Dear Faithlife, please do not compromise the public perception of your integrity

Faithlife, you have several reasons to be concerned about the public perception of your integrity at the moment. Note that I say "public perception" specifically to insure that you understand I do not actually question your integrity but rather I question your actions that put integrity into question.

Recent events of relevance:

listing of features of Logos 7 items marked "(subscription)" that in fact are Logos Now features
two authors caught in plagarism making one question the "academicness" of the environment in which they and other authors write as these are grad school 101 level errors
releases of products with inaccurate/missing tagging as in Classics of Western Spirituality and sermons ... note that Kyle has gone a very good job of getting these corrected in a timely manner but they are indicative of a cultural of sloppiness.

So what direction in Logos moving?

discourse analysis tagging
direct quotation tagging
allusion/echo and other intertextual tagging
figurative speech tagging ...

All of these and many more require that we trust you to provide theologically neutral, accurate and complete tagging. This is especially true as we have little opportunity to attach visible corrections when we disagree with your classification. So just when I need to believe that your tools are neutral what do you do? Because a conservative radical objected to a post, you chose to delete the feature rather than fix the problem which has two relatively small elements:

renaming the feature in the customization menu
applying the source screening specified in the web page to the home page as well.

Instead, you chose to tell us that the feature is not relevant to Bible study - a statement that very strongly reeks of a particular theological hermeneutic - and therefore you will remove it. (In addition, news is very relevant to sermon writing so the statement also reeks of illogical self-justification.) Once again, you show that I can not trust Faithlife to be theologically neutral ... a message sent multiple times. So why should I trust that you will not be equally responsive to disagreements in your tools and with your tagging ... moving from neutral to theologically based tagging?

Please don't solve a short term complaint by creating a long-term problem.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mike Pettit

There is no such thing as being theologically neutral.

DAL

Wait a minute which feature is going to get removed because someone complained? I didn't catch that part.

DAL

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851913#Comment_851913

There is no such thing as being theologically neutral.

Not in the absolute ... but there is nearer or farther from it on the continuum ...

Richard Villanueva

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851917#Comment_851917

which feature is going to get removed because someone complained?

I believe she is mentioning the Faithlife News RSS Feed "feature".

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851913#Comment_851913

There is no such thing as being theologically neutral.

Faithlife is a publisher that sells to several 'groups'.

Standard, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist & Wesleyan, Orthodox, Pentecostal & Charismatic, Reformed, SDA, Catholic

If it marks 'items' in a way that adds 'bias' some of the 'groups' are going to leave.

Faithlife has to find a way to be 'theologically neutral' or maybe they can have flags to turn on the tagging on for 'group' X and if you have not selected a 'group' then no tagging shows for that item.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851920#Comment_851920

which feature is going to get removed because someone complained?

I believe she is mentioning the Faithlife News RSS Feed "feature".

Ah ok... personally I have no problem with it; after all we're living in this world and we need to be connected to it in order to know what's going on around us. Some people are just too "whinney" to say the least. They strain out the mosquito in trivial things like this but swallow the camel on other things where they should actually say something about it. Oh well, I think FL should stay away from the business of pleasing people like that, because they will please those but upset others in the process all for one single whinner.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851920#Comment_851920

which feature is going to get removed because someone complained?

I believe she is mentioning the Faithlife News RSS Feed "feature".

Questioning FL integrity because they remove a newsfeed (if they do) may be a drama of overreaction given that the FL News Feed may not be all that relevant to Logos Bible Software anyway. I don't clearly this see as a failure of integrity that FL is caving in to some conservative radical objection.

However...

Being an upstanding conservative radical myself, I sniffed, objected and was annoyed about Hillary, yet it never occurred to me to be offended. The News feed can stay on my account.

FL's integrity is intact.

Cynthia in Florida

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851929#Comment_851929

which feature is going to get removed because someone complained?

I believe she is mentioning the Faithlife News RSS Feed "feature".

Questioning FL integrity because they remove a newsfeed (if they do) may be a drama of overreaction given that the FL News Feed may not be all that relevant to Logos Bible Software anyway. I don't clearly this see as a failure of integrity that FL is caving in to some conservative radical objection.

However...

