Blogs4God is in deep doo doo

with Mike Hardy and Sursum Corda. It appears there’s some little email campaign demanding justice, etc. because B4G doesn’t link to Mike’s site since he’s well, you know. (“Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” – Jerry Seinfeld).

Now, I’m a big booster of freedom of association. If Jack Chick or James White, anti-Catholic professionals extraordinaire, decided to put together a list of “definitive Christian blogs” and leave mine out because, being Catholic, they deem me “not really a Christian”, I have no problem with that. They are not obliged to include me.

Similarly, I note that B4G does include David Morrison (who is a chaste same-sex attracted Catholic) but not Mike. Why? Because, in the understanding of B4G (and of the Christian tradition, I might add) there is a difference between SSA and open advocacy and practice of homosexuality. B4G regards the former as temptation, not sin, and sees the latter as, well, sinful and advocacy of same as morally wrong. So they opt to include David but not Mike. I can’t see why they don’t have a perfect right to do so.

This is, by the way, a different case, in my estimation, from Petersnet’s dumb “fidelity ratings” for (paradoxically) the same reason. Mike’s little pressure campaign to make B4G think Correct Thoughts strikes me as not terribly different from Petersnet’s little pressure campaigns to force sites to link (or not link) in Correct Ways. They are both forms of coercion. B4G is under no more compulsion to declare homosexual practice as compatible with the Christian faith than it is to declare denial of the Trinity as compatible with Christian faith. They are not claiming magisterial authority and bossing other people around. They are simply acting in accord with their conscience about what is and is not compatible with Christian faith and practice. More power to ‘em.