Below is a guest post by a friend and colleague at Free Software Magazine – Terry Hancock.

Like me, Terry is interested in the subjects of free (as in freedom) software and free culture. With regards the latter (and unlike me) he has got off his backside and started to do something. This post describes Terry’s project to produce a science fiction “TV” series and release it under Creative Commons licences. This is both ambitious and encouraging. As you know I have focussed [my own attempts](http://www.crimperman.org/tag/freedom/] at free culture onto the church and the way “worship” resources are locked down and restricted by archaic copyright and “intellectual property” laws. One obstacle I have come across is that if resource producers do not release the material under free licences then any attempt to bring freedom back into our media and other cultural elements will fail. Terry has encountered this and “Lunatics” is an admirable response.

Right now the issue – as ever – is financial. This project is – by nature – on a much smaller budget than mainstream productions but – like the Blender open movie projects before it – it still requires some cash to get started. Also like the Blender open movies, backers get rewarded for their donation.

You may not like science fiction, you may not like the concept of Lunatics but you may know people who do. If you like the idea of free culture and are fed up with the ever-increasing tide of restrictive actions by media companies – try supporting one of the good guys.

Update

The target funding has now been reached. This is exciting news as it means there is support for such a great venture. You can still find out about the project and catch up with the latest news at the project website lunatics.tv.

Guest post – Terry Hancock

Lunatics - somebody's got to be crazy enough to go first!

Support this project

Lunatics is a story about the first permanent settlement on the Moon. Politics are inevitable, physics is implacable, and the colonists are indomitable fanatics. After all, normal people don’t really colonize new worlds, do they?

“Lunatics” itself is largely based on character comedy, but we take the science and technology very seriously. Much of the technology in planned Lunatics scripts is not only real and relatively new, but also largely ignored in prior science fiction. Perhaps the greatest realism, though, is in the way the characters are presented.

The series and all the original source material will be released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, and it will be created using (mainly) the free software Blender 3D application on GNU/Linux workstations. It is a free-culture production from end-to-end. We are taking advantage of the massive body of existing free-culture work (music, sound effect, graphics, and so on) to help make all of this possible. And once we get our series up and running (we plan to do 18 episodes a year, of about 30 minutes length each) we will be one of the biggest free culture film projects going!

What makes this possible is a fan-financed business model which has been pioneered by only a handful of free-culture projects. But it’s enough to show that it can be done.

This project will require a lot of innovation on everything from merchandising business models to real-time animation techniques.

Right now, we are trying to raise $2400 through a Kickstarter project to support pre-production work — especially paying artist Daniel Fu a commission for creating character design drawings which will be used to create the 3D characters for the series.

Backers at any level will get early access, and for those who pay just $15 or more, we have a variety of “rewards” — ranging from character art posters to the complete “Character Art Book and Writer’s Guide”.

We also have corporate sponsorship levels if you know someone who’d be interested — for $400, you can get your company logo printed prominently on our pre-production materials, and featured on the website. Needless to say, a couple of such sponsorships would go a long way towards meeting our goal (these are limited to just 4 slots to make sure we have room for your logo).

Like all projects, we have to start small and work our way up. I don’t have a fan-base of thousands to draw on yet, because Lunatics doesn’t exist… yet. But with your help, we can get there!

Thanks!

Graffiti on the wall surrounding Bethlehem ( (c) HolyLand-Gifts.com )

An h/t to Phil Groom for bringing Martin Leckebusch’s modern take on the Christmas Carol, O Little Town of Bethlehem to my attention. What I love about this is that it starts as many a “modern Christmas retelling” does: by almost pointing out how the message of Christmas (hope, love and peace etc.) is almost conspicuous by its absence in the town of Christ’s birth.

And yet it still manages to usher in the hope that Christ coming would have all those centuries ago. The world hasn’t changed that much after all. The message of Christmas (the real one without the tinsel) is still valid and still needed.

O West Bank town of Bethlehem,
how still thy victims lie;
the grieving weep, deprived of sleep;
militiamen roam by;
for through thy dark streets rageth
the never-ending fight:
such hopes and fears, such bitter tears
are met in thee tonight.

O morning news, O papers,
report the dreadful dearth
of saints who sing to praise the King,
of peace across the earth;
where Christ was born of Mary
‘midst wondering angels’ love,
in anguish deep, sad mortals keep
few thoughts of things above.

