talking about theological "good code" and "bad code" doesn’t seem like
the right way of thinking or the right language to use for a discussion.

In many areas of society, which includes NGO’s in the voluntary sector, not just commercial enterprises, as well as within education and health sectors etc, the concept of best practice and quality assurance is well rehearsed. By many accounts, including my own experience — perhaps because so much church-based Christian work relies upon relatively untrained volunteers? —the concept of "quality" and "best practise" seems so very often to be sadly lacking within Christian work. I wonder if it is not this same attitude which also feeds our theological laxity, rather than genuine openness and tolerance?

Now, BS5950 may not yet have found its way into open-source software, let alone o/s theology, but I do think there is room for developing the concept of quality within theological discussion.

There are so many levels to which theological discussion can be taken. When an expert on a given area is "in the house" many of us will have to nominally bow to that persons learning whilst recognising that faith, belief, of course, goes beyond intellect for many Christian people and movements, whereupon academic excellence is only going to be acceptable if it confirms inner conviction and "revelatory" comprehension and understanding. Indeed, in a post-modern setting all that is very acceptable (even if the belief isn’t acceptable, we are ‘instructed’ to discuss it but ultimately to tolerate it as an "experssion of truth" held to by others).

Nevertheless, I think that theology, that is the genuine study of ("-logy") of God ("theo") etc. is someting that can be done with degrees of excellence and observable quantity. If we wish to build upon a firm foundation within our intellectual understanding of the Christian faith, this needs acknowledging, does it not, and ultimately, being allowed to transform our thinking and our own personal theologies?