I’ve been enjoying writing these little articles titled “Don’t Take Your iPod to Church.” I’ll be the first to admit that I am overstating my case a little bit and even being deliberately vague at times. But through it all I’m seeing some great discussion and am being asked lots of interesting questions. It may be frustrating to everyone else, but I’m enjoying it, at the very least! Let’s press on.
In a previous article I introduced Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman and their contribution to my thinking on technology. From McLuhan we learn that we cannot neatly separate the medium from the message and from Postman, an interpreter of McLuhan, we learn that every medium carries with it some kind of a worldview—that every medium carries with it “a predisposition to construct the world as one thing rather than another, to value one thing more than another, to amplify one sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another.” Also from Postman we learn the simple truth that “a technology does what it was created to do.” Over time we will learn what it is that a technology was created to do; rarely do we know in advance how a technology will play out. We tend to be immediately positive about technological innovation, but from these two men we learn that there ought to be a certain caution, a hesitation that causes us to look before we leap, to think before we wholeheartedly embrace a new technology—like reading the Bible on an iPod.
So let’s look today at why reading the Bible on an iPod is not the same as reading it in print. I want to look at just two points: linearity and distraction. I’ll grant that there is much more than could be said and that my thinking in this area is undoubtedly underdeveloped. I am thinking these things through as I write them. So take this for what it is.
There is a kind of linearity in a book that is not present in most other media. This is one of the greatest advantages of books and undoubtedly one of the reasons God had Scripture committed to books (and before that scrolls and before that memory). In a book, we read from beginning to end, progressing from introduction to conclusion, from thesis to the proving of that thesis, from explanation to application. We know this is the case with a book—a book amplifies this sense, this skill, of following and grasping a linear argument. This has been one of the most common arguments against using television as a learning medium; though it can display facts, it does so in a non-linear way. The worldview wrapped up in television is one that is non-logical, non-linear. The same is true of electronic media.
Hypertext, text in a digital format, is a double-edged sword. Text in a digital environment is inherently non-linear because it is inherently interactive. Simply compare a printed Encyclopedia Britannica of old to Wikipedia of today for a stark contrast. A person reading the encyclopedia reads an entry from beginning to end, undistracted, focused on just the topic at hand. A person reading Wikipedia is constantly faced with bright blue text. Not only is the color a distraction but the reader knows that each highlighted word links to a new article. Gone is the linearity of a book and gone is the lack of distraction. You, like me, undoubtedly read a few words or a few paragraphs, before being carried away by clicking one of those blue links that demands your attention.
Reading the Bible in electronic format makes it easy to chase down cross-references, to read notes related to the content, to find word definitions and so on. But all of this is at the cost of the natural, God-given flow of the text. As we use our iPods in place of our Bibles, we begin to understand Scripture as we do Wikipedia, a text suited more to browsing than deep study. We begin to feel the Bible is interactive, that it is more for skimming, for following trails from A to B to Z than for deep study or analysis. This is all wrapped up in the very worldview of the electronic device.
At the same time, the ease of accessing the Bible using hypertext causes us, I think, to view accessing information, rather than applying information, as the noble end (see part 1.5 for more on this).
All of this to say that a book is inherently a better medium for linear study of a linear text.
And this brings us to distraction.
An iPod or iPhone or Palm or Blackberry or whatever electronic device you use to read Scripture is not a devotional medium, it is not a medium used for study or deep reflection. It is an entertainment medium or a productivity medium (or both). When I use my phone, I use it partially for entertainment and partially for business (though I like to convince myself that it is more business than entertainment). My iPod is 95% entertainment with just a small amount of productivity involved if I need to use it to check emails while I’m out and about. So even if I read Scripture on my iPod, I am reading it using an entertainment medium. Thus I am reading it in the context of entertainment. I like to think that my mind can easily make this jump, that I can use it for entertainment in one moment and devotion in the next. But I may be giving my mind too much credit (at least if Postman and McLuhan are to be believed). Can my mind, then, focus and study the text as it does when I read from a book? Or am I inadvertently viewing reading Scripture as a form of business or entertainment?
Furthermore, iPods and iPhones and all the rest of these devices are inherently distracting. They are made to be distracting, tying into one small device a variety of functions that are in constant competition with one another. The iPhone commercials teach us as much, showing a person browsing the internet and then seamlessly receiving a phone call. Multifunction is their very function and we cannot expect to escape that by using ours for a different purpose. Even when reading the Bible, we might at any moment receive a text message or phone call or a calendar notification or some other kind of an audio or visual stimulus. All the while we have information about battery life and data reception and such on the screen before us, distracting us. We cannot sit back and relax and read using an iPhone because we know that, at any moment, we might (and probably will) be distracted. The medium contradicts the message.