How violently, how violently
the hope of peace is riven;
can God imparts to these torn hearts
the blessings of his heaven?
Who now recalls his coming
to this dark world of sin?
Where harsh words still promote ill-will,
can Christ now enter in?

O Child once born in Bethlehem,
draw near again, we pray;
you died to win this world from sin -
yet sin persists today.
May we, like Christmas angels,
annouce Immanuel,
till all are given a glimpse of heaven
and not a taste of hell.

Martin Leckebusch
Copyright © 2010 Kevin Mayhew Ltd

Reproduced under the terms of Kevin Mayhew’s fair use copyright policy.

Image by Joelk75 - CC:By

In the past couple of days I’ve seen the subject of worship come up on Twitter a bit more than usual. Initially it was a series of joke #machoWorshipSongs and this seemed to evolve into a discussion about the use of masculine/feminine/romantic language in worship songs.

In the first instance I and a few others commented to each other that the “joke” was somewhat lost as so many of the songs we use in worship have a masculine or (as one person put it) pseudo-aggressive tone to them. In the second it emerged from a comment about how men don’t like the “Jesus is my boyfriend” type songs intoa debate about the appropriateness of this language and how it’s not just men who dislike them.

What I find interesting is that both fell into the standard trap of presuming “worship” is a) collective/corporate and b) uses words and language. Yes it’s true we get as many “Worship is more than singing!” declarations as we do “The church is the people not the building” ones and to the most part both are valid statements but what these discussions reminded me of was something I preached about a few years back.

What is worship?

It’s a well known meme that wroship derives from worth-ship, that is when we worship we are giving God worth, telling him what he is worth to us. This is interesting because it makes it easy to extend worship into the rest of our lives. Sometimes I struggle to think of worship in any other context than singing, praying, making, painting, playing etc. in a collective sense. It’s easy for us to say our lives should be worship but how do we do that.

The answer – I believe – is found in the following passage:

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. _{Matt 5:14-16 NIV}

When we shine, when we show our best in service to others we are giving God value in our eyes and in theirs (note v16). This is something that I find very important and it’s the inspiration behind #EntertainingAngels (formerly known as Give Up bad Coffee For Lent).

We give God worth.
We worship.

Service is worship, worship is service

Serving others is worship. Putting the needs of others before yourself is worship. Look at how that passage appears in the Message (emphasis mine):

“Here’s another way to put it: You’re here to be light, bringing out the God-colours in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We’re going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don’t think I’m going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I’m putting you on a light stand. Now that I’ve put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand-shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you’ll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven. _{Matt 5:14-16 The Message}

So let’s stop worrying if Church doesn’t appeal to our particular tastes and start figuring out if we leave a good taste in the mouths of those we meet. Because I have a sneaky feeling that in heaven people will spend a lot more time interacting with each other than they do standing beside each other singing.

As a side effect of this, once we also start to think of worship emerging from service it puts our roles in church in a new perspective, particularly if we are “worship” leaders.

I have noticed an increase of problem caused by these people:

These people are the ones we blame when we’re too lazy to give an appropriate name to those we accuse.
These people exhibit behaviour we deplore but that we rarely have evidence of.
These people follow whatever thought processes (if any) we wish to assign to make our point.
These people are a group of varying size but rarely do we think they really count.
These people are a convenient way for us to write real people off by lumping them together and not treating them as people.
Jesus said “Treat other people the way you want them to treat you.” Fortunately for us he didn’t specify how we should treat these people.

Too often we lump people into groups of our making so we can dismiss them out of hand and write them off. We decide what these people know, what they think, how they act and how they should be treated. At no point do we consider whether those we group together as these people actually want or – better yet – deserve to be in that group.

We owe them more than that. We owe them what we’d like them to owe us. A chance. A non-judgemental, open minded chance to be treated as an individual. Probably like you, I have had my turn at being grouped with these people and on occasion I have looked at those I am grouped with. Rarely do I find much in common with them. Other than being a human being who is being stereotyped by another human being of course.

This video is pretty well known and speaks for itself. But it’s good. Let’s stop talking about these people. Let’s talk about a person. Let’s look at them in the way Jesus did: one at a time.