Being an upstanding conservative radical myself, I sniffed, objected and was annoyed about Hillary, yet it never occurred to me to be offended. The News feed can stay on my account.

FL's integrity is intact.

It's like you were in my head! You said everything I wanted to say that I didn't know HOW to say.

I would add that I am NOT for FL removing the newsfeed, but "fixing it" by making it more clear of what it is and allowing resources to be turned on and off from within Logos. While the "Hilary" article was annoying, many articles are not and allow one to see what's going on in the Christian news world, which IS an asset to Logos.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851937#Comment_851937

Out of the list MJ made, the Dr Varner one bugs me the most. First, I don't know the details, since of course, Logos not being clear, is best for imagining the worst.

But Logos honcho'd the ECC and I assume did the the normal checking .... or didn't? It seems to me, if you're to pressure professors (usually) to fit things in, and meet deadlines, you also have a duty to assist. Not wait 2 years down the road, and then say, oh my! I feel so sorry for the gentleman ... an instance like this can erase so much of the man's gifts.

Regarding theological evenness, I suspect it is going to bite Logos, soon enough ... from the evangelicals. The software is unbelievably liberal ... but throws a few evangelical bones out now and then (with Zondervan helping out as much as it can).

Stephen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851947#Comment_851947

newsfeed complainer, conservative yes, radical? Not so sure

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852005#Comment_852005

newsfeed complainer, conservative yes, radical? Not so sure

"Radical" because most people believe in censoring the news themselves - with the exception of pornographic materials - and simply unsubscribe if there is too much material of no interest. This radical not only wanted the news censored for themselves but for everyone, essentially denying freedom of the press. In this country that is a radical position.

Stephen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852007#Comment_852007

Thanks for clarifying your reason for saying radical. I had thought it was because his dislike of Clinton and her pro abortion stance. As long as software had ability to hide things one disagrees with then that would work for me (which it did). I had mine turned off already it seemed. I have various news sites I frequent for news and would not want news on my logos page no matter what the source. But that's me.

SteveHD

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851947#Comment_851947

Out of the list MJ made, the Dr Varner one bugs me the most. First, I don't know the details, since of course, Logos not being clear, is best for imagining the worst.

But Logos honcho'd the ECC and I assume did the the normal checking .... or didn't? It seems to me, if you're to pressure professors (usually) to fit things in, and meet deadlines, you also have a duty to assist. Not wait 2 years down the road, and then say, oh my! I feel so sorry for the gentleman ... an instance like this can erase so much of the man's gifts.

Regarding theological evenness, I suspect it is going to bite Logos, soon enough ... from the evangelicals. The software is unbelievably liberal ... but throws a few evangelical bones out now and then (with Zondervan helping out as much as it can).

I am glad I read Faithlife's statement before this one. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/131058.aspx

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852011#Comment_852011

I am glad I read Faithlife's statement before this one. https://community.logos.com/forums/t/131058.aspx

Driscoll is another one who got caught ... the materials were pulled by Faithlife.

Lee

So what direction in Logos moving?

discourse analysis tagging

direct quotation tagging

allusion/echo and other intertextual tagging

figurative speech tagging ...

All of these and many more require that we trust you to provide theologically neutral, accurate and complete tagging. This is especially true as we have little opportunity to attach visible corrections when we disagree with your classification.

IMHO theological neutrality is not the issue. A possible issue is that some of the decisions made in marginal cases could be based on other people's work. Then, arguably, there would need to be attribution.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851917#Comment_851917

When it comes to what material Logos publishes, I say everything that has to do with religion. From extreme right to extreme left.

Hinduism, Buddahism, etc..

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852016#Comment_852016

A possible issue is that some of the decisions made in marginal cases could be based on other people's work. Then, arguably, there would need to be attribution.

I agree with you that attribution to other scholars is a solid solution ... puts them in the same category as other resources except for the limitations in noting disagreements.

Phil Gons (Logos)

Faithlife, you have several reasons to be concerned about the public perception of your integrity at the moment. Note that I say "public perception" specifically to insure that you understand I do not actually question your integrity but rather I question your actions that put integrity into question.

