Post-evangelicalism describes, and proposes solutions for, many of the perceived shortcomings of modern evangelical Christianity. It is of obvious interest to us, therefore, and should be evaluated in some detail. Here I will simply mention some general areas of concern regarding its relation to more traditional forms of evangelicalism.

1. In what sense does this movement intend to be post-evangelical? Post-evangelicalism is to evangelicalism what, in many respects, post-modernism is to modernism. Just as the term post-modernism fixes ‘modernism’ as a particular historical and cultural state of affairs, so ‘post-evangelicalism’ appears to fix ‘evangelicalism’ as a particular historical and cultural movement. But, of course, post-modernism is also a very ‘modern’ phenomenon: modernism necessarily updates itself; it sloughs off the old restrictive skin, and for a while appears new and original again. In a similar way, post-evangelicalism does not simply leave evangelicalism behind. It may turn out to be no more than a modish dead-end. More likely it is symptomatic of cultural and intellectual changes that post-evangelicalism itself – insofar as such a self-conscious entity exists – only imperfectly understands. But in any case, evangelicalism, as a theological commitment to the person of Jesus and to the evangel, will always be up-to-date. Post-evangelicalism, in the end, will either prove to be only a renewal of evangelicalism or it will become something else entirely.

2. Post-evangelicalism presents both a critique of evangelicalism as a stifling and immature intellectual system and an alternative epistemology, one that is very suspicious of certainties. The question is whether it can offer, or even whether it intends to offer, a coherent theological and epistemological alternative to evangelicalism. The critique has opened up a new door for many disaffected evangelicals, but on the other side of the door are many different paths and it is not clear which, if any, of these paths is the ‘right’ one. If post-evangelicalism remains true to its post-modern proclivities, then the likelihood is that there will be no correct way to represent the truth about Jesus Christ in the world.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it poses two serious problems, one theoretical, the other practical. It seems to me, first, that to be understood and communicated properly the gospel requires a coherent and shared epistemology – essentially a more or less objective and realistic grasp of the truth about Jesus Christ. At least, I think that the most appropriate response to the narrow and neurotic epistemology of modern evangelicalism is not a broadening of options but a more focused emphasis on something like historical-critical realism – not just any truth but a more open and intellectually confident approach to the truth that evangelicalism has always kept locked away in the safe of dogmatism.

Secondly, without a coherent understanding of what constitutes truth I suspect that post-evangelicalism will find it increasingly difficult to address the question of what the ‘gospel’ is and how it determines the faith and life of the church. Evangelicalism has been successful largely because it has given a rather simple and consistent answer to those questions. A post-evangelical church that outgrows that simplicity may find that it no longer has the same emotive and rhetorical resources to draw upon. That, I think, would be regrettable.

3. Building on this concern, I have some doubts about how post-evangelicalism will deal with some of the basic Christian parameters, especially those such as corporate worship, intercession, and evangelism which have been central to evangelicalism?s self-understanding. My fear is that post-evangelicalism will be so absorbed with the task of differentiating itself from evangelicalism, so focused on the spiritual needs of disaffected believers, that it will be unable to embrace these central commitments. Will post-evangelicalism ever become the big tent? Or will it remain an outpost on the fringe of things?a first-aid tent for the victims of intellectual asphyxiation?

4. ‘Post-evangelical’ as a defining concept is even less meaningful to the uninitiated than the term ‘evangelical’. That so much of the current debate revolves around these esoteric notions is indicative of the extent to which the church is preoccupied with the convoluted workings of its own digestive system. As with so many theological and ecclesiological discussions, the church has lost touch with external cultural and intellectual reality.