I would disagree— I think, as a generation, we know more, but we do not know how to apply our knowledge. it is merely a bunch of useless facts that have no sense of connection to one another— there is no application in real life. I have said before, “wisdom is knowing enough to know that you know nothing.” We may know information, but we have not yet reached the point where that information begins to breed humility.

-CJ

I agree with this more than part 1. I think our culture makes it all about being able to access/know as much as you can rather than really know stuff well and be able to use it in new ways etc. I dont think reading the Bible digitally applies here however, at least not inherently if at all. We do need to be careful about trying to get knowledge just to have it but not be able to really use it and only the knowledge we need to know.Yes the internet contributes but its more our culture, even before the internet was a tool in school that tended to be the attitude I had because there was no incentive or encouragement or anything to really learn stuff to increase my knowledge. Just incentive to study enough to pass tests.

Hi Tim,

“”Why don’t we just go back to scrolls and the original languages, while we’re at it?”“

You can dismiss the question if you want, but the reality is that your dismissal doesn’t deal with the real, substantial problem behind your position that one should read the Bible out of a book instead of PDA in the churches.

If all you’re doing with the PDA is reading and studying the Scriptures off it, what is fundamentally different than using a book?

This post seemed to focus on accessibility. Well, a book makes it more accessible than papyrus. In the early church, is it not true that many did not even have the latter, and needed to rely upon the few (likely leaders) who did have a copy of some of the Scriptures?

That certainly improves interpersonal relations. So should we remove Bibles from the churches and return to this model?

The increased accessibility of God’s word in the churches is a BAD thing? How did that come to be?

You said this:

“The trend thus causes us to care more about accessing information that will make our lives immediately easier, that will fix our little problems, than the morality of what we do with that information.”

How does that adjudicate between a pretty 21st century book and a PDA and papyrus? The implication of the implication of this is that papyrus is superior because a lack of accessibility CAUSES us to care less about accessing information that will make our lives easier and more about the morality of what we do with it.

This is why your dismissal of what you take to be “head-in-the-sand” feedback seems, well, not to be too rude, a bit ‘head-in-the-sand.’

What’s the difference?

Why is a book to be encouraged in church, but not a PDA?

Please explain. Your above post didn’t give an answer, and neither did your former one.

Tim,

I am not sure what to think about all of this. I need to go back and read Don’t Take Your iPod to Church 1.0 and digest this opinion. I have just recently purchased an iPhone and one of the first bookmarks I created was to Crossway’s ESV bible. Now I have the whole text of scripture available in my iPhone. It is much easier to carry than the “icon” ESV Study bible, as my senior pastor calls it. My initial thought is that I am not substituting a tangible thing like my rather large study bible with a technology god. To me each one is a tool to access the scripture we are studying during worship service. It is no more of a distraction than my bible with actual pages and covers. It is a tool. We read about “Christians” who actually worship the book, and not the person who breathed it out to the human authors. As I have mentioned earlier, I have only had my iPhone a short time and only began carrying it to church last week. I will surely consider your words.

God bless,Barry

In response to the article “The Perfect Technology,” I commented truthfully that, because of my love of stories and information, I read a variety of media (using the term “read” in the broadest sense). I might have added that there are many unwholesome and unedifying types of stories and information, which I deliberately exclude from my repertoire. For me, this includes all tabloid/gossip rags, columns, or blogs; newspapers, in general; and most anything that is done in poor taste, poor quality, or insincerity. Neither am I a member of MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter, which I personally find fascinatingly invasive, shallow, and impersonal.

We are called to be hungry for THE word, not A word. Feasting our eyes on the naked details of our neighbors’ husbands and wives, or baring our own immodestly attired lives for all to see is sinful. To take this logic to its furthest end would find the hearts and minds of God’s people unlawfully married to an unclean data nation.

While I may be tempted to know for the sake of knowing, I aim for my internet browsing experiences to be somewhat purposeful. I was both astounded by and grateful for the amount of information on the topics of “sheep behavior” and “vine dressing,” when I had the earnest desire to understand why God chose these particular metaphors for our relationship with Him. (You might say I’m a little “different” in this regard. It would be okay if you did; it’s how the Lord made me. :)) I also find it to be an incredible reference tool when writing, with regard to the study of language itself. And I like to “stumble upon” things from time to time. But all of this requires that I exercise caution, discernment, and wisdom when sifting through the vast quantity of information that exists; and checking myself to ensure that I’m allowing my mind to dwell only on those things which are good and pure and lovely. I confess that in my own strength I am prone to browse aimlessly; and so, I must be diligent in seeking the Lord in all things, including this.

