- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (6/12)
- Next Post »Free Stuff Fridays
Don't Take Your iPod to Church!
- 06/12/09
- 61
Yesterday I described the book as The Perfect Technology. There was perhaps a little bit of hyperbole involved, but I think the point was well-taken. I was actually surprised to see how many people agreed with me. Maybe as Christians we are unusual in this regard; maybe Christians are, almost by definition, readers and, thus, people who will toss away their books only with great caution. This is good, I think, as Christians tend to be too pragmatic, prone to believe that any innovation that claims to make life immediately easier or more convenient (without violating any clear teaching of Scripture) must be good.
Today I want to carry on with a few more thoughts about reading in a digital world and I want to focus in on one issue in particular.
I have witnessed recently what I consider a disturbing trend—Christians coming to church armed not with a Bible but with an iPod or an iPhone or another hand held device. With many versions of the Bible available in electronic formats and with the widespread popularity of MP3 players, cell phones and other digital devices, I guess it just makes sense to some people to bring Scripture in that electronic format. Pragmatists that we are, I believe many Christians have done this without thinking at all about the implications.
I want to encourage you not to bring an electronic Bible to church. I want to encourage you today to bring to church a Bible—an old fashioned kind of Bible, with ink printed on paper and slapped between two covers made of cardboard or leather or pleather. I also want to encourage you not to get into the habit of doing your daily Bible reading using an electronic device. I think we stand to lose far more than we gain.
In the past couple of months I have spent a fair bit of time reading the works of Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman—gurus of the technological age. I tend to prefer Postman as I find him not only more accessible but also more accurate and more realistic. McLuhan is prone to hyperbole, excessive hyperbole even, and I find that this detracts from his effectiveness as a communicator (though I know that many would disagree with me on this point).
McLuhan is undoubtedly best-known for his catchy little phrase, “the medium is the message.” It sometimes helps to emphasize that little word is as if to stress that the the medium and the message carried by that medium cannot be neatly separated. This is exactly what McLuhan emphasized time and time again—we cannot afford to fall into the trap of believing that media are neutral, simple bearers of a message. “The medium is the message.” In a classic case of McLuhian hyperbole, he would say that the content of a particular medium “has about as much importance as the stencilling on the casing of an atomic bomb.” He turns the equation right around, saying that the content is nothing, the medium is everything.
I think McLuhan makes an important point and one that we discount at our folly, though he overstates his case here and elsewhere. Still, where McLuhan is so important is in understanding that every medium carries with it a message that necessarily impacts the content. We like to think that we are smart enough, holy enough, to draw complete and utter separation between medium and content. Christians do this all the time when we assume that there is no difference between singing songs from a hymn book and singing songs via a projector and Powerpoint. We do this when we listen to sermons online instead of listening while seated in a pew. But what if we are fooling ourselves? What if the medium really does radically shape our perception, our understanding, of the content it carries? What then?
This is where Neil Postman comes in. In Technopoly Postman says that, when two technologies come into competition or conflict (two technologies such as the Bible printed on paper and the Bible on an iPod), it is more than technologies that are squaring off, but rather, entire worldviews. Every medium, he says, carries with it some kind of an ideological bias, “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.” 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.
Postman also adds to this discussion a phrase that is so simple but so important: a technology does what it was created to do. Over time, a technology will play out its hand, to to speak, and it may do so in ways we would not expect. Had Gutenberg known what would happen through the invention of the printing press, do we believe that he still would have invented it? That printing press was instrumental in forever changing the Roman Catholic Church (of which he was a faithful son). How many other technologies have played out their hands in completely unexpected ways? Should we not be on our guard, then, when considering such new innovations?
So where does this leave us? It leaves us wondering what ideological bias, what predisposition, is carried in the book and in the electronic book. It causes us to wonder what skill or attitude is amplified in the book and what skill or attitude is amplified in the iPod.
But I will have to take this up in another article. Check in next week for that.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (61)
I will be interested in reading the follow up to this post. I’ve done a fair amount of study into worldviews, as well as technology.
I have, for many years, used electronic devices for daily Bible reading, Bible study, and yes, to transport God’s Word to church with me. I started with Pocket E-sword on a Pocket PC. It was a neat novelty until my first son was born, when it became highly useful. Trying to carry an infant, a car seat, diaper bag, other assorted child accessories, and a Study Bible (especially one along the size of my MacArtrhur or ESV Study Bibles) was very cumbersome, and I eagerly adopted electronic Bibles. The Bible on the handheld device allowed me to double check translations of the Greek and Hebrew, to read commentaries, and to collect notes. I have taught classes from handheld devices, although I prefer to bring a laptop with me when I’m teaching.
