HYPOTHESIS ONE: GREAT QUESTION
Has any prominent theologian ever explained why Jesus let a thief be in charge of the money? is the best question we've seen here in a long time. One objective piece of evidence is that it's got 14 upvotes, no downvotes at this time. Another piece is there is no squabbling in the comment section, and the slightest controversy ends with the OP thanking the commenter for bringing up a point.
I personally think it is a good Question because it asks an important theological question, and avoids the "What should I do with my life?" counseling trap. It avoids the horribly boring (and factually untenable) assumption that denominations / sects would each have an identifiable perspective on this. It asks for what the church has thought about a particular passage in a way that is both objectively verifiable and open to all sects. This is the wording I have been stumbling for.
The Answer is equally beautiful. I has 8 upvotes. It quotes numerous "important Theologians." I especially like that it has two great Catholics-- Augustine and Aquinas-- and gets a post-1517 denomination founder, and tops it off with someone alive during WWII! We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.
Instead of poring over the legalistic minutiae of some sect's rites, it is also the most evangelistic post I've seen, maybe ever. It points to the love of Christ for sinners.
HYPOTHESIS TWO: MODERATOR OVERSIGHT
In all honesty, ever since I saw the question, I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. If one tries to internalize some guidelines from recent moderation as a consistent principle, this Q/A pair was missing a lot of needed guidance. Here are some things that could be said about this entry:
"Belongs in skeptics"; is a "thinly veiled attempt to discredit Christianity": (insinuating against Jesus's divinity because of an inability to judge character, or presuming a lack of omniscience, or that he associated with bad people)
"Needs to identify which Identifiable Group it is seeking information from"
"'Prominent' is too subjective a term"
"Unclear what you're asking". "Too broad", "Primarily opinion-based", "Too many possible answers".
"Missing denominational tags."
Thus if moderation were consistent and based on objective principles, I am doing a favor by pointing out how many rules this Q/A violated.
HYPOTHESIS THREE: RULES ARE FOR LOW-REP PEEPS
Both the Q&A'ers have reputation above 8k. These have been shown that the community respects and trust them. Moderation doesn't need to focus its attention on the responsible members of the community.