My Bible never rings; it never buzzes or beeps or shows up with sudden calendar notifications. It simply shows me the words given by God in a medium that is inherently undistracting.
All of this to say that a book is inherently a better medium for undistracted study of a life-changing text.
I’m done for now. Have at it.






Comments (41) »
1. Jonathan Griffiths
June 22, 2009
10:33 AM
Tim - great and brave series of posts. My initial reaction when I read part 1 was to write your views off. Then I stopped to ponder them for a while and am forced to wrestle with much of what you are saying, so thanks for saying the unthinkable in our technologically saturated age.
Now to voice one thought currently floating in my head - if the existence of other avenues of movement in study is a problem (the non-linear argument about hypertext links as an example) then what about study bibles? Those are books, but have a vast amount of information on the page, between the column notes, footnotes, study notes, maps, charts etc. So where do we draw the line? Is it the ease of use for hyperlinks that causes us to rabbit trail? Or is it always a matter of self control, unless we lock ourselves in a room with a “bible text only” copy of Scripture, a pen and a piece of paper? Just a thought….
That said, the issue of seeing God’s Word as just information is one we must contend against, whatever medium we use for our study and devotion.
I pray God uses this discussion thread to help us better receive His Word, and not let us all start bickering with one another! Bless you Tim!
2. Tim Irvin
June 22, 2009
10:50 AM
I use some of the same arguments against having a “Study” Bible. I find that notes and outlines already written onto the pages of my Bible are as distracting as any of the gizmos on electronic devices.
3. Michael Ekstrand
June 22, 2009
10:57 AM
I’ve quite enjoyed these posts. At times, I think they give a bit too much weight to “the medium is the message”, but there is also room for overstating a case as you have said you are doing.
One question on this subject. How do you think the dynamics of devices such as the Kindle, which are designed specifically for consuming book-like material, play out against both printed books and iPods/cell phones/net tablets for devotional or studious Scripture reading?
It’s also interesting to compare this series with a recent article over at Don’t Eat the Fruit on how we receive the Word preached. John suggests that focusing on listening to the Scripture read and preached without consulting reading material may enable us to better engage with the message with fewer distractions. Certainly worth contemplating, and it’s at least valuable as another look at how technology impacts devotion.
4. James Steinbach
June 22, 2009
10:57 AM
Tim,
Helpful posts! A few months back, I wrote along the same lines here: http://graceandknowledge.com/?p=125
I will admit that I do use my iPod Touch Bible for chapel & occasional on-the-go reading, but with the intent to read contextually and connectedly. For church, study and personal Bible reading, however, I agree that a physical Bible is a great choice!
James
5. ryan
June 22, 2009
10:58 AM
Tim - Thoughtful post and great thinking on the fly. I’ll keep my thoughts/reactions short and sweet.
1) I agree with the idea that ‘…a book is inherently a better medium for undistracted study of a life-changing text.’ Actually, I couldn’t agree more. During a sermon, I am far less distracted using a book-based Bible than an iPhone-based Bible. The pulls of e-mail, twitter, facebook and the like are difficult temptations to avoid. Same goes for devotional reading.
2) That said, I find my iPhone to be 70-80% productivity based and the rest entertainment. Likewise for Wikipedia. I find myself trying to understand the content at hand before hopping over to another page. That being the case, it appears that the viability of reading content in a ‘non-linear way’, whether it be on an iPhone, Blackberry, Wikipedia, etc. is decided by the user and his/her ease of distraction.
Maybe not short, but hopefully sweet; )
6. Eric S. Mueller
June 22, 2009
10:59 AM
Tim, thanks for continuing the argument and discussion. I think you’ve laid out a case for why you don’t think doing your Bible reading on an iPod is a good idea. I still don’t see any kind of absolute reason why most others of us shouldn’t do it.
Last year I can remember a series of blog posts popping up about “The Internet is doing something to our brains!” Many bloggers reported that they couldn’t seem to read book-length material anymore and that their attention spans somehow shortened, and decided this was the fault of the Internet. I considered it and decided that I can’t report the same effect on myself.
The line “a technology does what it was created to do” seems to be a mindless platitude. It’s a statement of the obvious. I don’t see it as adding any substance to your argument, anymore than if my wife were to question me about why I bought a new Kindle book for my iPhone and I reply “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.” It adds nothing to the discussion.
Again, thanks for continuing the discussion.
7. ARJWright
June 22, 2009
11:03 AM
I disagree with your conclusion, not your opinion :)
Speaking first as a digital native:
I don’t have the presupposition to distractions with electronic media as you do, and therefore the idea of an iPod or similar electronic device as being an element of dissonance through skimming, doesn’t factor in. Because I was born within this realm with books on the same level as digital tools, I am more adept at being able to not only study equally well from both mediums, but I also find liberty in being able to move between the two, finding wealth and distraction not in the tool, but in my concentration to the content.
