Crimperman.org

Broken doll photo by Goran Zec – CC:By-SA

I’ve been thinking about prayer and expectations lately. Yesterday our daughter came downstairs a bit upset. The cause of the worry was that she thought she had ruined her head forever. It took us a short while to figure out that she meant not her own head but one of those toy ones you apply “make-up” to. Quick tip: If you have a child with one of these – make sure they don’t apply face paint to it.

The interesting thing was that the words we said didn’t have as much effect as the actions we took

Almost on automatic pilot we went into standard comforting-parent mode. We started with “Oh don’t worry, it’ll be okay.”, skipped “It’s just a toy” and arrived at “Don’t worry we’ll look at it and sort it outi one way or another.”. You may recognise some of these from your own experience. The interesting thing for me was to see that from our daughter’s perspective the words we said didn’t have as much effect as the actions we took. All the promises in the world would not have convinced her it was actually going to be alright.

She is wise enough to know that sometimes toys are irrepairable but at that time what she needed was comfort, to be reassured that she was not in this alone. She needed a hug. She got that reassurance and – thanks to a can of WD-40 and a bit of elbow grease – it did turn out alright. Legendary Dad status confirmed but long before the fix she was calmer and reassured and you could tell – while worried – she was happier when she knew we were there for her.

How often do we we interact with God on a results basis?

How often do we interact with God on a results basis? We make requests and look for an outcome. There’s a whole industry within the church dedicated to this kind of thinking but even those of us who don’t subscribe to “blab it and grab it” will still often approach God expecting a fix. What if we approached him looking not for a fix but for reassurance that we will come through this. What if we remembered this covenant is not a service level agreement? Sometimes that reassurance comes from the angels – A.K.A. friends – God places around us, sometimes it may be a little more direct. Sometimes it will be fixed, sometimes it will be alright, sometimes it won’t be how we expected but we don’t need to go through it alone.

Drawing by Ryan P Cartwright (c) 2013 CC:By-SA

I’ve been meaning to write this since my own Twitter hiatus and a recent conversation on there reminded me. This is happening a lot lately – perhaps I should make a list

Social media (by which let’s be honest most people mean Facebook and Twitter) can be a remarkable place to hang out,have conversations, enagage and laugh (sometimes) at pictures of cats. But some time ago I noticed a trend. A lot of the people I connected with in either Twitter or Facebook (disclaimer: I do mostly use the former) were going away. There was a general pattern to this as well:

• make or read a statement which though honest is a little contentious at best (or which could be taken two ways)
• get involved in a “discussion” about that which continues for some time (sometimes this can get heated)
• rinse, repeat

That’s not typical of every case, sometimes people will only be witnesses to the above. Sometimes there’s a particular topic swamping the sites and you just can’t seem to get away from it.

I noticed this a fair bit and then it happened to me. Over a short space of time I found my mood was dropping whenever I came off Twitter and/or Facebook. A common reaction at this point is to walk away and decry social media as – at best – unhelpful or at worst downright evil. The temptation to close my accounts, walk away and not come back was strong but I didn’t want to do that because I knew first-hand of the good parts of Twitter and Facebook. I knew how just one quick post could raise comfort and prayer for a situation I was going through. I knew the laughter I had experienced (not about cats). Social media was great. Social media sucked. Neither statement was false and both were true simultaneously.

Instead of closing my twitter account, I kept it open. I did walk away for a short time. It did me the power of good

So instead of closing my account I kept it open. I did walk away for a short time. It did me the power of good and while I was away I did a lot of thinking about social media and whether I should return and if so under what form. I came up with a plan which I have no called a social media survival kit.

The Social Media Survival Kit

1. Walk away – if only for short periods

You don’t need to close your account, just walk away from social media for a short while. Try a week. And be ruthless. For me I knew I would automatically check if I could and so I removed the icons from my ‘phone homepage. I deliberately made it harder for me to get onto Twitter and Facebook.

