OT: Intriguing article on digital Bibles

Got to be honest about the Logos app: it's too slow. I use other apps (e.g. ESV's Bible app) for typical Bible reading on my phone. If I want to look up the Greek, then I'll pull up the Logos Bible app and get there (after weighing the costs & benefits of having to wait).

Based on what the author of the article says, I think it's going to be a highly personal issue. If [proverbial] you can't keep yourself from getting distracted while reading your Bible, then a paper copy might be best for you. Personally, one reason I like to use a physical copy when I can simply to represent the incarnational aspect of the Word. It's not really a theological point, but I like the association of holding a Bible in my hands and remembering that our Lord was/is a physical person rather than simply some spiritual, ethereal (digital) force out there. Yet...I still use my phone all the time for Bible reading/studying purposes. And, I'm happy with the means each person chooses that suits them best. Wouldn't want to entertain the idea of making rules for people about this. I'm thankful that nobody criticizes me for the times I bring an iPad in the pulpit.

Bill

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/54467/396249.aspx

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/73188/509862.aspx

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/20951.aspx

Disagreee. Implies 'the way' to study when each person obviously worships God singularly.

As a single-purpose device, when a fellow community member sees me looking at my Bible they know what I’m doing. That’s not the case with a device, and I think that distinction matters. If Jenny two seats down is checking sports scores or texting her friend during worship, that has an effect on the rest of the community. The problem is that our devices and the way they are constructed (with vibrating notifications, flashing lights and the whole lot) make it incredibly difficult to ignore their other functions. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that a flashing light on my phone requires a response (even if it’s just a quick one). Single-purpose devices don’t have this problem.

This may be somewhat true today, but our culture is quickly changing. It used to be a faux pas to look at or use an electronic device in church 15-20 years ago (probably more recently than that too, just trying to provide a buffer to the number).

Now, I believe there are mixed feelings. When you see someone on their phone in church, I do not believe the majority assumption is that they're doing something else.

Some day that will likely be the norm. My kids are growing up in a world where smartphone are out and used for everything. That will be their normal when they're old enough to make decisions for themselves about issues like this. The next generation won't even give it a second thought.

JT (alabama24)

YouVersion app has been downloaded 100 million times! What makes it so popular? Logos's app for Android has been downloaded 100,000+ times but nowhere near as many times as YouVersion.

YouVersion is indeed much more popular… but in fairness to Logos… the YouVersion numbers represent ALL platforms, while the Logos numbers is Android only. I would guess that Logos has been downloaded more on iOS (than Logos on Android). Also, Logos is still primarily English… YouVersion has many localized versions.

How come?

It's completely free. Reading plans are much more advanced. It's a non-profit entity. The church behind it is one of the most tech savvy anywhere (www.lifechurch.tv) and holds DAILY services online.

the reasons the author gives for why it's better to bring a print Bible to church than use a digital one. Agree/disagree? Why?

I don't want to throw out his entire argument… there is some truth in what he writes. Yes, a user can get distracted by other things on the mobile device because it isn't "single purpose" like a print book. On the other hand, what about note taking and highlighting? Some might be able to take notes efficiently with pen and paper… not me. Plus, I highlight very frequently. It would be much more distracting to me (and others!) for me to be whipping out various highlighters and pens in church than to just use my Bible! app.

When this subject comes up, I like to think about those who complained about the "new fangled" think called a codex. Can you believe the audacity of some who would CUT the Holy Scriptures into pages! The nerve. [:P]

Sleiman

Second point of interest and discussion are the reasons the author gives for why it's better to bring a print Bible to church than use a digital one. Agree/disagree? Why?

Agree. I belong to a strong liturgical tradition. In liturgical worship, there is something attributed to objects used in the liturgy, be it candles, altar, icons, cencers, etc... that thing is its sole purpose of use. It has to do with the meaning of holy (or sanctified) which, contrary to what many people think it means (the eradication of something evil), is "being separated unto God" or in other words, having the distinct purpose of glorifying God. Objects used in liturgy should be holy just as the liturgy itself. Maybe not absolutely necessary but very appropriate and fitting. An obvious example of this in the Bible is the Arc of the Covenant, the holiest of objects in the Old Testament and you can understand how it was treated with utmost respect.

