How will we know when the critique of the emerging church movement has reached a helpful place?

Here are some things I, at least, am looking for:

Critique that deals with actual Churches.

This is, after all, the emerging CHURCH movement. There are churches involved. More than involved, without actual commmunities, you have- rather than a movement, just a bunch of authors talking to each other. And who would be silly enough to get so uptight about that?

So, critics, time to talk about actual churches. I understand you have concerns about Brian McLaren's theology. Well and good. But, it's pretty much all been said, so...

So how about this. Spend time with emerging churches (notice the plural). Show us how that theology is working itself out in harmful ways in actual church communities. I want the hard, empirical evidence. (How's that for "modern" thought?) Give me the names of the communities and the places where you feel they are going wrong and how that is working itself out to the detriment of their people. And then let's see the response of the emerging church community as a whole.

And if you want a head start, email me. I'd be happy to give you the names of some very solid emerging churches and some that I have concerns about.

Fair enough?

A critique which engages actual practitioners in dialogue.

Can I just say that it is not enough to critique a comment Don Miller made in the Willamette Weekly? Yes, many have read him. Yes, he's involved with an emergent-esque church. No, he's not a spokesman, nor a "practitioner".
It's cool to dissect Rob Bell's comments in a Detroit newspaper. It's not cool to never ask: "It sounds to me like you are saying X, Y, and Z. Is that so?"
Reading the combined works of Brian McLaren while never having talked to the man, spent time in an emerging community or even being open to a discussion with emerging church "leaders" should actually disqualify one from commenting on, writing about and critiquing the emerging church.

A critique which some actual emerging church people will own.

When everyone says of your critique- "It's a straw man," "It's a lot of mischaracterization" and/or "That's not us" one of two things is happening.
Either the emerging church if FILLED to the rafters with dissemblers or maybe, just maybe, most of the critique has thus far missed the mark, inaccurately described it's target, and so is seen as less-than-helpful.

I know which one of those two options the critics would like to believe... but give us the benefit of the doubt when we say we're open to listening. Just give us something worth listening to.