I wouldn’t label Bell as “emergent,” but as Emerging (according to Scot McKnight’s definitions). Bell is not tied to Emergent Village, so I would not put him in the same category as Pagitt, Jones, McLaren, etc.

But Bell has had McLaren come speak at Mars Hill for him before, so there are some links between Bell and Emergent. But most likely, Bell would be in the “Emerging” category (at least the way I see it).

Stoner critiques both Emergent and Emerging, but I think he tends to use them as more synonymous.

I know this is going down a path that was not your main point here, but I had a question about your statement on Rob Bell.

“A Michigan native, he has witnessed the rise of Emerging preacher, Rob Bell (who might resist the label, but seems to fit the description nonetheless). ”

What description exactly are you using which makes it so that Rob is necessarily emergent?

As a fellow MI native I actually have been attending Mars Hill for the past few months myself, and have read Rob’s books, and after going for a while I can’t say that Rob or Mars entirely fit with my understanding of emergent (if by emergent you mean the Campola/McClaren/Emergent Village type of emergent).

There might be commonalities and shared concerns, but when attending there I hear a lot more that sounds like it comes from N.T. Wright or Richard Hays then from something like “An Emergent Manifesto”.

Perhaps you are defining emerging more broadly than that, though if so it is too easy to clump perfectly sound theologians with some who are a bit more controversial. Just curious why you happen to see Rob Bell in that category