But these are only my humble opinions, which I do not claim to be the standard by which all things should be measured. Although, I do believe if something is worth saying, it should be in keeping with THE standard.

Your point is well taken, Tim. I recognize myself in this article. I will continue to be much in the Word over this topic.

I think I understand what Tim is saying, because I have experienced it in a similar (yet different) way.

When I first came to China and began learning to read and write Chinese, I fell in love with a little red dictionary that I used to look up all the Chinese characters I could find. The book helped me to dig deep into the Chinese language and I became fluent in both reading and speaking within just a year or so.

Nowadays, I see so many people using electronic dictionaries and other electronic means to look up the Chinese characters and words… but very few come to master the language. I can easily see why. The electronic dictionary is too easy; the word pops up almost instantly. No more flipping through dozens of pages, scanning, studying, searching to find the certain word. In my old studies, I would study dozens of characters in the process of finding the one I was looking for. I had to work for what I learned, but it payed off because I was learning more than just one word… I was learning dozens of words as well as the whole context in which the word could be used.

Much (if not all) of that is lost using something electronic. You find the exact word (substitute: verse) you are looking for, and that’s that. No more searching, reading, studying to find the text…. its just there, and you read it quickly, and hop on to some other verse without it getting ingrained into your brain through repitition.

Does any of this make sense? It sure does to me.

Aaron, I’m afraid the last part of your counterpoint be be exactly what Tim is warning against.

“Before the Internet this may not have been possible unless I knew someone personally with all those skills that was willing to take the time to teach me. I was also able to get instruction and ideas from many different perspectives rather than just one.”

The cloud creates this perception that we no longer need to seek out others to learn skills and information. With the internet we need no one, and can find anything we need in a few seconds. So there is therefore no need for messy and difficult relationships with real people. But then when we need actual, physical help, none of our facebook friends or forum posters are there to lend a hand.

I see this problem daily. I work at a camp owned by Wheaton College, where we take students from the college students from the Chicago suburbs to the woods of Northern WI and take away technology: cell phones, internet, etc. Many of these students crumble. They cannot imagine going on a hike without a GPS or spending the summer without updating everything they’ve done into their twitter. They have no idea how to fill their time without texting, facebook, or online video games. They now have to build real relationships with real people. The first week or two is hard, but it is rewarding seeing students have to think for themselves instead of turning to wiki and learn to rely on others.

Tim . . .

Really appreciate your blog in general. Agree with your present thoughts about facebook, friendship, and intimacy … but don’t think anything you said really addresses why you shouldn’t bring your ipod to church.

Interesting post . The real dilemma is what will become of the next generation totally reared on technology .My sons aged 15 and 19 have pretty much been computer savvy and interfacing with the digital age since they started school.My problem is the disconnect . When your interfacing with the new techno gadget it seems to have a life of its own . One that I contend is lifeless. Take the example of letter writing. If I text you a message or e-mail , it has little personality but if I write , there is a feel to it. But that is not to say the new tech stuff is sinful and we should be careful to label it so . But the word of caution is needed.

The biggest problem I have is the loss of genuine human contact. When we communicate through this technology it is without the effort or danger of being a real friend . Real life relationships bare with it the burden of caring , failing,forgiving and it can be messy. But in a cyber world of facebook ,twitter or My Space we don’t have to worry about such things .

I recall a couple of years ago the power went out for almost 3 days . We had no phone,no computer ,no TV etc…and it was enlightening. We talked ,we laughed , we played board games and shared in an intimate way as a family should. This is what concerns me is the loss of the intimate. We are to be a family in the church and as we move towards a isolated world of bits and bytes , we might lose something more profound then we think.

Ok now I have to check my facebook….oopppss did I say that .

Hi TimGood words. I think that 1.5 keys in on the real problem better than 1.0.

“Why don’t we just go back to scrolls and the original languages, while we’re at it?”

You may be referring here to my, very tongue in cheek, rewording of your previous post. I was certainly not espousing a return to scrolls. What I would have liked to say is that transitions can be difficult. Many of the things we feel and think now may have been felt by the scribes, transcribers, and readers in the past. While I tend to agree with you, I think the transition has already happened and is just going to accelerate.

