I am curious how many read, and what they think of Pathway, particularly the three main magazines.
I confess that although Catholic, I and my family read them, well, religiously
It is always a treat when they show up.
I find the Stoll family quite remarkable and appreciate that while addressed to the Amish community the lessons, stories and discussions are of value to any well meaning Christian?
JayP wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 10:23 pm
I am curious how many read, and what they think of Pathway, particularly the three main magazines.
I confess that although Catholic, I and my family read them, well, religiously
It is always a treat when they show up.
I find the Stoll family quite remarkable and appreciate that while addressed to the Amish community the lessons, stories and discussions are of value to any well meaning Christian?
Thoughts?
Been getting the "Family Life" for many years and thoroughly enjoy it.
I am not saying either Rod and Staff or Eastern publications are without merit or a place.
But I Would say they are so idealized and “perfect” compared to the reality presented in Pathway.
Here’s a comparison. Eastern and R&S remind me of a family we had stopped in to drop some things off. They were all from long Mennonite stock, not converts.
The husband came home and the wife asked “how was your day?”, he answered “Blessed.”
I noticed their teenage children roll their eyes.
Understand, his statement was not wrong, but clearly the kids were used to theatrical answers.
I always felt like it was a story out of a R&S reader.
Again, there is a place for a variety of publications. I was just curious how widely read are the Pathway materials.
I think the struggle of Christian art in general is the negotiation of morality and potency. Once the morality quotient reaches a certain level, the art struggles to be interesting and it gets bland very fast. To succeed as Christian art, it needs to be art first.
barnhart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 11:46 am
I think the struggle of Christian art in general is the negotiation of morality and potency. Once the morality quotient reaches a certain level, the art struggles to be interesting and it gets bland very fast. To succeed as Christian art, it needs to be art first.
What exactly are you trying to say? That in order to be interesting, art has to include nakedness or hints of sexuality or immorality?