Tablets and iphones etc... have a plethora of other uses (no matter how good and wholesome they are) than just use in liturgy.On the other hand, for personal prayer and study, I see no reason why not.

Bruce Dunning

First point of interest: YouVersion app has been downloaded 100 million times! What makes it so popular? Logos's app for Android has been downloaded 100,000+ times but nowhere near as many times as YouVersion. How come?

Although I have downloaded the You Version I find that Logos meets all my needs more than adequately.

Second point of interest and discussion are the reasons the author gives for why it's better to bring a print Bible to church than use a digital one. Agree/disagree? Why?

I have not brought a print bible to church in quite some time. To me the medium doesn't matter as much as the content. I personally don't check email etc. at the same time as I use it in church but I can understand for some that might be a temptation.

Dan Francis

I read the Bible at church and at home almost exclusively on my iPad (or computer). I get frequent migraines and have trouble with smaller print when i have one. Admittedly there are times I can not read at all but other times if it's large enough I can still read it. I suppose I could have a 5 volume giant print bible on hand for those times but my iPad is much better. With my Olivetree Bible I can move virtually as fast as I can with a paper Bible. Keeping my finger on the screen keeps it on and i find I can meditate over the text fine and stay with it just as long as on a paper Bible. On my iPad i am far more likely to explore many cross references rather than just the one I think is most important. Now I know some will see this as a horrible thing but I also am more likely to do original language on my portable device or computer. Let us assume I have my Hebrew Greek Key Word Study Bible NIV, I am still less likely to look up as many words as I might on my device. Sometimes I just wish to confirm a word is what i think it is than I am on my iPAD or iPhone. I have a number of paper Bibles but they get used about as often as a my VCR… I have a few books that never made it to digital that use regularly to refer to but while i enjoy the feel of a book, i just find the digital more friendly to use. I bring a digital Bible to Church because it is far better for me than the other option. Heck also for me I can hold my iPad but due to my neuromuscular degeneration anything much heavier can be a problem, come a day there is no power and I have only my physical Bible I would survive, but I know it would be used less simply because of my abilities.

-dan

David Thomas

Disagree with his conclusions. I believe he is trying to justify his PREFERENCE. He is entitled to his own preference, but I bristle against his preference being imposed upon others. (He doesn't have authority to impose, but he states that he is standing in agreement with his pastor who would have some authority impose upon his congregation).

His argument is 3-fold and here is my refutation of his arguments.

1. Episodic - 1 Thes 5:17 instructs us to pray without ceasing. Most exposition of the phrase "without ceasing" is either "repetitious" or "in a continual attitude of". I am convinced that we can ruminate on Scripture without it being a continual, conscious activity.

2. Single Use - I prefer to "practice the presence" of God and integrate Scripture into whole rather than to "silo" my spiritual disciplines. Also, his argument that if you see another person with a Bible open you can assume what they are doing is FALSE. My own mind has wandered FAR from the page with a paper Bible opened on my lap.

3. Personal - I find that having a mobile device and using social networking has enabled me BETTER practice community, rather than to isolate my Scripture reading as an individual practice. I have posted (and read) community notes in Faithlife as well as YouVersion.

In the past we have used the YouVersion Live feature to engage our congregation and make the sermon interactive rather than unidirectional. I am still undecided about Proclaim's method of broadcasting signals. 15 years ago hymnbooks gave way to projection and it was argued "projection gets noses out of a book and faces looking in the same direction" now personal devices are redefining community by allowing people to read and share on their device what used to be done in corporate community.

This may be somewhat true today, but our culture is quickly changing. It used to be a faux pas to look at or use an electronic device in church 15-20 years ago (probably more recently than that too, just trying to provide a buffer to the number).

Hi William, I'm the OP. Thanks for the engagement on this question. I post mainly to help me think more clearly so folks commenting is helpful.

I agree with you that context matters. What is accepted as general practice within a particular community does, I believe, make a difference. As members of one another we affect each other, so the community's expectations and practice matter.

