove the meaning from the tradition, does it remain an “old Christian tradition” or is it something new?

I’m sure the books will answer most of my questions. I’ve got a lot of reading ahead of me.

No problems. I have been reading and participating here for awhile, as you know. I respect your reasons for not being Catholic and actually share some of your misgivings regarding dogma, especially those asserted immediately before, during, and since Vatican I, which I accept, but with a good many questions, about both content and prudence. I am a firm adherent to St. Vincent of Lerins’ two rules:

1) “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.”
2) Development of doctrine has to “be real progress (profectus), not alteration (permutatio) of the faith.”

Vincent lived during the patristic era, in the fifth century, before the East/West schism.

I guess I would appreciate not seen as a Catholic apologist, which I am not. It is disengenuous to claim not to have an agenda, but I have one, I am open about it. If you remember I had a similar question about which Creed would be recited in your ideal church, which imagining held a great deal of appeal to me.

I am not dismissing anything. I’m not an expert on Patristics. I was recommending books by people who are.

Sorry that I can’t go in the depth you are wanting.

MS

I was genuinely curious about the ancient councils would fit in with the post-evangelical perspective, especially given that different ways they have been received in the Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed strands of Protetantism (i.e., more favorably in two the former than the latter). It is a serious question and one that cannot be dismissed easily.

Suffice it to say that the fathers are the shared patrimony of all Christians, like scripture, as we do have tradition in common, at least up to a point.