I would like to see encyclopedia-like-impartial discussions of different theological view points. Let's say that if the antipostdispensationalmilenarians use a particular Greek word or minutiae of Greek grammar to construct their ideas from a passage, it might be useful to approach the Greek knowing other things besides the grammar - to know what their thinking was. I wouldn't want a full exposition of antipostdispensationalmilenarism, and would hate to see a triad of abuse and pious flaming between them and the postdispensationalmilenarians, but to at least know that there are things at stake would make me a little less naive about what was being discussed.
In my case, and let me speak for myself when I say, I have a B.Th major in systematic theology, and that was a sequence of 5 courses in theology proper, without using Biblical passages being quoted in support of a position or understanding. I am quite unfamiliar with the practice of getting together a quota of quotes to prove a point, in a process, which I think some here refer to as "proof-texting". During the thousand year ascendancy of universal orthodoxy, from perhaps the 4th to 14th century, we could have assumed that the same texts (or words in the text) were understood by all who were reading the text, except of course those who were undergoing coercise reeducation or being burnt alive at the stake, who were undergoing a process of purification from heresy and being aided in achieving conformity. Before or after those periods - such as now and at the time the New Testament was penned - there are (and were) a number of ways of reading the text. Discussing some of the ancient (original) things would suit some of the reasons that people learn Greek, to understand the world of the New Testament (to more deeply understand the text as it was written) AND/OR to better communicate their understanding (to more convincingly support their positions or interpretations).
It would be useful to know something like that the postdispensationalmilenarians interpret such and so a dative as a dative of advantage, while the antipostdispensationalmilenarians see it as a dative of disadvantage and extreme poverty, without of course having the conversation move beyond the impartial into the argumentative. The fact that the postdispensationalmilenarians developed a whole ethos of victory and triumphal empowerment from their dative of advantage, or that the antipostdispensationalmilenarians developed a social services from their dative of disadvantage interpretation is perhaps a bit far from the Greek, and may belong in Church History. But, I think, the role of Greek in the life of the Church and its effects on faith and life are integral rather than external to the experience of grappling with the language that we spend our time in.
One of the usual ways of appearing impartial - for those who personally hold a view - is to be required to present their opponents' (real or imaginary) point of view too. That is academic practice for the most part. I think that in the majority of cases, we assume that other people have the same meaning as we would have when we speak, and that they read the same meaning as we do when we read. That is a basic human empathy that allows communication to take place to a certain degree. Beyond that, we need to discuss what we mean and what we understand. With a text like the New Testament, the meanings we ascribe and the understanding that we adduce can differ quite markedly. The majority (if not all) the regular participants would have no problem with impartial discussion of Roman religions, because to a greater or lesser degree we are detached from them. While doing a Master's level course in Gnosticism, we couldn't have gotten very far without seeing the radical meanings that were ascribed to words like ἄρχων, γνῶσις, δημιουργός, πίστις, πλήρωμα, σοφία or even θεός, within their dualistic cosmology and particular theology. Arianism, it could be said understood θεός something like the pagan ideas of a deified hero. Without discussion and sharing understandings, real communication is impeded. Then there is a question of which meaning we mean when we say that we understand. Some of that understanding is based in theological issues, and if they could at least be described that could help communication. Mutual toleration would be key to the success of expressing ideas openly.
To some degree at least (depending on the individuals concerned), B-Greek is a soap-box. People who share their ideas generally believe they are worth sharing and one reason that people have for believing they are worth sharing, is that they seem better than the ideas of others. Most participants believe that their way of acquiring knowledge, way of knowing, what they know, or the skills that they possess to handle the knowledge would benefit others, so they share. For the most part the ideas are shared free of the jeering of hecklers. But that is not always the case. B-Greek as a social dynamic has reached an ambiance of "acceptability" - in fact a number of ambiances - based on that those left standing in the discussion hold similar values and similar view-points. I think that that has the effect of progressively diminishing the number of people who participate. Even if that is not the case and equilibrium has been reached, I think it would be better if all ideas were accepted independent of where they belong in the discourse. Somebody with a Polish / German / South African heritage may feel anything from an awareness of their roots, right up to having lived in the country with a highly functional knowledge of what it is to be a Pole in Poland, etc. For New Testament Greek, some people just have a respect for the language, while most regular participants on B-Greek have a well-developed ability to handle the language in the various ways that they have put in the effort to develop.
Take cricket for example. While we enjoy watching first-class matches and the one day matches, they are not the only type of cricket. The sport could not be so great or so popular unless there were kids playing cricket throughout the commonwealth and former commonwealth countries, in their backyards, on dusty streets, in clubs on the weekend. Now while those are things take place at different times and in different places, there is a little tension here on B-Greek because the first class players have been asked to share the pitch with those whose skill is still developing, and even with those who have no personal skill or first-hand knowledge of the game, but are able to make some comment about it. Neither the professionals who have to tone things down, or the beginners who for some of them must be left bamboozled at what arises after their what-are-the-marks-over-the-letters level questions, are left quite satisfied. A narrowing of focus thins the ranks of those who do not have skills or patience to participate at a certain level. To continue the cricket analogy, I would say that my favourite spot is the practice nets, where I can experiment with different shots and techniques, and love to introduce new situations and opportunities onto the field. We have a few who like to be commentators and not a few who have embraced their roles as referees. There are a few superstars and others who are waiting to be recognised. There are those in the out-out field who pick up the ball when it comes their way, and quickly send it back into play. We are not all playing by the same rules, which is something very creative and also a little confronting.
I think there is some scope for discussion of theology to facilitate communication.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)