It used to be that almost no one wore shoes anywhere, inside our outside of church. Now everyone wears shoes everywhere and in church. Used to be that most people wore hats everywhere and wore them to church. Now almost no one wears a hat in or out of church (except outside).

It used to be that everyone listened to just the sounds from around them all the time, in and out of church. Now people listen to the sounds around them(other people, horns, traffic, birds, etc) and also, at the same time, the sounds in their ear buds all the time. Except in church? Someday they will listen to the sounds around them (preachers, praise bands, etc), and the sounds in their ear buds all the time, in and out of church. We can try and create some sort of artificial place at church, and some, small, groups still enforce these kinds of rules, but for the most part it just doesn’t work.

Perhaps this is relevant. The ability to do legal research using a computer is wonderful. A lawyer can access many more relevant cases (etc.) online faster than going to the law library and making copies of cases from the heavy law books. Of course, one must sort through more data, so that does waste some of the time and energy gained by not having to go to the law library. But the old lawyers will tell you that there is something that is lost in not flipping through the casebooks, and having flipped through the casebooks myself, I would agree.

In flipping through a book to locate the case you are looking for, you will often find other interesting cases that may be relevant to your research in some way (either the current case or some other case). These are not the typical cases that would show up on a search, because their relevance is too tangential. But this process of skimming other unrelated cases while flipping through the pages stretches the creative mind of the lawyer in ways that scrolling through search results on line does not. Both have value, however. Another loss, by the way, is that a lawyer is more likely to encounter other lawyers and strike up poentially relevant even if seemingly tangential conversations at the law library than sitting in the office alone searching Westlaw or Lexis!

I see the same thing in using my print Bible vs. online Bibles and study tools. Both of them are useful, but in very different ways and perhaps for different purposes.

“What use is memorizing Scripture if we can access our favorite translation faster than we begin to recite it. Why expend effort in getting the Bible into our hearts and minds if we already have it in our pockets?”

I’m sorry, are you talking about having a Bible on a PDA or a printed Bible in your hand?

You are begining to sound like those who argue that the only music sung in church has to be from the 70s or before. Picking a technology over another is rather secondary to the issue.

I’m a little conflicted regarding this topic:

The Bible is the WORD of God, not the BOOK of God. Also, the ONLY way to understand the Bible is have the Holy Spirit interpret it for you, I’m sure He can certainly overcome any real or imagined effects a medium may have on the message, be it a stone tablet, a scroll, a book, or a heart.

I can think of a couple ways where using an electronic version of the Bible will diminish the substance of the Bible. The iPOD will likely do other things WHILE one is reading the Bible (who will resist the urge to check an email alert) Also, the iPOD is something one uses to do things that are less holy than reading the Bible (some of which may be sin and some not). Nevertheless, this demotes the Bible to something more ordinary.

It’s unfortunate that Tim sarcastically dismisses some objections in the first paragraph. Hopefully he will interact with the dozen or so objections that the first post brought. Simply saying that an objection is off base does not make it so.

Secondly, it’s unfortunate that this post really has nothing to do with the first post. Here is to hoping that post 2.0 is more relevant to the discussion he started with the first.

Third, this post is much more on base, and we can be thankful for that. I agree with the poster who has repeatedly said that sin is inward and not outward, and so fixing outward problems does not address the real issue. This is true here and again I think your post can be a helpful warning, but it should not be taken further than that.

I think Al Mohler’s recent post on the Good outweighing the Bad of Twitter is particularly helpful for this discussion.

If I may post an additional comment, after continued contemplation of this topic…

I’m finding that as I’m using my brain—which I now equate with a PC—to search for, analyze, compute, and compare stored knowledge against newly acquired knowledge or knowledge taken in from a new perspective, it’s actually proving Tim’s points. For even the way I understand my thought process has been influenced by the technological means through which I take in a great deal of information.

My thought process is frequently interrupted by “pop-ups” and external audio cues. One of the things I do to minimize this is to go to a peaceful, quiet place where I can be alone with my thoughts and my omnipresent God. I believe this is also a sign of respect to the conversation at hand, be it with the Lord or with another person (whether they are present or not). It seems to me that most people have been influenced by commercial breaks, urgently ringing cell phones, TiVo, and the like, so that they find it altogether acceptable to pause conversations and jump back and forth between channels (or media). I can tell you that it makes me feel unimportant when I am on the receiving end of this type of thinking.