I came across this video the other day. It’s cute and one of those ones that can make you go “awww” but as I watched I started to think about the parallels we have with the baby squirrel. Watch the video, I’ll explain afterwards…

… So here’s what struck me:

• sometimes what stops us is the knowledge of how to progress
• when the knowledge is there the problem can be lack of courage
• even when help appears it may not be in the form we expect and tackling that requires a whole new batch of courage and knowledge
• perseverance works if you are a) motivated, b) encouraged and ultimately c) helped

But you know what really struck me? It was the big squirrel. To me it seems to get very frustrated yet it keeps trying to get the baby to jump – even to the point of pushing it up the wall. I looked a that squirrel and I wondered how often am I not like that? How often do I allow my frustrations to get the better of me and I end up giving up on someone who needs help? How often do I give in too easily and just help the other person take the short-cut? And how often am I the baby squirrel without realising or recognising it?

Another quality video. Although sometimes these types of productions can become a bit “samey”, I think the presentation here really brings the text to life and in the end it is a cracking text.

( h/t @biblefresh )

The passion in the message here is excellent as is the quality of the video. ( h/t @theeruditefrog )

Photo by Slideshow Bruce CC:By

So everybody knows that Harold Camping was wrong, the rapture didn’t happen and I got to watch Doctor Who after all but even so the whole scenario has got me thinking about heaven again. Camping predicted that on Saturday 21 May the process of Heaven coming to earth would begin. He chose to focus on judgement, scaremongering and some kind of divine favouritism (as he has done before) but was he so wrong about Heaven coming to earth?

I think Heaven did come to earth last weekend. It didn’t come with earthquake and rapture but it came. It does every day and we who are aware of it are sometimes guilty of keeping it to ourselves. Allow me to explain.

• Heaven came to earth when people came together in friendship in a world of enemies
• Heaven came to earth when those who were heavy with tears were, for a moment, given a chance to smile without feeling bad about it
• Heaven came to earth when those who are having a rough time were able to share with each other and gain strength from it
• Heaven came to earth when people were able to serve each other without condition or alterior motive
• Heaven came to earth when people sang, prayed, worshipped, laughed, cried, hugged and played together
• Heaven came to earth when candles were lit and memories were shared
• Heaven came to earth when silence was permitted and hands were held
• Heaven came to earth when God was spoken of, remembered and invited
• Heaven came to earth when evil was overcome with good
• Heaven came to earth when doors were open and meals were shared
• Heaven came to earth when generosity overcame selfishness
• Heaven came to earth when the church-stuff was not allowed to interfere with church

Yes I am aware that some of that will have happened outside of church – in fact it has to – but I believe that every good and perfect gift comes from the Father above. Sadly we must also remember that for each of those situations there were times when hell came to earth as well (and too often within churches) but as Christians we have a chance every day to bring Heaven to earth and to bring earth to Heaven.

How about today?

I’ve seen and heard an awful lot of stuff about tomorrow’s referendum on voting and to be honest a lot of it is the same-old, same-old. The main Yes and No campaigns seem to be more concerned with scaring us about the opposition than promoting their own case. In addition I’ve yet to see anyone describe what might actually happen in each case.  So I’ve decided to have a go at it myself. I’m well aware that this might actually make things more confusing but I think you can handle it – you clever people.

First past the post (FPTP)

This is what we use now.  Here’s a nice diagram of what NoToAV supporters suggest happens with FPTP.

Simple idea:  count the votes and the one with the most wins. That sounds good but it’s not usually what happens. They’ve ignored things like tactical voting (voting against the candidate you don’t want) and the 30-40% of people who don’t vote at all. The end result is that the winner probably has the support of far fewer than half the people they represent (let alone a majority).  Here’s a revised diagram.

The irony here is that with FPTP many people already vote for their second choice (represented by the red and yellow votes above) as they don’t think their first one has a chance (or they are not standing). So when the NoToAV campaign claim AV will let the second choice candidate win, they’re ignoring the fact that the current system does that already.

Alternate Vote (AV)

This is the competition. YesToAV campaigners suggest something like this will happen if we switch.

Another simple idea. You rank the candidates in order of preference and the winner is the one who eventually ends up with at least 51% of support. Except that’s also neatly avoiding some of the realities like the 30-40% of non-voters and the people who only put down one preference. Here’s a diagram showing what would probably happen.

