While some may characterize this as another emergent train wreck, the recent Forge/Emergent issue has a lot to teach us.

Firs, some important posts:

• Hamo’s original post, now sans-pdf, but with several defensive-esque comments from Tony Jones
• TSK picks it up and gets a freaking lot of comments. Marko of YS says he’s saddened by this distancing, but I think that implies that Emergent is somehow home base for new forms of church, and everything else is a departure, which is a little presumptuous and US-centric.
• Hamo reflects some more
• Subversive Influence chimes in
• Bob Hyatt sees another renaming of the EC or Emergent coming down the pike because of all the criticism associated with Emergent and the confusion over which term applies to whom:
  

  Those who are currently steering Emergent (the organization) tend towards the theologically, shall we say, “adventuresome”… And because there are people all along the theological continuum who wish to identify with an “emerging/missional church”, those who are less theologically “adventuresome” will feel the need to clarify certain things- and even distance themselves from certain positions held by “Leaders” in “Emergent.”

I would extend what Bob says about the theology of those who associate with Emergent. Elmer Towns and Ed Stetzer recently wrote a book called Perimeters of Light: Biblical Boundaries for the Emerging Church, which I think is exactly what is needed.

Forge basically felt that they were being thought of as part of a group with no boundaries theologically speaking, which had the potential to be damaging to their relationship with established churches. Understandably so. I wish Emergent would go into at least a little detail on this important topic, because there’s always been a kind of “anything goes” or “anything is orthodox if you think about it long enough” kind of attitude.

</2 cents>