When the Bible Becomes an App

A thoughtful blogpost on reading a paper bible versus reading from an app from Trevin Wax. 
A surprising statistic in research on Bible engagement among Americans is that more than 90 percent of regular Bible readers prefer print to digital. That percentage holds true even though more than 90 percent of Bible readers also indicate that they engage with the Bible on digital platforms and through an app. So, the trends show exponential growth in digital Bible engagement alongside a strong preference for a print Bible reading experience. (In case you’re wondering how those statistics hold up generationally, consider the fact that three out of four millennials say they prefer a print Bible.)

Needless to say, printed Bibles aren’t going away. But many pastors tell me that they’re showing up less often in the hands of congregants at church on Sunday. J. D. Greear, pastor of The Summit Church, says “open your Bibles” and “turn on your Bibles,” and has remarked at the change in years past from the rustling of paper as people flipped through the text to the soft white glow of people today accessing the Bible via their phones.

Does the Form of Your Bible Matter?

As a Bible publisher, I’m thrilled to see people engaging the Bible, whatever the format. That’s why our team devotes attention to multiple digital platforms while caring deeply for the value of printed Bibles. At the same time, I wonder if many Christians assume the format for a Bible is neutral, that it’s irrelevant where or how you engage with the Bible, so long as it’s the Bible you’re engaging. That assumption is wrong. The form matters, because it affects the way we encounter God’s Word.

Let’s set aside the question of Bible apps for a moment. Just consider two forms of the Bible in print. The first Bible is leather-bound with gilded edges and opens up to a beautifully designed single-column interior. The presentation of this Bible says something about the value of these words. The second Bible is a pocket New Testament with a tiny font. The presentation of this Bible says something about the accessibility and availability of Scripture. Both of these Bibles are the Word of God, but surely no one would say the format doesn’t matter. Both can be helpful. Both can be valid. (I use a leather-bound single-column Bible for my daily devotions, and I carry around a little New Testament in my shirt pocket so I can read occasionally throughout the day.) But surely the form matters, because the form says something.

The same is true for Bible engagement through various digital platforms. We encounter the Bible differently through an app than we do through a book. The question we must ask is: what is the difference, and does it matter?

Scrolls, Codices, and Books

The pragmatist waves off this kind of reflection and chalks up concern or caution about digital Bibles as being nostalgic for a different era in history. After all, books themselves were once inventions, and the widespread availability of Bibles in printed form did not exist until after the Reformation. Weren’t books an improvement over codices? And weren’t codices an improvement over scrolls?

These are good questions worthy of consideration. But the questions themselves make my point: there is a difference in encountering the Bible as a collection of scrolls versus picking up the Bible as one distinct book. Binding together all of the books of the Bible into a single volume, between two covers, makes a statement about the canon of Scripture and the unity of the story it contains. And the availability of the Bible to the masses certainly made a statement about the priesthood of all believers and lifted high the expectation that we could and should encounter Scripture on our own. My point, again, is that the form matters. The format influences our engagement of the biblical text.

Difference Between Online and Print

So, what is the difference between encountering the Bible as a printed book and accessing the Bible’s contents online or through an app? Are we likely to see the same kind of revolutionary effect for digital Bibles that the printing press had for printed ones? It’s hard to say. Whereas books replaced codices and codices replaced scrolls, it’s not clear that digital access will replace the printed text, especially since digital sales have stalled out for books in general and never really took hold with the Bible in particular.

Still, there is a difference in engaging the Bible online versus in print, and we should be aware of it. Jeffrey Siker’s book Liquid Scripture: The Bible in a Digital World lays out some of the ways our encounter with the Bible digitally can shape our approach to this book. “What happens when the Bible is simply one additional app on one’s smartphone or tablet?” he asks.

Siker’s treatment is not one-sided. He recognizes the possibility of significant new insights that may emerge from millions of people encountering the Bible digitally. At the same time, he wonders what problems the shift from print to digital could cause. A digital transition would be a mixed blessing, with several tradeoffs.

SURFACE VS. DEEP READING

First, Sikes points to the research that shows screens to be best for surface reading and the skimming of texts, but not ideal for the kind of deep and meditative reading usually associated with the Bible. Reading well takes concentration, and most of our devices are filled with distractions that make comprehension harder. (Not all devices are created equal, of course, which is why a Kindle may lend itself to higher reading comprehension than, say, the iPhone.) Multitasking, another practice we’re accustomed to on our phones or computers, makes it harder to read the Bible online, especially if we are enticed by all the tools and helps available on our apps. The thing we love about a Bible app (its features and helps) can become the thing that keeps us from reading the Bible well. Research also shows that humans read differently on a screen than on paper, which is why exhaustive reading online is rare (no wonder we call it “browsing”!).

Take these challenges into the church service and the Bible on your phone can become an intrusion rather than a benefit. Sikes admits:

“My worship experience may be enhanced by the capacities of the Bible app on my phone, or these same capacities may distract and take away from the worship experience because I’m off in the Bible spaces they have constructed. . . . Rather than giving our full attention to our role in the worship life of our faith communities, we increasingly suffer from ‘continuous partial attention,’ a kind of peripheral attention wherein we have one eye and one ear on the so-called real world around us, and another eye/ear on the virtual world mediated via smartphones.”

THE LOSS OF THE BIBLE’S GEOGRAPHY

Another loss when we move from the Bible in print to the Bible online is the sense of the Bible’s geography. When the Bible “loses its covers,” Sikes writes, it no longer has a beginning and end, a shape or geography, and we may slowly lose our knowledge of the contours of the text. We no longer know our way around the Bible because we’ve never needed to have internal, mental maps. We can get to any place in the Bible in an instant.