Recent events of relevance:

listing of features of Logos 7 items marked "(subscription)" that in fact are Logos Now features

two authors caught in plagarism making one question the "academicness" of the environment in which they and other authors write as these are grad school 101 level errors

releases of products with inaccurate/missing tagging as in Classics of Western Spirituality and sermons ... note that Kyle has gone a very good job of getting these corrected in a timely manner but they are indicative of a cultural of sloppiness.

So what direction in Logos moving?

discourse analysis tagging

direct quotation tagging

allusion/echo and other intertextual tagging

figurative speech tagging ...

All of these and many more require that we trust you to provide theologically neutral, accurate and complete tagging. This is especially true as we have little opportunity to attach visible corrections when we disagree with your classification. So just when I need to believe that your tools are neutral what do you do? Because a conservative radical objected to a post, you chose to delete the feature rather than fix the problem which has two relatively small elements:

renaming the feature in the customization menu

applying the source screening specified in the web page to the home page as well.

Instead, you chose to tell us that the feature is not relevant to Bible study - a statement that very strongly reeks of a particular theological hermeneutic - and therefore you will remove it. (In addition, news is very relevant to sermon writing so the statement also reeks of illogical self-justification.) Once again, you show that I can not trust Faithlife to be theologically neutral ... a message sent multiple times. So why should I trust that you will not be equally responsive to disagreements in your tools and with your tagging ... moving from neutral to theologically based tagging?

Please don't solve a short term complaint by creating a long-term problem.

MJ, you've misread the Faithlife New homepage feed issue to fit into a narrative it doesn't fit into. I've explained a bit more around the rationale for removing it in the original thread. I'm sorry for not providing all of those details in my initial communication. It ultimately boils down to spending our limited resources on the right priorities. Fixing/improving Faithlife News doesn't make the cut right now. It had nothing to do with taking sides on any political or religious issues or any lack of neutrality.

Mark Barnes

MJ, I don't think this criticism is fair at all, and I'm disappointed to see it. I don't want to say more publicly, so I will contact you away from the forums.

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852073#Comment_852073

The decision specifically regarding the news feed, I do not see as an integrity issue. It is simply good business. Why would FL do anything that detracts from the software, especially if it has nothing to do with the software. Having a news feed that they cannot control the content of was a bad business decision to begin with. Removing it is a good decision, because the news is available without the feed. If someone wants to read it they can. The fact that there are two threads and lots of energy as a result of the news feed is proof enough. It has nothing to do with integrity or censorship. It has to do with FL making good business decisions.

Doc B

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851918#Comment_851918

There is no such thing as being theologically neutral.

Not in the absolute ... but there is nearer or farther from it on the continuum ...

I tend to agree with Mike on this one. the only way to be theologically neutral is to be theologically vacuous. No one (here) wants that.

I think FL's approach all along has been about the best possible: be theologically sensitive (not neutral!) while asking for some measure of grace from its customers because of the nature of the marketplace. I can't come up with a better approach without excluding some segment of the current market.

I'm not known for agreeing with FL on a lot of things, but I think they got this one right, for the most part.

Myke Harbuck

Faithlife, you have several reasons to be concerned about the public perception of your integrity at the moment. Note that I say "public perception" specifically to insure that you understand I do not actually question your integrity but rather I question your actions that put integrity into question.

While you are really good at giving advice in the forums (and its usually very valuable advice), I hope you are equally good at taking advice.

You might want to consider adding this caveat to the subject line. You have done a good job articulating the fact that you are not actually calling into question their actual integrity, but rather trying to protect "public perception" of the same. That is to be commended and I hope FL appreciates that.

Yet your subject line seems quite the opposite..that you are challneging the integrity of the company. I would suggest adding "public perception" to the subject, as well. This takes the subject from a potential attack to a concerned attempt to project the image of the FL brand.

Take it for what it's worth, and respond as you may. But I hope you'll at least take a moment to consider that I might be right before abruptly firing back with an articulate reply.

Myke Harbuck

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852118#Comment_852118

The decision specifically regarding the news feed, I do not see as an integrity issue. It is simply good business. Why would FL do anything that detracts from the software, especially if it has nothing to do with the software. Having a news feed that they cannot control the content of was a bad business decision to begin with. Removing it is a good decision, because the news is available without the feed. If someone wants to read it they can. The fact that there are two threads and lots of energy as a result of the news feed is proof enough. It has nothing to do with integrity or censorship. It has to do with FL making good business decisions.