Over the years I’ve been through several devices, to the point where I added Internet connectivity with a Windows Mobile phone. I currently carry an iPhone. And yes, I use it in church to read the Bible. I also use it for my daily Bible reading. I tend to fit my daily reading in when I can, which makes the handheld device very convenient.
I don’t, to this point, share an agreement with your assertion in this blog post. I eagerly await your follow up.
I am someone who once read all of War and Peace on a Handspring Visor. I read the ESV on my Palm OS device before I owned a paper copy of it. All this is to say that I am comfortable with the technology.
That being said, I still prefer to carry and read from a book. I like being able to take notes in the text on my Palm (yes, I still carry it) and sync them to my PC. I like having the Bible with me everywhere I go. But in the end I still prefer the feeling of having a book in my hands while looking at words on a page.
I am also very interested to read the follow-up to today’s post.
I stand with Eric in his points of disagreement for now. Regarding e-texts: I enjoy the ability to read in whatever translation is being used by a pastor/teacher. I am more apt to mark up an electronic text than a paper one. I find a digital library infinitely more useful than a paper one. Certainly a PDA/smartphone brings the possibility of distractions with it, but so does a study bible. If the permanence/immutability of a paper text has a message to it, then in what situations is that message important? What about bringing both a paper bible AND a digital one at the same time, as I often do?
I will look forward to your reasons why we need the book (the Bible) in our hands rather than an electronic version. I agree with you that that is the case but couldn’t very well articulate why…we need to be ready to speak to this. Thanks Tim.
I’ve used Bible software on my Palm E2 for years (and loved it). For a season I found myself taking it to church. I could jump to references in a flash (no messy turning of pages, hunting for a “minor prophet”, etc.). Then I noticed a very disturbing trend. My Bible software was making my brain lazy…
I noticed it first when someone asked me for a particular scripture reference. I found that I could not recall the chapter and verse. I had grown so used to whipping out my Palm Pilot and searching for a few key words that I had neglected the discipline of committing the scripture to memory. I had lost the contextual cues (position of a verse in a column, on a page) that had always helped me to recall where a particular scripture was located. That was when I started weaning myself away from my over dependence on Bible software.
I still use my Palm Bible software (occassionally) and I use Logos for study and sermon prep, but the majority of my Bible reading, all of my devotional reading, and most of my Bible study is done using a physical text.
Oh, and I take my leather-bound ESV to church :-)
Good post, Tim.
Interesting post! I agree and disagree:
Here’s where I disagree:”We like to think that we are smart enough, holy enough, to draw complete and utter separation between medium and content. Christians do this all the time when we assume that there is no difference between singing songs from a hymn book and singing songs via a projector and Powerpoint.”
C’mon, I feel like this is going back to the same old tired argument from old-school reformed guys who can’t get past not having an organ and a hymnal for worship. Technology changes and you can either redeem it, fear it or curse it. I say we redeem technology and use it for kingdom purposes!
The Bible is the living and active word of God whether you are reading it online or in a PDA or if it is a book in front of you. I don’t have a problem with reading them and traveling with them etc if that’s one’s preference.
My dilemma would be in terms of our witness. You can read your Palm Bible on the plane or in an airport or wherever you are traveling and none would be the wiser that you are getting into the Word. You can read it at home and your kids would never have the tremendous opportunity to see Daddy and Mommy reading their Bibles and seeing the importance of having that book open in front of them and their parents pouring over the Words of God. I think there is some real value in having a visible testimony from reading the Word and that we miss a great deal when we forego the actual book for technology.
Jasonhttp://redeemingriches.wordpress.com
Curious to see what kind of case you make for Christian blogs, never ending online Christian content, and Bible software as it relates to helping Christians when they hold a Bible in their hands. It would be fascinating to see you hand write your posts and then have a scribe rewrite it thousands of times and mail them to your readers or even hand deliver them. Looking forward to the follow-up. E
And again I say Amen
The spirit of Ned Ludd lives on!
I can’t help but to wonder that in the early church, believers didn’t have their own personal bibles. The listened to the the letters being read, correct?