Mulling over the idea that “the medium is the message” naturally leads me to consider the fact that God has charged us with being the medium for His message—both in word and deed. He is clearly concerned with how our world informs us and how our attitudes and behavior color the message. We are a vessel, a vehicle, set apart by God, to be used solely for His purposes; He does not permit us to defile ourselves; and although we are not without sin, we should desire to be free of it. After all, it was Jesus who drove out the traders and money changers from His Father’s house. So, we are the medium and Jesus is the message—the Word incarnate. In His humanity, as in His divinity, He is pure and undefiled.

I do not believe anyone here would contest the above statements. Yet, the co-mingling of holy scripture (to which not a word may be added or subtracted) with that which is unholy (insert objectionable searchable content here), and receiving the Word who died for us from the very same source/device/medium, does not give us a moment’s pause. How can this be?

I can see where this argument could lead to more of the same rebuttals; however, I would stand with Tim and urge you to merely consider the implications the medium has on the message, whatever conclusion you ultimately and prayerfully arrive at.

Thank you for allowing me to share my heart. I will remain respectfully silent now.

The truth of the matter is that reality has disappeared in the church today, and formalities have taken over. Tradition has overshadowed divine inspiration as man planned programs dominate services, rather than the influence of the Holy Spirit - His leading and His direction.

I recently discovered a church in Africa where the truth of God’s Word and the power of God’s work flow in harmony - and it is awesome (The Synagogue, Church Of All Nations with Pastor TB Joshua). This is what is much needed in our colonised Western christianity today.

People will continue to go away and astray from Christ through technology and entertainment, until they see the reality of the Scriptures manifested before their very eyes.

http://thetbjoshuafanclub.wordpress.com

I wonder if our adjustment to the information overload isn’t rather akin to what people felt when the printing press began generating material. Prior to that, some people didn’t know what was happening in the next town, let along across the world. I wonder if our reaction to this technology is similar to that, except exaggerated to some extent.

“People also use printing technology to make cookbooks and porn. So if that’s an argument against the iPOD, it’s an argument against the modern book.”

Since I am not a printer, your point doesn’t apply to me. The original point was more along the line that it is _easier_ to set a book apart and give it extra respect using a physical object rather than some file that is downloaded. There is something lost when we reduce or eliminate certain physical formalities that have been used regarding the Bible. Respecting a digital Bible just as much as a physical one is certainly possible, it just isn’t going to be grasped as readily when a digital Bible is handled similarly to every other digital thing out there.

I am not arguing against using a digital device for the Bible at church or anywhere else. I’m just pointing out areas where I see differences between the two, like a positive for the digital side is it will probably include the less scholarly among us more than a big book does…

I think I would say iphone too. I have one. It was during the beginning of the Wednesday evening service and I was updating my calendar with the church calendar-a teenager was watching me and thought I was texting! I hadn’t even thought about how that could have affected that kid had they not found out what I was REALLY doing.

Tim, I really have enjoyed the topic and do think it is a good thing to address. I have read many of the comments and have been edified by them. I do think there are valid points to both sides of the debate. Let me first say that I am not the smartest guy around, far from it. Neither am I the most technologically advanced. I don’t even know if I spelled that correctly. In light of that I desire to maintain a great amount of humility with my comments. I do not think that the medium through which we receive the Word of God into our hearts makes that big of a difference. I hope most of us would agree that whether you read Romans 10:9 from a scroll or from an iphone, it has the ability, through the power of the Holy Spirit to penetrate the heart of man and bring about salvation. The source of deliverance is much less of an issue than the power of the truth itself guided by God’s Spirit. The real issue at hand is the heart of man. It always has been the real issue. In your original article, which I very much enjoyed, you said this, “Thus, again, the method we use to convey information is inseparable from the content of that information. And even more so, every medium carries with it both content but also a worldview. When we read the Bible electronically, we read the very same words, but in a way that influences us toward a different worldview, a different way of understanding the reality of those words.”I don’t believe that the medium used to bring us the Word of God causes us to have a “different way of understanding the reality of those words.” We do have “a different way of understanding the reality of those words.” But it is not an “iphone” that causes it. I think that all of these gadgets are evidences of the real problem. The real problem is again our hearts. Let me explain.In the first comment under your original article the person said something to the effect that he liked having electronic versions of the Bible with him all the time because then he could just read it when he found the time during his busy day. I think that illustrates the problem. What ever happened to meditating, studying, praying over, and memorizing the Word of God in such a way that changes my heart. Having a portion of my day set aside for spiritual discipline, not just fitting it in where ever I can, is what men and woman of God have done since creation. The problem is not the iphone, it is that with all of our things we have become to busy to be Godly. All of the gadgets have made this easier, but does not mean the gadget is bad to use. We are distracted by the things of the world just like Eve.Just some thoughts. Thanks bro.