So you see the winner is the one with at least 51% of the remaining votes not all the votes and certainly not all the people they represent. That said there is a greater chance that more voters prefer the winning candidate than with FPTP.

What to do?

I’m not trying to convince you to vote one way or another – make your own mind up but don’t fall for the campaign lines. Read up on both systems and work out which is best for you butdon’t just fall for the campaign leaflets. They are after all very biased.

That said it is difficult to write a piece like this and not have your own preference come through. For the record I do prefer AV over FPTP ( given the option I’d rather STV or another PR was on offer ). My reason is – I think – simple: I live in a very safe seat and AV would give me the chance of showing my preferred candidate that they have my support and yet still allow my preference between the two front runners to make a difference. I can see some of the benefits for FPTP in an ideal world but in truth we don’t live in one of those. What concerns me most is the way that these campaigns have been pushed as if letting the “wrong” system win would mean automatically letting the candidate or party you don’t want in as well. Both sides are claimimg the extreminst groups would have more chance under the other system. This is not true by the way. There’s no evidence to suggest that extremist groups would have a better chance under either system. Most commentators say that changing to AV would not have made much difference to recent elections so why would I want to make a change if it made no difference? I believe that over time AV (or better yet STV) could make a difference. After the election candidates would better know what kind of support they have among the electorate and could campaign and work to increase that support. Rather than grow somewhat complacent each candidate would need to work to gain not only more first preference votes but increase their second preference ones too. In the end that sounds to me like prospective MPs would have to do something I rarely see or hear of: campaign on behalf of consttuents at times other than elections. It could also mean the candidate who is prepared to win the most support locally will win. This sounds better than the red, blue or yellow campaigning we have now.

Having said all of that I am concerned that this referendum coincides with local government elections and yet I have seen no local campaigning at all. It would appear that not one local candidate really wants my vote. Given that state of affairs I am beginning to see why so many people don’t even bother. So above all else this is a call to candidates in any election – don’t presume upon our votes – win them. Convince us. Not with scaremongering or bogey-men but with work and effort. You want me or my neighbours to vote for you, then sh ow us what our vote is worth. Not with leaflets but with action and if you are going to send me leaflest or run billboard campaigns – make them a little more honest rather than marketing material. because if you don’t do those things then you will find an increase in the non-voters.

Update Although I said much of the AV stuff is same-old, same-old it’s nice to find that there are still some refreshing views out there. My friend Kneewax, for example, has a very interesting one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

We're keeping the logo image despite the name change

Almost 40 days ago I blogged about how some of us on Twitter had inadvertently started a movement. We called this Give up bad coffee for lent or GUBC4L. I later blogged further about the way different churches had taken up the “cause”.

For those who haven’t heard of this there is an important point to make: this is not just about coffee, this is about service. What we’re trying to generate is greater effort in the hospitality shown in our churches. You’ll find more information on the previous two tweets and the others I link to from there so I won’t repeat it all here.

The sharp-eyed among you will have spotted that Lent will soon end and that raises the question of what happens to the L in GUBC4L? Certainly none of those involved want this to stop just because of the Church calendar. Doing hospitality well and to the best of our ability and effort is scriptural.

So continue it will but with a new moniker. GUBC4L becomes Entertaining Angels. Yes it’s a reference to Hebrews 13:2 but let’s not think that the reason for serving people well is only because one of them might be an angel. It’s an important reason but remember we should serve people because they are worth it (just ask God who gave his only Son for them) and because we are representing God to everyone we serve in our Church and our lives. If God did not settle for “that’ll do”, neither should we.

So let the coffee, the cake, the decent posters and loving service continue for we might just be Entertaining Angels.

Get involved

GUBC4L had a twibbon and #GUBC4L hashtag to accompany it. These will become #EntertainingAngels as well. The twibbon service is down right now but I’ll sort that when it comes back. Update 23 April 2011 – the Twibbon service is back up now and I have chamged the name of the campaign to Entertaining Angels.

In the meantime you can join in simply by serving well. If you are on Twitter or Facebook you can add the twibbon to your avatar (profile pic) by following the twibbon link I’ll add later (when the service is back). If you are on Twitter and you do (or encounter) something as part of Entertaining Angels, celebrate it by adding the #EntertainingAngels hashtag to a tweet.