Technology comes in many forms, and should not end up being an idol. I’m not a fan of iPods, iPhones, and laptops being in church for active congregation use, I think those convictions should come from the Lord.
Tim,
I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this matter. This is in interesting topic, because I think the principles (if you want to call them that) involved extend to a lot of things - the seemingly interminable Christian music debate for one. What I find here, personally, is that on a kind of emotional - aesthetic level I agree, but it seems to me that the logic, if examined, doesn’t quite stand up. The argument, if followed to it’s logical end, doesn’t work, because the fundamental question becomes “where is the line drawn?” Where do you stop - at the printing press? Why could the same argument not be used to assert that we shouldn’t use printed books, but only handwritten ones? Or, pushing it back farther, scrolls instead of bound books? etc etc.
In other words, the best conclusion I can draw on is that it falls into the Romans 14 “areas of freedom” category. Otherwise it inevitably heads toward legalism, or absurdity, or both.
I agree with you almost 100%. I “hear” God’s voice more clearly, it seems, from the pages of His book. However, I’m an elderly woman with balance problems. In my church we stand when Scripture is read. I can’t do it while wrestling with a heavy Book. Also, I find that when I’m reading a book of spiritual content and the author refers to a verse just by location, I’m more likely to pick up my iPhone rather than sit and read with 2 books on my lap.
My husband and I were out of town several weeks ago, and realized that we had both forgotten our Bibles. When we visited the local church for Sunday School, we were glad to have our iPhones to read along with the teacher, but it just wasn’t the same.
It was useful in a pinch, but definitely not the norm. It sort of reminds me of reading the scripture on a large screen during worship…just not the same.
Xandra
Agreed Meeky.
New technology always seems to encounter mefiance from people with strong religious convictions. If we are truly controlled by the Spirit of God, all things are permissible, are they not? We, by divine guidance and wisdom from our communion with Him, learn to discern what things are permissible and what things are not beneficial. It may be that an iPod to one Christian is a mere tool, while to another Christian, it is an absolute fixation.
More and more, I’m learning that my walk with God is truly a thing of the heart; it’s moreso internal and seldom external. What I mean is, the motives of my heart regardless of what my actions look like from the outside, are what God considers. Technology is a mere tool. My heart uses it wisely or uses it perversely.
“No to electronic text but yes to printed bibles in book form” leads to”No to Printed bibles in book form but yes to scrolls”which leads to “No to scrolls but yes to stone tablets”which leads to….Actually it probably stops there as God gave Moses the law on stone tablets. Obviously if he had wanted us to use iPods, he would have given one to Moses instead. Bonus, stone tablets will really show that you are serious about reading the bible. Your kids and people who sit next to you on the plane are going to notice this for sure. I guess you could say that I am not convinced there is a valid argument coming.
Enjoy your blogs.
I normally carry a printed Bible. I have used black berry and treo software to look up scripture that I need to find on the spot. But I would rather flip through my Bible to find scripture at Church. On the other hand I’m still a big gadget guy, so I believe they have their place. Guess what I’m saying is I’m glad I don’t have to write this followup article. Sounds like you better be ready to bring it when you click publish on this next one. :) No pressure.
Well, if you put it that way, Clinton, I say let’s go even further back to oral tradition.
two thoughts…
1. “Maybe as Christians we are unusual in this regard; maybe Christians are, almost by definition, readers.”
Oh how I wish this was the case!
2. I believe it is best to close your Bible and listen to the preacher\reader of scripture. You can check things later if you like. But when the Word is being read, you should NOT have your nose in the book (or e-device). Listening to someone is phenomenologically different from reading a book. When we listen, we are in a position of passivity, and cede authority to the reader. Hard for “me and my Bible” evangelical Americans, I know, but perhaps worth considering.
God’s word is God word, whether it’s displayed by pixels on a computer screen or microscopic dots of ink on a page. What’s the difference?
You write: “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.”
How so? Are you trying to say that if I read John 3:16 (or any other Scripture passage) off the screen of my iPhone as opposed to in a leather-bound Bible, it’s somehow possible that I’m going to understand it differently… because of the technology that displays the text?
I sure hope your follow-up article clarifies this somehow, because that premise just doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
Of course, maybe I’m just dense…
Correct me if I’m wrong but for a much longer time, most Christians did not own a book as you describe a Bible, being between two covers. For a much longer time until Guttenburg and the Reformation the Bible wasn’t even in their own language.
