The Emerging Church is officially dead...at least, the name is dead.  Dan Kimball says of the term, "I can't defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as 'the emerging church' anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with." 

"Emerging Church" is being dropped by people across the theological board.  It's no surprise that the term has become useless, for it doesn't define what must be the most central aspect of any church movement: the God they worship.  The many conceptions of God and Christianity that evolved without boundaries among the emerging churches couldn't be united on the lesser issues of evangelism and mission, as important as those issues are.  And when such a thing (uniting as an "Emerging" movement) was attempted, the result was often a greater focus on people and community (the subject of evangelism and mission) rather than on God simply because of the nature of the way the movement defined itself.  Beginning with defined doctrine is a much better way to make Christ the foundation--the focus--of a movement.

Dan has a new network in the works that will try to make a fresh start in the direction he originally intended when he created the "Emerging Church" term:

The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake--define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked.

(HT: Stand to Reason)