Are Emergent Christians going to hell?

A friend recently wrote to aske me this question: What is the emergent/emerging church and why do some people think they are going to hell?

Since she asked, and since I figure others might be wondering, here is my super-brief reply:

The conversation about "emerging" churches started in the 90's.*  Everyone was getting along when all they talked about worship styles and slammed traditional churches. It was easy to get along when all they talked about was what they were not.

Then they started talking about actual beliefs. Then everyone realized they actually held many different theological positions. These differences were not just questions of style and cosmetics, but very different doctrinal beliefs.

If I have my terminology and story right, the term "emergent" became most closely associated with folks that believed the church was actually going through a reformation whereby it would emerge as something very different on the other side.  Less of a style change, a n more of an actual metamorphosis.  And of course, they believed that what would emerge be better (the new an improved church!)  Perhaps the most most divisive doctrine has been alternative positions on Justification.

That is when I, and many others, picked up a new term: missional. While this is still being discussed, it's not really being debated. Missional churches stand in agreement that the church, and the people that constitute her being, are the method, the means, and the matter of God's mission.

This is why we wrote out statement of beliefs as follows:
"We are an interconnected community of Orthodox, Reformed, Missional, Evangelical, Authentic Christ-followers." I explain each of those terms briefly at http://www.connectionschurch.ca/about/beliefs/

If you want to watch a video, here's Mark Driscoll describing the various "emerge" camps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI

* While this conversation was going on I was blissfully working my way through seminary.  I ended up being ordained into the PCUSA, thinking all along that while this was a mainline church in decline, that there was a faithful remnant.  What I discovered was that while this was true, the denomination was so inwardly focused on it's own issues and hemorrhaging membership, that it was incapable as an institution to move forward in ministry/mission.  I did not expect the denomination to arrive at any consensus on theology, or at least a consensus that I agreed with.  But what pushed me away, the straw that broke the camels back, was an inability to actually engage in missions that engaged communities, grew churches and converted unbelievers.  Where I did find that group was with Christian Reformed Home Missions.  This body actually plants church with the "mind-set" that new churches are actually doing cross-cultural mission work in a post-Christian North America.