Prepare for a heafty read. Sometimes comments are so helpful they have to be made into posts. There is simply no replacement for a timely word, in this case delivered by a reliable expert. Anthony Coppedge is a church media consultant, author and all around self-described techno-geek. He recently commented on a Social Bookmarking post at The Digital Sanctuary.
Although Anthony describes his comments as "his 3 cents worth" I think what he actually contributed is a 'valuable' set of reflections on the leveraging of technology by the Church. You won't find flashy images and links in this lengthy post, simply excellent advice. I'm moving Anthony from the comment section to this post with his permission:
1) The use of technology should be embraced by churches. Period. To this end, the social networking tools are all viable options for expanding the reach and, simultaneously, increasing the touch points for people in the church and community.
2) Like anything else, technology is not inherently good or evil. What you do with it and, more importantly, how you control and manage it is the key. Just like the BBS systems of old and the not-so-distant forums of even a couple of years ago, the technology shifts have caused us to consider how we leverage them, what we allow, how we moderate and when we pull the plug and move on. As with any social gathering, moderation of the conversations and distribution of information in an accurate and timely fashion is the main consideration.
Consider this: a Sunday School class that starts out as an “age appropriate, life-journey applicable Bible study group” is in and of itself a great thing. But witness the nearly endless list of churches that have canned Sunday School because it fosters a clique-ish, us-four-and-no-more environment AND makes it hard to control due to intra-church politics, and it’s not uncommon to see home teams/cell groups replacing this outdated model.
In the same way, social networking (forums are the most obvious example because they’ve been around, matured and shown consistent patterns) must also be moderated and given focus and direction or it will end up being the same few people dominating the conversations and – here’s the kicker – the direction of the topics and the “accepted response types”. Said another way, they’re harder to manage because they’re relatively anonymous and easy to manipulate.
3) Privacy, security and copyright. Social networking opportunities – especially via technology – create many, many opportunities for scams, phishing, stalking and other difficult to monitor activities. Yes, the uber-geeks are better protected, but the average user is not – especially when it’s a “religious site” or “church group” network where trust is assumed more quickly.
Furthermore, the tools are faster and more capable of enabling gossip, false accusations and leadership destruction.
Finally, churches that assume CCLI or CVLI licenses cover them for the up-and-downloading of content are, the VAST majority of the time, breaking copyright law left and right. YouTube and others like it are having to really crack down on illegal uploads and are even starting to use encryption to help foil these efforts.
Sadly, most churches don’t care if they break copyright. I had a pastor (you would know him – he blogs and is VERY Well known) at a conference show a video that had a Coldplay song as the sound track. My friend asked him if he had permission to use that song and the pastor smiled slyly and said “No, I didn’t. I knew you’d ask me that.” The pastor KNEW it was illegal and didn’t care. And he’s an example many churches look up to, so they’ll emulate his behavior thinking it’s OK.
The implications of leveraging technology should not stop us from making the most of the tools. However, we must educate ourselves, act with vigilance to protect our social network members and use Biblical ethics to conduct ourselves in the sharing of information, ideas and content.
I was delighted to republish this informative overview because I've been to Anthony's site many times and welcome an opportunity to highlight it. The newest Creative Synergy Podcast he offers can be linked here.
I am challenged by his thought provoking appeal to educate the Church about what we can and can't use. Although the rules "in church" seem clearer, the same applies to blogging. I always try to credit every source and link I can, but I'm not sure of all the rules.
Unlike many of my blogging colleagues, I haven't added Creative Commons just because I haven't taken the time to educate myself and don't want to sign up for something I haven't explored adequately. On the other hand, maybe I should sign up in order to educate myself. Bloggers, please comment and help in layterms.
Hi Cynthia,
Thanks for sharing this. I think Anthony is on-target for the most part.
I would add that online interaction should probably not be seen as merely a supplement to or extension of face-to-face contact among church members; it takes on a life of its own.
It’s also important to keep in mind that technology is a democratizing force, so churches that empower people to discuss sermons or class material online need to know that they’re giving up a measure of control over the course of the discussions. If a forum is moderated to prohibit certain viewpoints from being shared, people will email each other.
It’s great to see people using technology at church the way they do in the rest of life, though.
Justin,
I can attest to the life of its own reality. Depending on circumstances, the virtual support system a person uses might even be more powerful than the real world. Initially, I would not have believed anything could replace real world church. Yet, there are increasingly more situations were I note the online relationships are at least as significant as the real world support system.
For example, in the case of those suffering with disease. The depth of connection, the unique empathy exchanged, the particular issues confronted – all facilitated by access to the instant communication online resources provide (and the lack of physical boundaries). My brother-in-law, in fact, who recently died of cancer, utilized online means of church support almost exclusively.
