Can one differentiate here between a theological method that gives critical and creative freedom to individuals in the conversation and the need for the people of God as community (at least at the local level) to be in broad agreement about the story by which it is defined? We could introduce at this point the need for the theological conversation to recognize that it serves the interests of the church as a whole and of the mission of God. So if an emerging theology engages a broad spectrum of opinions (I don’t really see why vynette should be left out), it does so for the sake of the whole - and it may simply be that we haven’t gone far enough yet down this road into the future to know what the emerging consensus might look like.

Perhaps this is trying to be too clever. In the end, rather as you suggest, the collective mind is shaped by the interplay of ideas in ways over which we have very little control.