Dan Kimball over at Vintage Faith posted some thoughts and a link to a very helpful post from another blog: Parchment and Pen. The team over at Parchment and Pen has done a whole series on defining the emergent church and thinking of it in reference to maybe some other ways of thinking. They have provided this chart along with several others in the series which might be helpful:
You can read the context of this chart in this post.
This was part of my comment on the post (keep in mind I didn't read the entire series before posting this):I think these charts are helpful (if properly understood) as long as we think of them as training wheels. I always hesitate to chart or label people, especially when it comes to distinguishing orthodox from orthodox. It can make it much easier to write people off if we throw them in or out a particular theological box. We can’t broad-stroke someone’s ideas into one monolithic category. But with that said, it can’t be denied that some people are more of somethings than others are (i.e. “MacArthur is not as ‘emerging’ as McLaren” is an understatement and I think they both would agree). People should be honest about their presuppositions and this should be used to guide us in healthy dialog, not to empower us toward ignorance.
I think we should always approach labels with some caution. They are an attempt to be honest about where things fit in relation to each other but without open dialog they may be destructive to pen dialog. We may go into the conversation thinking we've already got them figured out. We must always approach the conversation with a listening ear.
Thanks Dan Kimball and Michael Patton.