The technological gain leads to a loss of intimate familiarity.

SUBMITTING TO THE MASTER

The format of Bible engagement matters. What is helpful in one encounter may hinder in another. Sikes quotes Christine Rosen on how different a book is from a screen:

“You enter the author’s world on his own terms, and in so doing get away from yourself. Yes, you are powerless to change the narrative or the characters, but you become more open to the experiences of others and, importantly, open to the notion that you are not always in control. In the process, you might even become more attuned to the complexities of family life, the vicissitudes of social institutions, and the lasting truths of human nature. The screen, by contrast, tends in the opposite direction. Instead of a reader, you become a user. Instead of submitting to an author, you become the master. The screen promotes invulnerability.”

Apply this to Bibles, and the practice of submitting yourself to a text—to something that is intended to master you instead of you master it—becomes even more important. How will our view of the Bible change if our primary encounter with it is on the same device from which we exert so much control and manipulation of our self-image?

Bibles Online, Yes. But Not At the Expense of Print

To be clear, I’m not opposed to Bible apps. I use them. I benefit from them. I’m excited to use the different tools and study helps available online. Engaging the Bible this way has aided me in study, in devotional exercise, in accessibility, and in sermon preparation. I am pro-Bibles-online.

But I’m not pro-Bibles-online as a replacement for engaging the Bible in print. The form of digital engagement is not neutral, and we need to be aware of the losses we will experience if we shift to online Bible reading as the primary or only way we encounter the Bible in the future. Aspects of engaging the Bible as a printed book are lost when we only and always turn on the Bible instead of open it.

Should Teens Own Smartphones?

You may think this is a radical idea but it is worth pondering.  Weekly I read of the negative and even harmful affects of technology.  From the Desiring God blog.
When Silicon Valley’s 20-something techno-prodigies were awing the world with new, shiny, unveilings of iPods and then iPhones and then iPads, many of the inventors didn’t have kids. Few had teens. Now, most of them have kids, and many have teens — teenagers addicted to gadgets their parents birthed into the world years ago.

This is the story of Tony Fadell, a former Senior VP at Apple, known as the grandfather of the iPod, and a key player on the early design team for the iPhone. On the 10-year anniversary of the iPhone in an interview, he made this admission: “I wake up in cold sweats every so often thinking, what did we bring to the world?”

Fadell, a father of three, has come to see the addictive power of the iPhone, an addiction that cannot be removed. “I know what happens when I take technology away from my kids. They literally feel like you’re tearing a piece of their person away from them — they get emotional about it, very emotional. They go through withdrawal for two to three days.”

“This self-absorbing culture is starting to [really stink],” Fadell said. “Parents didn’t know what to do. They didn’t know this was a thing they needed to teach because we didn’t know for ourselves. We all kind of got absorbed in it.”

Yes — we all got absorbed — techies and teens and parents. All of us. And now we’re trying to figure out how to wisely manage our devices.

Teens, Smartphones, and Depression

Digital absorption has coincided with the fast-changing dynamics of public high school life. Last winter, I asked an assistant principal at a large Twin Cities high school (of more than 2,000 students) how her job has changed over the past two decades.

Much remains the same, she said. “But the one thing that has changed drastically in working with teenagers for over twenty years is the dependency they have now on the instant gratification and feedback from others. How many likes do I have? How many followers? And there’s a compulsion to put something online to see how many likes I can get. And if that wasn’t enough, what does it say about me?”

“There’s a really strong connection to this behavior and the increased mental health issues we’re seeing in the school,” she said. “Over the past three-to-five years I would say my job has changed the most, because we’re now dealing with so much more mental health. I don’t think it’s singularly because of technology, but I genuinely believe digital technology is a major factor. It changes everything from the way people relate with others to the way they see themselves.”

Destroying a Generation?

The cold sweats of Fadell and the eyewitness testimony of this assistant principal are captured in the haunting headline over a recent feature article published in The Atlantic, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”

iGen is the new label for those roughly 12-to-22-year-olds, born between 1995 and 2005. Among them, the warning signs are prevalent. “Rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011,” wrote author Jean Twenge of the struggles faced by the iGen-ers. “It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.

“The more time teens spend looking at screens, the more likely they are to report symptoms of depression,” and, “girls have borne the brunt of the rise in depressive symptoms among today’s teens.” Twenge cites sources that show depression is on the rise among both boys and girls. For boys, depressive symptoms rose 21% between 2012–2015. In the same span, rates among girls increased by 50%. The rates of suicide for both increased, too. Male suicides doubled; female suicides increased threefold.

From what I know about these spikes in depression, and what I have discovered about the allure of our devices, what we are addressing here are existential questions about the meaning of life and acceptance from others — massive questions, weighing heavy on a young generation. These are redemptive questions, identity questions, gospel issues.

Digital media force a teen and preteen into the 24-7 pressure cooker of peer approval. But it’s not just teens; all of us feel this addictive draw of our social media. Smartphones seem to influence us all in at least 12 potent ways.

But the question here is pretty straightforward: Given these warning signs, is it possible for a teen to resist the powers of culture and go smartphone-free through the middle school and high school years?

Smartphone-Free Teens

I asked Jaquelle Crowe, the author of the excellent book, This Changes Everything: How the Gospel Transforms the Teen Years, that question. She provides us with a rare example of an iGen teen who postponed the adoption of a smartphone until age 18. I asked her what it was like to wait so long.

