Where has all the substance gone?

I spend a bit too much time on the computer when I have free time. I think I know why so here's my attempt to fix it.

I do want to keep up to date with what's going on in the theological world, but I realize much of the stuff I've read isn't quite concise and to the point. For example, I was reading the blog, Emergent No (EN). EN made a lot of assertions about some people like Scott McKnight, Tony Jones, and Brian McLaren ... but currently I don't know a lot about these people (pastors? theologians? other?). So since I don't know a lot about these people, I'd like to hear some good evidence to support EN's assertions. However, I haven't found much. EN provides some quotes from these people, but the analysis is rather weak. Here's an example (quote taken from the EN blog):

Jones then informs us that Eckhart’s work is:

a mystical treatise on the intersection between Greek philosophy and Christian theology with an emphasis on God’s indwelling of humanity (emphasis added).

So this patent denial of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the true born again believer in Christ is where it begins, and where this deception leads is summed up in the statement that will follow. These Christ-denying and man-pleasing words actually come from a document produced by the Second Vatican Council of the Church of Rome called Gaudium et Spes:

So ... please explain to me how this quote is a "patent denial of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the true born again believer in Christ". How are these "Christ-denying and man-pleasing words"? Call me stupid, but I don't get it. These claims need to be spelled out by EN. I've read the blog entry for answers to these questions of mine and have found nothing. And where is the "statement that will follow" which is supposed to show us where "this deception (whatever this "deception" is - please explain) leads".

EN also quotes Len Sweet's quote of David Bohm:

I am calling the New Light apologetic. It is already present in bits and pieces, here and there in this discipline and that discipline, in this denomination and that denomination, in this thinker and that thinker. The New Light apologetic represents a Christian alternative to the largely Old Light “New Age” movement.

(bold and underlining is EN's)

Now it seems that, when reading EN's critique of this quote, EN notices the "Old Light 'New Age' movement," but I don't think EN grasps what the author's main point is. EN associates this with the New Age movement and seems to think that Sweet is therefore aligning himself with the New Age movement. But I don't see that. I only see Sweet saying that we live in a postmodern world and we must adapt our method (a new apologetic) to reaching out to the postmodern world. But this doesn't necessarily mean becoming one with the postmodern world (and from what I've read, I think Sweet would agree).

So, since the EN writer doesn't really give good grounds for her assertions and claims, I think I'm going to remove that blog from my reading list. Searching for her reasons for her claims takes up too much time.