On the other hand, my point here, was that our smartphones were constructed as multi-purpose and (conflated somewhat with my first point) tend to be constructed to interrupt--they have a bias toward it by their most common use cases and we are working against that tendency to ignore it. I.e., you could set up the Locale app to turn off certain notifications, auto-sync'ing when you're in the geo-fenced location of the church. But it's not the default not to interrupt.

[Edited: sorry, didn't realize the replies are not nested]

@Dan Francis, I think the use cases of exploring cross-references, etc. as well as having technology allow you to read given your particular physical condition are good examples of what I would consider helpful uses of the technology.

By my argument, I suppose I would say that if you had a purpose-built device that allowed for those things, that might be even better.

JT (alabama24)

Hi William, I'm the OP. Thanks for the engagement on this question. I post mainly to help me think more clearly so folks commenting is helpful.

Cool! Thanks for dropping by. Do you use Logos?

my point here, was that our smartphones were constructed as multi-purpose and (conflated somewhat with my first point) tend to be constructed to interrupt--they have a bias toward it by their most common use cases and we are working against that tendency to ignore it. I.e., you could set up the Locale app to turn off certain notifications, auto-sync'ing when you're in the geo-fenced location of the church. But it's not the default not to interrupt.

I don't really buy your argument... If I wanted to push the issue, I could say that my Bible! app is single purpose. [;)]

The writer seems to be saying that the smartphone is more of an all-in communications tool that won't keep it's mouth shut even when you're using it as a bible in church.

@David Thomas, I'm the OP. Thanks for engaging in the conversation and sharing your thoughts. I'm glad that I saw the cross-post from Rosie in this forum. (Rosie, I believe we sat together at the same table at the Digital Society conference up in Seattle last year.)

Disagree with his conclusions. I believe he is trying to justify his PREFERENCE. He is entitled to his own preference, but I bristle against his preference being imposed upon others. (He doesn't have authority to impose, but he states that he is standing in agreement with his pastor who would have some authority impose upon his congregation).

I don't think that I'm primarily talking about my preference but rather attempting to analyze technological tendencies and how they might impact our scripture reading. And I re-read the post and am not sure what might be construed as imposing my opinion on somebody else--and certainly not people like yourself that I haven't met. I'm primarily trying to raise questions and promote conversation. I'll also add the opinions in my post are my own and don't necessarily reflect what my pastor would say.

To your points:

His argument is 3-fold and here is my refutation of his arguments.

1. Episodic - 1 Thes 5:17 instructs us to pray without ceasing. Most exposition of the phrase "without ceasing" is either "repetitious" or "in a continual attitude of". I am convinced that we can ruminate on Scripture without it being a continual, conscious activity.

I think what you're saying here is that it is OK (and indeed good) to have episodic (as opposed to continual, sustained) interaction with scripture. I would agree. When I was working on memorizing Scripture, they would surface throughout the day as I would try to remember the new verses for the day, turn them over in my head, etc. Interestingly enough, when I was writing the post I thought that this was a scenario where I think having the Bible on my smartphone would have been helpful (didn't have one at the time). Because I frequently wanted to check to see whether the words I memorized were in the correct order, etc. Having to memorize forced me to think about why certain words were used and not others, etc. Having a Bible easily accessible wherever I was would have helped me in this, I think.

On the other hand, I think that the analysis of the tendency of smartphones toward interruption is still correct and has implications for our ability to read scripture in a sustained way. And I would say that, notwithstanding other types of reading, sustained reading (and listening) is important.

I don't believe that that tendency has to be determinative (e.g., my version of YouVersion's Android app by default shows the upper notification bar when in "reading" mode, although you can double-tap to remove it. A simple design change might be to default to not showing the notification bar), but it's hard to argue that tendency doesn't exist.

2. Single Use - I prefer to "practice the presence" of God and integrate Scripture into whole rather than to "silo" my spiritual disciplines. Also, his argument that if you see another person with a Bible open you can assume what they are doing is FALSE. My own mind has wandered FAR from the page with a paper Bible opened on my lap.

I'm not sure that I see how reading a print Bible would be siloing a spiritual discipline, so perhaps you could explain further.

And, true enough that the person may not be reading their paper Bible or may be daydreaming, but they're certainly not using it to see the latest text message saying that the production server is down... (I'm in IT).

