A recent Xanga post entitled Why I don't talk theology has left me thinking about what place the internet should have. One of the reasons that I switched denominations is that in the former I found that many (not all) people tossing around theological terms without understanding what they mean. As an example, whether or not your church uses an organ or a band to accompany singing seems to me to be irrelevant to discussion over whether or not a church qualifies as Arminian.
As tskerrit notes, there are some nutty people on the internet, but at the same time this does not mean that there is no room for profitable discussion, and that many of the nutty can be avoided fairly easily. One criteria that I tend to use is that if someone has an absolutely definite answer to every single question of yours that means that either you're asking questions that are too easy or that the person probably doesn't really know what he claims to know and thus is to be avoided.
Admittedly it can be easy to fall into certain traps when discussing topics (and I've definitely done so myself), but I think that there is a place for the internet in theology. In the first place, it's easy to make inaccurate statements about others theology unless they're around to critique your work. Perhaps it is for this reason that the book that I'm currently reading (New Covenant Theology) bears on the back cover what I'll dub semi-endorsements:
If there is any hope of a meeting of minds, let alone of a resolution of the issues, it takes time, patience, intellectual humility, a willingness to be corrected, and thoughtful and empathetic listening combined with accurate and understated articulation of each party's understanding. And those are the values of this book. ... perhaps in the mercy of God, we will discover, in time, that some genuine steps have been taken toward theological agreement. - D.A. Carson
Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel have moved us along the road ... of profitable discussion. They have shown unity with their contending brethren on many points while making clear the leading principles of NCT and setting in bold relief some of the major implications of those principles. Some of us who may not agree with all aspects of the position as articulated here, nevertheless hope that this book gains a wide and respectful reading. - Tom Nettles
Not all books have equal value (and some are basically trash) and the same can be said of blogs. I wouldn't advise spending all your time focused on one thing. I think that this was what led Driscoll to his comment about hypercalvinists and baptism. I heard something similar in an earlier talk that I listened to by him on the subject of church discipline, and it sounded somewhat less disagreeable in context. There he commented on how some people in his church became fixated on the issue of baptism, and that's what they would want to talk about every single day. Also he noted that a lot of these individuals were single guys to whom this issue didn't imply in the same way as it would to the parents of a newborn child. (I think, although I'm not entirely sure that this talk was the one). The topic of cooperation in the church probably plays into this as well. There were some interesting comments in that conversation wherein the people involved talked about individuals whom they might invite to preach, but who would not be permitted to become members of the congregation. Considering that Driscoll spoke alongside Tim Keller (PCA) at the Desiring God 2006 conference, I think that this is an issue wherein Driscoll is willing to agree to disagree. However, as the cooperation in the church conversation suggests, there are some issues which make it difficult to exist within the bounds of a single congregation, although there may still be a sense of unity felt between these congregations.
Anyways, enough for the moment... although I this is a topic that I want to post more about sometime soon
