MennoNet.com

In reading over some of the recent threads, I see that some groups take a stand on whether or not its okay to have the Readers Digest. Am I missing something here? What's so bad about this particular publication?

steve-in-kville wrote:In reading over some of the recent threads, I see that some groups take a stand on whether or not its okay to have the Readers Digest. Am I missing something here? What's so bad about this particular publication?

More conservative groups would avoid it. For example, they used to regularly have articles about sex and had a section with funny stories about the military.

Less conservative groups can’t comprehend why anyone would avoid it.

I think Ernie picked Readers’ Digest not to single out a particular publication but rather to showcase how different groups approach a variety of literature.

steve-in-kville wrote:In reading over some of the recent threads, I see that some groups take a stand on whether or not its okay to have the Readers Digest. Am I missing something here? What's so bad about this particular publication?

I don't know where I have been all my life, but I grew up in W-F and was a member of Eastern for 13 years and never heard of a restriction against Readers Digest. I personally subscribed to it years ago and if I am not mistaken we would have gotten it at my home when I was a boy.

I believe Readers Digest has been popular in old order Mennonite homes for the quality and variety of articles. We never got it at home but I have subscribed off and on over the years. The newest version just isn't what it used to be; I wouldn't buy it anymore but do pick it up in waiting rooms to read.

I would agree that Ernie probably used Readers Digest as an example. Time magazine could be another example of what he was trying to portray.

For the record I also have not subscribed to Reader's Digest for years simply because I view it as a poor quality magazine at this point. But I do think I understand the fact that Ernie was simply using that as a way to compare the openness that various groups might have to outside literature.

Our family consists of several "book nerds" and therefore I subscribe to a lot of magazines, most likely 12+ monthly rags. Hunting, fishing, poetry reviews, literature, backpacking, gardening, cycling.... you name it.

Oh - we also get the Lancaster Farming. And the daily paper, but I'm dropping that.

Josh wrote:I think Ernie picked Readers’ Digest not to single out a particular publication but rather to showcase how different groups approach a variety of literature.

I once heard an extended diatribe from the pulpit about reading Abigail Van Buren's newspaper column. Granted, some of the situations people ask "advice" about could lead one's imagination in unhealthy directions, I suppose, and many of the "answers" do not reflect Godly wisdom.

I'm pretty sure it was targeted, though. The minister's wife had developed the habit of saying "Dear Abby" in situations where others might simply say "oh dear."

We have never subscribed to Reader's Digest, but my folks did, and aside from the general drift of culture I don't really object to it. (It's a lot more decent than about any other periodical.) I do usually choose it to read when in the Doctor's office, because most of what is there is for women, or perhaps hunting, in which I am also uninterested. But I never read the Humor in Uniform page.
I would imagine that a person could also use a magazine like Christianity Today as an example as well, or what about GuidePosts, which sort of masquerades as a "Christian magazine? We got Missions Quarterly for a long time while on the mission field, and it sometimes contained articles which advocated views that don't fit with anabaptist thought. (But then the children never read it, as far as I know, mostly just me.)

Biblical Anabaptist wrote:

steve-in-kville wrote:In reading over some of the recent threads, I see that some groups take a stand on whether or not its okay to have the Readers Digest. Am I missing something here? What's so bad about this particular publication?

I don't know where I have been all my life, but I grew up in W-F and was a member of Eastern for 13 years and never heard of a restriction against Readers Digest. I personally subscribed to it years ago and if I am not mistaken we would have gotten it at my home when I was a boy.

BA, that's two of us. Growing up we had the RD, National Geographic, Time, and the Washington Post and others. And I remember my great uncles and aunts getting all of the above. Also, we didn't do Rod and Staff and called "The Christian Contender" the Christian Contentions. One of my cousins recently told me that his biggest problem with R&D math was that with enough prayer 1+1=5. So, Ernie did say the "Readers Digest would be seen by most Ultra Conservatives as having enough worldly influence that it wouldn’t be worth reading". I think the "most" part could be an inaccurate stereotype for W-F as are other statements.

Martin wrote:

Biblical Anabaptist wrote:

steve-in-kville wrote:In reading over some of the recent threads, I see that some groups take a stand on whether or not its okay to have the Readers Digest. Am I missing something here? What's so bad about this particular publication?

I don't know where I have been all my life, but I grew up in W-F and was a member of Eastern for 13 years and never heard of a restriction against Readers Digest. I personally subscribed to it years ago and if I am not mistaken we would have gotten it at my home when I was a boy.

BA, that's two of us. Growing up we had the RD, National Geographic, Time, and the Washington Post and others. And I remember my great uncles and aunts getting all of the above. Also, we didn't do Rod and Staff and called "The Christian Contender" the Christian Contentions. One of my cousins recently told me that his biggest problem with R&D math was that with enough prayer 1+1=5. So, Ernie did say the "Readers Digest would be seen by most Ultra Conservatives as having enough worldly influence that it wouldn’t be worth reading". I think the "most" part could be an inaccurate stereotype for W-F as are other statements.

I always felt that W-F was ultra conservative in areas such as dress but were rather progressive in areas such as education and technology. Of course, they were opposed to "higher education" except that in the Clarence Fretz era it was encouraged that the school teachers have a college education. Today they are pushing back on the internet issue which is understandable but other than that, the latest thing out is OK for business.

This is a whole other discussion but they tend to compartmentalize there lives with "business" coming under a different set of standards that the rest of their lives. This idea is not exclusive to W-F