Money-Driven Worship: How Song Writers Have Prostituted Our Worship Services
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, May 09, 2007
- Viewed 163
- (53) comments so far
Smith continues…
“To understand this, consider that when a congregation sings Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” no money changes hands. But when that same congregation sings “God of Wonders,” written by Steve Hindalong and Marc Byrd, both men – and their music publishing company, get a small payday. Why is that? Because “A Mighty Fortress” is in the public domain, but “God of Wonders” is owned by Hindalong and Burd and both they and their publishers have an economic self interest in seeing that these songs are sung and played in churches around the country.”
This phenomenon of Sunday morning worship becoming not a day of praise, but a day of pay, is a recent one. It can be traced to the birth of an organization called Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI). CCLI collects fees from churches and then pays the copyright holders – keeping a percentage for itself, of course. The size of the copyright fee depends on the size of the church, but a 500-member church would pay about $300 per year. Currently, approximately 140,000 churches are CCLI license holders. That means that $40- to $50-million per year is collected and re-distributed to copyright owners.
...Now, a kind of unholy trinity exists that has turned the ministry of Christian music into the industry of Christian music. Christian radio promotes the songs, the churches use them in worship, and CCLI collects fees for the copyright holders. The big winners are the Christian record companies, many of them now owned by secular corporations, who sell records into the millions. The big loser is the church itself, which now pays to have itself marketed to every Sunday morning at 11 am.
Contrast this with the “old” method. Hymn books contain songs that are mostly in the public domain and have little or no licensing fees. They have historically been published by denominational publishers who make them available to congregations more or less at cost. They were not aggressively marketed or promoted because they are typically denominationally specific, reflecting the doctrine and liturgy of a particular church. But that is a key point: the hymnals are informed by and reinforce the theology of the church. Said plainly, hymnals are discipleship tools.
Contemporary worship songs, on the other hand, are a revenue stream for copyright holders and music publishers. They are aggressively promoted and now make up a significant share of the $4.5-billion Christian retail market.”
Todd comments: I’m no copyright lawyer, but copyrights in Christian music have been around far before 1984 with the inception of CCLI.
For example, Great is Thy Faithfulness was first copyrighted in 1923 and is still copyrighted.
People like Ralph Carmichael and Bill Gaither were very pre-1984. (Don’t you remember the line, “God wrote the song, but Bill Gaither owns the copyright?”
In fact, many denominations hold copyrights on some of the hymns they publish. Concordia (the Lutheran Publishing House) and the United Methodist Publishing house are just two examples.
For example: “Why should we pay Concordia Publishing House a fee for use of a copyrighted work?” Answer: Permission fees compensate the copyright holder for the use of creative material.
Last time I looked, Concordia wasn’t pumping out too much ‘contemporary’ worship music.
As a former worship leader, I know that noone was putting a gun to my head to make me use “God of Wonders” in the services I arranged. And when I filled out my CCLI report, I didn’t get any more credit, and absolutely not more kick-back for choosing “God of Wonders” over “Great is Thy Faithfulness”.
Truth be told: I don’t even know Steve Hindalong OR Marc Byrd.
Possibly even more embarrassing: I didn’t even know they wrote the song. (I was thinking, maybe, Paul Baloche).
Warren ends his article with this statement after lamenting that most large churches do not even have a traditional service these days: “And that, my friends, is a tragedy – another triumph of Mammon in the modern evangelical church.”
Sorry, Warren… but I must disagree.
PS—I wonder how many people who would agree with Warren Smith’s assessment secretly harbor a stash of Bill Gaither Homecoming Videos at home? Bill’s been the marketing genius (far more than most ‘contemporary’ worship writers) in making gospel music profitable.
What are your thoughts?
Todd
Attention-grabbing title, I know. But that's, essentially, the thesis put down by Warren Smith (a guest writer over at Dan Burrell's blog recently.) Warren writes that in the church worship music arena "money is the real driving force, and most evangelicals don’t even know it..."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
AH on Wed, May 09, 2007
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.