Speaking as a digital pioneer (because I’m that too considering my birth year):
It is a difficult skill to see something electronic in the same vein as I would something linear such as a book because my core knowledge and study skills were based upon that book-like thought process. I am though aware of the change happening around me and am more willing to see other means of looking at conventional/traditional learning styles and then create something different that would enable me to not just study in whatsoever domain, but find linear and appropriate values in each.
And now critiquing some points ;)
Actually they aren’t. These are single-tasking devices which manage multiple streams of information and reside on the side of passive-then-active notification responses - much like a phone ringing but one opting to ignore it. The level of distraction is on the side of the user, not the tool.
The Bible isn’t a linear text; and no one who studies it for occupation sees it as linear but as an organic work with a singular focus which endears its readers to not only postulate on the past value to the original audience, but seek beyond the covers of it for value to today’s audiences. Your comment takes out the Jewish oral and written traditions that founded the means for how we interpret and understand the Word today :)
My Bible doesn’t distract me when it does do these things. You are confusing the purpose of the tool, with the intentions of the reader. Your conclusions aren’t wrong however, they are based upon someone who has a different perspective - and correct one - at the impact that mobile and digital technology has on the paradigms of reading and understanding that you are used to.
To this point, I would not do as you say - not take my Nokia N95 smartphone to church - but would rather say: do not engage in using electronic devices for biblical study and reflection until you can skillfully and wisely manage the tool in light of how you learn best.
Of course, this is a much longer title than what you had, and definitely not as SEO-friendly. But it does make more sense, and besides making your stance known - as you have with this piece- it also offers a solution that fits no matter if the person is a digital native (late Gen-Xer to Gen-Y and beyond) or a digital pioneer (Boomer to Gen-Xer).
Will be posting this at Mobile Ministry Magazine in the coming days, this is a great topic to discourse towards.
8. LaRosa Johnson
June 22, 2009
11:16 AM
i guess i’m completely in the wrong for taking my 17-inch notebook to church every Sunday so that I can fire up my fave Bible software & take notes, instead of writing them on paper & later struggling to find the time to transcribe them to a digital format for permanent archiving/future study.
i’m one that used to take a Palm Z22 to church for taking notes @ church until it became more of a hassle than a help. if my G1 were more conducive to taking notes better, i’d use that & go to just using that and a Bible; but for now, my laptop works best. it’s not a distraction for me (i have Wi-Fi turned off) and no one @ the church complains (there are actually a few of us who use our laptops for note taking, our pastor included when he’s not teaching).
lj.
9. Jason Chamberlain
June 22, 2009
11:26 AM
I would maintain that the different media suit different purposes. There are times when I want to read just the text and there are times when I want to know what the ESVSB has to say. There are times when I want to read just the text and there are times when I want to follow all of the cross-references. Personally, I would much rather click on links ot other passages than flip back and forth through my Bible.
I still like holding a book best though.
10. Charity
June 22, 2009
11:27 AM
Tim,
I liked your articles. I read them with a lot of interest. And while I agree with the general overall principles, I’m wondering if you’ve considered that linearity might not apply to all printed books. For example:
One can and should read a novel from beginning to end. That only makes sense and it makes sense when one thinks about reading the Bible ( and I get distracted by my husbands intense study Bible- I’m always looking down at the bottom rather reading actual scripture- its distracting for me). But I dont know that claim of linearity is true in all forms of printed media. The easiest argument to make would be a Norton Anthology. I disliked them in graduate school becuase it was merely a compendium of the canon of whatever literature I was studying at the time. It didnt have any theme in particular other than perhaps to give a smattering of what the editor thought was representative work. I could read starting in the middle, or start at the end, and it didn’t matter too much. Victorian Literature was mostly the same at any point (sadly. That was a long quarter=)).
And finally, (and I can’t believe I’m writing this, formalist that I am) perhaps linearity isn’t better than this web of knowledge that we exist in now because of the internet. Perhaps it’s just another way of creating new associations and connections between academic disciplines. For example, a wikipedia entry allows me to learn about, say, some historical aspect of mechanical engineering and click on terms I am not familiar with. The context is there while I am reading about the main topic, but the “distraction” actually allows me to follow the idea of the entry without difficulty. I can take this new piece of knowledge and apply it to my current study of Dickens’ Little Dorrit and I now have a new advanced view of the historic/scientific aspect of the novel. In that case the distraction allowed me to enhance my linear reading.
Maybe I didn’t read your entry close enough and missed some vital part, but that’s just my two cents.
11. Redeeming Riches
June 22, 2009
11:33 AM
Once again, I think it’s just a matter of preference really. I can imagine some similar arguments 500 years ago about reading the Bible in English and not in the original language; or reading the Bible in a book form and not in scroll form.