3. Personal - I find that having a mobile device and using social networking has enabled me BETTER practice community, rather than to isolate my Scripture reading as an individual practice. I have posted (and read) community notes in Faithlife as well as YouVersion.

There are two points that I was trying to work out in this section, not necessarily expressed that well. Individual is the idea of Christians as autonomous individuals, primarily understanding themselves apart from the context of the people of God--which I take to mean actual flesh-and-blood people that we have relationship with.

So in your response, I think we would need to understand one another better about what we mean by community. I'm not familiar with how Faithlife and YouVersion communities work. If they're primarily oriented around folks within a local congregation with its diversity and accountability, then we may overlap more in what we think of as community (I realize this is different, but YouVersion Live seems interesting on this count). On the other hand, if they primarily aggregate people that have bookmarked a particular verse, I'm not sure that I would consider that community.

The second point was "Personal" i.e., something to used by us, opened, closed, etc. So, for this, I think there could again be a tendency toward appropriation of scripture for our own uses rather than as something under whose authority we sit. As I wrote, this was something that has been in place since widespread printing. I didn't mention this in the original post, but think that oral practices like having the scripture read (with liturgical elements like "Hear the word of the Lord..." versus people just reading it on their own, or having it projected or Wi-Fi'ed out to people) promote a different type of interaction.

As I mentioned in a reply above, the main reason why I write is to help me think, so I appreciate the engagement.

Grace and peace,

Chi-Ming

David Thomas

I don't think that I'm primarily talking about my preference but rather attempting to analyze technological tendencies and how they might impact our scripture reading.

I don't think a tit-for-tat dialogue will be a positive experience.

By "preference" I simply meant that some people prefer a print Bible, others prefer an electronic Bible. Each person's experiences and learning styles will contribute toward which he/she prefers. The original blog was entitled "Why I don't Believe in the Bible (App)" then early in the blog you write "Conversely, my pastor asked us last month to please bring our (print) Bibles to Bible study and to worship." To say "I don't believe in" or to specify which form of the written Word is appropriate to bring is, in my opinion, elevating one's preferences over the preferences of others.

I've been a faux paux-er from day 1. Phone, PC, tablet. And Oxford Annotated NRSV all 3 pounds of it. I've always noticed people need to see others 'proceeding'. After a few weeks, I began to see other ladies with their iPads, their husbands with their iPhones. A hispanic lady struggled with the english hard-copy ... I recommended she read in spanish. It IS God's word!!

I'm a big believer in each Christian growing as they wish and the Father always listening.

Todd Phillips

And, true enough that the person may not be reading their paper Bible or may be daydreaming, but they're certainly not using it to see the latest text message saying that the production server is down... (I'm in IT).

This may be your experience with phones (production server down, etc), but my phone is quiet unless I need to be contacted. I'd say that most people aren't on-call and don't have to worry about receive random messages at all times. On Sunday mornings I put my phone on do-not-disturb, but it's probably unnecessary since I've never received a call or text during that time.

HOWEVER, I don't generally use my phone for reading my Bible---I use my iPad, which is not set up to receive messages of any kind. It has no distractions when I'm in a reading app. It's a quiet device. Doesn't that change your view on this point?

For your circumstance, I'd agree that using a device that receives automated server status updates for your bible reading may be a bad idea. I'd say it's probably bad for any kind of reading, and you should get a second device for that.

Hi William, I'm the OP. Thanks for the engagement on this question. I post mainly to help me think more clearly so folks commenting is helpful.

Hi Chi-Ming Chien, welcome to the Logos forums. Hope you stay and join the community.

I agree with you that context matters. What is accepted as general practice within a particular community does, I believe, make a difference. As members of one another we affect each other, so the community's expectations and practice matter.

Yeah, I think it's always good to run through the filters of 1 Cor 6:12 and Rom 14:13.

On the other hand, my point here, was that our smartphones were constructed as multi-purpose and (conflated somewhat with my first point) tend to be constructed to interrupt--they have a bias toward it by their most common use cases and we are working against that tendency to ignore it. I.e., you could set up the Locale app to turn off certain notifications, auto-sync'ing when you're in the geo-fenced location of the church. But it's not the default not to interrupt.

