Ken, to be honest, I find this a rather difficult question to respond to, for two reasons. In the first place, I am not much of a historian – I do not instinctively look to the past in order to understand the present. It’s a worthwhile thing to do, and I’m increasingly aware of parallels between the current emergence of new church forms and the development of previous movements. But I have a rather poor grasp of the history of theology: as a biblical theologian my mind happily skips back and forward between scripture and the current state of the church, barely noticing the intervening millennia of theological reflection.

Secondly, I get the impression that the emerging church is trying hard to forget or unlearn much of what it knows – partly in order to come at the whole challenge of being church with new eyes, but also in order to remember things that modern evangelicalism in particular has forgotten. I have argued for this with regard to the interpretation of scripture, but it goes for pretty much everything we are, think, and do as church at the moment.

Perhaps these two observations go some way towards accounting for the lack of historical awareness on this site. The recent critique by Charles St-Onge also highlights the problem. But I see no reason why emerging church conversations such as this should not include the voices of church historians, historical theologians, and representatives of other Christian traditions. I think you’re absolutely right there. It’s simply a question of who can be persuaded to participate in the discussion.