Don’t make a big song and dance about leaving. There really is no need to post dramatic statements about it

Also don’t make a big song and dance about leaving. There really is no need to post dramatic statements about it. When people do that I am reminded of the dramatic exits my children sometimes make (and I made when I was their age) when things don’t go their way. (Stomp, stomp, stomp…slam….door opens…”I AM GOING UPSTAIRS!” – just in case nobody heard the stomping). I’m sure not everyone is like that but I have seen a fair number of that ilk. Then again, if you don’t say something people will worry. So what I did was post a brief “I will be off here for a while, don’t worry. be back in near future.”

2. Stop listening – filter your stream/new feed

Sometimes it’s not a discussion you are in which brings you down, it’s just the seeming flood of inane and banal stuff on a particular subject. So filter those things out of your strea,m/news feed. For Twitter use a client (I use Plume on my Android phone but there are a few which do it) which allows you to filter out or mute tweets containing certain hashtags or words. I did this recently for a certain politcal story over here in the UK and I’m pretty certain it saved me from a lot of angst.

Sometimes what you really need is not a way to remove them from your life but to just a way to turn them down a little

Filtering out people is a little harder because often – and particularly on Facebook – they will know if you block or unfriend/follow them. They don’t get tiold but they do notice after a while. And sometimes what you really need is not a way to remove them from your life but to just a way to turn them down a little. On Twitter you can use the filtering/muting service of certain clients to mute certain users. Then after a while you can go back and unmute them. Right now I imagine people reading this are wondering if I have muted them . On Facebook you can hide their status updates from your News feed. Click through to see their profile. Click the Friends button just at the bottom of their profile header and from the menu that appears deselect “Show in news feed”. You can do the same with pages you “like” as well. It’s one thing to show support for a cause or company but another to be inundated with posts from them.

3. Wean yourself off – schedule regular time away

Schedule a time in your week (or day if it’s that bad) when you do not check your social media feeds. This can vary it length but for me it’s about two hours at any one time. During this time I do other stuff – you’d be surprised how much time you have. Oh and I am not talking about times when you are supposed to be doing other stuff here. I am talking about time when you would normally be “okay” to use Twitter or Facebook.

Try to get out of the habit of jumping straight on Twitter or Facebook when you have “five minutes”

In addition try to get out of the habit of jumping straight on Twitter or Facebook when you have “five minutes”. These will be the times when you are “bored” or waiting for something. Try to give yourself some of that “free” time away from social media. Me? I’ve started reading a bit more, I’m also looking to do a bit more sketching, writing and – steady now – thinking. None of these times are very long and neither should they be but it will help your social media mood if it is part of a balanced diet .

4. Be ruthless – regularly cull those you follow

This is not those who follow you, this is those you follow. I’ve mentioned muting people above but sometimes you’ll find people who are at the edges of your circles and yet can cause you no end of bad moods. The reasons you follow these people will be varied and may be very good but trust me if they or things they say are causing you grief you need to give yourself a break from them. Yes I know all the stuff about how reading views that are contrary to your own is good for you and how you should not only surround yourself with views that match your own. I subscribe to that theory. I also agree that sometimes you can be a good influence on those around even if they disagree with you. But. But, but but. But if you follow someone purely for those reasons then I’d suggest you unfollow them because you may find they unfairly shift the up/down balance of your newsfeed or stream.

Also be prepared to cull people you follow just because you like their films/books/music/TV shows

Also be prepared to cull people you follow just because you like their films/books/music/TV shows. I have found that the greatest pleasure I get from social media is not from being able to follow a “celebrity” with a gazillion other followers but through interaction with other people – even celebrities. If someone I am following allows me to interact and interacts with me ( I don’t require them to follow me) then I will find that relationship (for want of a better term) healthier for me than one where one person broadcasts and I listen. Never forget this is called social media for a reason.

