This morning someone sent me some links to blog posts on tweeting (creating Twitter posts) during funerals.  My first thought was "well I hope no-one did that on Tuesday" (if they did then no-one much seems to have read their tweets as they don't show up on Google!).  Then I thought, instinctively, "that's just plain wrong" a funeral is not something to be live-reported in little bites... 'now we're singing this hymn'  'the preacher just said that' or whatever.

Tweeting, texting, snapping random photos... my gut says that each and all of these if not appropriate in an act of worship.  The main reason being that I don't see how you can be 'properly' participating if you are busy looking out for the next thing to pass on to someone (I have issues with 'live blogging' for the same reason)

But.... I was quite happy for the funeral service to be recorded and to be made available on line, which meant that someone was sat in a corner operating recording equipment all through it (as indeed they are every Sunday when ordinary services get recorded) and of course once it's online anyone can choose which bits they may choose to listen to or not.

Somehow, although there is a tension, the latter seems different from the former.  The latter is undertaken to enable people who are unable to be present to listen to the service in its entirety, to engage in some measure in the act of worship, not to offer a commentary upon it. 

I think it is motivation that makes the difference.  To enable people to share in something they would otherwise be unable to seems a good motive; to say to the world, "this is where I am and that is what's happening" seems less so.  It is  tricky (twicky) one, and one I guess that arises every time a religious broadcast takes place, but I still think that texting or tweeting or blogging during worship is inappropriate.