When a pastor says turn in your Bibles during his sermon, I for one doubt if the Holy Spirit is hampered from increasing our faith if we read from a handheld device as opposed to turning actual pages. I use the NET Bible (printed) for the textual notes there but would consider using it on my phone (Storm) without hesitation.
I too have read McLuhan and Postman and understand the argument, but the grace of God and His gift of Faith comes through the preaching of the Word not through my following along on my Blackberry.
Love this blog!, but must disagree that,
“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.”
The point of the Bible’s message is that this can’t be true. The Bible reaches through medium to change worldviews. So you may have an ipod-loving, short-attention-span- worldview, and reading the Bible on your ipod will transform the worldview that makes you love your ipod.
It is the very power of God: his Word. It”s power cannot be influenced by medium if the message is unchanged.
I’m still looking forward to your next post on this. But I’ve got to disagree with this one.
I have a more lengthy response on my blog.
This is where Neil Postman comes in. In Technopoly Postman says that, when two technologies come into competition or conflict
This argument is inherently flawed (false dichotomy). There is no conflict between “Jesus wept” written in 1’s and 0’s, by my 4 year old son on construction paper, on a piece of tree bark in Kenya, on the finest onionskin paper in my Thompson Chain, or in Logos. I use what is the best tool for me to use at the time. Reading the Word of God in one form is no different than reading it in another form. At least I see no scriptural basis for thinking so.
And besides, I am NOT repurchasing MacArthur’s NT Commentary in paper books :)
Dear Challies and other posters,
Ok, I am not sure if I agree or do not. Let me explain how I personally reconsile the difference between technology and the traditional uses. Because of my personal convictions of what is propre to do on the Lord’s Day I do not take public transportation to Church. I either walk or ride my bike (yes in a suit) to Church and I like to listen to certain songs via my ipod (my touch was stollen so I have a cheap shuffle as a back up) that are chosen via a special playlist that I made just for the Lord’s Day plus the latest White hoarse inn and MLJ podcast (those two I do not listen to in the morning because I like the spiritual starvation of waiting to hear the preached word of God in person and being in a state of antipation of hearing the fruits of my Pastor’s weekly studies which I help support through my gifts, prayers, and being available to help him around his house if there is anything I can do. I also wear a backback containing my leather journal, a fountain pen, a gel pen, a highlighter and a mechanical pencil plus one regular Christian book of somesort I am reading and my french Bible. I usually arrive 30 minutes early before the start of the service and I take off the Ipod, pray and just read my book till people start to arrive. I help in anyway I can those with children and worship with the Body. Then when I want to leave I put back on the headphones and bike or walk back.
Is my routine, do you think acceptable or do you reccomend ditching the ipod all together? I thought this would be a good ballance. Also fyi, I used my ipod touch en lieu of my bible and notebook and 3 sundays after I started doing that it was stollen! So I think Providence taught me a lesson eh.
Questions to ask of every new technology:
1) What will this tool enhance?2) What will this tool obsolesce?3) What will this tool retrieve from all the things you’ve lost?4) How will your tool reverse on you when pushed to its outer limits?
(I think this is Postman. I found it on a scrap of paper tucked away in my copy of “Amusing Ourselves To Death.”)
The other night in evening worship, I look over and see one of the members using his PDA at first to read the evening’s chapter, then about 10 minutes to check the MLB scores.
I would suggest this topic is generational, but this member is late 30s.
Those who use electronic devices in church have the cool new toy. Look at the responses in this post and do a pride check.
Signed, Mr Ludd. (Right)
(I think this is Postman. I found it on a scrap of paper tucked away in my copy of “Amusing Ourselves To Death.”)
Close. That’s McLuhan…
Personally I cannot stand electronic books…and I’m 18. I prefer to have an actual book in my hands, open, able to mark up and make my own. E-texts, for me, are far too impersonal.
That said, they may work for other people. God is not limited to one media form - even my favourite one…
I think that Josh (#25) touched on a very important point, and possibly the direction that Tim will take with it. The Holy Spirit absolutely works through electronic devices in the same way that he works through the printed Bible. BUT, the temptation for a lack of focus and wandering (e.g., checking MLB scores, et al.) with an iPhone or PDA greatly inhibits our ability to focus on the Bible, and the Bible only—especially during quiet study time.