I really don't know how anyone could have said it any better than this!! That you for articulating this so well!

And the fact that FL basically admitted that adding the feeds to the home page in the first place was a poor decision speaks volumes of their abundance of integrity, not their lack thereof!

And since when did ensuring that a company uses their resources and energy to fulfill, enhance, or remain faithful to their business model have anything to do with "integrity"? While I might get upset with some of FL's decision at times, and wish they would make decision that cater to my desires, I would never challenge their integrity, or even bring the insinuation of a potential deteriorated public perception of the same, simply because I did not agree with the decisions that are being made. Last time I checked, FL was Bob's company, not mine.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852128#Comment_852128

I think MJ is right. Why didn't FL do or say anything about it until someone whined about it? She's right on point, the feature should be fixed not removed, though in my opinion having the option of turning it off is the actual fix to it. Again, if some don't like the channel, turn it off, but don't whine about it. People, always drowning with a glass of water! Next thing you know the radical whiner will start another thread giving FL "kuddos" for addressing his petty and pityful concern 😒🙄

DAL

Aaron Sauer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852118#Comment_852118

The decision specifically regarding the news feed, I do not see as an integrity issue. It is simply good business. Why would FL do anything that detracts from the software, especially if it has nothing to do with the software. Having a news feed that they cannot control the content of was a bad business decision to begin with. Removing it is a good decision, because the news is available without the feed. If someone wants to read it they can. The fact that there are two threads and lots of energy as a result of the news feed is proof enough. It has nothing to do with integrity or censorship. It has to do with FL making good business decisions.

Nailed it!

Great decision Faithlife. I don't need a news feed with random content mixed in with my bible study software. Your integrity is not at all compromised and I support you 100%. I rely on other sources for my news.

Mike Childs

Personally, I am not concerned about Faithlife's integrity. I expect them to get things wrong at times. Lord knows, I do. In fact, I often worry about my own integrity.

Al Het

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852007#Comment_852007

This radical not only wanted the news censored for themselves but for everyone, essentially denying freedom of the press. In this country that is a radical position.

Honestly, I find myself doubting that you used the word "radical" because this poster was "denying freedom of the press." You have regularly replied in such ways to many posts on this forum. It is often when someone posts comments from an Evangelical perspective, particularly if they are assuming that the majority of Logos users are, in fact, coming from a generally similar theological perspective. I would guess that in this post similarly, you used the term "radical" because you think many perspectives of conservative Evangelicals are "radical."

However, in case you really were thinking this person was "radical" for "denying freedom of the press," then I think that position is both silly and ridiculous. The phrase "denying freedom of the press" in this country refers to something a government does, not something an individual or a company does. I suppose that if the poster was saying that Logos should search the internet, and find every place this news feed is posted, and try to get them removed, you might be able to make a case that he wants Logos to "deny freedom of the press." However, asking Faithlife to not include certain news feeds is absolutely not "denying freedom of the press."

It is not "radical" for a company to find out/realize that something they have been including in their software could be offensive to a major portion of their customer base, and therefore decide quit including that particular thing. It is a common business decision.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with you letting Faithlife know that you and potentially many other customers would prefer that this be kept in their software, particularly because if people don't like it, they can just choose to turn it off. However, characterizing this as "radical" is not more likely to persuade Faithlife to your position, especially when I believe that the majority (or perhaps all) of the Executives there hold similar beliefs.

For what it's worth.

Ken McGuire

All of these and many more require that we trust you to provide theologically neutral, accurate and complete tagging. This is especially true as we have little opportunity to attach visible corrections when we disagree with your classification.

It is very hard to see our own blindness, and as useful as the Logos/Faithlife materials have been, there have been issues. Just for yucks, I went back to a complaint I made about the Faithlife Study Bible in the FSB users group four years ago. As a Lutheran I objected to the note on Titus 3:5 for, at best, attacking a caricature of those who understand this as a reference to Baptism. In the four years since, there have been periodic updates of the resource, and recently I guess a significant rewrite that will be published in a dead tree edition. So I went back to this passage.

And it is better. Still bad, IMHO. I don't mind so much that it disagrees with me and my fellow Lutherans (and actually many others too). But it seems to dismiss so many of us as not worthy of even respect or notice. And the exegetical evidence they gave seemed hardly convincing to me. It is a further reminder of what Luther found at Marburg back in 1528. In talking about God the Holy Spirit using external things, we appear to have different spirits...