That’s it

I am sure that you will have many other useful techniques in surviving Twitter or Facebook. For some of you that will be walking away permanently but if you are considering that, ask yourself what you take away from that platform when you leave? I am sure the people who follow you (unless they have “I_FOLLOW_BACK” in their username) are interested in your posts for a reason. So if you are consieering closing your account – wait. Try step 1 above for a week or two and then consider the others if/when you return.

Image by bamshad CC:By

Once upon a time a man – who turned out to be so much more than that – did something amazing and entirely unique. Before he did this thing he taught things which turned the way of thinking at that time on its head. After he did his amazing act he left his friends to become the vehicle through which his action and teachings would turn the world upside down. This was deliberate on his part because he wanted something to grow beyond himself. It took them a few days but shortly after he left, his friends started to tell others about him and what he had done. They began to share what he had taught them and to put it into practice. The world – as it was then and as it is now – was not really ready for this stuff but it got it anyway and then some of it really got it.

So began a movement which caught on like a virus and leaked across borders, under radar, crossed boundaries, leapt social structures and was as divisive as it was revolutionary. It broke the rules, ignored the social constructs and it began to change the world.

As time went on the movement grew too large for it to continue as it was. So it began to evolve. Not everyone agreed

As time went on the movement grew. It grew too large for it to continue as it was. So it began to evolve a structure. It began to develop rules to ensure this structure was the most helpful to everyone. Not everyone agreed with the rules and so the movement divided and fought among itself time and again. Eventually that division caused the movement to change. It became something that “we” owned – not that we were simply part of. It became something in and of itself that we sought to keep going. We had meetings, conferences and discussion after discussion about how it was to survive, what form it would take if it did and who would be included. We turned helpful reminders into ritual, guidance notes into canon and agreements into tantamount law.

Suddenly the movement had movement and life of its own. It still fragmented and divided the core structure always survived in all the fragments. There were wise people at the top, they made the decisions. There were even wiser people just below them – they advised on how to make those decisions and helped people to implement them and there was everyone else below who carried out those decisions and had to live with them. There were defined routes for promotion from the ranks and this was good because it enabled all various parts of the movement to continue and develop and grow.

Some people thought all the various parts did was develop and grow in the shape they already had. To those people this was not growth but expansion

Except that some people thought all that did was allow the various parts to develop and grow in the shape they already had. To those people this was not growth but expansion. So they tried – as many had before – to change the movement so it could grow and not just expand. The problem was the only model they had to do this in was the existing one and a large part of their efforts – like many before – ended up being absorbed into the core part of the movement and while eventually this did cause the movement to change, it still resembled how it looked for many centuries. On the face of this some called for radical change. Drastic measures which would – they felt – cause the movement to rediscover its radical, rule-breaking roots. But there were people in the movement who felt this was too much too soon. This was old ground for the movement and so it did what it had always done – divided, split and continued. Some parts of it argued with each other over which part really represented the movement but in general a lot of people carried on as before and so did the movement.

During all this time, the man that started the whole thing would take hold of one of the people in the movement and open their eyes to something which needed doing

During all this time, the man that started the whole thing would take hold of one of the people in the movement and open their eyes to something which needed doing. That person – often discouraged by others in the movement – would suddenly find themselves driven to do something to do the thing which needed doing. Sometimes others in the movement caught sight of this and joined in. Sometimes this action became an organised part of the movement and was absorbed into the structure and rules. Sometimes this took a long time. In all cases though the thing being done was “seen” by one person or maybe two or three and it was they who started doing it before any official name was assigned or rules were created.

