I occasionally read the WSJ at work. I actually like the personal journal section the best, because it sidesteps the serious issues and focuses on things like the best frequent flyer programs, new gadgets, and retirement and estate planning issues (which fit into my line of work).

The comment that “we don’t have to single out and praise stuff for our Christian readers that is straightforwardly idolatrous” is interesting to me. I would heartily agree if Scott were recommending Maxim magazine, but the WSJ is a nationally respected newspaper, albeit one with a financial focus.

The focus of the WSJ is well, Wall Street, and so an emphasis on business and markets comes with the territory. In turn, the WSJ also focuses on how political and global developments affect the markets. For example, explaining how the deterioration of the war in Iraq might affects the price of oil and US stocks may seem trivial (or mercenary) compared with the tragic affect of the war on the lives of Iraqis, but this is the side of the story that the WSJ has decided to tell. Just because there are other facets to the story doesn’t necessarily make the WSJ’s perspective valueless. Readers can turn to the New York Times, the BBC or a Christian publication - if someone can recommend a good one let me know -for the other side of the story.

Finally, is it a bit paternalistic or un-transparent to privately enjoy the wall street journal to learn things and keep up with cultural trends, but not share with others that you enjoy doing so? Instead of saying he is “looking forward to reading the Wall Street Journal … Always a good read” should Scott have said “I am reading the Wall Street Journal, a potentially idolatrous newspaper, solely to keep up with cultural trends”? What Scott wrote sounds a little more honest.

I apologize in advance if I sound contrarian, I can have a bad habit of playing devil’s advocate - a skill perfected in my Freshman year bible study.

I read it for the same reasons you cite.

We all have to keep up with cultural trends.

But from my point of view we don’t have to single out and praise stuff for our Christian readers that is straightforwardly idolatrous.

To your question, I read the WSJ for the same reason that I read (and saw) The Da Vinci Code - both in spite of & in light of its many false teachings - and recommended it to others, for the same reason that I attended a secular school like Oxy - with its own false teachings - and would recommend it to others, and for the same reason that I engage with many secular influences - to learn things.

I don’t see the WSJ as spiritual pornography, and so I can benefit from both its information & the perspectives even of its blatantly mammon-loving teaching. In that way, it is no different to me than going to see a controversial movie like The Da Vinci Code - not seeing or not reading it doesn’t prepare me at all for the influence that is has on specific individuals that I know or the general culture that I live in. Since I believe that learning to form a critical opinion - of anything - is a significant part of the discipleship of a believer, I engage & read. And I think the WSJ being a good read makes this easier to do than other things.

Those are my quick thoughts. I’m not sure that I understand how out of the ordinary or frightful - from a serious faith perspective - it is to read the WSJ, in the same way that I read the Da Vinci Code. Maybe you could fill that out for me.

Great writing, yes. But the values seem pretty socially Darwinian and focused on mammon in a straightforward way.

Why would somebody living your encouraging life recommend the WSJ to others?

I say that with all respect and curiosity.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.