Jaquelle, thanks for your time to share your experience. Studies are beginning to suggest that rates of teen depression are on the rise, and there is no single factor to get all the blame. But the pervasiveness of smartphones among iGen teens has to be considered as a significant cause. Would this connection surprise you?

Absolutely not. Smartphones contribute significantly to the 24-7 approval culture we live in. There’s no escaping it. This is something our parents don’t always understand, because when they were teenagers, that culture was largely limited to the 9–3 school day, and then they retreated to the boredom of family life.

But now there’s 24-7 social media. There’s a constant comparison and peer approval game that cannot be escaped. And it’s crippling, exhausting, and undeniably stressful. You can’t get away from the likes, the shares, the texts, the pictures. It’s like the popularity contest never ends. And it works both ways. Your smartphone gives you a front-row seat to watch the popularity contest, too.

That is a powerful dynamic, hard to escape the popularity culture on both fronts (feeding it and watching it play out). You did not get a smartphone until you were 18, but you had friends with smartphones, right?

Yes, I did, and I was well aware that most of my peers had access to something I didn’t. I could name every friend who had a phone, simply because I would see their phone. If Alison got a phone, I knew about it. If Jared got a phone, I knew about it. Not because they flaunted it or shamed me, but because it was always around. Even if we were talking together, it would buzz or ping or they’d be fidgeting with it. If there was a pause, a moment of silence, a break, they’d be on their phones, and I’d be left in the lingering awkwardness and boredom.

It definitely fed my FOMO (fear of missing out). It fed into some insecurity. Even though my friends never made me feel weird for not having a smartphone, it was an expectation, so they were surprised when they discovered I didn’t have one. There were times when I was the outlier. And not only with friends but also with my generation at large. I’d be walking through the mall or waiting in line or stopped on the sidewalk, and I would look around, fully present and disconnected — and stare at a sea of teens glued to smartphones. I was an exception, and that felt uncomfortable.

At times, I felt lonely — even if I was surrounded by people. They were constantly connected and I was isolated. I felt confined by my lack of access. At the same time, those feelings were largely emotional and visceral because I agreed theoretically with my parents — that I didn’t need a phone right then.

12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You
12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You
Thumb author tony reinke Tony Reinke
Never offline, always within reach, we now wield in our hands a magic wand of technological power we have only begun to grasp. But it raises new enigmas, too. Never more connected, we seem to be growing more distant. Never more efficient, we have never been more distracted.
I applaud your parents for this foresight and conviction. Most parents, I fear, simply cave to the pressure, as their teen caves to the pressure — a domino effect of pressures, and certainly one I feel as a parent. But it’s worth giving this decision critical thought, because introducing a fully functioning smartphone is a decision that cannot easily be undone. For you, how much trust does this call for on the part of a teen, to wait? It seems like you have to trust your parents more than your peers, and that’s a main struggle of the teen years.

It calls for trust, definitely. And connected to that, a willingness to submit and obey. Ultimately, it requires a recognition that your parents are actually looking out for your best interests — emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically — and that they know you better than your peers do.

The thing is, deep down, most teens know that. They just push back because not owning a smartphone makes them feel ashamed.

I assume you had access to a phone of some sort?

Yes. If I was going out, I’d often borrow my mom’s flip phone for emergencies. I almost never used it.

That’s wise. As for digital media, what did you have access to before the smartphone?

I had a computer, I had email, I had access to some social media. I technically could do everything from home. But in a digital world with an expanding reach, that still somehow seemed limited.

For sure. Speaking as a 20-year-old now, what would you say to parents who are weighing the pros/cons and reading all the news and the testimonies of parents of teens, and who are coming to the conclusion that delaying the smartphone in the life of their teen would be wise? What kind of pushback should they expect to hear from their teen?

To parents, I’d say: It is worth it to have your kids wait. I’ve seen it and heard it and can attest to it since I got my own smartphone — smartphones change you. They give you overwhelming and shocking access. They zap your attention span. They are massively addictive. You can (and should!) put up safeguards, but a smartphone fundamentally changes your heart and mind. If it’s possible for teens to delay that change, I think it is a wise consideration.

Teach your teens discipline and discernment before you entrust them with the dangers of a smartphone. Of course, smartphones are not inherently evil; they have the potential for great good. But they need to be wielded well.

If you’re making your teen wait, don’t delegitimize the painful exclusion they’ll feel but use this time to prepare them to use technology wisely and faithfully. In the hands of unprepared, immature teens, smartphones can be deadly.

As for pushback that a parent is sure to hear, teens will feel left out. That might make them frustrated, confused, lonely, or hurt, and if they lash out, that’s why. They might feel like they’re separated from their friends. They might feel the pain of peer pressure. They might fear missing out. They might even have some legitimate concerns (e.g., having a phone with them when they’re out by themselves).

Parents, in the face of this pushback, be willing to explain your reasoning. When your teens ask you, “Why can’t I have a smartphone?” they really don’t want you to say, “Because I told you so.” Even if they don’t agree with it, they will likely respect your willingness to reason with them and the depth of critical thought you’ve put into this.

Share your research with them. Introduce them to other teens (in person or online) who don’t have smartphones. Instead of treating them like a child (just saying, “No” and moving on), pursue thoughtful, honest dialogue with them. Allow them to keep the conversation going, and be willing to do the hard work of communication for the greater good of your relationship.

Very good. And perhaps we can close with what you would say directly to the teens in this scenario. What should they expect to face by way of internal and peer struggle?

To the teens who take this countercultural move, you are an outlier in your generation. Obedience in life requires avoiding every clingy weight that will trip you up in the Christian life (Hebrews 12:1). I can only encourage you to hold fast. It comes down to this. Hold fast.