I used to be greatly annoyed when cell phones were starting to become prolific and every public event was interrupted by obnoxious ringing. It still happens, but it's becoming rarer. People are figuring out how to deal with this technology and place appropriate self-limiting boundaries, and I hope it keeps getting better such that people use locales and other tricks intuitively. In other words, I see a day not too far away where those things that worry you will be solved by default. At least in post-industrialized areas--it'll be totally different in a place that's still developing economically and needs to go through the same growing pains.

This may be somewhat true today, but our culture is quickly changing. It used to be a faux pas to look at or use an electronic device in church 15-20 years ago (probably more recently than that too, just trying to provide a buffer to the number).

As far as I'm concerned it is still today MORE than a faux pas to be using an electronic device in church. Church is a communal experience whereas one who uses an electronic device is turning it into an individual experience. If that's what you want, take your electronic device and go home.

Rosie Perera

(Rosie, I believe we sat together at the same table at the Digital Society conference up in Seattle last year.)

Ah yes, you have a good memory. And it was your post on the Digital Society Facebook group that I saw which led me to share your article here. Do you use Logos?

As far as I'm concerned it is still today MORE than a faux pas to be using an electronic device in church. Church is a communal experience whereas one who uses an electronic device is turning it into an individual experience. If that's what you want, take your electronic device and go home.

I think it depends in part on the average age of the church members. If there's anyone in the congregation likely to be offended by someone glancing down at a digital device to look up a Scripture reference, then I agree, leave it in your pocket.

But there isn't anything inherently more individualized about following along on an iPad as Scripture is read from up front than there is about reading along in a print Bible. It's still your own personal copy of Scripture.

There was a time when many would have been horrified at the thought of each church member bringing his or her own print Bible to church (or -- heaven forbid! -- the church providing pew Bibles) and reading along in that instead of participating in the communal listening. I think we are now going through another such transition. Some churches are more "transitioned" than others.

Thus, if you happen to go to a church where it would be a faux pas, or where there are curmudgeons like George in attendance, perhaps it's best not to use the digital device for another decade or so.... They'll get used to it eventually. Those who are still around by then, anyway. [;)]

I have tried opening my Bible app once or twice in my church (which has an average age of about 60, but has a number of tech-savvy younger people in it). Even with all those techies, I'm the only one I've ever seen doing that in my church, and it felt odd, so I don't do it anymore. I don't even want it to look like I'm texting or something, even if I know I'm not.

Josh

HOWEVER, I don't generally use my phone for reading my Bible---I use my iPad, which is not set up to receive messages of any kind. It has no distractions when I'm in a reading app. It's a quiet device. Doesn't that change your view on this point?

I would think that this does throw a monkey wrench into his argument.

I think it depends in part on the average age of the church members. If there's anyone in the congregation likely to be offended by someone glancing down at a digital device to look up a Scripture reference, then I agree, leave it in your pocket.

But there isn't anything inherently more individualized about following along on an iPad as Scripture is read from up front than there is about reading along in a print Bible. It's still your own personal copy of Scripture.

If it were a matter of glancing down at a scripture reference on an electronic device rather than in a print bible (such as the pew bible), I wouldn't object so much. I have read discussions of, basically, doing a study on a passage during the service. I think such a practice defeats the entire purpose of gathering together as the BODY OF CHRIST rather than distinct individuals. I do take my own Biblia Sacra Utriusque Testamenti to follow the readings but I switch to the Psalm in the Book of Common Prayer when it comes time to chant the psalm (though it's actually printed in the bulletin). The entire point is that this is a COMMUNAL EXPERIENCE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST and not simply individual study. If that makes me a curmudgeon, so be it.

Nord Zootman

I have an older couple who are distracting with their paper Bibles in church. I can tell when I say something they differ with in a sermon because they both start whispering to each other, checking out their notes, cross references, and the concordance at the back of their Bible! Many would find that more distracting than a person on their Ipad. As a pastor you just learn to not focus on their behavior.

