I can’t see anything wrong with the link to metalutheran - try again.

It seems to me important that an emerging theology is a ‘reading of scripture’ - the fifth point in the original post. Scripture presents itself largely as historical narrative, told in a rather complex and not entirely coherent fashion - so basically that’s where the story is. Of course, it has to be interpreted - and I suppose, arguably, the prior characterization of scripture as ‘historical narrative’ is itself the product of interpretation. It differs from the characterization of scripture as God’s Word, for example - God speaking to humanity - and there must be presuppositions that govern that choice.

So, as I see it, as long as the emerging church wishes to see itself as a community shaped by scripture, we have a story with content. The question is how we read it, how we retell it (in our churches, to ourselves, to the world), and how we translate it into other forms of discourse (sermons, apologetic arguments, popular books, and so on).

At this level there are plenty of difficulties and uncertainties. The historical approach has attracted a lot of interest partly because it resists modern dogmatic taxonomies, partly because it grounds truth in the experiences and self-perceptions of communities. I still think it will go a long way towards redefining the story for the emerging church, but we are still in the midst of things. Clarity and consensus are probably still some way off.