I have an idea. Come join the conversations and learn about this thing you decided to critique, then you can answer your own questions.

But the rest of this conversation is genuinely impossible without an agreed upon definition of the thing being discussed.

So, what does a better theological product, i.e. more flexible look like in this model? And how do we know we have it?

The political by-product of the attempt to solve the power by ownership problem is just that, a by-product. And one that is of no particular interest to the open source model. The goal is not political change, the goal is a better product — either better software, or better theology. One aspect of the definition of "better" includes "more flexible" in both cases, which is why the open, collaborative, non-proprietary model is necessary.

But the fact that this has a political by-product is entirely tangential.

You keep asserting that this somehow makes the whole exercise futile or self-contradictory. Neither are true.

1) "It attempts to solve the problem of power through ownership." Above this you say, "But your conclusion that the intent of open source theology is to somehow resolve (economic and political) problems is just simply incorrect." An attempt to resolve power through ownership is both economic and political no?

2) "There is a desire to de-politicize theology by removing its capacity to be used as a weapon of power and control." And this is a political act, no? And I argue that even with open source it becomes a "defacto" condition of control even if that is not the intent of those who are constructing the discourse.

3) "There is no assumption that everyone on earth will at some point be a theologian who actively participates in the dialog that shapes theology." If you are assuming that theologians are the ones who shape the discourse of theology and tradition, then I agree and this is the problem. If it is only theologians who are able to reconstruct the code, then it limits open-source to that group which has its own social rules at play. I am arguing that I do not think this really is open source since it is only in reality open to one group of people with a certain training to legitimate their authority in the discourse.

I think that if you keep on this line of interrogation you will find yourself much closer to my argument that at first.

The aside, "The opinions of faculty and students mean very little in terms of the running of academic institutions." I disagree completely (as I try to help advise 60 students a week to get them enrolled so that we meet our bottom line for the Fall budget). If we don't get the students, we don't have a college here. This is totally not a unique circumstance either. Moreover, student and faculty unions change a lot all the time. Non-unionized faculty senates change the direction of a college. It's not just the boards that do it. Both HE policy studies and the history of HE bear this out. I am involved in the decisions and the politics on a regular basis as well as engaged in studies of it. I go to Educause and NMC, etc. where this stuff is discussed regularly. But it seems like a moot point.

And that is one of the points you made that I wholeheartedly agree with. You're right (I think) – open-source theological inquiry will not produce orthodoxy. Its antithetical to the project.

"The conclusion is that it will only create multiple orthodoxies with the same issues."

Perhaps, but not necessarily so. IMO, one of the constituent parts of an open-source theological posture is the explicit acknowledgement that it is NOT the sole or original expression of the source code (God's self-revelation via the WoG). If it DOES claim that status (original or sole expression), then its just another imperialistic, colonizing, oppressive form of the faith and not an open-source rendering. Open source, by definition, avoids those issues.

The issue with academic theology is not that people can't access it, but that it claims prominence. I don't think AT is part of the problem of the church, but allowing AT to eclipse any other form and define it as unvalid is. Additionally, to restrict someone from obtaining the skills to access an AT is a problem, but, then again, that would not be a form of open-source theology.