Okay, here are a pair of articles, one being the talk Phil Johnson gave on the "emerging church movement", and one by N. T. Wright:

Phil Johnson: A critical look at the emerging church movement

The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology

From Johnson's talk:
Quote
Here's another (similar) feature of the "emerging church movement": Emergent-style churches show a preference for "narrative theology" as opposed to systematic doctrine. The story of the gospel is ultimately more important than the theology of it. The simple narrative of salvation history must not get lost in the careful parsing of theological words and ideas.

From Wright:

Quote
Still within Jesus’ narrative world, there are two other points to he made. First, Jesus invited his hearers to become part of the story. His radical narrative summoned all and sundry to celebrate with him the real return from exile, the real forgiveness of sins. He was offering the latter precisely because he was enacting the former. This is eschatology, not reform. Jesus’s so-called "ethics" belong just here: they were part of the story, the story of what God’s renewed Israel would look like.

Of course, this bit by Johnson also resonated with me, as one who has tangled with NPP'ers on more than one occasion:

Quote
Some in the movement will complain that I haven't read enough of their literature; I haven't interacted enough with the right emergent bloggers; or I haven't visited enough of their gatherings to be a competent critic of their ideas.

All I can say in response is that I have read as much literature from the movement's key writers as I can get my hands on; I have interacted directly with people in the emerging movement as much as my time and schedule will permit; I have already put many of my criticisms of the movement in the public arena repeatedly, and I have invited (and received) lots of feedback from people who are devoted to the movement. I have done my best to be fair and complete. And I assure you that I will continue to study the movement.

But I don't agree with the notion that in order to be a reasonable and credible analyst of a movement like this, you have to remain neutral indefinitely and never become a critic.

How's this as a possible explanation for the similarities: the most vocal, vociferous proponents in both "movements" tend to be young(ish) men with a university background, who have soaked up a postmodern viewpoint without even being aware of it.

Anne