In a recent comment, CAC asks, "what do you mean by postevangelical?" I'd like to draw from Dave Tomlinson's book The Post-Evangelical, wherein he does a pretty good job of shaping the term:

"Several people have suggested to me that 'post-evangelical' is really just a fashionable way of saying 'ex-evangelical', but this is not necessarily the case; properly used, 'post' means something quite different from 'ex'. 'Post', which means 'after', has connotations of 'following on from', whereas 'ex' implies 'ceasing to be'. To be post-evangelical is to take as given many of the assumptions of evangelical faith, while at the same time moving beyond its perceived limitations."(Tomlinson p. 7, author emphasis)

So, By postevangelical I mean an approach toward or grasp of theology that is initially (read: not finally) informed by the evangelical movement; indeed, it springs out of it to an extent.

As Tomlinson goes on to elaborate, it works as a term more or less the same way that the term "postmodern" is used in relation to "modern"; something that is a logical development of its predecessor, which shares many basic practices and beliefs with its predecessor, but which at the same time makes a few different decisions about things. So is a postevangelical hostile to an evangelical perspective? No, not intrinsically. As obvious as this may sound, a postevangelical perspective would not have been possible without the prior development of the evangelical perspective.