We need to redeem technology and use it for good by being disciplined with it etc. I’m not a huge fan of reading any book electronically, however, I have found the ESV Study Bible online a very resourceful and edifying tool!
JT
http://redeemingriches.wordpress.com
12. Tom Buck
June 22, 2009
11:39 AM
Tim,
I am thoroughly appreciating this discussion. I have a friend who is in charge of technology at his church. He reads his Bible constantly from an iPhone. This past weekend his church began texting and tweeting during the services and they put questions up on the screen. I am discussing with my friend about some of the dangers in this approach to worship. Have you before… or could you now… comment on these types of things going on in worship services?
Thanks again.
Tom
13. MzEllen
June 22, 2009
11:48 AM
Tim, you said, and undoubtedly one of the reasons God had Scripture committed to books (and before that scrolls and before that memory)…
So we progressed from memory, to scrolls to books and electronic media…(oh, never mind, scratch that last one. We have to stop with books because…because.)
When I use my phone, I use it partially for entertainment and partially for business
I use my iPod to listen to Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler and John Piper.
Even when reading the Bible, we might at any moment receive a text message or phone call or a calendar notification or some other kind of an audio or visual stimulus.
Not if you turn those functions off. Or use an iPod that doesn’t have those functions.
My Bible never rings; it never buzzes or beeps or shows up with sudden calendar notifications.
Neither does my iPod.
If it’s the media that makes the difference, the same media that can give us erotica on paper cannot also feed us Scripture.
Truth in Scripture can become as much of a distraction from “real life” as the murder mystery - if the medium is the problem.
As with most things, I would guess that the problem comes with how you use it.
If I keep my shopping list tucked into the cover of my Bible and find myself making a list and checking it twice during the service, is that really any less distracting to me?
14. Doug
June 22, 2009
11:55 AM
Hi Tim,
I was wondering if you feel the same way about the Kindle? Many mornings I do my Bible Reading from my Kindle and find that I simply read more. I have not taken it to church yet because it may be a distraction to others. You seem to lump all electronic devices into the mix and I guess I see a Kindle as a less distracting option than the other technology.
Blessings,
Doug
15. Mike J
June 22, 2009
12:08 PM
“we learn that every medium carries with it some kind of a worldview—that every medium carries with it “a predisposition to construct the world as one thing rather than another, to value one thing more than another, to amplify one sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another.””
So… even granting the description, how is this a ‘worldview’? How is it that a slight emphasis on a skill or sense constructs a different ‘worldview’? Blind people fundamentally have a different worldview than those with sight? If so, that’s a consequence that reduces the idea of worldview to irrelevance. From my angle, who cares? Are the blind less or more capable of faith and obedience to God?
As to linearity… the ordering of an English OT is different than the traditional Hebrew. Doesn’t this count against the “the natural, God-given flow of the text”? If not, why not? If it doesn’t then the sequence isn’t really important to linearity, which doesn’t seem to make much sense. Nor would an argument from linearity count against a PDA.
Why is the Bible in a book a better thing than in a collection of scrolls? The scrolls confine one to linearity in an even greater way than a book. Are they better on this count? If not, why not?
“All of this to say that a book is inherently a better medium for linear study of a linear text.”
And the scroll is an even better medium.
Simply put, I can’t help but think of how easy it is to flip around in a book. In fact, I’d say it’s just as easy as a PDA at times. People using a normal book can often find a text as quickly as Pocket e-sword.
“We begin to feel the Bible is interactive, that it is more for skimming, for following trails from A to B to Z than for deep study or analysis”
Perhaps this speaks for some people, but I personally find e-sword and Bibleworks to be more helpful for ‘deep study and analysis’ of the text than the medium of a book.
As to distraction, does it have to be said again? TURN OFF THE RADIO. Seriously. Why is this an argument against electronic devices when it is trivial to turn off their communications facilities? Turn off the sound, turn off the wifi, and turn off the cell. Where then is the distraction? If you’re talking about temptations and generalizing them across everyone, it may be wise to refrain from projecting one’s own vices upon everyone else. For example, this seems far more balanced: “If you find that your study of the Scriptures is more distracted on an electronic device than in a book, consider using the book instead to avoid this temptation.” It’s sort of like those who frame arguments against alcohol generally on the basis of those who abuse it. It’s not legit.
Even when reading the Bible in a BOOK, we might at any moment receive a text message or phone call or a calendar notification or some other kind of an audio or visual stimulus: If you are reading your Bible with your cell in your pocket, and your cell rings, do you answer it? What if your house phone rings? What if you get a text message? Do you ignore it? Aren’t you back to the same problem?
“All of this to say that a book is inherently a better medium for undistracted study of a life-changing text.”