As far as I'm concerned it is still today MORE than a faux pas to be using an electronic device in church. Church is a communal experience whereas one who uses an electronic device is turning it into an individual experience. If that's what you want, take your electronic device and go home.

The youngins are leaving the Church at an alarming rate. I wonder if there's a connection between that fact and what you've said. Please explain to me how paper vs. electronic Bible reading is a gospel issue worth dividing over? Please explain to me the fundamental difference between having your nose stuck in a book versus hovering over a phone wrt the communal experience?

EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is that telling people to leave your community is not promoting the communal experience...

Much indeed depends on the church. Here, there's mucho walkins (visitors) who have their iphones/ipads but not their Bible. The younger ones I very much doubt they even have a paper Bible. I'm down to 1 which has some encouragement from my parents.

When I go to the Navajo church I always take my phone/Bible. The children like to play with it. It's their future and best to see God being read where their friends see many negatives.

I'd assume that's the whole point of FaithLife, Proclaim and now m.ed is this very point: recognizing 'electronics' but building in community.

David Thomas

As far as I'm concerned it is still today MORE than a faux pas to be using an electronic device in church. Church is a communal experience whereas one who uses an electronic device is turning it into an individual experience. If that's what you want, take your electronic device and go home.

The youngins are leaving the Church at an alarming rate. I wonder if there's a connection between that fact and what you've said.

I have been visiting several churches in recent months. Some provide WiFi in the worship space and others don't. We used to have a notice in our bulletin asking people to turn off pagers or cellphones, we changed to an announcement [we used to have a paper bulletin, but switched to an e-version that is emailed to everybody with a few paper copies available for guests and announcements on screens before and after the service] that asks to SILENCE mobile devices. I get the whole "does form affect function" debate - a few days ago I got this tweet from a church leadership consultant

as a side note: the design of the jar used to be VERY difficult to get the Ketchup (or is that Catsup?) out of the bottle [There was even an advertising initiative exaggerating this anticipation]. I'm sure when the condiment was offered in squeeze bottles, the Heinz purists threw a fit!

As far as I'm concerned it is still today MORE than a faux pas to be using an electronic device in church. Church is a communal experience whereas one who uses an electronic device is turning it into an individual experience. If that's what you want, take your electronic device and go home.

The youngins are leaving the Church at an alarming rate. I wonder if there's a connection between that fact and what you've said. Please explain to me how paper vs. electronic Bible reading is a gospel issue worth dividing over? Please explain to me the fundamental difference between having your nose stuck in a book versus hovering over a phone wrt the communal experience?

EDIT: I guess what I'm getting at is that telling people to leave your community is not promoting the communal experience...

Please explain how having everyone looking at an electronic device rather than a paper book prevents the younger generation from leaving the church. Please explain how having each person looking at a different translation while the OT, Epistle and Gospel are being read enhances community. It reminds me of the passage in Judges where each did what was right in his own sight. Personally even if the pew bible is the AV or the NKJV I use the one in the pew unless I use the original.

Matthew C Jones

Agree. I belong to a strong liturgical tradition. In liturgical worship, there is something attributed to objects used in the liturgy, be it candles, altar, icons, cencers, etc... that thing is its sole purpose of use. It has to do with the meaning of holy (or sanctified) which, contrary to what many people think it means (the eradication of something evil), is "being separated unto God" or in other words, having the distinct purpose of glorifying God. Objects used in liturgy should be holy just as the liturgy itself. Maybe not absolutely necessary but very appropriate and fitting. An obvious example of this in the Bible is the Arc of the Covenant, the holiest of objects in the Old Testament and you can understand how it was treated with utmost respect.

Tablets and iphones etc... have a plethora of other uses (no matter how good and wholesome they are) than just use in liturgy.On the other hand, for personal prayer and study, I see no reason why not.

I, too, agree with the writer of the article for much the same reason.

My church is not all that liturgical but we also view corporate worship as sanctified. We have responsive readings so generally everyone uses the same Bible version. (Reading multiple Bible versions aloud and in unison would foster more confusion than using different hymnals.[:O]) Electronic Bibles are limited almost exclusively to the college students. Many view their use as divisive. The congregation is requested to silence all cell phones when worship service begins. There is also a standing request that the youth not have texting devices in the service.

