While you may have a compelling synthetic reading of the biblical texts at times, Danutz, I fear Andrew is correct to say that 'social justice' as a summary of (all of!) Scripture is woefully inadequate. 'The establishment of a just society' gets perhaps a little bit closer to the idea, but it eliminates God as the main character in the story, which is an irreducible element of the Scriptural narrative. Further, your refusal to let Jesus be truly unique in the sense that the biblical story intends him to be, prevents you (in my humble, barely-educated opinion) from fully engaging the claims of the NT writers.

Inerrancy is a bad idea because it is an a priori conception of the biblical text which precludes genuine engagement with difficult and/or challenging passages. Liberalism (/'metaphorical' readings of the NT/reducing the biblical story to 'social justice') is a bad idea because it is an a priori conception of the biblical text which precludes genuine engagement with difficult and/or challenging passages. If the 'emerging church' conversation means anything, it means (at least I hope it does) a re-opening of the dialog over key biblical themes, texts and ideas which will necessarily confront both fundamentalist assumptions (e.g. 6 day Creationism) and liberal assumptions (e.g. 'social justice' sums up the Law and the prophets… and the epistles…).

My two cents.

Cheers,

-Daniel-