Interesting thought. .
Surely having people read the Word of God is a good thing!!!! 10% of my country profess to being Christian and even less go to church each week ( I live in NEw Zealand). I would rather people heard God’s Word, in whatever medium, than not. We also have to be careful when judging one thing against another. Is a podcast as effective as a sermon?? To some it is better/ other worse.
What challenged me more was the statement…”Maybe as Christians we are unusual in this regard; maybe Christians are, almost by definition, readers and, thus, people who will toss away their books only with great caution.”Dont agree with this view as millions of people in the world cant read and even more cant afford to buy books.
However, in our western ( I live in New Zealand) christian culture reading books is seen as an important part of our faith. Almost a badge of honour. Would your faith grow if you read no spiritual books for a year?? Why or Why not???Would your faith grow with no bible for a year?? Why or wwhy not???The reality is that the above statements are the case for many Christians throughout the world.
I am Lead Pastor of a 175 attender UMC. My wife owns a Used Books store so successfull she has 9 booksellers who work with her.
Yet I say, in 20 years the ink clad paper word will be as dead as a dinosaur. Entire libraries will be availabloe in handy lightweight rolled up screens.
The UMC didn’t end the new hymnal project just for lack of money. Too few people would have bought it.
The world is turning, and as there must have been those who mourned the passing of the scroll, so there will be some who cling to tree destroying pages.
But the world will turn.
I understand the ease of portability.. but there is comfort in the leather binding and the pages that seem to fall open themselves.. I love to take notes in the margin and on the flaps..
I can look back at the new christian and trust I will look back on todays note the same way in a few years..
My ipod is for sermons and music, the word of God is held and cherished and not thrown out when new technology comes in the door :)
I am getting ready to buy a Kindal, but yea something missing when I read the scripture off my blackberry, its good for a quick and handy read but not my devotional time. Books are more intimate, but books are a technology too. God first wrote on a rock.
When having a discussion on any topic I always like to turn the tables on the other person and ask them to consider their own point of view from the perspective they’re asking me to look at mine. As the newcomer, electronic Bibles are challenged to be as good as their paper counterparts. But what if electronic challenged paper to look at itself and ask itself the same questions?
Paper challenged the medium that came before it, and apparently won. That doesn’t mean it’s the best medium for the message, just that it was the best at the time.
I’ve been carrying an electronic Bible to church for about 20 years. Without even making an effort at collecting old bulletins and scraps of paper shoved into the covers of a dilapidated Bible over the years, I have sermon notes electronically archived over that entire period. As my taste in Bible translation has morphed from RSV to KJV to NIV to NASB all my notes and highlighting have come along with me; they weren’t left behind in some worn out Bible when I bought a new one. When I hear a questionable or challenging interpretation of a verse coming from the pulpit, I have a virtual Bible reference library at my fingertips that gives me the opinions of everyone from the early church fathers to the most contemporary scholar. Often I find that the interpretation which at first seems “questionable” is validated by the scholars and I learn something.
While it will take you a while in your paper Bible, some time sit down and look at all the places where “the Word of God” is mentioned in the Bible. Look for whether it says that the Word is “written” or “read”. You’ll find that it is always “spoken” and “heard”. This isn’t to say that your printed Bible isn’t the Word of God or doesn’t contain the Word of God, but rather that even the reading that we put so much emphasis on may not be as important as speaking and hearing. If that’s the case, then arguing about the medium from which it is read is even less relevant.
Finally, I want to question the granularity of the word “medium” that is intended by the phrase “the medium is the message”. I would argue that books and computers, when presenting the text of the Bible on a page or on a screen, are the same medium. The medium is “writing” and the method of absorbing that medium is “reading”. When your preacher stands up and preaches the Word of God, the medium is different. But reading the Bible from dead trees is no different than reading the Bible from a screen. You’re still reading what is written.
There are benefits to paper over electronic, and benefits to electronic over paper. You can argue that paper is better and you’ll probably live out your life reading from a paper Bible. But that is rapidly changing. Newspapers and magazines are things of the past. Books are rapidly following. The major publishers are taking many titles, especially scholarly titles, direct to electronic and bypassing paper altogether. They may do print-on-demand, but the major form of distribution is shifting to electronic.