I must admit that when I see so little improvement four years after I used the forum they provided for feedback, that I am disappointed. Not that I am in the position to do so, but I still would not be able to give my wholehearted recommendation to a Lutheran congregation to use the FSB in any Confirmation instruction - at least without an organized response to things like this. FSB is a useful resource. But it certainly is not "core" for me. For those of us with the theological training to understand this, it is hardly new or unexpected, even if disappointing.

As much as Faithlife has reached out beyond it - and they have - Faithlife comes from, broadly, Anglo-American Evangelicalism. I myself am a user because they have been reaching out for decades. But at the core they still seem to be what they are. But I am a Christian that from a Church that has been saying "Yes and No" to American Evangelicalism for over a century.

Cynthia in Florida

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852158#Comment_852158

And it is better. Still bad, IMHO. I don't mind so much that it disagrees with me and my fellow Lutherans (and actually many others too). But it seems to dismiss so many of us as not worthy of even respect or notice. And the exegetical evidence they gave seemed hardly convincing to me....

I must admit that when I see so little improvement four years after I used the forum they provided for feedback, that I am disappointed.

I think my question is...are you saying that there has been so little improvement and are using the example of they didn't change their comment on THEIR OWN study Bible? Wouldn't that be like asking MacArthur to change a comment in his study Bible, or asking Adrian Rogers to change a comment in his own study Bible?

It just seems to me that THAT is their call! It's THEIR study Bible. You know how many study Bibles I own that I don't agree with? Doesn't mean I have the right to tell them to change it.

I'm at a loss here... I really am!

Aside from that, I would disagree wholeheartedly that there is little improvement as a result of the forum. I think they are constantly improving from four years ago as their products get better and better and they work at communicating better and better to and with their client base.

Speaking more to the general reader, I think where I am SO dumbfounded is the sense of entitlement some customers display that seems to come because Faith Life chooses to interact with their customers. Honestly, at times, its almost abusive.

I'm sure to receive flack about this, but honestly, I'm absolutely shocked at how entitled some users seem to think they are!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852168#Comment_852168

As I understand, the FSB was an attempt at a broader audience, and indeed invited input. And indeed made changes. So, user desires are expected.

I suspect FSB is to the far-left of me, and to the right of Ken ... likely about where they wanted to be.

Regarding entitlement, customers are always entitled ... and businesses as well. Win-win.

Simon’s Brother

I didn't care for the news feed, it had no link to bible study. But at the same time I did not see this having any bearing on the integrity of FL. I'd rather see them invest their resources in other things. And I do believe they try to be theologically sensitive as another poster has put it, but I don't expect individual writers of Lexham Press materials to put aside their theological beliefs. They are like any other resources sold by FL.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852178#Comment_852178

Re: LSB. I read somewhere that Logos will sell almost any resource, but Lexham products do have a broadly evangelical stance (a commitment to inerrancy, at least). I can't find that section on the website, though. EDIT: Here it is http://www.lexhampress.com/manuscript-submission/

Their mission statement explains why the newsfeed was off point (although their Cadillac pricing makes the second sentence shaky): "We use technology to equip the church to grow in the light of the Bible. Our team is committed to increasing biblical literacy and accessibility for every Christian around the world."

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852177#Comment_852177

I suspect FSB is to the far-left of me, and to the right of Ken ... likely about where they wanted to be.

Usually when the terms "right" and "left" are used, they are used with regard to the merits of "historical criticism". My comments have nothing to do with this at all. I am pretty firmly in the middle of the road, being run over all kinds of people on both sides on that issue. [:)]

Instead my complaint is their far left wing reformation reading of Titus 3 - which separates the common biblical way of speaking which links "internal" changes with "external" happenings, so passages like this can obviously not inform our understanding of, in this case, Baptism. I view the presentation as quite unbalanced, and gave examples from exegetical works with a wide variety of theological leanings that have much more balanced presentations.

Doing a quick Logos search of Titus 3.5, I find this statement quite telling...

In particular, is baptism in view in v. 5? Of the commentators who have written on these Epistles, I can find but one who denies it.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1962). Baptism in the New Testament (p. 209). Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster.

