It's so funny how we Christians bicker about the details.
Depends on the details. Which reformed confession you adhere to really NOT something to go ape over (I mean really, there was only one 1689..... =p.....j/k). However, the arminian controversy IS a serious issue, as Arminianism is a gross doctrinal error that distorts the gospel. It isn't anathematizing unless taken to its logical conclusion (pelagianism), but the fact that it leads to that is quite serious.Sure there are arminian brethren, but that doesn't mean they're right or that they don't have to be forced into inconsistencies in order to remain orthodox.Like I said, it depends on WHAT details we're talking about. Some are not worth arguing too much over (like infra- and supra-lapsarian......or whether the 1689 is better than the WCoF or not), or even mode of baptism (dunk or sprinkle), but the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is most CERTAINLY something to defend when distored by heresy.
You're right some details really are worth paying attention to, but we sometimes get bent out of shape about the small ones.