I think you should be concerned, but not in a good way. The "emerging" or "emergent" movement is simply the latest version of the Liberal, anti-biblical theology that creeps up when the view of self and the view of God's revelation, Scripture, are completely out of whack. It is simply the latest and "greatest" offshoot of the failed Church Growth Movement. In 20 years they will be talking about studies that proved they had it wrong all along.

Pastor Anyabwile - I think part of the conversation results from a legitimate concern for doctrinal purity. There are certain writers frequently labeled "emerging" that are simply out of the realm of orthodoxy and others dance rather vigorously on that line. Still, others are simply contextualizing the gospel in ways that relate to the cultures in which they're living. But in doing that it creates new questions that older generations haven't had to wrestle with (or haven't had to wrestle with in the same ways, at least). The way some answer those questions make others uncomfortable. (See: Mark Driscoll)

But I also think a lot of the coverage is simply the result of the fact that it's much easier for people to unite around what they dislike than it is around what they actually have in common. And in a sick way it's fun to sit around and take self-righteous pot-shots at the cultural-different or less-theologically-inclined amongst us. After all, we've been around the emergent/pomo cul de sac plenty of times, but for some reason people feel inclined to have the same tired discussions that have been going on for the past few years. That's where a lot of my frustration comes from. As someone who generally swims in the more conservative wing of evangelicalism (PCA to be exact), I have my concerns about some of the more liberal aspects of the movement. And sometimes I do think that certain authors are just repackaging theological liberalism. Where the critics lose me is where they repeat the same criticism every couple weeks and, sadly, fail to have an irenic, gracious tone in their critique.

(Side note: One of the things I most appreciate about 9Marks is that I feel like you all do a wonderful job of acting like Christians when you're critiquing another group of Christians. Most "discernment" ministries that I've seen, to put it bluntly, fail miserably in this area. I eventually came to a point where I had to stop reading their websites because I found myself sinning in my response to them.)

I'm not certain we need to be quite so gracious or irenic in our response to these rewriters of the Gospel. It does make me angry when someone, claiming to be a preacher of the Gospel, stands up and gives a motivational speech and claims it to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ when it is completely devoid of such. Many of these are wolves in sheep's clothing. Sometimes an angry, seemingly "ungracious" response is warranted. Was Jesus "irenic" when he drove the money-changers from the temple? Heresy needs to be confronted strongly, accurately and yes, even passionately.

Please be careful throwing emerging and Emergent churches into the same box. IMO, an Emergent church is not really a Christian church at all but an emerging church is just a church that is "doing church" differently than the way it's always been done.

Here's an explanation by Mark Driscoll:
http://www.sebts.edu/chmessages/resource_2207/Convergent_Mark_Driscoll.mp3