Dear Dr. Olson;
That, of course, doesn't finally persuade me that you have the better systematics or even approach to theology, church and evangelism, but I credit you for being a sound in-house adversary for what you believe.
It was an unimpressive exchange as you and Pagitt essentially tittered at your own opinions of the psychology of the Young, Restless and Reformed movement, and simply asserted that there's nothing to it but immaturity. It's rather hilarious that, now that Doug is himself no longer a young man, he can position himself as the elder brother to these poor misguided sops and talk down to them for doing to his theology what he did to the theology of his elders back when he was their age -- with no sense of irony or self-deprecation.
But to listen to you dive into this as if it's any kind of balanced or even instructive approach to the differences between your stated views and the stated views of these young fellows is disappointing. It trivializes your previously-decent work and sets you on a path of obscurity along with Pagitt and his cronies at Solomon's Porch.
If you want to be non-Calvinist, or even anti-Calvinist, I say super: have at it. You don't have to affirm every statement of the Westminster Confession to be a decent Christian. But when you start hanging out with guys like Doug Pagitt because you can't find any actual Christian friends to agree with you about guys like me, I wonder what exactly you're looking for from me. If my fault -- because I am one of these new Calvinists -- is that I want to define the faith in terms of one systematic theology only, is it a virtue to define the faith as anything which includes the word Jesus in it once in a while?
Is that Arminian theology? Does that do good to the reputation of God? It worries me that you might think so. If you do, please repent.
I hope this find you in good spirits and in God's good graces.