“Since I am not a printer, your point doesn’t apply to me. The original point was more along the line that it is _easier_ to set a book apart and give it extra respect using a physical object rather than some file that is downloaded.”

Actually, you’ve shifted your argument. To show your point, i.e. “using an electronic version of the Bible will diminish the substance of the Bible,” you said, “” Also, the iPOD is something one uses to do things that are less holy than reading the Bible (some of which may be sin and some not).”’ Then you stated it “Nevertheless, this demotes the Bible to something more ordinary.” Printers are used for less holy things than reading the Bible, some of which may be sin and some not. Books are used for less holy things than reading the Bible, some of which may be sin and some not. PDA’s are used for less holy things than reading the Bible, some of which may be sin and some not. This was what I referred to - it has nothing to do with YOU being a printer. If the extra-biblical usage of the medium as it relates to respect of the Scriptures is an argument against the iPod, it’s an argument against any other technology that has ever been abused or used for menial purposes and is used to carry or communicate the Word of God. But there’s a far bigger problem here:

“There is something lost when we reduce or eliminate certain physical formalities that have been used regarding the Bible. Respecting a digital Bible just as much as a physical one is certainly possible, it just isn’t going to be grasped as readily when a digital Bible is handled similarly to every other digital thing out there.”

If a man’s respect for the Scriptures is contingent upon it being on paper instead of on a screen, then he is venerating a physical object, something more akin to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. I should hope that our respect for God’s word does not derive from the book that contains it. That’s practically turning the book into an idol. There is something lost when you substitute respect for God’s word with respect for paper. Whether the Bible is ‘ordinary’ or not, perceived or otherwise, should have nothing to do with a physical object. Please, think about what you are saying here.

And moreover, we should not pander to sinful, idolatrous hearts. Man has always found it easy to make an idol out of something in his hand, and if his respect for the Scriptures derives from the book that contains them, then he’s done precisely this. Ironically, this attitude of holding up the book seems to actually fall under Challies’ criticism:

“The trend thus causes us to care more about accessing information that will make our lives immediately easier, that will fix our little problems, than the morality of what we do with that information. The information we access thus has no moral purpose, but instead a purely practical purpose.”

If it’s easier to respect the Bible in a book than on a PDA, than it indicates that it is precisely the WAY that the information is ACCESSED that is ultimately important, and respect for the Scriptures derives from that rather than from itself.

I’m sure that’s not what you mean. But it’s an implication of what you’re saying.

People are talking here about a love for tech. One commentator said, before writing a baseless statement imputing motive and emotion to people:

“In a flash that points out a pretty unhealthy love for these things. It could reveal some subtle idolatry. Could it be that Tim’s statement “Don’t bring your iPod to church” has revealed in some an unhealthy affection for technology…or maybe even subtle idolatry?”

What of the love for the form of the book, and the implications of this? In denouncing the dangers of the PDA, one should be careful not to recapitulate the same dangers in his love for the book.

I ask, could it be that the statements of those who disagree has revealed an unhealthy affection for an older technology, the book… or maybe even subtle idolatry? The aforementioned veneration of a physical object should be very carefully considered here.

‘I wonder how the pastor feels when he looks out over the congregation and sees people’s thumbs flying across the device, wondering whether they are listening or multi-tasking.”

We could hope that the pastor is mature enough to reserve judgment until he finds out whether or not the person is following along with studying and note studying.

Ditto for the congregation. Do you (plural) condemn in your hearts the person with the PDA before knowing the full story? That’s a serious question.

I wonder how the pastor feels when he looks out over the congregation and sees people’s thumbs flying across the device, wondering whether they are listening or multi-tasking.

Probably the same way the pastor feels when he looks out over the congregation and sees people jotting things on paper with their pen, wondering whether they are taking notes on his sermon, preparing a shopping list, or telling a silent joke to their neighbor.

Judgement or rules based on personal preferences or personal hangups is legalism.

“One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone.” Romans 14:2-7