Greetings David.  I am enjoying the conversation you seem to have sparked.  It seems that the posting on OST goes in waves.  This is definitely high tide.

You asked "if the one thing you’re most concerned about spreading isn’t ‘truth,’ then what is the one you’re most concerned about spreading?"  In context, I was implying that I’d rather spread goodness than truth.  I would hope for both of course, but all the debate about truth tends to take away from the goodness, when I feel it should do the opposite.  For this view I am informed by Jesus’ parable of the goats and the sheep.  Based on how I understand it, what matters to God is less what we believe, and more how we live.  It is those who clothe the naked, give food to the hungry and visit the imprisonned who advance the Reign of God… whether they’re trinitarians or unitarians doesn’t seem to matter that much in the cosmic scope of things.

Now of course, I would argue for a trinitarian understanding of God.  I think it best deals with the biblical text, and that it gives us insight into who God is and what God’s project is.  It also highlights the centrality of Love.  Might I point out, since you seem to come back to this fairly often, that many ‘emergents’ (to the best of my knowledge) would be just as uncomfortable with the statement "Jesus is not God" as with the statement "Jesus is God."  I think what the conversation has revolved around is how either of these statements simplifies biblical reality too much.  My point is simply that true Church (what the emerging church strives for) is missional.

As for the three principles you mention to Richard… I am skeptical (no surprise there) of their use.  The principle of consensus depends too largely on which community we’re talking about.  The Roman Catholic consensus on birth control is not by virtue of the consensus right (I realize, your point was more nuanced than simply saying ‘what everyone believes is true’).  The principle of antiquity flounders on the basis of the plurality of the Church’s past—not only this but the Roman Catholic Church (and I pick on those dear brothers and sisters only because I know much less about the Eastern Orthodox Church) has done much theological damage (masses in Latin, a faulty soteriology, etc.).  The principle of universality is perhaps the weakest one.  The Church is far too diverse for this principle to be useful for more than application to the simple question of Messianic divinity.  I guess my biggest frustrastion with your principles is not that I disagree with them.  I think they highlight views which should be weighed before disagreeing.  They are significant as dialogue partners (and cannot therefore be ignored).  But the emerging church is wary of oppressive metanarratives.  To say that "everyone, everywhere, through all of history has believed this way, and so you can’t believe otherwise" strikes me as unhelpful at best and oppressive at worst.  Am I making sense?

And so we return to your question, how do we know what the Spirit has brought about?  Well… I’m not sure.   I’m not sure we’re called to be sure.  I think we’re called to use discernment, to ‘weigh the spirits’ if you will… but we can never be absolutely sure.  As has been previously said (by some here, and by Jesus too), a tree is known by its fruit.  The project of the emerging church will stand or fall based not on its theology, but rather on how its ‘members’ are transformed and how they transform the world (again, truth is not irrelevant—it is deeply important, and we must therefore always seek it, but orthopraxy is far more important than orthodoxy).  As my pastor says, the Kingdom of God (and therefore the work of the Spirit) can be recognized because it is whatever looks like Jesus, dying on Calvary, for the very people who crucified him.  Sacrificial love is the heart of the Reign.

Cheers, shalom, and good day to all!

-Daniel-