I agree with most of what you write here and with the basic “grid” you work with to delineate what you call post-evangelicalism. I see two problems with what you’re suggesting here though:

1. The Neo-Reformed movement in no way sees themselves as “post” anything. They are just classical Reformed evangelicalism with better packaging. Certainly Tim Keller and Acts 29 have an incarnational missiology that could be considered new and might sometimes upset stodgy Christians who don’t like rated-R movies. But these guys don’t want to be counted as post-evangelical or post-whatever stream of the Reformed river they come from. They feel more akin to their paleo-evangelical brethren than they do to your other two streams of post-evangelicals. I.e., they wouldn’t show up to your new Nicean council.

2. This might just be another way of stating #1. The Neo-Reformed view of Scripture precludes their even entering into dialogue with the other two streams. To them, anyone who is not an inerrantist is a liberal and you can’t proceed forward in dialogue with someone who “doesn’t believe the bible is God’s word.” I.e., they wouldn’t show up to your council.

Oh, and a third thing: we don’t have a Constantine to convene the thing. (Kind of ironic that its the Anabaptist calling for a new council!)

Agreed too that while we avoid pragmatism, we have to be theologically reflective AND rooted in practice. No either-or there. Webber’s small chapter at the close of Younger Ev or Gary nelson’s notes in Borderland Churches both hit at this need. In some ways I prefer nelson (a Canuck eh) his call that we must be “apprentice-pastor-theologian-missionary” and this from a Baptist guy! Getting hard to know who is who on this taxonomy.

Even in my role in FORGE I’m experiencing some tension in all this. Feel the push to roots and practice. If we can’t make it all work locally then it’s “only” a nice conversation, but local will suck you in fast and then trying to even find space for the larger conversation is tough. Interesting to me that our own community is now on the verge of being birthed as its own society out of a larger Menno context. I saw this coming but now see the greater implications for innovation and movement and contextualization that could not happen so long as we were encumbered by the weight of the larger ship. The weight is really less institutional in the end than simply amorphous and incoherent, like any “successful” large church the large is so caught in modernity and its universalizing tendencies there is no possibility of “self knowledge” writ large they do not know who they are therefore defend against all comers. Not to mention inflexible. But small and face to face we quickly define and form a critical mass. Flexibility so important for innovation and engagement, but also.. just living it out as faithful apprentices..

I am new to the scene, so this back information is helpful. At this point I certainly find myself aligning with the ideas of the missional stream, so I guess I want to make sure I know where any lines are drawn… Any information would be helpful.

David, as for a representative from the Yoder camp, Lee Camp would be a great addition to that sort of a coalition.