What's the path forward? First, learn more about the biblical way to support ministry th-cam.com/video/DUsAO3B3tu0/w-d-xo.html . If you're an artist, free your worship music from copyright by going to copy.church (though already published songs may be hard to get back). And if you wish to be supported in this, consider raising money through a fundraising platform, receiving donations just as missionaries do. Hopefully in future there'll be an all-in-one solution for promoting free worship music, integrating it into presentation software, and donating to artists. But faithfulness to the Lord will be more pleasing to him than any compromise.
That's a bad idea. Musicians have to eat and support their families. Maybe pastors and all people employed in churches should give up their wages and do fundraising too!
@@sabremh it's fine to employ a worship pastor who writes music, just as long as they aren't selling it. Your equivalent example would be a pastor who paywalls his sermons. Instead, pastors preach freely to everyone whether they gave money to the church or not.
@@SellingJesus You are contradicting yourself. The church is paying the pastor to preach, and yes the pastor preaches to anyone one who freely comes to the church. Church. So what's wrong with the church paying for worship songs that will be freely sung by anyone who comes to church. The pastor works hard to prepare a sermon, the pastor gets paid for preparing that sermon. But the pastor is not paid by everyone who hears the sermon. A songwriter gets paid for writing the song, but not everyone who hears the song or sings the song pays the songwriter. So who does pay the songwriter? The church hires the pastor to develop and preach sermons. Who hires the songwriter to write songs that the church can sing. The church pays the songwriter through licensing the song. It's the same thing. If the songwriter is supposed to write the song for free, then the the preacher should write and deliver the sermon for free. So stop paying the pastors or start paying the songwriters. Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a thief.
@@SellingJesus if you're doing fundraising, you're still not doing it for free. You're being paid for your product. Therefore, by your definition it would still be commercialization. Either people are allowed to receive money for their ministry or they're not allowed to receive money. Whether that money comes through a payment or through a donation, they are still receiving money. There's a need to be consistent here. There are people in ministry make an enormous amounts of money through donations. While others are receiving payment and making far less money. So which person is obsessed with money in that case? And which one is being more sacrificial in their ministry? To be consistent, either the ministry is free or it is not. Either The person is working to support themselves and doing ministry for free, or they are receiving payments in some form for their ministry. As some people have demonstrated, donations can be more lucrative than payments. It can be a far more profitable choice. Donations are not an alternative to commercialization, it's just another form of it. So if you want to argue for free ministry, then make it free, otherwise, for consistency's sake, you need to be willing to accept either fundraising or payments.
Yes, even donations can make some people rich and they can exploit that. That's an issue many people are already addressing. We're instead focused on the _means_ of funding. Specifically, whether the funding comes through colabor (e.g. donations, 3 John 1:8) or reciprocity (e.g. sales). In your examples, the ministry and the person doing ministry are being confused. A pastor may not take a position if they can't be paid/supported, but when they do the actual ministry it needs to be free. This is why a pastor's "salary" is better referred to as a "stipend". What's the ministry of the pastor? It's sermons, prayers, counselling, etc. All of which is received free of charge by attendees. What's the ministry of a songwriter? It's the music, which should be given free of charge. Even if a church is paying for songs on behalf of the attendees, it doesn't change the fact that the ministry (the songs) are being sold. If a pastor were to sell his sermons, which often happens with conferences, that would also be a violation. We're not just focused on songwriters. Many pastors also sell their teaching which we also speak against.
These for profit companies may be able to get away with it for now, but when the time of judgement comes, they will have a full accounting of their Earthly actions. I pray they have placed their profits in furthering planting churches and evangelizing Jesus, for the time of his second coming draws near and many must be saved. God Bless.
That scripture was directed to people who were selling for profit, things to be used as sacrifices in the temple. It has nothing to do with paying someone to use there song in a worship setting.
@sabremh "people who were selling for profit, things to be used as sacrifices in the temple." that's a perfectly accurate description of what's happening. our worship is our sacrifice. the music being created for the purpose of worship is an offering to the Lord, aka a sacrifice, and it's being sold for profit.
The sheer irony of somebody suing over a performance "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" is almost too much to believe. I'm going to have trouble singing that song from now on
It really is ironic. There is no fear of God no reverence for the things of the Lord, I've actually been singing that song this last year in my living room am I going to get sued?
@@reepicheepsfriend Hey, don’t let one video on TH-cam interfere with your praise and worship. That’s exactly what the enemy would want. CCLI literally charges about $1 per song. So in a small church of 100 people, you’re not singing because of a penny.
@@jaypie0864Did you watch the video? My sentiment doesn’t have to do with the CCLI system, but the fact that the author of that particular song sued a congregation over its use
@@reepicheepsfriendOk, with love, I'll reword my sentiments: Don't let ONE artist suing ONE congregation interfere with YOUR praise and worship. That distraction (that literally has nothing to do with you) is exactly what the devil would want on a Sunday morning.
Copyrighted prayers are common though rarely enforced. The main point is both prayers and songs are written in worship of God. What's offensive about copyrighting a prayer is also offensive about copyrighting a worship song, it's commercializing our communication with God.
Copywriting something that a person has put time and effort into creating is reasonable. If a person writes a song, or a book that contains prayers, there's nothing wrong with copywriting that. It is up to the church to decide whether they want to use something that is copyrighted, or create their own material. Churches use copyrighted material, because they find value in that material. If they find value in it, then paying royalties to the producer is very reasonable. We are not talking about a large amount of money unless a large amount of churches find value in whatever that item is. Hymnals are not free, Bible study books are not free, brochures , signs, websites are not free. Churches pay for items they feel have value. Why would they not pay for the songs that others have created that they use. While it may seem inappropriate to pay for a prayer, Churches can simply choose to write their own. But if a church finds a collection of prayers that have been written which they would like to use, then it would be appropriate to pay the person that wrote that collection of prayers. Should Sunday school material be made available for free, vacation Bible School material, Bible studies? Those are all intellectual properties that were created by someone. It's not legal to buy one copy and then photocopy it for everyone else. The idea that if you're creating something for ministry that it should always be given away is ridiculous. Should people who create websites do it for free for churches? They have to feed their families as well.
Copywriting something can be fine in my eyes, for the mere legality of it and to hopefully protect it from being commandeered by wicked people. The problem though is, when we demand our own family (Christians) pay us to use something we copyrighted. Or when God is glorified, we demand payment. It shows we made that thing for money and not worship or prayer.
1 Corinthians 6:1-8 NLT [1] When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! [2] Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? [3] Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. [4] If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? [5] I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? [6] But instead, one believer sues another-right in front of unbelievers! [7] Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? [8] Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.
@@jonathanspeicher5298 another way to word that question: should people who put hours of work into creating a song sue people who steal that song instead of paying for its use ? And the answer to that question is that it's extremely rare for someone to sue a church for stealing their song. But it's extremely common for churches to steal songs and other copyrighted material. Thou shalt not steal.
Thank you for this video. I know there's been many debates at many churches regarding this issue, but this really clarifies everything. Also, Keith Green was an amazing Christian artist, I still remember listening to his music on cassette tape with my brother.
@cco3 hmmm, maybe... however, though the blue laws have been constitutionally upheld at the federal Supreme Court level, states have continually chosen not to enforce their blue laws or have rescinded them because of Commerce... in other words, this is simply a symptom of a more foundational issue that is directly tied to sabbatarianism...
Its unbelievable that worship artists sell their music to investors. Excellent video, loved the point about secular lawmakers trying to protect sacred music!
It's so much easier to get paid that way. It's almost impossible for an individual artist to get any royalties unless they've signed their rights to a publisher.
The reform begins when Christian musicians (who understand the simplicity of modern contemporary song structure) begin by composing and use their own song creations in worship. It’s not rocket science. Colossians 3:16. Share worthy songs amongst fellow congregations. One final word. We have also seem to have forgotten. Sing The PSALMS.
That’s right almost all CCLI lawsuits are against those that use copyrighted material to mock God. Church of Satin gets special attention. Which I am all good with.
Yes, well done brother. So many channels on this platform "selling Jesus" as well with commercials and coffee mugs and t-shirts. Christians need to stop supporting these "businesses" that are selling God.
The only way I think we can really see this practice abandoned is to go back to the liturgies and hymns. The mindset behind most contemporary music is to replace the music which was there before with things that are new to better appeal to the present society. Worship is effectively seen as marketing, which perpetuates a generally commercial mindset within the church. In more traditional churches when someone writes a new hymn it’s not with the mindset that the old hymns need replaced, but that the new hymn can better the church not just today, but for generations to come.
Reawaken Hymns by Nathan Drake gave permission for my previous church to use his guitar song videos when our worship team wasn’t available. We voluntarily gave him a contribution to support his ministry. I do believe that is the way the church should work.
I am a Christian and full time musician and song writer. I CATEGORICALLY CONFIRM THESE CLAIMS! YOU ARE CORRECT!!! I HAVE INDEED FREELY RECIEVED THE GIFT I HAVE FROM JESUS AND FREELY I GIVE IT AS WELL FOR THE UPBUILDING AND UPLIFTING OF MY DEAR BROTHERS AND SISTERS!!! I LOVE YOU ALL DEARLY EVEN IF WE'VE NEVER MET YET AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SPENDING ETERNITY GETTING TO KNOW EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU!!! If Jesus puts it on your heart to support me, I will graciously and gratefully accept, BUT, I WILL NOT REQUIRE OR DEMAND YOU TO DO SO!!! show me one single example anywhere in the new testament where Christians charge each other money in exchange for anything?!!! The opposite is our example!!! Christians sold their belongings to support each other!!! READ THAT AGAIN!!! Money is a SECULAR and demonic construct, the love of Jesus denies this evil mentality and practice.
i have a lot of Christian friends who make music, and even though their merch has a price tag, all of them are more than willing to give any of it for free. one musician doesn't even have price tags at all, just a sign that says to give what you feel. and when he does his merch plug during his performances, he says he doesn't charge anything because if God's grace is a freely given gift, then it's only right that his own work should also be freely given.
There are churches that make huge money but don't pay their worship leaders enough. This may be why Christian song writers or churches may want to get so royalties
I'm sure most Christian artists would be willing to let their compositions be used freely in churches. I agree we must support these artists (and the many in the industry who work in relevant support and administrative systems). But no one wants to be exploited. I remember years ago when I was part of church's music team and the red tape we needed to get through to play modern worship songs. Other than the example mentioned in the video, I wonder if other Christian musicians/studios threaten lawsuits...
Keith Green and Don Francisco are such an example to us all. They're the reason why all of my Christian plays and songs are adapted from public domain works and are 100% free to any church or Christian theatre company that wants to produce them!
@@sgste while it's true that Keith Green gave away his music, you're omitting one very important fact. Keith Green was paid for his music. He just allowed people to choose how much they paid for it. And if they couldn't afford anything they could accept it for free. But he did receive payment for his music. And without those voluntary payments, his ministry would have ended. And that's great, I applaud him for doing that. And if Christians were more generous as they should be, then more people could do that. I remember going into a Christian bookstore in the '90s, and asked the owner about the security camera in the CD section. They told me about the huge problem they had with people stealing Christian CDs out of the Christian bookstore. So they had to install a security camera. Too many people in the church have bad ethics. And some of that theft came from the attitude That it's Christian music so they shouldn't be charging for it. Therefore it's okay for me to steal it. It's the same attitude churches have when they violate copyrights. I think it's awesome when people are able to provide their work for free to churches. But I don't expect that of everybody. Some people do that work as a hobby and have a separate full-time job. For some people that is their full-time job. They cannot afford to give it all away for free. Nor should they be expected to. The workers at the temple in the Old testament were provided for. We should also appreciate the work and the talents and abilities of those doing ministry And support that work in whatever ways we can, including financial. Missionaries raise support so that they can make a living while doing their missions work. I would never accuse them of commercializing ministry. That is no different than any other ministry work that somebody receives payment for.
