What's in a name? - Emerging, Emergent and Fresh Expression

I've been wondering a bit lately whether the names (brands?) we give to things helpfully de-limit, or just reduce the scope of what might otherwise have been a good conversation. Coleridge, one of my big heroes, was a great one for recognising when a word or phrase no longer meant, in current usage, what it means officially. And when that happened, he would often dream up, or borow and edit, a new word or phrase. Coleridge's rule was never to invent a word or phrase if there is already one in existence that does the job. But when there isn't, a new one is needed. "Bibliolatry" was one of his. "The willing suspension of disbelief" is another.

I've felt frustrated lately that the words "emergent" and "emerging" seem to have hit that point where they are an unhelpful brand rather than a useful shorthand; I don't think either word has become a well-defined theological term, with a clearly defineable meaning. Is it time just to drop the words before they become a sub-group that we have to "join" (in which case either the middle-of the roads, or the liberals, or the Evangelicals will suddenly "own" the name, instead of the current happy state in which we just talk to each other/learn from each other about what we're doing here and there?)

But at least "Emerging" sounds interesting. When the Anglican Church was attempting to dream up some tag by which to describe the new (or sort-of-new) cultural expressions of church, they came up with Fresh Expressions. Have to admit I was less than enthusiastic. But hey, what's in a name?

Tonight I tried to find Fresh Expressions on the website. As is sometimes the case, I was automatically re-directed to THIS site... somebody please tell me that this is not what the Archbishop's Missioner has in mind?