I knew a man with seriously failing vision on account of optic nerve degeneration. He used a massive screen with a magnifier to read. What is a hindrance for you is essential for another to study Scripture? So why is the book a de facto ‘better’ medium for serious study? It seems that technology is making serious study possible whereas in the past only those able to use the book could really do so.
16. Michael Russell
June 22, 2009
12:43 PM
I’m starting to move in the same direction as LaRosa — using a laptop to replace my print Bible and PDA.
First, to your points …
(1) Linearity
The Bible software I use (BibleWorks and Open Bible) both provide paragraph reading modes that displays the text just as in the print version. This is the mode I use for normal textual reading.
Where the software is helpful is when the pastor is giving a topical sermon that bounces around Scripture. Five or six keystrokes and I’m at the verse.
(2) Distractions
Any Study Bible, from MacArthur’s to the massive ESV Study Bible, have so many cross references, numbers, letters, marks, commentary, sidebar comments, that a typical page only has about 1/4-th with text and the rest supplemental.
Further, one could argue that the middle ages introduction of chapter and verse numbers, many of which do not align well with the flow of the text, is just as much of a distraction. Why stop reading at point “X” just because it is the end of a chapter?
My migration to all digital
Currently I take Sproul’s Reformation Study Bible (print) and an old PDA to church. I use the PDA to take my notes. This is old style PDA with the stylus and is slow.
My new configuration will be a 14” laptop running my Bible software. I can then use the full size keyboard to take notes. Furthermore, this laptop will become my primary book library. Being a technologist (senior systems architect), I’m used to reading everything on computer screen.
I know this is unrelated, but on Jim Cramer’s Mad Money, someone asked him what smartphone he uses. He said he doesn’t, and pulled out a 14” ultralight laptop, held it up, and said this is his smartphone. His point was smartphones may be nice for the occasional reference and entertainment, but you must have the bigger screen and full keyboard to be able to interact with the material, to be able to contribute.
So, in a way, I agree that the iPod Touch or iPhone or Blackberry is probably not the best technology in church. But, I come at it from a technology side where the problem is not the presentation but the limited bandwidth and limited ability to interact.
17. Robert W.
June 22, 2009
1:00 PM
Tim: I still disagree with you on most points, but when I hear about texting and tweeting in church (yikes!), I take back everything I said the other day about Ned Ludd.
Doug: I also use a Kindle (very helpful on mass transit), and like you, I don’t take it to church; partly out of a sense of decorum, partly because it takes longer on a Kindle to flip between parts of the Bible. (Does that mean the Kindle is too linear?)
18. Giancarlo
June 22, 2009
1:00 PM
I think this article should be printed so i won´t be distracted by all the hypertexts. (Just kidding). I agree with your arguement and specially on the Linearility of the book Bible which is not present in the eBible
19. Jeri
June 22, 2009
1:13 PM
Love it! I think you did a great job… thanks for coming through on this topic. I wouldn’t have been able to think it through like that, and I think this is a very important topic, with far-reaching ramifications.
20. Gary
June 22, 2009
1:50 PM
Tim,
I think the case for linearity is overstated. Scripture has an inherent assumption that you are reading and rereading it constantly. Virtually all of the new testament books ASSUME considerable familiarity with the old testament. Virtually all of the old testament books assume familiarity with the pentateuch. You just can’t read straight through and get it all — that is why cross references and chain references and things like that are so useful.
Just one small example from John 12:
31”Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32”And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.
The author here points us to the death of Christ, something that happens much later in the book. The earlier references of “lifted up” in chapters 3 and 8 also are to be read in the context of chapter 12 and the death of Christ in chpt 19. The author expects, way back in chapter 3, that we know what’s going to happen in chapter 19. That is not linearity.
21. brian
June 22, 2009
3:55 PM
Interesting topic… I can see why you get a kick out of the responses.
In addition to linearity and distraction, I would like to add a couple of positive points for the Bible.
I remember when I was first saved, I carried around a pocket Bible so I could read it whenever I stopped on the road (I drove a lot in my first job). There was a sense of continuity and (transfer of) ownership - a shared experience with those I was reading about - the wonder of God dwelling among us to reinforce His Word (both written and unwritten) years ago - and my participation in God’s purpose from this point on.
Today, I don’t travel as much and I own an ipod and an iphone and probably every other i-device made by Apple. Even though I am a HUGE Apple fan-boy, (rejoicing when Tim finally was ‘saved’ and switched to a Mac), I have never had that same sense of continuity and ownership of Gods Word with an electronic device. It is more of a portal or window - a device or tool into many written words or information. There is no exclusivity - God’s Word is ‘on the shelf’ with every other written volume. I have never felt as protected, as challenged or as engaged with the same text on a electronic device.