The respect for the worship service extends to other areas such as modest clothing, not bringing your Starbucks into service or talking out loud. Personal worship is encouraged but not to the disruption of corporate worship.

I know the day is coming when the electronic Bible is the main Bible used but even LifeChurch encourages "the gathering" of the saints together. btw: I really like Craig Groeschel's preaching. I find LifeChurch a bit too casual for my preference.

This may be your experience with phones (production server down, etc), but my phone is quiet unless I need to be contacted. I'd say that most people aren't on-call and don't have to worry about receive random messages at all times. On Sunday mornings I put my phone on do-not-disturb, but it's probably unnecessary since I've never received a call or text during that time.

HOWEVER, I don't generally use my phone for reading my Bible---I use my iPad, which is not set up to receive messages of any kind. It has no distractions when I'm in a reading app. It's a quiet device. Doesn't that change your view on this point?

Yes, in fact it does make a difference to me, in the bounds of my argument, that your iPad is a quiet device. Because in that case, the "interruption" point doesn't apply. I think smartphones and tablets are used differently--people don't generally carry a tablet around and whip it out of their back pockets at the bus stop. So the way we use them--and are habituated to use them--is different.

That's partly why in the article I focused primarily on smartphones (although admittedly I may have confused the issue by mentioning the iPad by reference at the end).

http://www.fwcando.org/files/images/manna-from-heaven.jpg

I agree with you that context matters. What is accepted as general practice within a particular community does, I believe, make a difference. As members of one another we affect each other, so the community's expectations and practice matter.

Yeah, I think it's always good to run through the filters of 1 Cor 6:12 and Rom 14:13.

Wise words.

Thanks for the welcome to the forums. To answer other folks' question, I'm not a user of Logos (although seeing David Thomas' post on layouts with screenshots makes me think I want to be...). I just saw referrals to my blog post coming from this forum and decided to check it out.

JoshInRI

The article asks:

"....can we properly hear James’ “weep and wail you rich people” on a device that weighs in at $529 for Wi-Fi + 3G?"

I chuckled. Good luck finding a useful device that runs Logos 5.0 and your whole library for that price.

That truly would be manna from digital heaven.

Photo not original and copied from

Kent

I have an older couple who are distracting with their paper Bibles in church. I can tell when I say something they differ with in a sermon because they both start whispering to each other, checking out their notes, cross references, and the concordance at the back of their Bible! Many would find that more distracting than a person on their Ipad. As a pastor you just learn to not focus on their behavior.

I understand. I have been distracted during services when I was preaching and a cellphone that was silenced would suddenly light up in the congregation.

That being said, I'm thinking about preaching from a tablet. (if you can't beat them...)

I remember speaking to a largish audience, half of whom were asleep because of the overwhelmingly hot weather.

If someone's cell-phone had sounded with an insane ringtone, that would have made an interesting interruption... [:D]

The Gospel Coalition decided to get in on the action:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/08/19/dear-pastor-bring-your-bible-to-church/

A sensible-sounding piece, yet somewhat slim on scriptural principles...

Matthew C Jones

A sensible-sounding piece, yet somewhat slim on scriptural principles...

If you are saying it is slim on scriptural references, I agree. But I find it full of scriptural principles.

"...take a physical copy of the Bible with you on your next plane flight..."

I love the piece.

This is exactly why Logos4 and the Logos5 were such a major mistake. In Libronix, there's no sinful temptation to 'preach from your iPad'.

EDIT: After seeing Paul's comments below and then re-reading the piece, I wonder if the fascination with a paper Bible indeed was (and is) the theology. I only note this, studying the 100-200ce time period where it's pretty obvious the 'word' has barely made its way onto papyri but that seems perfectly ok. Person-A talking and writing to Person-B.

Paul Golder

I keep telling my friends that there is nothing wrong with using film, and all they want to do is throw their paintbrushes at me...

Favorite quote:

Sanctimony, thy name is...

One aspect I found myself debating with the author over was the section called "Biblical Illiteracy in the Pew". He says:

Second, the tablet may, oddly enough, unintentionally and indirectly encourage biblical illiteracy in the pew.

