A (modified) repost from Per Crucem ad Lucem:
Most of my blogging happens over at Per Crucem ad Lucem. But some time ago, I made the decision to blog occasionally at two additional sites – Civicus (a blog dedicated to issues broadly related to human rights and with a particular interest in Burma), and Paternal Life (a very occasional blog concerned with issues pertaining to being a dad). The decision to blog at various places was not made lightly. At the time I felt that the different foci could best be served by separating them out (much like the direction that biblical scholarship took in the last century). This would mean, I felt, that readers who were interested in the particular focus of the blog would be less likely to have to wade through copious posts that they were not particularly interested in. A downside of this decision has been that these three of my many passions – theology, human rights and fathering – have, as far as blogging goes, been kept separate, and do not share the perichoretic (probably an inappropriate word to use in this context) existence that they know in my own being. Consequently, I’m (inadvertently) sponsoring the idea that theology, human rights and parenting have little to do with each other, a notion which is of course utter baloney. The other downside, though significantly less important than those already stated, is that maintaining three blogs takes more work.
So, I’ve been wondering about merging Civicus and Paternal Life with Per Crucem ad Lucem (the blog that I pour most of my energy into and which recieves the most hits); and the point of this post is to invite some comment about how you – my readers – and those who may have journeyed down a similar track feel about this proposal. Do you have a preference? What sorts of questions ought such a decision be required to consider? Would such a merger of interests be unduly isolationist for too many readers? Your thoughts?