In theory, I want Christians commenting on secular sites to bring their faith to the topic, to offer some perspective that is necessary and missing from the discussion.
In practice, nearly everyone who does it, left/right/whatever, does it in a way that is jarring. There seems to have not been a following of the discussion as it is occurring, an intruding of a favorite soapbox that doesn't quite fit.
Whenever I attempt such things, I try to create some segue, some context or disclaimer for the secular reader. I don't know that I succeed.
I had thought that the problem was merely because of the space constraint. It is hard to get a complex theological idea into concise form after all. But I have concluded that this is not the whole problem. The recent statement by Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, et alia seems like nothing so much as simply talking past those who disagree with them, without the slightest attempt to understand. And the replies - I think the one in Commentary is the most referenced - are no better. People bring that into threads seem to come out of left field, also unaware of what has been said leading up to their comment.
I just don't get the complete assurance that they know what Jesus would say. If there is one thing that is most shockingly notable about Jesus's comments, it is that He often stepped back and took a very different view than the common argument, identifying a neglected piece that is, when examined, far more important than anything the disputants had been saying. That may be the most obvious thing about Jesus and the question of taxes, or who shall be married to whom in heaven, or whether we should feast, or whether the precious oil should have sold and given to the poor. He gives an answer that is essentially outside the context of what everyone else is saying, yet stunningly, the simple answer.
Christian commenters do the opposite. They are firmly embedded in the discussion as it occurs along secular lines, but rip out some verses from the NT to club others with. Perhaps we lay people could hardly be expected to do better, but folks with theological training...
No, I won't even go there. It seems like it should be true, but I don't believe it. Jesus said repeatedly that the main point was believing in him, being willing to admit wrong, being willing to give up anything to receive the Kingdom of God. I didn't say that, He said it. From whence comes this idea that we can just skip over that part and say "Oh yeah, believing in Jesus, sure, that's number one. But what I really want to talk about is..."
I don't get it.