Conversations can afford to have fuzzy boundaries on many issues. Communities can’t. For a community to be cohesive, there has to be (it seems to be) substantial agreement on the center of the faith (something like answers to my 3 questions)—in the NT, the boundary of Church was quite clear (baptism and allegiance to the risen Christ).

For example, in the Mennonite community I recently joined, there is disagreement on this particular question ("what of homosexuality?"), but the fuzziness there exists only because there is strong agreement about more central issues (nonviolence, simplicity, truth-telling, etc.). Conversations can continue without a center. Communities dissolve without the same. (All that to say the definition of ‘emerging church’—as a community or as a conversation—will shape how we answer the boundaries question.)

In parting, I’ll answer my own 3 questions: 1. Since the homosexuality question is best addressed in individual communities, that is who the ‘we’ should pick out. 2. NT Wright’s suggestion for understanding the narrative of Scripture as authoritative (his famous 5 act model) seems to me to be in line with taking Scripture seriously (without foregoing critical assessment). 3. Dismissing Paul as a homophobic mysogynist is far too easy (and unfair to his arguments). Based on my answer to 2. above, ‘we’ should also view the Creation stories as (in an important sense) normative (though this does not settle the question this thread centers around).

So, as far as I’m concerned, something like progress in this discussion can only be made if we’re roughly on the same page regarding 1, 2 and 3a (which doesn’t appear to be the case). Otherwise, the most we’ll get out of this is a peek into the minds of others who don’t agree with us (this is not a bad thing, I should add, but it does limit us).

My two cents. Cheers.

 -Daniel-