Jesus is better than a smartphone. You will rehearse this truth over and over in your heart.

And when you feel burdened by exclusion and isolation, don’t despair. Your identity is not in fitting in or meeting superficial expectations. It’s in Christ alone. And he gives you one task: be faithful. Right now, that looks like obeying your parents and trusting their good intentions for you — and that may mean not having a smartphone for a time.

Don’t run from this reality in shame; embrace it in faith. Your joy is not found in cultural connectivity; it’s found in union with Christ. So hold fast, and be faithful. Your reward is coming and it is far greater than any loss you will feel in this life.

Tony Reinke (@tonyreinke) is senior writer for Desiring God and author of 12 Ways Your Phone Is Changing You (2017), John Newton on the Christian Life (2015), and Lit! A Christian Guide to Reading Books (2011). He hosts the Ask Pastor John podcast and lives in the Twin Cities with his wife and three children

Christian, What Are You Watching?

From Crossway . . . 

Sound Familiar?

Consider a day in the life of a typical American adult. The waking moments begin with the radio alarm reporting weather, traffic, and headlines. Breakfast is gulped down with a side of business news and features from the morning newspaper.

Then the commute to work, where the companion for the drive is a radio talk show host lathered into a political frenzy or a shock jock whose tongue releases a barrage of crude humor.

At the office, checking e-mail presents opportunities throughout the morning for a bit of extracurricular websurfing to shop for a birthday gift, check out a favorite blog, and catch up on the latest celebrity news. Lunch in the breakroom is spent connecting with a favorite sports magazine while a TV talk show blares overhead, showcasing the latest claimants to fleeting fame. Back in the cubicle’s afternoon boredom, virtual adventure can be found on an Internet video game offering a quest for world domination.

When the work grind ceases, the drive home provides a reprieve from thinking and a nostalgic unwinding as the oldies stream in on satellite radio. The trip down memory lane is interrupted by a stop at soccer practice to pick up a young daughter who eagerly buckles up and warmly greets the Disney character coming to life on the DVD screen that descends in the backseat.

After a welcome-home kiss from the wife—and a friendlier kiss from the dog—comes the irresistible beckoning to collapse into the La-Z-Boy, grab the remote, and scan all three hundred digital cable channels to take the edge off the workday weariness. Following dinner, the TV illuminates the family room as all gather to enjoy the hottest sitcoms, reality shows, and crime dramas.

The day concludes with a drift into slumber to the soothing voice of a newscaster recapping headlines on the bedroom TV.

Surrounded by Media

For most Americans, media is the omnipresent backdrop of life. Even if you don’t find yourself in every scene of the previous day-in-the-life scenario, you’re nevertheless surrounded. Whether at home, in the car, at the store, in a restaurant, or even at the gas station (I’ve seen CNN piped in via a small screen built into the pump), the perpetual media lifeline continues. We’re never beyond its ubiquitous reach. We’re so engulfed that media seems like a second atmosphere; in fact one author terms our cultural surroundings the “mediasphere.”¹ We give no more thought to it than we do to the air we breathe.

But give thought to it we must. As followers of Christ, we cannot afford to take lightly the media’s pervasive presence in our lives. Think about the power of video entertainment, for instance. Whether viewed on computer, a portable player, or a traditional TV set, television and film are without peer in their cultural influence. Ken Myers, an astute Christian observer of popular culture, notes that television is not only “the dominant medium of popular culture” but also “the single most significant shared reality in our entire society.” He compares television’s impact to that of Christianity centuries ago, when “Christendom” defined the Western world:

Not all citizens of Christendom were Christians, but all understood it, all were influenced by its teaching. . . . I can think of no entity today capable of such a culturally unifying role except television. In television, we live and move and have our being.²

Similarly, pastor Kent Hughes offers this alarming appraisal:

Today the all-pervasive glow of the television set is the single most potent influence and control in Western culture. Television has greater power over the lives of most Americans than any educational system, government, or church.³

But it’s not enough to acknowledge the dominant, nearly godlike authority exercised over our culture by TV, the Internet, and the rest of the media. We must evaluate the content of media messages and the consequences of their influence.

We begin by recognizing that the media’s messages are nothing new. Essentially, our world puts forward the same allurements that the apostle John’s world did some two thousand years ago: “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions” (1 John 2:16). Christians in John’s day didn’t have the Internet, cable television, or iPods, but the desires of the flesh have been around since the fall. To be sure, the packaging and delivery of the world’s offerings have advanced technologically, but their substance has remained as primitive as a talking serpent. Christians of all ages have been required to soberly assess the temptations found in the surrounding culture and to respond in a God-glorifying way. We are no different. Our calling as Christians involves resisting the seduction of a fallen world.

Although this article is focused on television and film media, the principles are relevant for evaluating all forms of media, all of which to some degree embody values of our fallen world. If we’re faithfully to resist the ever-present “desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions,” we’ll need to sharpen our biblical discernment and wisely evaluate our media intake, for the glory of God.

Watching Unwatchingly

Many of us don’t think about actively filtering our viewing. As long as we avoid the obvious traps such as pornography, we don’t consider deliberate evaluation necessary. Though we may faithfully apply the Scriptures in other areas of life, we may not consciously think about how God’s Word applies to our entertainment choices.

All too often, we think about neither what we watch nor how much. Our watching is just inevitable. We watch by habit. We watch because we’re bored. We unwatchingly watch as the TV stays on for background noise.

