I think the problem here is semantics. Paulchen does not see prayer with Christ as normative, and most of us do. The issue at hand is not whether Paulchen sees Jesus as divine but rather he is unsure of the role Jesus completes in the divine and based on a normative reading of Jesus’ own words to the disciples not to call him master, he would not be far off. The problem is that his view of things sees this as normative, whereas most of us see it as an answer he made to a specific problem which is not normative.

Many excellent points have been brought up to answer his contentions, and I will not reiterate them now.

All in all, I am reminded of Paul: “Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill…whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.”

And Ignatius: “I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God.”

I would also add this thought. To have Jesus without the Father, which IS a trend in evangelicalism OR to have the Father but deny Jesus, which is also a trend I’ve seen occurring - BOTH are incomplete. We must know God in all of who he is, in the hidden and in the manifest.