Here are some good links on the phrase “post-evangelical”. The prefix “post” shouldn’t automatically be associated with post-modernism because it usually means “as a reaction to”; i.e. post-modernism is a reaction to modernism.

internetmonk
He gives a definition of “evangelical” and talks about why evangelicalism and protestantism is coming to a conclusion. The last third he talks about the “post” in “post-evangelical”

opensourcetheology
This guy expresses his worry of the demise of post-evangelicalism. But, his reasons are pretty familiar: If you think that truth can’t be known or agreed upon then how can a foundation be built? Still, just because what is true can’t be agreed upon does not mean that some past assumptions of evangelicalism aren’t glaringly untrue.

toward-jerusalem
This guys breaks “post-evangelical” down as saying very few things are knowable for certain and dogmatism is unwarranted. The diversity of Christianity is to be embraced instead of rejecting various parts. So the “post” in “post-evangelical” isn’t a rejection of the past but an embrace and broadening of the past.

After reading The Five Streams of the Emerging Church I figured I was just a liberal emerging Christian. I don’t know if I like the reactionary flavor of “post-evangelical”, but I think it definitely describes me.

Off the top of my head, the things I most react to are 1) exclusivist soteriology, 2) dualistic eschatology and 3) Biblolatry.

As far as exclusivist soteriology goes, I tend to think the idea that only Christians are saved should be rejected outright. Some people reject various forms of liberation theology simply because they are violent, no questions asked. I’m the same way with exclusivist salvation; if that is where a theology leads then I tend to just laugh and move on.

As far as dualistic eschatology, I think I can embraced it in a mythic sense but not a literal sense. I don’t believe in a traditional, literal view of Heaven and Hell as two separate and opposite places. But, sometimes it is useful to think of them that way.

As far as the near God-like status that is given scripture, I just sort of think that it’s correct interpretation that turns scripture into the Word of God. If you are led to literally pluck out your eyes, you’ve been reading scripture but not the Word of God.