"Your comment is a mixture of syncretism (all roads lead to God) and
postmodernism (there is no truth except my truth and your truth)."

This isn’t really my conversation, but.. Peter, why does your statement remind me of George Bush warning the American people against critics of his Iraq policy who want to "cut and run"? Syncretism isn’t willy-nilly whatever-ism; it’s a serious attempt to reconcile two or more different systems of thought and belief. Some would argue that medieval Christianity syncretized Jewish and Greek thought, or that evangelicalism syncretized Reformed theology and Enlightenment positivism. These movements weren’t consciously planned out; rather, they "emerged" in ways that could not have been anticipated or predicted from the starting conditions.

I’m sure I don’t understand everything about postmodernism, but to caricaturize it as unmitigated subjectivism is to miss the point altogether. Questioning the criteria for asserting the truth or meaning of a text or the intentions of an author certainly presents a challenge, even a threat, to established systems of epistemology and hermeneutics. However, the so-called postmodern critiques of objectivity are valuable in uncovering hidden subjectivities — subjectivities that are often motivated by insularity, the will to power and the suppression of dissent.

"I am not saying that Christianity is the one and only way, or that my Christianity is the right Christianity."

You’re certainly asserting the first half of what you deny here, aren’t you, in the rest of your comment? A good part of the online discussion in emerging circles is what constitutes "right" Christianity. In your following paragraph aren’t you asserting the parameters of right Christianity? What you wish to disavow is that right Christianity is only your Christianity — that it’s more than just a matter of personal opinion. You want to assert that right Christianity can be identified objectively by analyzing the evidence. You might regard this is the proper way to proceed, but there are those who would regard this approach as paradigmatic of evangelical syncretism and its characteristic Modernistic biases.

Why must the conservatives always end their diatribes by invoking the blood of the martyrs? Isn’t there an implicit comparison of the PoMo syncretists with the murderous Romans? Isn’t there also an implicit threat: you’re either with us or against us?

"self-critiquing… is always in danger of being culturally hi-jacked."

Again with the violent imagery, Peter. Sometimes a warning can be interpreted as a threat, like the Mafia boss who offers to protect you from criminals.