Could you add your perspective on Creative Commons licensing….
Sure, I’d be happy to add a word about CC.
As I see it, copyright is valuable for a few purposes, but is counterproductive in others. It’s useful to prevent people other than the work’s creator from profiting from the distribution of the work; however, when copyright restricts the use of things that were obviously intended to be used in that way, it becomes counterproductive.
I’m not sure what uses Anthony is referring to, so I can’t speak to that specifically, but I’ve seen plenty of instances where churches or Christian conferences used copyrighted songs (such as those by U2), either by playing the song from the album or having the band do a cover. Yes, this work is copyrighted, but there is no viable and realistic way to obtain permission to use it. It would take hours of work to get permission from the company, which probably wouldn’t care.
Furthermore, the copyright was intended to prevent people from making money from the intellectual property of others, not to prevent it from being used as intended. Music was meant to be heard, and playing a song at a conference doesn’t take money away from the rightsholder. I would argue that, by reinforcing the importance of the song, playing it publicly actually increases its value to the rightsholder.
I use Creative Commons on much of my work because I don’t want people to worry about permission when using it for legitimate purposes that I agree ahead of time would be OK. With regular copyright, you have to get permission for just about any use, if you want to follow the law to the letter. With CC, you don’t even have to ask for a lot of uses (my photographs on Flickr, for example, require only attribution for use, so someone doesn’t need permission if they want to use a photo).
I’m subscribing to follow-up comments, so let me know if you want me to elaborate.
Justin Wrote:
“I’m not sure what uses Anthony is referring to, so I can’t speak to that specifically, but I’ve seen plenty of instances where churches or Christian conferences used copyrighted songs (such as those by U2), either by playing the song from the album or having the band do a cover. Yes, this work is copyrighted, but there is no viable and realistic way to obtain permission to use it. It would take hours of work to get permission from the company, which probably wouldn’t care.”
Actually, this is incorrect. You simply must ask permission. If you want help with that process, or don’t know who to contact, companies like http://www.churchca.com (Church Copyright Administration) are there to help. And you’d be surprised how often those record labels DO care – especially when they fear that the message (song lyrics) will be either A) bashed or B) manipulated by a “religious institution”.
I highly recommend your readers listen in a few weeks to the Creative Synergy Podcast (www.creativesynergypodcast.com) where we’ll interview a Copyright attorney who works with churches, a Constitutional Law attorney and the President of Church Copyright Administration. It will be enlightening – I guarantee it.
Thanks for the “hefty read”. I found it timely, concise and dealing with topics which require much more PR. Anthony is absolutely right. Unfortunately too few in churches are paying heed (at least on this side of the pond); but Anthony is not alone in being a techno-geek. There are a lot of us around!
Anthony suggests that “technology should be embraced by churches”. I would alter the mood to say that technology must be fully integrated with church life, outreach networking and whatever label we want to attach. We know how pervasive technology is in every walk of life. As I see it, unless the techno-geeks in the church begin to voice their vision and views, we could see an emerging rift between “online believers” and “local church”, who prefer a face-to-face encounter. Your post, Cynthia, alludes to this dilemma, or conflict between the online experience and accepted traditional method.
The potential for forums is well-understood, and I know what Anthony means when he says that they can easily be “manipulated”. I’m not so sure they can with effective moderators, but then, where are they to be found in local churches? Do we make it a task, and obligation or a “ministry”? Supply your own experience. Then again, many churches are not ready for the brutal honesty of online conversation. I’ve had the plug pulled on me because of “politics”.
Anthony raises the question of copyright. Long overdue. Why is it that so many in the church are so ill-informed and ready to use material, seemingly without a qualm? In other areas of life we preach and expect ethical behaviour, but somehow this doesn’t apply to media?
Just re-reading Anthony’s comments raises so many questions which need honest dialogue and answers. Much to think about. Thank you for triggering a lot of latent issues.
Anthony & Alastair,
Yes, we await the Creative Synergy Podcast (www.creativesynergypodcast.com) to further our education and hopefully address many of our questions.
One additional observation is that I\’m less inclined to believe these are latent issues and more inclined to believe that technological advancements, particularly, vis a vie the Internet, simply (well suddenly) make \”old\” rules & laws, particularly relating to intellectual property issues (and thus copyrighting) potentially obsolete.
Many Web 2.0 applications highlight this fact.
The copyrighting of streaming video, for example, will get blurrier & blurrier as more people vlog, etc.
Thanks for the ongoing dialog…