Some may say it is taste and I am not going to argue with them, but for me a productivity enhancement tool is about me - how I can make my study more productive or broader in scope. I do not find myself being as challenged, as awestruck, as worshipful as with the written word on a page. For me, there is more ‘between the lines’ that I can glean then when I am skimming, browsing, hyper-texting, etc. Meditation doesn’t lend itself well to a battery-powered electronic device, it is more of a spiritually-powered process where we are led to places we may not intend to go - but where God intends us to go and receive His blessing.
Brian
22. Renee
June 22, 2009
4:47 PM
Is the Word in text the same Word described in John 1:1? Is the Word in text the same Word that is as sharp as a double-edged sword? Is it the same as the Word that brings life? If yes to all these questions, then I can’t see how any man-made media can hinder its divine force and thwart what God says it has been set out to do.
I would have to agree with MzEllen on her many points.
Having said that, this has been a very good series of articles. Thanks Tim!
23. J. Eric
June 22, 2009
5:19 PM
As the owner of a Sony EReader, I will say that a printed Bible in the hand is 20 times quicker than finding chapter,verse on the Digital version.
But, I will be taking my Sony EReader on vacation because it contains a veritable Christian library in little to no space at all!
:O)
24. Matt Tully
June 22, 2009
5:21 PM
Thought provoking topic, but it seems clear (as so many have pointed out) that this is purely a matter of preference. Most of the objections to “iPod Bibles” raised by the author seem more like descriptions of his struggles and scruples than those of the masses. Additionally, the sheer quantity of unsubstantiated assertions (i.e. “As we use our iPods in place of our Bibles, we begin to understand Scripture as we do Wikipedia, a text suited more to browsing than deep study.”) makes this article hard to take too seriously.
The fact of the matter is that in just a few more years, the vast majority of people will totally embrace this move towards electronic media, and paper books will become a thing of the past. And that’s a good thing.
25. Joe
June 22, 2009
6:37 PM
This seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot. The Bible, as has been pointed out, has already weathered changes in technology and will continue to do so. And (again, as has been stated) an annotated study Bible can be as nonlinear a reading experience as a digital device. Further, the author claims “There is a kind of linearity in a book that is not present in most other media. This is one of the greatest advantages of books and undoubtedly one of the reasons God had Scripture committed to books (and before that scrolls and before that memory).” Except memory is nonlinear, so by the OP’s own logic, a nonlinear experience is closest to God’s intent.
I’d also suggest that the younger generations experience the world more and more through digital devices. Why not allow God to speak to youth in the way they’re used to listening?
26. jigawatt
June 22, 2009
7:02 PM
Linearity - mostly agree
“a book is inherently a better medium for undistracted study of a life-changing text.” - probably true for most readers; probably true for me at least at this point in my life.
All in all, I think Tim raises some good points. Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but reading from paper and ink is more pleasureable to me than from my iPhone. And yes, I do have the new 3.0 software, complete with stereo bluetooth, which I use to listen to Indelible Grace while at work.
I think a bigger problem for most people is, “Is my preacher preaching in such a way as to make a linear, thought provoking look at the text necessary?” Far too many times, when I’m away from my home church, the pastor preaches in a hop-scotch fashion where an iPhone Bible (I like the ESV mobile myself and I always look at a whole chapter at a time - http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/mobile/) is more than adequate. In fact, in many of these situations, I just pick up the pew Bible and read about what the passage actually says.
27. MikeS
June 22, 2009
10:00 PM
Tim,
I like this crack you are taking at analyzing the effect technology/media have on our Bible reading. Yet as a 47-yr-old male, I find the reasoning difficult to understand because I remember life before PCs, cell phones, and even cassette recorders and TV (we didn’t have one of those until I was almost 10).
I apologize up front for not having read all the comments so someone else may have already stated my thoughts better than I can here. McLuhan and Postman are correct in that media shapes the message, especially the jump from books to TV.
However, life is both linear and non-linear depending on which aspect of life we are examining. Time is linear, a conversation with a child might not be so linear. Clearly our thought processes are not consistently linear. Considering or creating art is probably non-linear at times. Are you suggesting that linearity is the way God works or the preferred mode of progress?
My first Bible I can remember was a study bible that had me chasing ideas and words every time I read it. Later, in college I had a Thompson Chain Reference bible which might have been a forerunner of Wikipedia. Avoiding distractions requires discipline, not necessarily books made of paper.
As a teenager, I let encyclopedias write my papers. I soon learned that writing a good paper required chasing down different concepts or related topics as part of the pursuit of good grades and not mere plagiarism. Thus, I followed the related topics to the ends of the earth (or at least to the night before the paper was due).
I guess I’m not seeing the difference between my study Bible and having the Bible on an electronic device, nor between an encyclopedia subject and a Wikipedia page with all its links. Proper use of each requires discipline and training that is basically similar in nature to achieve the goal whether it be devotions (linearity?) or research paper writing (non-linearity?).