We watch alone or with others. We gather with friends on Friday night and rent a DVD because there’s nothing else to do.

We watch because others watch. Everyone at school or at work is talking about a popular movie. It’s a must see—so we must see it. Without researching its content, without thinking about its effect on our hearts, without comparing an evening at the movies with other options, we go, and we watch.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying it’s wrong to watch television, rent a DVD, surf the Internet, or spend an evening at the cinema. The hazard is thoughtless watching. Glorifying God is an intentional pursuit. We don’t accidentally drift into holiness; rather, we mature gradually and purposefully, one choice at a time. In the Christian walk, we can’t just step onto the right path and figure all is well. Christian discipleship is a lifelong journey consisting of a series of countless steps. Each step matters, and thus our viewing habits matter.

A lifestyle of careless viewing should concern us.

A lifestyle of careless viewing should concern us. At best, careless viewing reveals an ignorance of the media’s power of temptation. It probably indicates a degree of laziness as well—and we can’t afford to be lazy in what our minds absorb. Biblical discernment involves critical thinking, which often leads to costly action. It’s true that we grow in sanctification by God’s grace, but this doesn’t deny that our growth involves work. To mature, we need engaged minds asking biblically informed questions about the media’s messages and methods. What’s more, we need perseverance to travel against the cultural current.

To change the metaphor, detecting and avoiding temptation is a battle; every time we pick up the remote or glance at the movie listings or go online, we take up arms. Ken Myers describes this battle in strong terms:

I believe that the challenge of living with popular culture may well be as serious for modern Christians as persecution and plagues were for the saints of earlier centuries. . . . Enemies that come loudly and visibly are usually much easier to fight than those that are undetectable.⁴

It may seem that Myers exaggerates the danger. Pop culture as deadly as persecution and plagues?

But I think he’s right. When it comes to waging the war of sanctification, severe trial usually alerts us to battle, rousing us to our need for God. Popular culture, especially entertainment media, often lulls us to ignore our battle with the flesh.

In this conflict, how many Christians are waving the flag of surrender by disengaging their discernment when it comes to media? But passivity is no option. We’re called to live purposefully. That means we must watch on purpose and resist the lifestyle of passive viewing.

Watching with Immunity?

Unlike those who watch thoughtlessly, many Christians recognize the tempting influence of media yet assume they’re immune from danger. They end up watching just like everyone else.

“After all,” they’ll argue, “I’m not going to watch a murder on TV and then go out and murder someone.” This misses the point. Our sanctification aspirations should be loftier than avoiding murder. Just because we don’t instantly mimic all we see doesn’t mean our hearts aren’t negatively affected by the programs or films we watch. Tugging like a subtle undertow below the surface, the media can tempt us to drift toward love of the world.

Drift toward worldliness may be slow, its symptoms not immediately apparent. This drift is usually a sign of a dulling conscience. The conscience doesn’t function like a light switch—one moment the lights are on, then everything is dark with a flip of the switch. Instead, the sensitivity of our conscience dulls over time as it is resisted or ignored. Paul charges young Timothy to “wage the good warfare” by holding on to a good conscience, and warns him that rejecting a good conscience can lead to shipwrecking one’s faith (1 Tim. 1:18–20). Over time a good conscience that once was sensitive to the holiness of God and the conviction of the Spirit can become seared (1 Tim. 4:2), losing all feeling.

The drift toward worldliness is subtle, gradual, and internal. And if we assume we’re immune to it, that’s a sure sign the drift has begun.

The media has great power to influence, but most people—both Christians and unbelievers—presuppose that their worldview, desires, and opinions are safe from media sway. We’re convinced we’re beyond reach. How revealing, then, that advertisers spend $215 billion annually just on televi sion commercials. These marketing dollars are not charity gifts; our thinking is influenced by what we watch, and advertisers know it.

We also tend to think of ourselves as minimally exposed to media, especially compared to everyone else. In a Roper survey that reveals as much about human nature as it does about media consumption, 96 percent of people polled claimed they watched less television than the average person. You don’t need a sophisticated statistical analysis of that survey to realize a lot of us don’t have a clue about our viewing habits.

These examples illustrate what the Scripture teaches about our hearts. They’re sinful, and as a result, we’re prone to self-deception. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). We’re more easily tempted than we know or are willing to admit.

Worldliness

C. J. Mahaney

Worldliness equips readers to avoid the dangers of being shaped by the subtle influences of the world and offers practical help for pursuing godliness through the grace of the gospel.

The Bible teaches that the battle is not “out there.” The real monster isn’t Hollywood or a beast residing in a plasma screen. He’s not lurking behind the curtain in the movie theater. He’s much closer. He’s us. Our battle is with the flesh. “For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do” (Gal. 5:17).

If we watch, we must watch with this in mind: our hearts are deceitful, and our flesh will be tempted. Paul’s warning to the Corinthians is fitting: “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

We’re commanded to “not be conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2), but such conformity is the inevitable pathway for those who watch freely with the delusion of immunity.

The L Word

No discussion of media standards gets far before someone cries, “Legalism!” Any teaching that advocates some level of viewing standards will be stereotyped in some quarters as a compromising of Christian liberty.

Such stereotyping works both ways, of course. The one advocating higher standards can just as easily broad-brush all detractors as “worldly” or “licentious.” Meanwhile we conveniently place ourselves in the center: all those with stricter entertainment standards than ours are legalistic, while anyone who’s more lenient is worldly.