For all the evidence he gives in that section, I can guarantee it was an issue before the tablet was even invented. I don't even think it's exacerbated by the tablet. People just don't seem the care about the Bible anymore, and I don't think it's computers that have caused that problem. People don't know context or "what's on the next page" -- not because they're reading their Bibles digitally (I wish!) -- but because they're not reading it at all.

Mike Childs

That is the silliest article I have read in a long time. It should be retitled "How To Be Sure Your Church Does Not Reach Young Adults" (By the way, I am soon to turn 60 years old, in the prime of life. But the my church's largest group is our Young Adults in their 20's and 30's.)

Our Church has done several of the David Platt led "Secret Church" sessions, which involves intensive Bible teaching from 6 pm to after midnight. It thrilled me to see my Young Adults with their Bible apps on their smart phones hanging in there for over 6 hours of intensive Bible study, (and some of my older adults with their paper Bibles as well.)

Any Bible, paper or electronic is a one person oriented device. What a silly criticism of an electronic version! Of course, you can read aloud to a group just as easily from any Bible, paper of electronic. So there is no advantage in that respect to paper or electronics.

I sometimes use my iPad to teach Bible Study to a group of about 50 people. I have individually asked a number of the group it the electronic device was distracting. No one has yet felt that it was, and most of them did not even realize that I had not used a paper Bible. My iPad is in a leather cover, and they assumed it was a book.

Before Bibles were on smartphones, few of my young adults brought them to Bible study. Now many of them have Bibles on their smartphones. They follow along and discuss. A BIG improvement, in my opinion.

On the rare occasion that I get to attend a Bible study or worship service that I am not leading, I always take my iPad and use my Logos app.

Our Church has done several of the David Platt led "Secret Church" sessions, which involves intensive Bible teaching from 6 pm to after midnight. It thrilled me to see my Young Adults with their Bible apps on their smart phones hanging in there for over 6 hours of intensive Bible study, (and some of my older adults with their paper Bibles as well.)

We were, however, talking about the regular communal service of the church and not about bible study. Few, if any, would depreciate the usage of electronic media in venues other than the main service.

Our Church has done several of the David Platt led "Secret Church" sessions, which involves intensive Bible teaching from 6 pm to after midnight. It thrilled me to see my Young Adults with their Bible apps on their smart phones hanging in there for over 6 hours of intensive Bible study, (and some of my older adults with their paper Bibles as well.)

We were, however, talking about the regular communal service of the church and not about bible study. Few, if any, would depreciate the usage of electronic media in venues other than the main service.

How valid is that distinction, and how significant is that distinction? Can we make allowance for different expressions of "service"?

Butters

I haven't read the whole thread, but I am beginning to realize that I must come from a different planet from most of the rest of you; I would never, ever even think to take an iPad into Mass. Or an iPhone, or anything else of that nature. I would be the equivalent of, I don't know, coming in wearing plastic devil's horns or something. LOL.

Obviously I'm in the minority here. But yeah, Not. Ever. Going. To. Happen.

~Butters [:)]

Mike Childs

I think the Bible that they read at home or in Bible study should be welcome in the "main service". Though I am not sure I would agree with you which is "the main service". I still find it silly for the reasons stated.

Our Church has done several of the David Platt led "Secret Church" sessions, which involves intensive Bible teaching from 6 pm to after midnight. It thrilled me to see my Young Adults with their Bible apps on their smart phones hanging in there for over 6 hours of intensive Bible study, (and some of my older adults with their paper Bibles as well.)

We were, however, talking about the regular communal service of the church and not about bible study. Few, if any, would depreciate the usage of electronic media in venues other than the main service.

Kevin A. Purcell

Why is it more individual. In fact I'd argue that reading from the YouVersion or Faithlife app with community notes is more communal than a paper bible. Just because someone says this is so doesn't make it so. Give me a reason why you think it is true.

JT (alabama24)

Why is it more individual. In fact I'd argue that reading from the YouVersion or Faithlife app with community notes is more communal than a paper bible. Just because someone says this is so doesn't make it so. Give me a reason why you think it is true.

Kevin - Their argument is about the local community, within the service, from a liturgical point of view.