At the same time, stating that you view your phone (or Ipod, etc) as an entertainment device reveals more about the way you see those devices, than it does about the media or the device itself. I view my PDA and phone (which have now merged into a Palm Centro) as communication devices and treat them as such. Same goes for the Ipod, though entertainment certainly factors in more here.
Reading Scripture is not simply about knowledge gained, but about hearing the voice of God speak to us through His timeless word. Having Scripture on a PDA, Smartphone, Ipod, or whatever, is opening the door to God communicating with us through His word the same as opening a Bible made out of paper.
Again, I apologize if someone else has already said these things, but I am obviously not understanding the point you are trying to make with this post.
28. Michael Awbrey
June 22, 2009
10:04 PM
Challies - This is all starting to sound like a headline I would expect to see at the Onion.com
“Stop Reading Electronic Media, Man Blogs”
Really this discussion seems about is valuable as discussing wither we should use the blue or red hymnal. Don’t stir up distension over preferences, brother.
29. Kurt
June 22, 2009
10:43 PM
Continue stirring the pot Tim. All three blends of “Mike” on this post? All of you should be ashamed at your smarmy attitude, but it’s par for those who bow at the electronic Idols. You’ve not learned or heard a thing he’s written in three posts. Blind Guides! Ok, I’m being a little too reserved. Sepulchres!
I have found the hill on which to die, and the hill is Mount Challies in Canada!
30. David Kjos
June 22, 2009
11:32 PM
“Don’t stir up distension over preferences, brother.”
Yes Tim, please. That can be so painful.
31. Jon
June 22, 2009
11:43 PM
I’m still a little baffled at this series of articles. Tim obviously likes printed books better, which is fine by me, I probably do too. But then leaps to the conclusion that electronic readers, specifically and iPhone/PDA, are inferior to printed books because the devices can be a distraction or can lead to lazy reading or convey a worldview (which sounds cool, but doesn’t make a bit of sense), etc, etc.
The way these articles were written wasn’t to challenge people to check whether they are benefiting from using electronic devices in their Bible study/reading, but to simply not use them because Tim doesn’t like it. And that is why I think there’s a lot of snarkiness in these comment sections.
I truly believe this topic of electronic devices for reading/studying God’s Word is a great one, but this was, sorry to say, a poor attempt. How about take this up again as a more open discussion instead of just a personal opinion turning into a declaration for everybody to follow?
32. Jesse
June 23, 2009
12:29 AM
There are too many comments to read through, so apologies if this has already been said.
I’m not going to attempt to counter your arguments due to space and time considerations, so I’ll just say that I find them unconvincing.
Where I do feel the correct conversation lies is in what situations ipods in church are appropriate or inappropriate. I believe this is really just a matter of two general principles: put others first and don’t participate in cultural idolatry.
Putting others first means that if bringing an ipod to church as a Bible is a clear statement of superiority to the members of the congregation (i.e. look at me and my expensive gadget that you can’t afford); then I believe it would be wrong to do so.
Refusal to participate in cultural idolatry means that if the prevailing cultural milieu is such that a worship of technology and gadgets is such a problem that bringing one to church sends a clear statement that you are participating in and condoning this idolatry; then again, I believe it would be wrong.
But if these two principles are not being violated, I have no issues with using my ipod’s Bible as a convenient replacement for a physical book.
33. Meredith B.
June 23, 2009
7:39 AM
I agree with those who commented about how study bibles and myriads of cross references are distracting. I have felt just the same way. I would love to buy an ESV study bible but I feel all the notes would distract me from delving into the word myself and focusing on what God wanted to communicate to me through His word. So, my current Bible is a standard ESV pew bible with no cross references or study notes whatsoever. It’s not fancy but I am able to completely focus on the word without distraction. I’ve also been able to write my own cross references into the Bible according to what God is teaching me. Plus, the pew Bible was less than $15! Good topic Tim.
34. Meagan
June 23, 2009
8:58 AM
I think the nonlinearity of these new mediums challenges us and takes us to new levels of understanding. That is why it is called a “study” bible, to encourage deeper study. A good book on this topic is “Everything Bad Is Good For You” by Steven Johnson.
35. Mike J
June 23, 2009
10:59 AM
“All three blends of “Mike” on this post? All of you should be ashamed at your smarmy attitude, but it’s par for those who bow at the electronic Idols. You’ve not learned or heard a thing he’s written in three posts. Blind Guides! Ok, I’m being a little too reserved. Sepulchres! “
Is this a joke?
36. Jeremy
June 23, 2009
11:25 AM
Interesting take. I’ve always drawn a lot from Postman and McLuhan as well, except one thing bugs me about this, and that’s the assumption that God intended the Bible to be read and studied. When it was given, very few of the Israelites would have been able to read or study the scriptures. Instead, it was read aloud to them by the priests. The only person, other than the priests, commanded to read and study them was the king.