It seems to me that on this FSB is promoting, at best, a minority position. I don't have a problem with that exactly, but a reference work, even when promoting a minority position, should at least make the reader aware of the majority view.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852121#Comment_852121

There is no such thing as being theologically neutral.

Not in the absolute ... but there is nearer or farther from it on the continuum ...

I tend to agree with Mike on this one. the only way to be theologically neutral is to be theologically vacuous.

Much of the tagging that Logos supplies is linguistic or text alignment. While there are a few situations of ambiguity with theological consequences, I view the tagging as generally theologically neutral. However, you are correct that when you move into their publications they are not theologically neutral but precisely what they claim to be "broadly Evangelical".

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852144#Comment_852144

I would guess that in this post similarly, you used the term "radical" because you think many perspectives of conservative Evangelicals are "radical."

You have guessed incorrectly. Few Evangelicals are radical just as few Catholics are radical. If you watch my posts carefully, I do not respond to theological position but to puts downs of others' theological positions, name-calling, and other statements that put others on the forums. Elsewhere I have explained why I have little tolerance for bad-mouthing others.

Wild Eagle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852141#Comment_852141

Oh no, Faithlife you should not only keep the news feeds but implemt it to my library somehow and tag it. I just want to see from my timeline all the news what happened today, and on every topic recent news about it. [:P]

The decision specifically regarding the news feed, I do not see as an integrity issue. It is simply good business. Why would FL do anything that detracts from the software, especially if it has nothing to do with the software. Having a news feed that they cannot control the content of was a bad business decision to begin with. Removing it is a good decision, because the news is available without the feed. If someone wants to read it they can. The fact that there are two threads and lots of energy as a result of the news feed is proof enough. It has nothing to do with integrity or censorship. It has to do with FL making good business decisions.

Nailed it!

Great decision Faithlife. I don't need a news feed with random content mixed in with my bible study software. Your integrity is not at all compromised and I support you 100%. I rely on other sources for my news.

[Y] Thank you Faithlife for doing right decision.

Nick Highland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/851947#Comment_851947

The software is unbelievably liberal ... but throws a few evangelical bones out now and then (with Zondervan helping out as much as it can).

Really? That's definitely not my perception. As someone who is a part of a tradition that some would describe as progressive (though few would describe as liberal), I find that Logos tends to cater to a more conservative crowd than me. For example, I appreciate the monthly freebies (truly!), but they're almost always Calvinist-leaning, sometimes bordering on American Fundamentalism. If anything, I would have described Logos' theological bent as pseudo-Calvinistic.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852207#Comment_852207

Nick, my statement wasn't an absolute, but relative to the opinionator (me). Similarly, you would look at the 'tendenz' from a differing angle.

Since we're both away from the apparent target, the freebies (for me) are a waste. I think there might have been one on Stone-Campbell; it was interesting.

The easy way in customer research to evaluate a perception, is who would you recommend the Logos Study Bible to? And here in our small burg, Logos SB fits best to the left of our evangelicals. I certainly would not recommend it anywhere to the right of evangelicals. Goodness. Now, maybe they'd like the freebies.

Matthew (Oklahoma) probably has a better take on Logos to the right of evangelicals. (A complement).

EastTN

Instead, you chose to tell us that the feature is not relevant to Bible study - a statement that very strongly reeks of a particular theological hermeneutic - and therefore you will remove it. (In addition, news is very relevant to sermon writing so the statement also reeks of illogical self-justification.)

M.J., this strikes me as bit unfair. While certain churches place more emphasis than others do on consciously interpreting scripture as part of a community of faith, very few encourage individuals to study and grow in complete isolation from other Christians. I may have helped stoke this, because I commented that I thought:

The complaints showing up on the Forums were a predictable result of including the newsfeeds; and
In my judgment, the feature was peripheral to the core functions of the software.

To be clear, I did not intend to imply that news - Christian or otherwise - is irrelevant to sermon preparation, Christian growth, or any other part of the Christian life.