I have had discussions with people who adhere to the KJV as the only true English Bible. They see modern translations as “changing” the Word of God because they’re different from the KJV. It doesn’t occur to them that the KJV “changed” the words in the translations that predated it, nor that all translation is a changing of words (and in some cases, meaning) because no two languages can be directly and unambiguously translated between each other. I would encourage you to look at your paper vs. electronic argument the same way. Are you adhering to paper because it’s what’s familiar to you and you don’t like change? Consider that paper replaced what came before it; books replaced what came before them; and even center-column references and study Bible notes replaced what came before them. It isn’t necessarily better than everything, it’s just better than what came before it. Electronic books may or may not be better, but we shouldn’t dismiss them just because they’re new, or because some author invented a phrase like “the medium is the message”.
Good article. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Full disclosure: As President of Laridian, Inc. and author of PocketBible for various mobile and desktop devices, I have a vested interest in electronic Bibles. :-)
Not a problem yet, but the day is coming when having a book will be considered poor stewardship. Why? E-paper will become far cheaper and more environmentally safe than books.
Btw, no liberal here. Just trying to come at this argument from another angle. Thoughts?
Nice thoughts — and I don’t disagree completely.
I have to ask: Do you have a Scriptural basis for your argument? You cite other viable sources…except the One that truly matters.
I agree with you more than disagree, but I hope you’ll be careful with this. Without Scriptural principles to back-up your point you are creating an atmosphere of standards without (biblical) principles — an issue that disillusioned many in the 70’s and 80’s.
When books with bindings became “popular” did than mean that churches using the Bible on scrolls were in error?
After all, I am reading my Bible on my iPod in church.
I would not, however, preach from my iPod. But that is a personal preference.
This is topic is worth discussing, but I must say that I’ve heard no objective reasons not to use electronic devices versus a printed book. Maybe I missed it, but everything seems to be more subjective, as in a personal preference.
We have to be very careful not to delve into a legalistic trend. I see this as a Christian freedom, which is Biblical, as someone has already mentioned. Some people are turned off by electronic devices and others see them as incredible tools. Does it really offend someone who uses a printed Bible to see someone reading from their electronic device? Are electronics somehow irreverent?
Someone mentioned the possibility of having your e-device as your “medium” to read or study the Word and it’ll be too tempting to look up MLB scores. Is that the problem of the technology or the user? That’s like saying we should go live in a remote part of Africa because in America we have too much access to MLB scores and it could take away from our devotional time.
HSAT, I’m hoping the point of this series of articles is for us to check our hearts and see if we’re worshiping our electronic devices and using the excuse that we’re reading God’s Word so it’s okay. I see this as a Christian freedom and a personal preference. One may like the Bible in printed form in their hands, another may like a combination, another may like purely electronic form, but in the end aren’t we reading His Word? If the technology is somehow irreverent for reading God’s Word then is it ever okay to use such a device?
You can always tell the liberals—they’re the ones who pass off their articles on blogs rather than publishing good, wholesome, paper newsletters. :-)
If the medium is the message, perhaps the message is “Jesus is Lord of all—including iPods”.
“If the medium is the message, perhaps the message is “Jesus is Lord of all—including iPods”.”
What an excellent thing to say!
My paper Bible has made me independent and rebellious. I’m going to have read it to me. In Latin. ;)
Reading this article, I couldn’t help but think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buHmE_8UmJA
And a few hundred years ago the concern was people bringing those paper Bibles into the church… Then it was people carrying those scrolls around…
I think your off target on this on. Reading the scripture, in whatever format is a great thing! I’d caution you on fighting a losing battle on these grounds.
*note: I have not read the other comments yet*
This was one of the most disappointing posts I have read at this blog. I often agree with Tim, but generally even when I disagree I think that his posts are solid and well reasoned. Not in this post, however.
Tim unfortunately never quite gets around to making his point. Why shouldn’t someone use their Ipod to read their Bible? Even if someone thought “The Medium is the Message” actually made sense, there isn’t the slightest indication as to what the medium of an IPod actually communicates.
What does an IPod Communicate?What does Powerpoint Communicate?What does a hardback book communicate?
Until there are answers to these questions, it does not make sense to suggest that one medium ought to be preferable to another in any particular tasks.
Unreasoned generalizations (such as the comment about Christians believing there to be no difference between Hymns from a hymnal or a PPT) do not help the matter. Tim has failed to state why one might be preferable to the other.
