Geroge,  I thought that your e-mail deserved a section by section response as I can see that you have done a lot of thinking about this issue.  I just think you need to do some more.

Next semester I will be reading James Dunn and will be able to address for myself whether or not Shawn is accurately portraying Dunn's Christological views.

This will not be that difficult.  All you will need to do is look up the quotations from the paper as they are all documented.  Unless you do a paper specifically on Dunn's Christology, you probably will never see the books that are mentioned.  Unless you think Shawn made up fake quotations, Dunn speaks for himself.  The paper is largely just quotes straight from Dunn, not much portraying going on.

However, whatever conclusions Shawn has arrived at from his inquiry of Dunn, do not forget, Dunn believes in the Deity of Jesus (i.e. Jesus is God). This view is confirmed from Dr. Kennard who has not only read Dunn's work but has also spoken with him personally concerning these very issues.

How and why would you say something like this after you've read the quotations straight out of the horses mouth?  This is the difference between second hand and first hand source.  So and so said that thus and such happened.  It would also be important to find out when Dr. Kennard spoke to Dunn.  It is clear that Dunn once thought that only John taught a literal, personal pre-existence of the son of God, and now he has changed his perspective.  He says, "To speak of Christ as himself preexistence, coming down from heaven, and so forth, has to be seen as metaphorical; otherwise it leads inevitably to some kind of polytheism."  So no, Dunn does not believe in the Deity of Jesus in the same way that you or you profs do.  I also have a discussion between N.T. Wright and Dunn where Wright tries to get Dunn to acknowledge that Jesus is God and Dunn refuses to do so.

The same accounts for other exegetes like N.T. Wright (who believes Jesus is God). I hope Shwan and you both continue to read such scholars.

Yes, this is true.  He has written many articles placing Jesus within the Shema. 

Dan, you know that I love you, and because I in fact do love you, I am cutting off fellowship with you.

Since when have you been fellowshiping with me?  You have not spoken to me as, or considered me a brother for about 5 years.  You've made it more than clear on repeated occasions that I'm destined for hell.  You've said and sang that we are on different paths.  You cut off fellowship (worshiping together, taking communion together, evangelizing together, considering one another as part of God's family) a long, long time ago.

This is in accordance with the church discipline that was first taken by Pastor X and the elders at
Evangelical Free Church of X (which was done in person and through a letter) because they regard you as a false teacher.

We are all "false teachers" in one way or another aren't we?  It just depends on which doctrines one chooses to make central.  It sure seems to me that the Trinity is an arbitrary doctrine to choose since there is no clear proposition statement regarding it, but must be construed  and inferred by using a collection of ambiguous texts.  The simple, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heat that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" is discarded for assent to a null/empty contradictory proposition.  One which is ultimately said to be beyond understanding, one that is at the end of the day a mystery. 

 once you began passing out books and tapes you crossed the line from merely asking questions as a truth seeker to becoming a teacher of your doubts.

I've always passed out books and tapes on all issues.  This is what Drop Knee ministry was all about - Education.  Of course I wanted people to read and consider the things that were convincing me as would any human being.  This also brings more people into the discussion, and since I am fallible, it protects me from tunnel vision.  I benefit from other peoples comments, questions, criticisms and so forth. Not only that, but it also enables people to relate to me even if they don't agree with me.  You did the same with James Whites book, did you not?  Did this place you out of the category of a truth seeker, and into one of a teacher of doubts (you could be said to be doubting that God is one person)? 

You began teaching a doctrine against the Deity of Jesus (one of the core doctrines of Christianity) through skepticism. Skepticism is in fact a vehicle of propagation and teaching and not merely a innocent cry for the truth.

It seems to me that we all need a healthy dose of skepticism.  The reason that there are suicide bombers, people involved in self-mutilation, 1 billion Roman Catholics, and 1 billion Muslims resides largely because there is not enough skepticism.  People need to question their authorities, otherwise they will always think and believe whatever they are raised in.  Truth is not born out of accepting and trusting the powers that be.  Also, one of the best ways to learn is by using the Socratic method, which is based on questioning and dialoging on issues. 

You may sincerely think you are seeking the truth, but what you currently hold as truth we regard as a lie concerning who Jesus is.

The harsh language you use is indicative that you think there are no other/alternative viable interpretations.  I acknowledge that my understanding is derived from my fallible interpretation of the Scriptures.  God has not spoken to me to confirm or correct my understanding of Jesus.  I try to do the best that I know how when it comes to these things.  Who lied to me?  Who knew the truth, but taught me otherwise?

Because of this I agree with the actions of Evangelical Free Church X and also regard you as a living in sin by being a false teacher.

You make it sound as though I know I'm doing something wrong (sinning) and refuse to repent.  How would you like it if someone told you that you were living in sin by teaching things that they think are false (ie. justification by faith; calvinsim)?  Obviously you're not going to go against your conscience and change your mind because someone told you that your interpretation is a sinful one. 

You teach against the doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ, and likewise the person hood of the Holy Spirit. Although you do not count your views as being worthy of church discipline, I disagree.

If I thought my views were worthy of church discipline, what would I do, discipline myself?  I obviously would never hold views I thought worthy of "church discipline". Plus, which church are we speaking about?  By your standards the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church deem you worthy of church discipline.  You hold views that to them are anathema (justification by faith alone in Christ alone; sola scriptura).

This is not a rash decision,

No, it is not rash, but it is ridiculous.  You disfellowshiped me a long time ago, and now you are going to do it again?  How many times are you going to stop considering me a brother?  What does this mean?  Is it at this point that you are not allowed to write e-mails back and forth?  Might they corrupt you?  Are you showing that you agree with me by writing e-mail?  Are you showing that you agree with my Christology by watching and discussing current events?  Could the arguments be such that they are compelling and someone might actually be persuated by them?  God forbid!  The monsters I'm creating.

nor is it only my view, but is in agreement with seven people whom I highly respect and view as wise counselors: Pastor Y, Jose DeSilve, Dr. Douglas Kennard, Dr. Kurt Wise, Dr. Robert Fouts, Matt Benson, and Pastor X.

What did you think that these protestant, evangelical pastors/elders/professors would say?  "He is right, Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God.  Prolepsis/prophetic pre-existence is a viable interpretive model.  There is something called wisdom Christology and Adam Christology."  I also find it funny that Pastor Y would tell you to disfellowship me when he considers me a part of God's family and has personally told me that I am welcome at church Y.  When I went to a Sunday service, he gave me a hug and told me, "welcome home."  I also find it ironic that Jose would tell you to no longer talk to me when he was more than willing be my Realtor. I supose its OK to do business together, but having convesations on the phone and watching documentaries together would be crossing the line and over the top.  Pastor X also told me that I was welcome to his church any time.  I assume that this means he would also talk with me as well.  The only restriction would be that I couldn't take communion during the service.  I would love to have heard your conversations with these men.  What did you tell them about me?  What exactly did each of them say?   Wow, I didn't know I was that ferocious. 

Anyhow, at the end of the day, I'm not really that interested in having conditional friends.  I invite friends to let me know where they think I am wrong and so forth and they can feel free to think I'm not going to be with them in the kingdom, but it is another thing altogether that a friend would no longer talk with me.  Someone who does not talk to you is truly not a friend.  Since I am blessed with a group of real friends, I am fine with letting go of conditional ones if that's what they want.

Dan