A few links I found today-- from Aaron Flores' blog, theVoiz (http://thevoiz.typepad.com) via Alan Hartung's blog, A Different Perspective (http://www.alanhartung.com)...
A few theses I find critical in these posts...
a) That "emergent" could end up being a form of arrested development...
b) That "emerging" can never be an endpoint, and could find itself frustrated in only starting things, never actually getting things moving
c) That "emergent" might be a handy label for marketing purposes ("the next big thing")
d) That to describe emerging as a "movement" is already to be moving backward into a more static state (since movements require more solidity than seems to be the case for whatever "emerging" is)
e) That the spiral of development (see the second and third links above) suggests a development beyond "emerging" that is substantially more relativistic-- and, I would note, the model employed suggests that such a development is "higher" or "better" than where we are now...
f) That at least some of the "ancient" pieces in "emerging" may be grafts rather than integral, and may be imposing a kind of traditionalist ethos that may be regressive rather than developmentally or missionally helpful
g) That "emerging" may be entirely incompatible with and not supportable by existing or any "institutional" structures without the latter essentially regressing and undermining the former...
I raise these not because I agree or disagree with them, but because I find them provocative, particularly in light of some of the questions that Joe Peabody has been raising about emerging and relativism in preparation for his presentation at COR in a few weeks... That, and there may be something in these ideas that one or more of you might want to take and run with for a kind of theological/ecclesiological exploration (or maybe even a panel?) for our gathering/book next year.
So if any of this interests you, or provokes you, or ignites your passion-- have at it!
Peace in Christ,