I agree to a point Abigail. But I think your view of history is a bit overly cyclical. Also, the emerging movement is of mixed parentage, so its hard to predict where it will go. At any given emergent cohort meeting I've been to, there have been a diverse mix of folks, denominationally speaking. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Liberals and conservatives. There have even been folks from different nations and sexual orientation at the meetings. For sure, the movement has been dominated by anglo male evangelicals, but the rate at which it is diversifying is astonishing. In the ten years since the movement has been recognizable, the movement has broadened and now is generally a group of folks that are asking similar questions. Sure, many are reacting against the same sorts of things, but those who put the movement in a box and say that they are simply adolesents who are upset with their parents are failing to see the integration, creativity, and newness that is budding.

I say this as someone who has loads of frustrations with the movement. And although I could give you a quick list of 10 things wrong with Emergent as an organization and the emerging movement as a whole, I am filled with hope that some really good things will come of the movement.

Sorry for my lack of a response, Michelle. You asked some big questions and I've had your email flagged for a response, but I haven't honestly known how to response. I'll send you whatever response I can offer you via email.

is this why you haavent responded to my email?

In my manner of expression emergent "chooses" like trees whistle and cat?s smile. I would agree to a point with your descriptors that the movement is fluid, uncontained and undefined-yet. However, there is an element of mechanical and mathematical deduction about emergent. In the sense that one can put its parents chromosomes under a microscope and determine quite a lot. Where emergent goes is a bit more determined than what most would like to sign on to. I get so weary of people thinking they are so radical and different and innovative-when its nothing more than that our consciousness simply doesn?t identify with the historical cycle where it?s all happened before Or that this innovation is reactive to that which gave it birth. I?m not disagreeing I?m adding to what you describe emergent to be.

I don't think it is a matter of what emergent chooses. The emerging movement is fluid and cannot be contained, defined, or controlled--much like the charismatic movement. There are a number of issues being exposed and addressed within the American church--particular within evangelicalism--in the past couple decades that are causing conflicts, changes, and new developments. This overall set of trends is generically called the emerging church.

"Emergent" as a particular organization that seeks to broker relations regarding the emerging church may come or go, but the emerging phenomenon has already brough about enough change to have at least shifted the ecclesial landscape of North America. The question is, what sorts of developments will continue to "emerge" and what will these do to the landscape of North American Christianity?

Where is emergent headed?--well, I wrote my Emergent, the retarded child, commentary on it. What options do special needs children have in today's society? They are a minority and there is a system of those in ower that contain them. The direction Emergent might choose is quite limited.

http://modern-parables.blogspot.com/2006/10/why...