Legalism, however, is not a matter of having more rigorous rules. It’s far more lethal than that. It strikes at the very core of our relationship with God. As C. J. Mahaney explains:

Legalism is seeking to achieve forgiveness from God and acceptance by God through obedience to God. In other words, a legalist is anyone who behaves as if they can earn God’s approval and forgiveness through personal performance.⁵

Do we risk legalism by establishing personal viewing standards? Absolutely! But the risk doesn’t lie in having standards; it lies in our motivation. The question is not, “Should we view selectively?” but “Why do we view selectively?” We must not seek to earn God’s favor by watching or not watching certain programs. Our forgiveness from God and acceptance by God are based upon the gospel—we’re already approved because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, our obedience springs from gratitude for the gospel.

Legalism is a heart condition that can easily affect our media viewing (or lack of viewing) just as it can color any other activity. Legalism can taint our Bible reading, praying, witnessing, eating, sleeping, lovemaking, working, recreating, joking, shopping—we can be legalistic about anything! The solution is not necessarily lowering our standards. It is necessarily raising our understanding of and response to the glorious grace of God.

We can be legalistic about anything! The solution is not necessarily lowering our standards.

Another objection to setting viewing standards is a fear of isolationism. Some will argue that our evangelism is compromised when we detach ourselves from our culture, and that we’re called instead to engage it. There’s truth to this claim; but when “engage the culture” is a euphemism for “watch whatever everyone else is watching,” our witness is weakened, not strengthened. It’s foolish to think the gospel will spread more powerfully if we hide its transforming effect in our lives. While we should celebrate any genuine concern for reaching out to the lost, we should be suspect of any approach advocating broad cultural accommodation when it comes to entertainment.

Recently, a lady in our church communicated to me her resistance to the idea of curbing media consumption; she believed that viewing current TV programs and movies enabled her to better relate to the lost. But she came to question her own reasoning: “Am I lowering my standards to stay up with our culture while not really reaching anyone by doing so?” I respect her for her humility and honesty. She asks a discerning question.

In reality, it isn’t necessary to be a media glutton to share the gospel effectively. We can meaningfully relate with people in our culture without immersing ourselves in the latest entertainments. We can be aware of popular culture without being captive to it. Our personal and corporate relevance and witness won’t be hindered at all by applying biblical standards to our media intake.

This leads us to explore a grace-motivated approach to media consumption. We begin, most appropriately, with God.

Living Coram Deo

Coram Deo is a short Latin phrase packing a potent punch: “before the face of God.” All aspects of our existence—from private thoughts to public words and actions—are lived out before his face. Properly regarded, living coram Deo arouses our fear of God. The person who’s aware that God is seated front-and-center and watching everything will fear the Lord. And that’s good, for “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7).

The fear of God is our starting place; it’s not the graduate school of Christian discipleship. Fearing God is where we begin in our search for knowledge and wisdom. The fool, by contrast, is one whose governing mindset excludes the reality of God (Ps. 14:1).

What does all this have to do with our media use? Put bluntly, it means we surf the Internet, listen to the radio, watch television, or rent a DVD in God’s presence. We make our choices—all our choices—with God’s holy face in view. It’s not the gaze of our pastor, parent, fellow small group member, or unbelieving neighbor that matters most. We’re accountable to God in all things, including our entertainment.

Wayne Wilson brings home this sobering truth: “We are accountable to God, and the label of ‘art’ on human expression does not remove this accountability in the slightest way.”⁶

God is holy, and we are not. Coram Deo, we realize we’re in trouble—our eyes have lusted, our imaginations have trespassed, our time has been squandered. We must run to the cross where God’s holiness and mercy intersect decisively.

Coram Deo, we find grace. Grace that forgives. Grace that empowers us to change. Grace that leads us to desire and pursue obedience. Any discussion of biblical obedience, including entertainment guidelines, must spring from a robust understanding of grace.

Notes
1. Dan Andriacco, Taming the Media Monster (Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2003), 5.
2. Kenneth A. Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1989), 160.
3. R. Kent Hughes, Set Apart (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), 51.
4. Myers, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, xii–xiii.
5. C. J. Mahaney, The Cross Centered Life (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2002).
6. Wayne A. Wilson, Worldly Amusements (Enumclaw, WA: Winepress, 1999), 73.

This article is adapted from Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen Worldedited by C. J. Mahaney.

---

Craig Cabaniss (MDiv, Fuller Seminary) serves as lead pastor of Grace Church in Frisco, Texas. He and his wife, Ginger, have four children and two grandchildren.

The Beast in the Beauty

Do you remember the Matrix movies?

You should. For one simple reason:

The media is our matrix.

Todd Gitlin, one of the leading thinkers on media and our lives, says that “the torrent of images, songs, and stories streaming has become our familiar world.” This “torrent” determines what we see and what we don’t, what we think about and what never enters our mind.

Marshall McLuhan, an earlier thinker on all things media, warned that: “All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered.”

But like the matrix in the movie, most of us aren’t aware of it.

We don’t see how immersed in it we are.

Gitlin offers a parable about a customs officer who observes a truck pulling up at the border.

Suspicious, he conducts a thorough and painstaking search of the vehicle but finds nothing.

This begins a pattern where week-by-week, the driver approaches the border, the truck is searched, and nothing is found.

Yet the customs officer is convinced that there is contraband.

Finally, after many years, the officer is set to retire.

Once again, the driver pulls up, and the officer says:

“I know you’re a smuggler... don’t bother denying it. But... [I can’t] figure out what you’ve been smuggling all these years. I’m leaving now. I swear to you I can do you no harm. Won’t you please tell me what you’ve been smuggling?”

And the driver says, “Trucks.”

Point of the parable? What the media have been smuggling is the habit of living with the media.