And so the work was continuing all the time

And so the work which was started by the man at the beginning, continued by his friends and spread with the movement was continuing all the time. Amid all the division, discussion, theories in the movement. Despite any attempt to own and brand the work, it refused to be defined, to be described or to be marketed. One by one, person to person, conversation to conversation, meal to meal, hand to hand the man who started it all saw his work spread – just as he had always intended. No matter how many missions were created, no matter how many studies were made, no matter how many attempts were made to nail it down, the work – like life itself – broke out and then we started to see that – all along – it was the work not the movement which changed lives. It was the work, not the movement which broke the rules. It was the work, not the movement which changed the world. And it wasn’t the wise people at the top who did the work nor the wiser people in the middle. It wasn’t even the rest of the people. It was all of the people who did it. There was no special requirement, no training course, no length of service or special status to achieve before a person could do this work. All they needed was to see it, to hear it and to do it. Some of the work was easier to do within the movement’s structure and some of it wasn’t but little of it actually needed the movement for it to happen. In fact it was the other way around.

Nice story – so what?

In case I’ve messed up with my analogy. The man at the start is Jesus and the movement is what we call the Church.

There are too many discussions about whether the church will survive, how it will survive and how it can best do this is an ever changing world. In my experience all the ones I have seen discuss the wrong thing. All of them discus the survival of the movement – or their particular part of it. Few seem to consider the history of the work as done by individuals not a movement. Whenever something new is used to do the work of God, it is always turns out best when it is done by individuals. We don’t need Christian TV channels, we need TV makers who happen to be Christian, we need Christians who relate their faith to what they see on TV. We don’t need Church social media plans, we need individual Christians using social media and living out their faith-lives in that context. The work of God, began by Jesus and empowered by the Spirit will continue it as it always has done: one person at a time. The denominations, the individual congregations, the structures can all continue. the discussions, the flat out arguments and the division can continue. Historically these are less important to the continuing work of God than the chat you have to the person in the bus queue or the concern you show for a colleague, or the helping hand you give to a person who thinks everyone has forgotten them. We need to stop thinking about how this piece of work could revolutionise the Church and/or the world and think about how best it can change the world of the person in front of us and next to us.

So here’s the problem: As long as we confuse the work and the church as the same thing, we will always fall into the trap of assuming the work can only come from and through the movement

So here’s the problem: As long as we confuse the work and the church as the same thing, we will always fall into the trap of assuming the work can only come from and through the movement. When the opposite is true however, it’s risky. It means we have to stop waiting for someone else to tell us what to door how to do it and instead learn from their experiences while remembering those are not our experiences. It means we have to rethink our culture of thinking each type of work can only be done by those who are a) experts in it and b) usually paid to do it. There’s a place and scriptural principle for the movement to pay wages so somebody can dedicate a larger percentage of their focus to God’s work but it doesn’t mean the rest of us are off the hook. It also makes it easier to stop segmenting our lives into “spiritual” and “non-spiritual” because there’s no such division. Our faith becomes a liquid surrounding, encompassing and running through all our life not just a set of actions we do at set points in it. It doesn’t mean we have to be super-spiritual people who mention Jesus in every conversation. It doesn’t mean we have to walk around showing the world how to live by not actually living at all. It means we should allow God to open our eyes in any situation. It means we should allow our hearts to be driven by what he shows us. It means that instead of allowing ourselves to feel guilty about not having some ability or skill we should realise that the abilities God has used to further his work the most are listening, caring, asking and doing. All of this can and should be done within the context of fellowship within the Church but none of it requires the Church for it to happen. The Church will survive, it always has. The work will continue, it always has but lets move away from this unspoken fear that the latter can only happen when the former begets it.

In a month’s time many will celebrate what is sometimes called the birth of the Church. I will join them but I will remember that Pentecost wasn’t the birth of the movement, it was the start of the work. Which is far more important.

Have a look at this great clip from Sesame Street (spot the Groucho Marx reference).

