the right gospel...?

After having spent a considerable amount of time reading the discussion between Scott Mcknight and Spencer Burk (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1319 --> 114 comments!!) and all those who thought they had something to say, I do think there's a few things that haven't been said.
I'm writing on theology within the emerging church (quite a difficult chapter... some claim there is no such thing, some write a book an emerging theology for emerging churches...can't be more obvious), and I wonder how sharp i can make the distinction between the group of universalists (Spencer Burke and co.) and the Scott Mcknights saying: 'Spencer, you're a good guy, but i have to say this to you: Go back to church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics. Integrate a robust Christology, a robust death-and-resurrection gospel, and a full Trinitarian theology back into your guide to eternity.'

Now those are pretty harsh words, but I'm still trying to figure out what this means. Obviously Spencer Burke still considers himself a part of the emerging church, but if the emerging church is that which Scott McKnight and Ray Anderson think it to be, then I don't see how these two groups can still be considered one entity (i.e. the emerging church).

And think about it this way: how would Paul have responded to the gospel presented by Spencer Burke and co.? I'm all for love and respect, but could it be that Paul would have said: 'let him be eternally condemned' (gal.1:8) and again 'let him be eternally condemned!' (gal.1:9)

I'm just wondering, how tolerant will people in emerging churches be in this respect? I think it will determine the future of this conversation for a great deal...