And being shaped by it – knowingly or not.

For example, think of MTV. As MTV’s founding chairman, Bob Pittman, stated in a 1982 interview: “If you can get their emotions going, make them forget their logic, you’ve got them. At MTV, we don’t shoot for the 14-year-olds, we own them.”

And nowhere does media own us more than in regard to our sexual lives.

Did you know that most children aren’t exposed to sexual content on the internet as much as they are through television and music?

And it’s quite an exposure.

Just think about Friends, which ran for ten years between 1994 and 2004, and is now one of the most popular shows in syndication.

Funny, right?

But not innocent.

A survey of all 236 episodes of the NBC sitcom found that the characters had a total of 85 sexual partners – and that’s only counting those who appeared on screen.

What does that do to us?

More than we realize.

This is important. What the media does is normalize things. If you see likable characters on TV having sex outside of marriage enough times, it becomes not only acceptable, but desirable. That’s why Fred Fedler, author of one of the most widely used college textbooks on the mass media, writes that “the media may constitute the most powerful education system ever known to man.”

And not just education, but indoctrination.

The real power of media is how it makes you feel.

If I can get you to feel a certain way, I can get you to think a certain way and to act a certain way.

I can make something that was once condemned approved of.

I can make you oppose something you used to support.

If I can get your emotions – your feelings – I own you.

And that’s exactly what media does.

What made homosexuality so culturally accepted in such a rapid period of time? That’s easy. It was Ellen, followed by Modern Family.

(It began even earlier with Billy Crystal and a show called Soap, but I don’t imagine many of you will remember that. But it was probably the first volley that softened any defense.)

Now we have the final cultural stake in the heart of any last resistance. Disney is putting its first “exclusively gay moment” into its new live version of Beauty and the Beast.

Yes, Beauty and the Beast.

It’s not the first time Disney has tried to introduce gay characters and situations. But this is the first “official” entry into the media mix.

I’ll be honest… I have no doubt it will be an amazing movie. But I also hope that it bombs, and that the reason the media picks up on is because of Disney’s gay agenda.

Maybe that will slow things down a bit.

Not stop the slide, mind you…

… but maybe just long enough to see the beast in what is being put forward as the beauty.

James Emery White

Sources

Todd Gitlin, Media Unlimited: How the Torrent of Images and Sounds Overwhelms Our Lives.

Marshall McLuhan with Quentin Fiore, The Medium Is the Message: An Inventory of Effects.

“‘Friends’ Cast Had 85 Sexual Partners Over 10-Season Run,” Fox News, July 28, 2011, read online.

Fred Fedler, An Introduction to the Mass Media.

Hannah Furness, “Disney’s First ‘Exclusively Gay Moment’ Hits Screens in Beauty and the Beast,” The Telegraph, March 1, 2017, read online.

“The Secret - and Not So Secret - Gay Disney Characters,” The Telegraph, March 2, 2017, read online.

4 PRINCIPLES FOR PARENTING IN A WORLD OF VIDEO GAMES

This is an excellent primer for parents on electronic devices.  I must confess that sometimes I wonder if I made the right decision to let my kids have and use electronic devices at all!  From Trevin Wax.

“As someone who spends countless hours on airplanes, I never cease to be amazed at the number of professional, college-educated adults who, when presented with a three-hour stretch of downtime, proceed to spend that time playing video games. Our countries invest 5 percent of their GDPs in universal education; teachers invite us into the labyrinths of history and the imaginative worlds of literature; parents make sacrifices for us to attend Christian schools and colleges. And we play Angry Birds. We’re not educated for this, surely.”

He goes on to warn his students:

“If I ever see you on a plane playing a video game, I will accost you, and I will be disappointed, and I will forthrightly remind you: you weren’t educated for this. The world needs your (continuing) education, and your soul is starving for it. We are remarkably well-educated dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants who could only dream of what we enjoy. Let’s not squander our inheritance.”

With Smith, I’m also disappointed when I see people fail to fully appreciate just what a privilege it is to receive an education, own a library of books, and have access to so many resources in the English language. But I’m afraid this squandering is likely to get worse, not better. The generation coming after us has never known of life without video games, electronic devices, and iPhones with countless apps.

TEACHING YOUR KIDS TO USE TECHNOLOGY WISELY

What can we do as parents to shape the habits of our children?

What can we do to help them make wise choices regarding the time they spend on electronic devices?

Do we ban devices and games? Do we set limits? What is the best way forward?

Many parents wrestle with these questions. I know, because my wife and I have discussed this issue with other couples on many occasions.

Our family has implemented a system that works well for us. I realize our way isn’t the only way, so I’ve asked a few Christian leaders and thinkers to share how they approach this issue. Below are some principles to consider.

1. Instead of banning electronic devices altogether, train your kids to discipline themselves.

The assumption among every family I spoke with is that there is a legitimate place for video games and iPhone apps and other forms of entertainment. Like watching television or listening to the radio, we can enjoy entertainment and leisure time in moderation.

Trillia Newbell, an author friend of mine, explained her family’s view:

“We think devices are fine as long as they are monitored and have clear instructions, and restrictions.”

In other words, it is better to help your children order their time wisely than to take away the opportunity to show self-control. Never use a device as a babysitter.

Aaron Earls, online editor of Facts and Trends, sees value in using video games for family time. On Friday nights, for example, his family will have a Wii family game night and everyone will play together. Electronic devices, in their proper place, can bring the family together instead of causing everyone to drift to separate rooms with separate screens.