To complicate the matter, he says, “We do this when we listen to sermons online instead of listening while seated in a pew” which is not the same thing at all. The problem with failing to “sit in a pew” really has very little to do with the medium of the alternative.
The ultimate conclusion of this post really amounts to nothing more than “We don’t know what results technology will have, therefore we must be cautious of everything.” While there may be some modicum of truth in the statement, it really doesn’t help inform the discussion at hand very much at all.
It seems to me that we do a good job of taking personal preferences and finding some way to argue theologically for them. Unfortunately, the theological (or perhaps simply ‘ethical’) argument for this preface is so weak that it fails at even a basic level to convince me.
As a note, I don’t even have an IPod and I take a leather Bible to church every Sunday.
Hmmm….I am a young guy who knows squat about technology and likes books more than computers. I love the smell, the feel, the look, and, quite frankly, find them easier on the eyes. However, HSAT, I don’t know that there is a difference between the two mediums in terms of the content. The ‘medium is the message’ is a limited phrase which applies mostly, it seems, to those who would unthinkingly jump on the technology bandwagon. Also, I would like to point out that my copy of Flavel’s complete works can be just as much cause for idolatry as an iPhone, so the idea that it’s just ‘new toy envy’ misses the point: that’s a heart issue. BTW, a lot of people jumping on Tim rather sarcastically probably need to step back and remember that you are responding to a weblog post written by a website designer who consistently uses technology as as the main medium for thought and reflection. Perhaps all the ‘you just legalistically hate technology’ folks should take a deep breath and notice the irony of their rants.
Chuck, unabashed techno-moron
I enjoy your blog, Tim, but this is probably your worst post ever. I love books. I also love my ipod touch. I have about 6 books and the ESV bible on it. I do use it in church and in my small group. I’m even memorizing John 1:1-18 and chapter 2 of Romans with it (gasp!). It is interesting, to me, that an online blogger and an AVID tweeter would post such nonsense. The logic of this post is so flawed that I hope you DON’T post a follow-up.
After reading through the comments, I am happy so see that I am not the only person who found this post entirely disappointing.
Perhaps such staunch disagreement will lead to some rethinking on this issue.
Finally, almost at the bottom of the responses, someone actually said it READING the Word, whether from papyrus, hand-transcribed book, printed book, Kindle, i-Pod, are all uses of the same MEDIUM. HEARING those same words spoken by a human voice is another. VIEWING a film or video or powerpoint attempting to pass on the same thing is yet another medium. Consider the biblical assounts of HOW God’s word was proclaimed to the Israelites: it was universally SPOKEN AND HEARD. When Jesus picked up the scroll and read Isaiah in the temple, the medium was His VOICE, not the scratches on the scroll. WHY do we read aloud the day’s passage before the teaching, rather than simply project the words onto a screen, and everyone reads them in silence? I can be as easily distracted by that pretty lady two rows up at that time as I could be in checking the latest football matches on my handheld rather than following the text. The problem has nought with the medium, but my heart.
A couple also brought up the current envirofreak speak that “trees have to die to have books”. This is utter nonsense, and a lie. The only trees directly harvested for pulp/paper are those planted and cultivated (very efficiently, I might add) specifically for this end use. The remainder is made from by-products and what otherwise would have become waste. So, our paper usage does not murder trees, any more than our bread murders wheatfields. So let us have done with THAT folly. And NO ONE yet has mentioned the environmental load of the manufacture, transport, distribution of electronic devices OR their highly toxic power sources
Personally, I have used (limited) electronic devices in reading and study, but far prefer paper. Imminently portable, no batteries to die, instantly accessible (no boot time), never “crash”, I’ve never yet had one stolen, far cheaper, every one carries its own “style” or character, any images or illustrations are FAR superior to anything on a portable digital device, and they work anywhere there is sufficient light. Oh, and I can be anywhere and give one away, the reciepient now enjoys all the benefits I did. No learning curve. All that in view, electronic formats have their advantages, particularly when rapid accessibility and cross-referencing is an issue, as in a study scenario. All in, however, BOTH are alternate forms of the same medium, that is, marks on a plane, to be interpreted visually. At root, same medium.
I think that Tim’s post is an important one.
I have an extensive e-book collection (several hundred thousand pages). I spend 8+ hours each day studying the Bible through software and online. (I love my job!)
There are INCREDIBLE advantages to this. I can do searches (particularly in the original languages) which we couldn’t dream of doing twenty years ago. I find it so very important for my study of the Bible.
