Yes, and Rick Warren is compensated for copyrighted books, and video makers provide sermon illustrations for a download fee, and the former owner of church staffing probably was compensated for the sale of the site....and on and on. What’s missing is consistency on the issue. People have been compensated for hundreds of years for doing what they are called to do and the writings of Paul certainly affirm this, but it seems alright to cherry pick who can profit and who cannot often based on where the person stands theologically. Like the thought police and the political correctness sweeping the nation that makes the evangelical the only legitimate target of derision, so the the word of faith leader is vilified (and on this thread) for openly believing what most Christian leaders, musicians, authors, and internet entreprenuers practice - receiving revenue for ministry products.

Todd you are correct in your disagreement with Waren. Before 1984 churches were freely copying , not so much hymns and public domain material, but the ditties of the 60’s and 70’s on overheads, and booklets and bulletins, etc. (Gaither stuff included). That was a violation of law. CCLI was established to let churches continue doing what they already doing in worship, but in a way that did no violate the law. There was no money grubbing conspiracy that I can see. This sounds like sour grapes to me.

The day is brighter here with You
the night is lighter than it’s hue
would lead me to believe
which leads me to believe that

You make everything glorious
You make everything glorious
You make everything glorious
and I am Yours
what does that make me?

I for one am THRILLED that I can legally and properly use that very recent theologically significant lyric and it’s gorgeous accompanying melody in my church service by paying a RIDICULOUSLY small annual fee which gets shared between all the people who are writing HIGH quality worship music in a contemporary idiom (just as contemporary as those old tired hymns were when then were first written--and we sing them the same way today--as if the hymn writers wanted us to do THAT...). Oh, not all the old hymns are tired and old, but all eight of the ones that came on a CD to my office today as “songs for revival” were… Ugh.

And Daniel, there is TONS of great worship music with great theology being written today (and I agree, it’s GREAT when you can have home-grown music. I write when I can, and one other guy in our Worship Ministry does… GREAT stuff). And I’d rather have a visitor/guest/seeker/whatever-you-call-them leave my service thinking “Wow, God makes everything glorious, and can even do that to me? Maybe I want to follow this Jesus” instead of turning to his wife and saying “Honey, what the heck is a ‘bulwark’?”

Warren Smith, so sorry, but you just got added to the list of writers I don’t really need to follow…

This does sound like an anti contemporary rant, but it does raise some great questions.  CCLI and CVLI are private for proffit companies.  How much of the 50 million collected actually goes to the artist?  I have not been able to find out.  Do they keep 10% or 90%?  I have tried to find out but have not been able to.  There are just too many unanwered questions.  We have a Praise & Worship from Word Music Publishing.songbooks in our pews.  Everyone has acccess to them, but we still put the words on power point screeen up front.  On each page the book says “Even if you posses a CCLI license you cannot copy any music from this book”.  Are we in violation of hte copywrite laws for putting the words, not music up when we have 200+ copies sitting right in front of everyone?  What about when you make an enlarged copy of the book because the two guitar players share and can not see the small print?  These are the real world questions that come from small churches that do nto have a paid worship leader, no tech director, etc.  No one wants to cheat as songwriter ot musician, but Warren Smith does have a point, it does sometimes feel as if the christianity is all about proffit.  What new Bible study can I write to sell this week?

What if the Church had songwriters who produced songs on an ‘open source’ license (or whatever the equivalent would be in the music world)?  If artists are having to charge for their services, it’s because the Church doesn’t value its musicians enough to give them what they need to live.  Aah, but redistribution of wealth in the Church according to need is an idea of the past… my bad.

Here’s my big beef with CCLI and the like (though I disclose that I we have a license and we use music covered by it): if a songwriter is employed by a church (as a full-time worship leader or such), they are already being paid for the time they’re putting in, especially if one of their gifts is to write. I know some (especially big-name) worship leaders aren’t serving full-time in a church (which is a whole other discussion), but those who are, and then are also paid by CCLI, really are “double-dipping”.

I write music for my local church, and I must admit I’m tempted to send them in to CCLI (not that simply having something in the catalogue guarantees any exposure or usage) but I have decided that I want to make them available for free, or at the very most for the cost of producing a physical product like a CD (though ideally I’d like my congregation to see that as a ministry, and produce them out of our general offerings - one step at a time… ). I’ve already been paid for my time and work, as I’m employed full-time by my church in the role of Minister of Worship, and I am convinced that this is a case where just because something is permissable (ie. the copyright/royalty system) doesn’t mean it’s wise or beneficial.

Here’s a question: why is it that it is acceptable for church to use a worldly payment system (copyright/royalties) and not another worldly system called work product? If I work for a company and design a widget on their time as part of my job, I don’t own the copyright to it - the company does. Wouldn’t it be consistent to consider music as work product (again, for those who work in a church)?

Kudos to those who are “bucking the system” and primarily using music written for their local context. I would love to be able to do that someday. Not that some of the music listed in CCLI, etc. is poor, but the system is certainly a struggle for me.