In fact, most people in the Bible’s own time would have engaged with it through hearing. Are we, with our modern educations, in danger of assuming too much about God intended?
37. Brian in BC
June 23, 2009
1:21 PM
This smacks of neo-Pharisaicalism to me. “No, no, no…not only are you not reading the right version of the Bible, you’re reading the words off the wrong media!”
Seriously, this is total silliness and anything but, to borrow a phrase, “Jesus shaped.” I can just see Jesus hanging his head in sadness at the fact that someone has chosen to read the Bible…in a “sub-optimal” format…yeah, that seems to resonate with the way He interacted with people all the time. Er, no actually, Jesus seemed to hold his highest and most cutting criticisms in reserve for those who would continue to add their own rules and regulations to burden the people seeking after God.
If someone wants to read their Bible, I’ll applaud them…I don’t care WHAT media they are chosing to read it from. My God and His Spirit is big enough to use ANY format of His word for His purposes.
If YOU find it distracting or a problem, choose a different format for yourself, but to start creating a hierarchy for the best media format for the efficacy of God’s word is beyond the pale.
38. Seth
June 23, 2009
3:44 PM
So Tim, when will you publish your posts in a book so I can read them free from the entertainment/productivity medium of my computer? :P
Thanks for this. Its a helpful reminder of the value of books. Do you think though that a person’s attitude towards what he’s reading, independent of the medium’s influence, will have more impact on how he read’s the Bible than the medium will? Also, if books themselves aren’t primarily a medium for business and entertainment, then what are they? Just some thoughts.
39. Lori
June 23, 2009
5:55 PM
Brian: “If someone wants to read their Bible, I’ll applaud them. I don’t care WHAT media they are chosing to read it from. My God and His Spirit is big enough to use ANY format of His word for His purposes. If YOU find it distracting or a problem, choose a different format for yourself, but to start creating a hierarchy for the best media format for the efficacy of God’s word is beyond the pale.”
Please note that, while I do not personally use an electronic device to access Scripture during church, neither am I decidedly opposed to others doing so. And although I agree with your overall sentiment, in Tim’s defense, I don’t think it’s pharisaical of him to encourage us to contemplate our actions (in terms of Christian liberty), instead of blindly pursuing a given course. He is more or less thinking out loud about another’s theory that the medium informs the message; and he freely admits to overstating his opinion on the matter. Tim is employing devices common to writers, with the express purpose of provoking specific emotions and responses.
And I don’t want to be argumentative just for the sake of arguing, but if you would indulge me for just a moment, I would like to propose the absurd—if everyone were to transcribe the Bible onto the soles of their shoes, the outside of a whiskey bottle, a bag of fertilizer (etc.) and read from their preferred mode during corporate worship (please know that I am not comparing iPods to any of the above items; for that would be comparing apples to oranges), would you not find it distracting or potentially worth discussing? Certainly, God could use all of the above media, none of which are inherently sinful, to convey His sacred message…
40. SniperedPastor
June 24, 2009
8:14 AM
Tim,
2 Thoughts, and kinda funny.
1) as mentioned in #2 above, study Bibles have the same “distracting” quality as hypertexts…so much so that when my dad bought my Scofield RB for my 10th birthday, I would constantly be destracted by the replacement words and would be thinking “what was that original KJV word that he has now changed?” Some of us distract VERY easily.
2) During the public reading of scripture, I wonder how weird it would look if I held a PDA at arms length with one hand and began reading. (or even funnier, if we put an iPod on the Communion Table on a stand “open” to a Bible passage)
41. Phil G
June 26, 2009
11:49 AM
I used to be a missionary in Thailand and travelled a lot. I bought ny first Palm device in 2000 – since then I gone thru’ a number of devices and currently have a Windows Mobile Phone. Travelling a lot in a hot country didn’t make it ideal to lug around a Bible, notebook and some other study aids – the Bible on Palm was a dream come true for me! I do have various study resources on my P.C but nowadays for all of my devotions I use my Pocket PC. I have a Bible, ESV study notes, a journal program and a mindmap program - I use this for my prayer list. As far as I’m concerned I don’t get distracted by the electronic format at all – my principle reason for owning such a device isn’t for the phone or entertainemtn value – it is primarily for my devotions & Bible study. I can also read in bed at night with the light off and not bother my wife!!!
I have set my phone to switch off from 10.30pm until 7.00am – my devotions are over by then & the family is up & about so I don’t get distracted by the phone etc.
I think the format is irrelevant – the content is important. Christians were amongst the first to adopt the new fangled codex instead of scrolls, the pounced on the printing press – this is just another step forward. Reading the Bible on my ppc works for me – far better than a printed Bible & a moleskin. Might not be everyone’s choice but this has proved to be a great blessing to me.