My name is Ryan. I am evangelical. It’s been many years since I tried to convert someone

A short while ago I was told I am very evangelical. This was not a reference to a political or theological stance (as the word Evangelical – note the capitalisation – appears to mean these days) but to the fact that when I find something I like or I think is good I won’t shut up about it. In this particular case they were referring to the way I enthused about my new ‘phone and other gadgets but as I thought about it I realised it’s something I do as a matter of course. When I discover something I think is good I tell others (as anyone who follows me on twitter will probably testify to). Movies,’phones, software, services, cable ties: I’ve noticed I have a habit of recommending to others the things I find good, useful or just plain fab.

I’ve noticed this trait in others too. Sometime ago I was at a party. One of the people there has Scottish heritage – specifically the west of Scotland. They are also a lover of Whisky. I don’t mean they drink too much I mean they are a connoisseur but not in a look-down-the-end-of-their-nose-at-you way. They not only knew how types of Whisky tasted or should best be poured and sipped but they knew about why that was. They explained why a certain kind of Whisky got its flavour from the water and preparation methods. They also managed to do this without being an anorak about it too. I think I have some lessons to learn there.

So what does this have to do with the video above?

I’ve noticed that too many “outreach” and mission projects I’ve seen in the church appear to take the approach Grover (he’s the non-frog) does in the video. He has something to sell and he is determined to sell it to Kermit regardless of whether it is suitable. It gets to the point where, rather than admit defeat, he changes Kermit to fit what he is selling. How many times have we done this is the church? How many times have we expected people to change before we let them have what we are selling? And we wonder why it proves unsuccessful or doesn’t last.

Every recommendation in life I have followed has been from someone I knew and trusted (or at least was trusted by someone I trust). They’ve been from people who have demonstrated rather than told me the appeals of the item in question. They’ve been from people who have allowed me to ask questions, allowed for the fact that my experience may not be what theirs is and – most importantly – have been prepared to admit the item is not perfect. Okay so we have a problem here when it comes to Christianity because traditionally we believe God is perfect so how do we marry that with being honest to people when we live out our faith in front of them? Perhaps we need to remember there is a difference between God and Christianity. God may be perfect, Christianity most certainly is not. For a start the very fact that we need to clarify what we mean by “Christianity” detracts from any “one faith fits all” message. Unless we are prepared to admit that what we believe may not fit another person we will never be honest about our own faith and it could well prove to be standing on a shaky foundation.

Catch something

The old adage says “Christianity is meant to be caught, not taught”. It’s pretty much spot on but we need to remember that not everyone is in a place where they want to catch anything just now and some will equate “catching” something with a virus which ends doing nasty things to you. Yet we talk about people catching the bug and we speak of viral videos. Not everything that catches on is bad for you.

I went to Spring Harvest this year and the theme focussed on being the gospel, saying the gospel and doing the gospel – as Jesus did. The interesting thing was that – considering many call Spring Harvest an Evangelical Christian event – the message wasn’t “Get out there and start knocking on doors”, it was more “Learn about Jesus, study your source, be prepared to show that in your life – with words as well as actions”. This resonated with me – as I hope you can see from above. I’m sorry if this disappoints but I can’t remember the last time I actively tried to “convert” someone. I’m not sure I ever want to. I’d rather live out my life in a way which befits what I believe and let people “catch” the bits which help move them in closer to God (for want of a better term). Both of those are moving targets and that’s the way it should be if you ask me.

Grace – still amazing

Grace in action

Today I commuted to work by tube rather than by my usual motorbike. I picked up a free newspaper at the station and flicked through it on my journey. It was mostly the same-old, same-old mixture of “celebrity” gossip, sport with a bit of politics and maybe some world news thrown in.

