I think your comments are very perceptive, Peter, and you are not at all unfair in your summary of D/H’s position as far as I can see. I simply decided to step back and enjoy the passion of the “terrier,” allowing it to add to my appreciation of the cross: there seemed little point doggedly reiterating issues which D/H had declined to respond to. (It’s a pity, because we can’t answer the questions we’ve raised in response and we don’t know how he does.)

As you hint at, the “generous-spirituality” (http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/506) approach seems to be something that the emerging church is wanting to appreciate: could we see it as a sort of syncretism-in-reverse? Not assimilating that which we disagree with fundamentally (if I may use the f- word), but not being so provoked by the difference that it destroys the fellowship underpinning the conversation?

However, as you also point out, this does have connertations in our pursuit of a boundary-lines-explored, rounded-out appreciation of truth. That is, after all, at least one important aspect of what open-source theology is about (an approach central to Judaism). Only to say that, even without a nuanced theological defence, we are still better of having been exposed to D/H’s view. And who knows, perhaps someone else will take up the Moral Influence argument (see below) set out by D/H…

On the issue of Christus Victor: are you sure that this is what our dissident friend was promoting? This post - http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/498 - sets out three / four theories; I would have placed D/H into the “Moral Influence” category? Though I hesitate to say so, I would think the “Lamb”-centred theory I’ve put forward was in the “Christus Victor” corner (Victory of God over the powers, notably Death)?