Whether or not we "want" our theology that way is another story, but the fact is that just like free software, as a community of faith we are limited by our humanity. Just like the quality of free software is limited by "bad" programmers as you call them, our ability to grow as a community and learn theology is limited by our individual disconnected imperfect human nature as well. That is why I think the parallel between open-source software and open-source theology is so strong for me. There isn’t an earthly authority other than the community in both cases, and both communities are guided by higher principles.

You also assume, grifgraf, that it is possible to distinguish in an absolute sense between "good code" and "bad code." In the case of computer programming, this is certainly not always possible, since there are many ways to solve the same problem, and each way has its own limitations and strengths. It’s often an open question as to which method to use in which place. In a very real sense, I think that whether we like it or not (you seem not to, but…) we are in a very similar place with our theology. There are many things that we do know about, just as in programming there certainly is an "accepted" way to solve many problems in many cases. However, those known spiritual things are not interesting. The unknown parts, that is, the parts we still feel the need to discuss with one another, are the interesting parts. By definition, those are the parts of faith that are not certain, not concrete, not adressed bad-Sunday-school-style with a single verse saying "Verily, Verily" or "thou shalt not," and in some cases (the nature of the Trinity for example) are not even accesible to human logic or even human knowledge at all. So, when I think of things like this, 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.