Then on page 9 I saw the article shown on the right. It tells of how Mrs Patricia Machin forgave and campaigned for a lighter sentence for the man who ran over and killed her husband. I was amazed – so much so that I ripped the page out of the newspaper on the train and kept it (sorry if you picked up that paper afterwards). It put me in mind of Gordon Wilson whose daughter, Marie, was killed by the IRA bomb at Enniskillen in Northern Ireland in 1987. He described how he held his daughter’s hand as she lay dying in the street. In an interview shortly after he said:

“I have lost my daughter, but I bear no ill will . . . Dirty sort of talk is not going to bring her back to life . . . I don’t have an answer . . . But I know there has to be a plan. If I didn’t think that, I would commit suicide.” (Gordon Wilson 1987)

He went on to speak with the IRA to express his forgiveness of them personally in an attempt to create peace. This is well known. What many don’t know (or have forgotten) is that he was later shunned in the street and pretty much vilified for showing such grace and speaking of forgiveness.

For her part Mr Machin wrote to the judge saying:

“I have never had any angry or vengeful thoughts towards this young man”

The judge said:

“You have been very fortunate to be forgiven.”

In sharing the story of Mrs Machin’s forgiveness of the driver who killed her husband I have encountered a broad range of responses: ranging from “I’m not sure I could do that.” to “But that just sends the message that you can get away with it.”

Whatever else it’s good to see that grace not only exists but is still amazing and – by it’s very nature – shocking.

A good friend of mine ran a project recently to capture a day of life on 10th November 2012. For those in the UK (and other places) the shorthand form for this is 10-11-12 – hence the name of the project.

Below is a video I made of the photos I took on that day. You can read more about and see the results of 10eleven12 here. The music is “Feelin Good” by Kevin MacLeod (I spelled his name wron gon the video – sorry Kevin). It is licenced under CC:By as is the video itself. You can find Kevin’s great Roylaty free and (more importantly) Creative Commons licenced at http://incompetech.com.

There’s a new Crimpertoon out – see below. This one was inspired by some nasty behaviour I saw on social networking sites this week.

Please sponsor my Movember efforts by clicking the image above.

Earlier this year a really good mate of mine came through prostate cancer. As y9ou can imagine there has been much celebration and thankfulness because of this. But there has also been some reflection and sobriety on the fact that in the UK alone, 10,000 men will not survive prostate cancer. Add to that the thousands who will sadly die from testicular cacner and you begin to see why something must be done.

In order to help raise much needed funds I am growing a moustache.

Yes, a moustache.

Movember is an annual event where thousands of men around the world come together to celebrate the hairy top lip and – more importantly – to raise funds for men’s health charities. It’s called Movember because it takes place during the month of November (see what they did there?).

This year I am taking part and I will be keep you updated on the progress of my fine nostril warmer as the month progresses. I am asking you lovely people to sponsor me. You can do this online at this link.

Many thanks to those who already have sponsored me and to in advance to those who will. I hope to culitvate a moustache worthy of your sponsorship.

If you want to reproduce the KJV text in the UK you have to ask the Queen.

I’ve probably written a lot on the subject of freedom in licencing already but a recent “news” story and the reaction to it has made me pick up my keyboard again.

Recent reports suggested the actor Bruce Willis was unhappy about the fact that he could not bequeath his iTunes collection. The Apple licencing agreement (that you agree to when you create an iTunes account) says that the content you “buy” and “download” is (in the words of one commentator) “simply loaned” to you. That is you do not own it.

It’s not your music collection

Firstly let’s get one thing out of the way, with few exceptions you have never owned any recorded music or video that you have “bought”. Most of those CDs, DVDs, videos and records that you have on your shelves or in your loft are not yours. Well they are. You own the media (the disc) and the paper the artwork is printed on, you own the plastic case and the ink used in printing. You do not own the music or film on the disc or video. You do not own the images on the paper or the words printed with the ink. You licence those things. This is the way it has been ever since copyright law was created.

You have never legally been able to take a DVD of, say, Die Hard 2, copy it, remix the film and give it to your friends. Actually in some jurisdictions that might be legal but here in the UK we don’t have a “fair usage” definition. Of course this has not stopped people doing such things – witness the rise of music sampling in the 70s and 80s. But don’t kid yourself that you have ever owned the music on those CDs. Remember those lovely “Hope taping is killing live music” stickers on cars in the 1980s? If you owned the music on the records in your record box that campaign would have had no backing (regardless of its lack of merit).