However, I have found that having that instant accessibility does change the way in which I study. I find myself doing study of a particular word or theme across the Bible, and across important Christian writers, which is wonderful, and has strengthened me immeasurably, however, it can quickly become a substitute for thorough and systematic study of the Bible verse by verse. I do the systematic expositional study as well, but having the Bible accessible as a searched text changes our approach, as opposed to sitting down with just the book in front of us.
I know that having the instant word study in the original languages available has been wonderful, but my proficiency in Greek has fallen off, rather than strengthened, because I have a ready-made crutch. Is that a personal failing? Perhaps so, but it is a consequence of that ready search function.
In our church we have wrestled with a similar issue. Years ago, the Pastor made the citations for the services available for study throughout the week available beforehand. This was, and is, wonderful. My grandfather would be able to simply look at the citation listings, and tell you the entire sermon in advance. Over the years, people started putting together a newsletter which printed those citations out, rather than having us look them up in the Bible. More people currently look at that print-out than at the citations themselves.
This has led to more people reading the sermon study, but has led to a great decline in overall knowledge of the Bible in the church. It has also led to laziness on the part of some who just take the verses out of context, because they aren’t reading the whole thing.
In both cases people are reading the word of God, but the advancement of desktop publishing technology led to some unintended consequences.
I am no technophobe, but to say that technological advancements don’t have significant implications is not true.
Tim, I believe that God’s Spirit has graciously and sovereignly given you the gift of discernment for the edification of His church; therefore, I am not inclined to lightly or hastily dismiss you when you so heartily encourage us to take heed, as you have done in this article. I have been ruminating on your words since I read them yesterday, and I am encouraged to contemplate what effect the medium has had/will have on the heart and mind that I guard so jealously, as it pertains to the act of worship and the whole of my life, to which I am called to love the Lord with all of my heart, mind, soul and strength. I am grateful whenever a brother or sister in Christ cares enough to exhort me, and I genuinely look forward to your next article in this series. I will pray that the Lord will give you wisdom, courage, and humility when composing it; and I will pray that all who read it will receive it in the spirit in which it was intended. To God be be the glory!
Mr Challies,I humbly submit that this is the kind of thing that makes unbelievers laugh themselve silly at us. I myself prefer to read the Bible on paper (while so much of my other reading is online) but maybe that is because I am 50 and because I don’t have all the new technology others use. What I do know is that the Word of God is living and active-and it really doesn’t matter whether the words are on a page or a screen or simply being spoken in my hearing. The important thing is the Word itself-and its Author.
I eagerly wait the next installment of this article. I do use both a paper and an electronic version of Scripture on my Palm Tungsten E. In my own experience, I’ve found a useful way to toggle between the two.
For example, when I am eating lunch and doing some reading of Scripture, I would rather use my Palm version. I can hold & navigate through it with one hand while eating with another. My fear with using a paper Bible at lunch is that of dropping some food on it or having greasy fingers and simply defiling the pages with an unremovable stain. I do prefer using a paper text when I actually am in a controlled environment (at home or at church) where I can enjoy the benefits of a paper text and not fear messing up the pages.
Tim’s point about being careful of the unintended effects of technology should be taken seriously. For example, might a user of an electronic text of the Bible on an IPod or Kindle think in terms of “I have a device which contains the Bible” rather than “I am holding a text of the Bible”? The Bible would be only one of many functions on the device, probably not the only one. Therefore, while reading Scripture during church one minute, there is the temptation (as mentioned in a prior comment) to check the score of a game, or text someone with a joke you thought of during the sermon, etc. A paper text Bible cannot serve multiple functions as a newspaper, texting device, etc.
I think that the multiple use of an IPod like device could possibly lead to a second problem. If you think of your reading medium as a computer rather than as the text of Scripture, there may be a temptation to read the Bible onscreen in the same way that other entries are read online, namely, in a very quick and surface way. There MAY be a tendency to skim and not reflect deeply on what has been read. (I suggest reading the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”) Since we do typically read things online differently from text, will some people fall into the pitfall of reading the Bible this way?
I don’t think these pitfalls in using an electronic text of the Bible are inevitable. However, we do need to be careful. Note that with studies that have already been done, the finding is that we do read electronic text differently (i.e. skimming, jumping from one link to another). We should recognize that we may be subtly changing our approach to reading a text based on the medium.