Daniel on Wed, May 09, 2007
Since much contemporary Christian music is drivel, I’m surprised churches pay money for them. Perhaps it’s understandable for smaller churches who don’t have their own band/songwriters. But if there are gifted songwriters in the congregation, they could write songs and give them to the Church. The idea that “Permission fees compensate the copyright holder for the use of creative material” makes little sense in the Church—everyone is called to use their gifts for God.
My two cents.
-Daniel-
slw on Wed, May 09, 2007
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.
nathan on Wed, May 09, 2007
sounds like a rather angry hymn lover to me.
following this flawed logic, i could argue that hymnbooks are of the devil because they use paper to print on. We should be saving trees by projecting lyrics up on a screen instead of supporting tree harvesting for paper-making. And because a screen is modern, we should then sing modern songs.
fundamental flaws in that logic.
fundamental flaws in Warren’s logic as well.
Peter Hamm on Wed, May 09, 2007
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…
Daniel on Wed, May 09, 2007
Peter—perhaps I have not been exposed to the ‘good theology’ songs out there. Though I hate to say this, based on my (granted, limited) experience, Marc Driscoll is right when he says lots of the stuff out there sounds like fluffy boyfriend love songs to a romanticized American Jesus.
The David Crowder band has some songs that I really appreciate. Perhas there are other bands like them (or perhaps my church should write its own songs)…
Bart on Wed, May 09, 2007
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?
Rich Kirkpatrick on Wed, May 09, 2007
Historical context? Remember John W, Peterson? The church copier (mimiograph) put him out of business. Gaither did not let that happen which is why his music is more prolific today. Bach? He got paid for his works, and history is glad for that fact. Why is it wrong for a church to pay for music and not wrong to pay for heating, plumbing, pew bibles, etc.? Truly historical context is needed here. Fanny J. Crosby was a paid, published writer, by the way.
Just for fairness, I must confess I am a writer of church music and when I get a $50 check once in a while because a church across the country still sings a song I wrote years ago. But, is that a bad thing? Many independent authors offer their music free, knowing that if a church is honest and reports usage that they may be able to cover costs. It has worked for me for that last 10 years.
Daniel on Wed, May 09, 2007
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.
Jan on Wed, May 09, 2007
I agree that composers should be compensated. We are in essence supporting our best and brightest worship writers (at least in theory!).
BUT, as a musician, I and even secular musicians struggle with this constantly. The music industry itself is flawed and the Christian music industry has blindly? followed the secular industry in how it deals with artists and individuals and churches who purchase that music.
I would love to see some innovative person change the whole system to benefit the artist and no the industry. And to be CHRISTIAN, using Biblical principles to expand the ministry.
It borders on usury in my opinion. Because the industry takes 90% plus of the profits while the artist struggles to pay off the debt incurred upon them by the recording companies. It’s just not right. And I’m thrilled to see what the internet has done to encourage the indie artist / writer.
And I think the cost of music is outrageous at times. It’s almost impossible for a small church to follow the law and be contemporary.
But I think this guy’s blog is basically a rant and lament for a past he thinks existed.
Michael on Wed, May 09, 2007
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… http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif ). 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.
Brad Raby on Wed, May 09, 2007
As I said on Dan’s log a month ago…“God of Wonders” will be in the public domain in the year 2507.
By the Way, Smith is compensated for his articles and the books in which he publishes.
Smith is very much a pro-traditionalist (by his own statements) and anti-progressive. All of these articles are agenda driven, or as it were, ‘Purpose Driven’
Brad Raby on Wed, May 09, 2007
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.
Michael on Wed, May 09, 2007
Sorry, just another note on the hymnal thing - I am in the LCMS denomination, of which CPH is the publishing arm - interesting to see them referenced here. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif I attended a workshop looking at the brand-new hymnal, and was very concerned that they have chosen to use a restrictive copyright on all the material in the hymnal, including music, liturgies, and prayers. That was very distressing to see. The answer to the question posed in this article was “we had to comply with copyright law”. Technically true, but they could have chosen a less restrictive copyright route such as Creative Commons. That was also disconcerting to see this in my own tribe’s worship materials.
Randy Ehle on Wed, May 09, 2007
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?!?!?!
Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment