I don't understand the distinction between the "sacred" vs. "secular" materials. When several of the major Christian publishing houses are owned by "secular" companies, what's the difference? Does the Holy Spirit only speak to us through "annointed" works? What does that look like?
Those questions are more rhetorical than anything else. I don't make a differentiation between the two categories when planning my reading. I just read.
Right now if I had to lay out percentages, I read about 60% "secular" resources and 40% "sacred" resources. Given that I read a newspaper, several magazines, a host of news websites, sports news, as well as business reports, books talking about social trends, fiction, etc. that is a chunk of reading.
My "sacred" reading is delimited to useful theological and spiritual formation studies. I don't read Christian fiction because it is not good. I don't listen to much "Christian" music because it is usually not good.
I don't like making the bifurcation between the two categories. There is a lot of overlap. I also don't understand people who say they should only read the Bible. Clearly the Bible itself uses secular resources to make up some of its commentary.
How do you determine what you watch at the movies? Or on TV? The content is important. For instance I enjoy reading from a wide breadth of perspectives on political and social issues. I've got a brain that works so I can determine, from the perspectives, what is good and bad. When it comes to what I'm reading I don't get into stuff that is overly sensuous. Nor do I get into areas of reading that exalt lifestyle choices outside of God's plan.
You have to develop and use your discernment as conditioned by the Holy Spirit. Right now I think too much believers have never actually encountered a move of the Holy Spirit to know what its warning horns would sound like. Also because of the volume of other things in their lives they don't know what that voice sounds like. Yet discernment is critical device to learn to use.
I get this question a lot, usually by email. Women are different then men. My reply usually begins by acknowledging those differences first. Some women get wrapped up in soap operas, when they were on tv, and others get wrapped up in Oprah, when she was on tv. Men get wrapped up in their stuff too. So if someone tries to say, "Well romance novels are just for women being neglected by their husbands..." I don't buy it. (I've never read one...so this might be wrong) But maybe some of it has to do with the same things that make some people watch shows about wealthy people and such.
If the content is lascivious and lewd than it is no better than magazines some men "read." There is some efforts by evangelical authors to bring forth a response to the lewdness here. Unfortunately I hear all these books are about the Amish or something which has all kinds of different implications.
Its a good question, but one needs to understand the reply through the same paradigm as other resources.
This is a great idea for a thread btw! :thumbs: