Comments on: What Do I Mean by Post-Evangelical?

By: On becoming Post-Evangelical « Lilyofvalleygirl

On becoming Post-Evangelical « Lilyofvalleygirl — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:56:00 +0000

[...] What Do I Mean By Post-Evangelical [...]

By: Pete E

Pete E — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:46:59 +0000

I prefer Orthodox as a definition for myself and consider the word synonymous with “Christian”. I am a convert to the historic Church founded by Christ’s Apostles. I am the son of a prominant 20th Century Evangelical leader, without who’s guidance I would neither be a Christian nor would I be the man I’ve become. What I find in Orthodoxy, much of it simply echoes my own father’s conclusions, due to his independent spirit & mind. With the Spirit’s leading I have found my home in what I do believe, as a former Baptist, to be the “One True Church”. I sometimes refer to myself as a “recovering evangelical”. Lastly E. Monk, I appreciate your blog & your honesty.
Sincerely,
Pete E.

By: F. Lee Arlington

F. Lee Arlington — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:05:34 +0000

Until I recently discovered your blog and other sources like it I felt like an orphan. Raised SBC, God led me to and through the Pentecostal Church (Foursquare and AG)to this uncertain place where I now stand. Thank you for leading the way.

By: John

John — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:18:05 +0000

Well, what can one say? Attend an Evangelical Reformed church for years, then sustain a series a serious losses over several months,ie. deaths of 3 people, including parents, loss of job, etc and the response from church is the great wall of silence. [This all happened a few years ago, now I'm in a better place]. I rang my pastor one night and said I was dropping out of church for awhile and I hope to be back one day. To continue attending amidst the indifference was just too difficult and I wasn’t being honest. 6 months later I returned, having forgiven the church, but it hasn’t changed and now I have 0 expectation it will or can. I don’t have a relationship with the bible, but with God. The lack of love in evangelicalism is just so jarring, and that is my great challenge, to love others, despite prevailing church culture. I have also made a return to the Catholic church in the last few years and have found the depth of intercourse between God and Man profound. Most evangelicals [in Australia] seem to have an intellectual understanding of God and not a heart knowledge of Him [I know there are many exceptions]. Bible reading, groups, sermons, conferences, etc are seen as the only way to continue in your relationship with God and show others you are committed to Jesus! Alister McGrath has a profound chapter on Protestants in his ‘The Twilight Of Atheism’ and I highly recommend the book also. I don’t understand why Activity is seen as more important than relationships at church, esp. with the men. I have loved good and deep theological writers over the years, but it seems to me this isn’t enough, it seems to me we are only satisfied by meaningful, accepting, non-judgmental and genuine relationships which are mutually encouraging, but these are so rare. Does this mean that so few have really understood the ‘amazing grace’ we have been given? I don’t know. It seems to me when Christians don’t love each other, much damage occurs, and when they actually do love one another the effect, the experience and the emotion is like a glass filling with cold water on a boiling hot day. I’ve now realised this Reply is probably too long, sorry about that. John.

By: Robert Easter

Robert Easter — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:12:36 +0000

Profnachos, I would recommend for a starter to read _Being and Communion_ by John Zizioulas. It is not a history, but it presents a really useful grid for beginning a read of Church history. Also there are one or two recent books out by Thomas Oden, who is doing some great stuff in making the Patristic mind available to readers today.

Webmeister, while I’m here, would you please take a look at the blogpage I listed here, maybe to add to your blog roll?

Blessings on you all for an awesome site, and message!

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:07:17 +0000

In your list of qualifications that define evangelicalism, I would add that it has been shaped by the influence of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.

I liked your post and I am very much in agreement with it. I think your statement that “I do not recognize the boundary lines of American evangelicalism as the boundary lines of true Christianity” pretty much sums it all up. I have said the same thing on my own blog, that we who live in the here and now are not the end-all, be-all of what God is doing in the world.

As to what it means to be “post-evangelical”, I would add that I do not believe that God can be experienced outside the context of community with His people. I believe that the promises of evangelicalism that we can experience God’s immediate and intimate presence through individualistic piety and individualistic discipline are empty promises. In other words, “Jesus and me” is not enough.

By: Brian Pendell

Brian Pendell — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:49:40 +0000

Just a quick comment: To me “post-evangelical” means “transitional”. I.e., one is dis-satisfied with the current state of the Protestant church but one as yet has no better alternatives. Think of it like Europe just before Martin Luther — the problems in Christianity of the time were obvious to anyone with eyes to see, but there weren’t any better choices until a leader appeared to show the new way.

So think of it as gas being poured down for a second reformation, but the match — the leader, the prophet — has not yet been made manifest.

Of course, the enemy will certainly send counterfeit leaders to try to lead people off track. So it’s something to be wary of.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

By: Mark Heath

Mark Heath — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 07:56:56 +0000

Hi Michael,

I’m sorry if you thought I was accusing you of “loss of confidence” in the gospel. I have been a long-term reader of your blog and find myself in agreement with pretty much all you say.

What I was trying to explain is what the term “post-evangelical” connotes to me (and I would say to a lot of evangelicals here in the UK). I was surprised to hear you using it, precisely because I don’t think you fit with my understanding of the term. You did close your post with the question “what does post-evangelical mean to you?” I was just trying to answer that question.

I haven’t read Dave Tomlinson’s book, and would like to at some point. It came out while I was at university and I remember discussing it with various evangelical pastors back then. Then I hardly heard the term “post-evangelical” for about 10 years, when all of a sudden, I hear it as I listen to your podcast.

So once again, sorry for making you feel “got at”. I wasn’t aiming a shot at you. In fact, I am in broad agreement with what you said in this post. I guess I just was trying to say that I would hesitate to use that label about myself as I think it sends out the wrong signals.

By: Steve Sensenig

Steve Sensenig — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:44:41 +0000

I had never really noticed the word “post-evangelical” until I read Dave Tomlinson’s book by the same title a couple of months ago. It intrigued me because it fit so well with so many of the questions I have been asking.

To me, the word implies a rethinking of evangelicalism and a willingness to allow the tough questions to be asked. It also implies a willingness to question (and allow others to question) some of the “sacred cows” of evangelicalism.

In some ways, it seems like a natural extension of the Reformation. While many pay lip service to the “sempre reformanda” (if I have that correct), most “reformed” believers do not seem to allow for any more reformation.

steve

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:43:52 +0000

I’m pretty sure you could could label the later Graham as a post-evangelical influence. Inerrantists, fundamentalists and TRs hate Graham. Even the current Newsweek article has them spitting out angry posts today.