Wenkel asked a good question by asking the AFW why we should follow the early church and not the Reformers (or the 19th century Revival Baptists). Here is where the postmodernists dilemma cuts all answers: there is no good answer to this question.
The AFW people need to give a good one to this question. Now, I think I can anticipate their answer: the early church has met, at least in some way, most of the challenges that face the church today: Empire, religious pluralism, questions over language (read Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa), and cultural missiology. The Reformers, for all their merits, didn't face these challenges to the same degree. Therefore, at this point in the divine theo-drama, an appeal to the early church is superior.
But is it too soft?
This is a good question. Even though I do not like a lot of Reformed theology, I have to admit that it is rigorous and outside of the Southern United States and Southern California, it is quite robust and attractive. There is better thinking on worship and sacraments. Many AFW people, however, are simply disgruntled with contemporary worship and want to "kick it NT church style," and we are often left with weird, if not disturbing worship services.
Don't overdo the epistemological criticism
Yes, modern Evangelical thought is thoroughly modernist and Enlightenment-ish, both being mortal enemies of Christianity. Yes, Reformed people value epistemology over ontology. (Just the other day I watched a Clarkian reduce God to a proposition to be intellectually fondled; it was kind of disturbing). However, just because they are wrong, doesn't mean McLaren is right. We need to work on this one.
Don't diss the traddies
Stop making fun of middle class surbanites for being different from you. These are the ones paying taxes and maintaing law and order. Your lives would be very uncomfortable if not for them.
I guess that's it.