As far as ‘drivel’ is concerned - “I can only Imagine” by Mercy Me made all difference to me when I lost my Grandfather 4 years ago.  That ‘drivel’ reminded me of a great day to come.

First off, I want to say that I prefer to avoid using the term worship as an adjective rather than as a noun or verb; for the sake of these comments, though, I’m going to do that.

If I follow Warren’s logic, it would seem to take me to conclusions such as these:

*If I am drawn into worship by means of a CD that I have paid for, that worship is somehow a less meaningful or genuine expression from me and less worthy of God.

*"The big loser is the church itself” (a direct quote)...simply because it costs money to use certain songs?  (Sure, A Mighty Fortress may be in the public domain, but I don’t know of any hymnal publishers that handout free hymnals.  So we still pay to sing it, whether it’s Martin Luther or David Crowder.)

Sorry, but I can’t find much to agree with in Warren’s words.  A couple thoughts on Michael’s comments:  as for “home grown” artists getting paid both by their church and by the distribution of CDs, I think that’s a matter for the artist, the church, and the label to work out.  Any pastor that publishes books is in the same position; if a book is based on a sermon series (or on the study), should the church get a “cut”?  The examples are endless, and I’m sure the arrangements differ widely, but the principle is the same. 

As for churches “primarily using music written for their local context”, I would hope that there’s a bit more thought going into that decision than merely a desire to “buck the [CCLI] system”.  I would hope that the decision is based more on a desire to encourage their own people to “fan into flame” the gift God has given them, rather than simply avoid paying another artist’s distribution vehicle.

When will we ever stop arguing about such trivial matters?!?!?!

Here’s a good reason for copywritten matterial, the author can be assured that his/her words are not changed.  Many of us in the methodist tradition were saddened when many of Charles Wesley’s hymns were changed in years past.  I say copyright and do it quick before someone comes behind you and destroys your intent with for the song.

Al

Reading back over that, I was trying to be glib and slightly funny by poking fun at both camps of worship styles and it may have come across as mean.  I did not intend this, so before anyone may think I was trying to insult anyone, please know that I did not mean to.  I do not see an “edit” button or a way to delete and re-write it.

Art,

You seem to have no idea how this whole songwriting and recording thing works. It is very expensive to produce a CD, it is tremendously difficult and time consuming to write a great worshi psong, and the VAST majority of people who do so make no money from the endeavor. Many of those people are not on staff at a church that pays them a wage. Most people working in such capacities do not make a real living wage at it. To say something like “For me to sing their songs in a church service, I have to pay them again???  Sin. Plain, bold-faced, red-handed sin.  They will go to hell for it” is, if you’ll all forgive me, ridiculous. I am supposing that you are either ignorant of such matters, or worse, perhaps a troll.

Hymnbook Publishers slap a cover on the back of the hymnbook, essentially freezing hymnody. Churches tend to renew their hymnbooks about once every twenty years. Consequently, an entire generation of song and hymn writers’ creativity and voice is stifled (so much for singing “a new song to the LORD,” heh?). 

Additionally, there’s a reason why the majority of songs in hymnbooks are in public domain - MONEY!!! It is a huge cost saving measure from having to license current songs and hymns. Yet, were it not for the current praise and worship genre, there would not be hardly any songs sung in the church today by song and hymn writers of this present generation.

We are called in the scriptures to sing a new song to the LORD because God does not want us to be a stagnant church, but culturally relevant, and to use our creative gifts for his glory, and for this present generation to have its own voice, unique songs and hymns. The Church should not be a “Conservatory of Music” (as many of our institutions of higher education operate), preserving the past without cultivating the future and progressing beyond early 20th century music). So, we can cut the funding for music from our children’s education in the public school system, and then turn our nose up and lament the rise of rap music in mainstream music, and praise and worship music in the church, but ultimately music will bring praise and glory and honor to its Maker. It can’t be stifled, and fortunately, a jealous God won’t allow it.  He will be praised!

“Amen” to the comments by P. Conseula and Lori!
“If it [money] is the driving force of worship songs being widely distributed and known, then YAY!  Once again, what was meant for evil, God used for good.”
And Lori’s scripture reference is right on point.
Christian historians tell us that the Roman Empire built an elaborate road system throughout it’s conquered territories, and that this facilitated the spread of the gospel during the earliest days of Christianity. This is the same Roman Empire which facilitated the crucifixion of our Savior. “What was meant for evil, God used for good.”
As for money driving the creation and distribution of worship music, I’m grateful that SOMETHING is driving it, because the result has been a miraculous new emphasis in the worship of God. I have to ask the question: Would that change have come about without money in the equation? My answer is “no,” and that brings me to the conclusion that God uses money as a tool for His purpose, and that it’s not necessarily the artist’s LOVE of money that is responsible.
“Hooray” for capitalism, and “hooray” for God’s ability to use it!