Just to explain my perspective, I use Logos essentially as a tool to read, search and otherwise work with electronic books, journals and other reference materials - a research library, rather than a news repository. Given the nature of the resources FaithLife sells, I suspect that's how most Logos customers use it most of the time. Of course, I could well be very wrong about that. But it's from that perspective that a newsfeed seems to me peripheral. It's just not what I use the program for, and it's not what most of the "how to" questions and feature requests on the Forums seem to be oriented around.

I do check the current religion news pretty much every day, just not with Logos. Of course, I may not be typical, and this may be an essential feature for many Logos users. If so, I apologize. But my comments were certainly not intended to minimize the importance of Christian community - they were purely around what features seem to me to be in FaithLife's sweet-spot, and the disproportionate amount of grief that the business decision to include this feature has created for the company.

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852228#Comment_852228

It doesn't matter anymore, the matter is over for now, but I could be amused by knowing how many Logos users used FL news feed to feed their daily news crunch for spiritual growth, and how many pastors used FL news feed for active sermon prep. I suppose we shall never know.

Over and out.

Nick Highland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852226#Comment_852226

Denise - I caught what you were saying. I just found it interesting. You're right, it's all relative to wherever we stand.

Phil Gons (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852261#Comment_852261

It doesn't matter anymore, the matter is over for now, but I could be amused by knowing how many Logos users used FL news feed to feed their daily news crunch for spiritual growth, and how many pastors used FL news feed for active sermon prep. I suppose we shall never know.

Over and out.

The UserVoice vote count is probably a decent proxy.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852073#Comment_852073

MJ, I don't think this criticism is fair at all, and I'm disappointed to see it. I don't want to say more publicly, so I will contact you away from the forums.

agree. not the place or way to do this.

Jacob Hantla

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852073#Comment_852073

MJ, I don't think this criticism is fair at all, and I'm disappointed to see it. I don't want to say more publicly, so I will contact you away from the forums.

agree. not the place or way to do this.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852207#Comment_852207

but they're almost always Calvinist-leaning

You misspelled "biblical." [8-)]

(Trying to lighten the mood in this thread...)

-Donnie

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852284#Comment_852284

MJ, I don't think this criticism is fair at all, and I'm disappointed to see it. I don't want to say more publicly, so I will contact you away from the forums.

agree. not the place or way to do this.

But then again, why even bother to tell the public she's going to be hearing from him privately? Wouldn't it have been better just to go ahead and contact her "privately" without telling the world he's going to do it "privately"? In my opinion that's a bad move, because he's still putting her on the spot by telling her he's disappointed (pretty much on her), but then she'll be hearing more from him "privately"! 😜😁😂 Nobody thought of that, did they? Uh ha!

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/853349#Comment_853349

Nobody thought of that, did they? Uh ha!

I did think of that, but felt I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I chose what I felt was the least worst option.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/853352#Comment_853352

Nobody thought of that, did they? Uh ha!

I did think of that, but felt I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I chose what I felt was the least worst option.

No worries! It's my unique way of having humor hehe...but you wanna know what else they haven't thought of? There are quite a few works out there who have already quoted O'Brien's commentaries (Ephesians and Hebrews). How are they going to fix that? Are they going to edit and omit him? Same goes with Varner. Others have already quoted him too. It's a never ending mess, one that we are worrying too much when there are more important things to worry about. Oh well, it's been fun at the forums lately, and I'm not even doing anything wrong anymore...hehehe

DAL

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/852195#Comment_852195

You have guessed incorrectly. Few Evangelicals are radical just as few Catholics are radical. If you watch my posts carefully, I do not respond to theological position but to puts downs of others' theological positions, name-calling, and other statements that put others on the forums. Elsewhere I have explained why I have little tolerance for bad-mouthing others.

Absolutely true. I have long watched MJ's post, and, as an Evangelical, I have always found her posts to be fair, non-judgmental, and helpful regardless of the theological perspective of the person to whom she was responding. In fact, I have sought her advice on resources in areas such as the Church Fathers, where I recognize that she knows more than I

Nick Highland

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/853341#Comment_853341

but they're almost always Calvinist-leaning

You misspelled "biblical."

(Trying to lighten the mood in this thread...)

-Donnie

ha

Hopefully when you say "lighten the mood" you mean of the thread overall, and not my contributions to it! If I appear frustrated, judgmental, or in any way negative - that's certainly not how I feel! And for what it's worth, I really value the plurality of voices and perspectives!