2. Never allow your children to be alone with unfettered access to electronic devices.

Kevin DeYoung, pastor of University Reformed Church and father of six children, confesses that it is difficult to keep up with everything all his kids are doing. But there is one rule his family won’t budge on:

“No TV, computers, phones, or tablets in the bedroom. Screens are used in public areas, not in private.”

In the Wax home, our kids have limited access to our old, no-longer-in-use iPhones. But we set restrictions on those phones. That way, the kids are unable to unlock the phone, access the Internet, or make purchases. Take advantage of the restrictions settings on phones and tablets.

3. Set the timer.

When our kids play the Wii, they have to set the timer in the kitchen. When they play on our old iPhones, we set the Timer feature to “Stop Playing” so that the game shuts down and the phone locks when the timer goes off. Our rule is 30 minutes a day during the week, and an hour a day during the weekend.

Dan Darling, an author who works at the ERLC, limits his children’s screen time to an hour a day, with some give-and-take on holidays, special times, etc.

For Trillia Newbell’s family, the timer has been a huge help:

“The kids know exactly what to expect and it helps eliminate confusion. It also gives them something to look forward to. They enjoy their time on devices much more now than before we implemented to timer. They focus on playing because they realize they’ll need to be off for the night/day otherwise.”

4. Use electronic devices as motivation for reading.

A few years ago, I asked one of my favorite authors, N. D. Wilson, how parents can instill a love of reading in their kids. He told me that he and his wife allow their kids to stay up at night as long as they want, as long as they are reading. We tried that a few times, but our kids like to go to bed early.

What has helped them develop a love for reading is what we call “reading for time.” Our kids have the opportunity to earn more than their 30-minute-a-day allotment of electronics time by matching that time with reading. If they want to play games for 30 more minutes, great! But first, they must read for thirty minutes.

Our kids love this system. They’ve both taken to reading books they enjoy, and it helps them see electronic time as a privilege, not a right.

Aaron Earls’ family does something similar. In 30-minute segments, they can earn additional time on an electronic device. Using this method, his boys have already read classics like The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings.

Conclusion

I want my kids to enjoy the Nintendo and the iPhone and the creative worlds of Minecraft. But I also want them to enjoy playing outside, reading good books, and growing up as well-rounded kids. I’m thankful that my parents limited my access to Nintendo when I was growing up, and that’s why I can’t imagine setting them loose to play devices for hours on end.

The challenge for parents is to be consistent in the principles we put into practice in our homes. Make sure your kids understand why you’re setting limits. Discuss why certain games and shows are inappropriate. As Dan Darling says,

“Try to instill in your kids a sense of discernment that will help them when they leave the nest.”

That’s right. Discernment and self-control, where you can take time for leisure without letting leisure take over your time.

Why Steve Jobs Didn’t Let His Kids Use iPads (And Why You Shouldn’t Either)

Here is an insightful article by  Sarah Lesnar I found here.   I have a concern over the long term use of electronics have on the way we think and read and relate to each other socially.  There is lots of material coming out about this issue. ~ David

If you fall within the Gen-Y era like us, chances are you’ve given a bunch of thought as to how you would raise your own children in this day and age (assuming you don’t have children already). Especially with technology, so much has changed since our childhoods in the 90s. Here’s one question: Would you introduce the technological wonder/heroin that is the iPod and iPad to your kids? Steve Jobs wouldn’t, and for good reason too. In a Sunday article, New York Times reporter Nick Bilton said he once assumingly asked Jobs, “So your kids must love the iPad?” Jobs responded: “They haven’t used it. We limit how much technology our kids use at home.” Especially in Silicon Valley, there is actually a trend of tech execs and engineers who shield their kids from technology. They even send their kids to non-tech schools like the Waldorf School in Los Altos, where computers aren’t found anywhere because they only focus on hands-on learning. There is a quote that was highlighted in The Times by Chris Anderson, CEO of 3D Robotics and a father of five. He explains what drives those who work in tech to keep it from their kids. “My kids accuse me and my wife of being fascists and overly concerned about tech, and they say that none of their friends have the same rules…  That’s because we have seen the dangers of technology firsthand. I’ve seen it in myself, I don’t want to see that happen to my kids.” If our current addictions to our iPhones and other tech is any indication, we may be setting up our children for incomplete, handicapped lives devoid of imagination, creativity and wonder when we hook them onto technology at an early age. We were the last generation to play outside precisely because we didn’t have smartphones and laptops. We learned from movement, hands-on interaction, and we absorbed information through books and socialization with other humans as opposed to a Google search. Learning in different ways has helped us become more well-rounded individuals — so, should we be more worried that we are robbing our children of the ability to Snapchat and play “Candy Crush” all day if we don’t hand them a smartphone, or should we more worried that we would be robbing them of a healthier, less dependent development if we do hand them a smartphone? I think Steve Jobs had it right in regard to his kids. So the next time you think about how you will raise your kids, you may want to (highly) consider not giving them whatever fancy tech we’ll have while they are growing up. Play outside with them and surround them with nature; they might hate you, but they will absolutely thank you for it later, because I’m willing to bet that’s exactly how many of us feel about it now that we are older.

Read more at: http://nextshark.com/why-steve-jobs-didnt-let-his-kids-use-ipads-and-why-you-shouldnt-either/#rmns

An Uncanny Prophecy in an Unlikely Place - A quote from Neil Postman

I read the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1990, five years after it was published.  I read it on my honeymoon!  It was enlightening then but is even more so to look at it now almost thirty years later to see how relevant it is today. This quote is from the preface.  I am re-reading it now for my current sermon series, "The Word is Your Life." 
“We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.