WTF?

Okay you may not have used those exact words but you get the idea. Many people react with shock when they find out they do not own the music they bought in Our Price in 1987 (yes I know I’m showing my age) but in truth you don’t. The person who wrote the songs probably doesn’t own it either, nor the one who recorded it. Chances are it is “owned” by a media company which has acquired the “rights” to the music you listen to.

Myth-busting

One of the articles I have read on this matter (I won’t link to it because I am not trying to attack anyone here – just debunk a few myths) went on to make these statements:

“Apple apparently have the right to freeze an iTunes account if someone has died and they believe someone else is accessing their files”

No they do not have the “right” – as in a legal statute, they have an agreement which you (the user) agreed to and which gives them permission to do that.

“I think if we pay for music or books – and they are not insubstantially priced – we should have the right to pass these on. It seems no different than leaving a loved one the keys to our house, if we own it.”

I’ve explained above that you don’t own the music. Whilst you can pass on physical CDs (because you own the media), you agreed not to do this for your digital content when you opened an iTunes account.

“I can’t physically carry lots of heavy books or stacks of CDs with me. So digital is the route I have to take.”

Yes it is but that doesn’t mean you have to buy restricted digital content. There is a wealth of digital content out there under free[dom] licences. Try some of that. Also you could try buying a CD and ripping it. That’s a while new legal grey area but most commentators say that it would be difficult to prosecute you unless you were distributing digital copies of your CD rather than listening to a single copy in place of the CD on your shelf.

Finally a question appeared on the same piece which asked:

“Does the reality that we only ‘loan’ in our digital ownership, make pirate file sharing more likely?”

As said I am not trying to have a go a anyone, rather debunk some myths. The myth here is that the alternative to “buying digital content” is piracy. It’s a myth the content owners love to perpetuate as it guilt-trips the consumer into paying up when they don’t have to. The realistic alternative of iTunes et al is NOT “piracy”, it’s freedom. Creative Commons and others have long led the way when it comes to freedom in creative works. The problem is not Apple’s licence agreement – others such as Amazon offer greater freedom in theirs. The problem is the illusion they perpetuate that you own what you buy from them. Even if Apple said you were permitted to bequeath your digital music collection to your grandkids the real problem would still be there.

That is the problem of what you can and cannot do with the works you have on your device. You cannot make additional copies for example. You cannot play the tune or video in your church without paying a (some might say protection racket) fee to CCLI first. You cannot print that poem in your church newsletter without breaking the law. You cannot give copies of the music to your worship band to help them learn it without first obtaining a different CCLI licence.

But, but, but

If you are now thinking “But how else would musicians and writers earn their crust” because of the last few remarks I’ve made, I would respond with the fact that the very same argument is used to defend the Apple iTunes agreement which says your kids have to buy their own copies.

The answer

The answer is, as you might expect me to say, to release creative works from the restrictive shackles of the copyright “industry”. Copyright, patents and “Intellectual property” all sound a wonderful way for the poor musician to get paid for their work. The reality is that it is an ever tightening web of restrictions which, if allowed to continue unchecked, will choke the life out of the very creativity and innovation it claims to protect.

If the music Bruce Willis had bought was released under licencing with freedom built in (Creative Commons for example), Apple would most certainly have no right to tell him who he could give copies to – even before his death.

Photo by thisreidwrites CC:By

When we speak of support,
when we speak of its benefit,
when we speak of prayer,
when we speak of what it gives,
when we speak of help,
when we speak of how it’s needed,
why do we speak of a one way street?

Does the flow of love not have any eddys?
Are those who help not also helped?
Do we overlook our need to support?
Do we forget the gain of giving?
Who was it who said we have to lose to gain?

Even if it is a one way street,
Can we afford not to give, to help, to support?