post/pre/neo/radical - more thoughts on post charismatic

After all the comments on the previous post, I was going to write a long comment, but thought I'd move my responses to a new post.

I'm aware that in a discussion of this kind, it can degenerate into 'we like this', 'we don't like you', 'we're right and you suck', or rather that is how it is perceived.

There are some forms of church that I dislike intensely, and see them as destructive. Now I think I am a great deal of trouble when I find a dislike of all forms of church, except for my own. I guess that kind of christian is the one that bothers me the most :-)

Then there are some groups that I am ambivalent about. They are just not my cup of tea, and they don't float my boat. And that fits most kinds.

I don't want to be pathological, defining my faith by all the groups I dislike. I also don't want to be exclusive, declaring vast swathes of the church irrelevant just because I don't like them.

So language is slippery.

I am post-evangelical, in that I struggle with the control and command of the modern church, and the theology that is a propositional head trip into cognition as the only basis for reality. Yet much of the modern church is does not fit that stereotype.

Yet I want to be evangelical, I believe in the bible, in relationship with jesus, in mission, and social action (in the UK historical church action kind).

I am post-charismatic, in that I dislike the culture of charismania, that excludes thinking and reflection, that sees a thinking spirituality as something to be wary of, and is also about control and command.

Yet I want to be charismatic, I want to experience the spirit of God in dreams, visions, to pray for people and see God connect with them in power.

I want to be post-emerging church, in that I dislike the love of cool, the wanting to write off most of church history as a mistake, that see all forms of church as irrelevant that wants to deconstruct church into a series of private trendy god spaces.

Yet I want to be emerging, constantly asking, questioning, not thinking I have arrived or found the 'correct' theology or form of church, to be missional, holistic, and open.

I think we are reaching the limits of many of the prefixes we have been using.

Post....moving beyond, and now when used sounds cliched and arrogant, as if I despise all that was before.

Neo...more organic, but still with the sense that what I do is new, better

Radical...the transformation of all that was before, yet can seem arrogant, as if what it came out of was lame and ineffective.

Is it time for some constructive definitions, something beyond the modern/postmodern, post/neo distinction?

(Clue - The painting is a visual metaphor for this post)