Thank you for this well-thought-out video. The dialogues created from it will help reform the church. I pray you are Blessed thoroughly by the King for this!!
They also shouldn’t have to pay a license because churches are nonprofits and nonprofits are allowed fair use of copyright music as long as you don’t make a profit off of the music you’re using which includes recording it without permission permission or monetizing your TH-cam page… That would be the only way you make money off of music during the service … they are bending the law and using it to trick people into buying these licenses and no one in the 30 years I’ve been around has dared to question this at all
@ I remember I was so confused when I first learned about this. I was such a new Christian and so full of joy at becoming a follower of Jesus. I could not comprehend how someone would seek to profit or even make a nice living as a musician getting paid each time a worship song is sung to God.
This is an interesting video and has given me a lot to think about. I have the perspective of being the person at our church that builds the ProPresenter presentations. We use MultiTracks for our licensing, not CCLI, partially because it allows us to have synced chords for the stage display that we can shift key on (plus the worship leader can get the click track and change the arrangement). The ease of pulling in the files right in the interface is so very important as it saves time and reduces errors. We would need not just artists to give music away for free, but a service built into ProPresenter, as CCLI and MultiTracks are, that allow you to directly import the lyric and click track files. (An added bonus is that you could refuse songs from Bethel and make sure all songs are theologically accurate.)
@@travelwithroland2 Keith Green copyrighted his music. That was his choice. He was also paid for his music, he offered it at whatever people could afford to pay. If they couldn't afford to pay anything he gave it away for free. Sometimes people paid far more than the price of one album when they bought one album. Because they wanted to support what he was doing. Nevertheless, unlike people on here seem to think, Keith Green's ministry would not have existed without people paying money for his music and ministry. Those were considered donations and people were allowed to pick how much they wanted to pay, if any. But his ministry would have ended if people had not paid him.
@ did you read the book and his heart? Where it changed was when he died. I was moaning about it… yes… but it was more the fact that churches can get sued by CCLi which is owned by non-Christians for using a worship song lyric on their screens… sometimes for songs that the original lyrics were King David’s. I find that kind of thing Satanic. do you think it was in the Father’s heart that we should have to pay a fee every time we worship God? As a musician, who was a musician for over 20 years full-time, there are other ways of making money. Putting out a song or series of songs on an album is a great way to do it. But where are the options for the poor now? The only reason churches in the Philippines (where I now live) don’t get sued is that they are too poor to be worth it for global companies like CCLi. But where are the options for churches like these to legally sing songs from CCLi? My former church had a method, but I am not going to advertise that cult. They created their own label and made it freely available. My songs are all on that label. I have now encouraged my new church to write their own songs, and I am going to help them.
@@marknichols8394 paying to play someone’s song by your own hands is not remotely comparable to paying to listen to someone’s music that they are or have performed. You conflating the two is strange.
this is something to be mad about. This is ABSOLUTELY a good reason to be angered and pushed to create change. While I understand the purpose behind royalties for music that is streamed/sold, as an artist myself, there should absolutely not be any price to pay to sing a song in church... unbelievable. Until this is fixed, churches should boycott CCLI and their predatory practices and write their own music to sing congregationally.
What’s even more maddening is churches are covered as nonprofits under the fair use clause in the copyright law. None of the licensing is necessary. It’s just someone told a church a lie and started a company “ save us from unnecessary lawsuits” Instead, we should allow the lawsuits to come go show the fair use clause and tell the secular recording company to shove it . Instead, we all coward behind this licensing company and now there’s another one just so that we could believe we are “ protected” from lawsuit when we already were… And someone is making money off of churches handover fist. How scam is it that the licensing changes based on how many people attend your church? If it’s a license, it should be the same regardless of the size of your church and if it’s real, that would make sense . That’s why I know this is a scam and I learned about copyright law while getting a an audio engineer recording degree in college. I was so upset, realizing that the CCLI licensing is unnecessary, and that most churches can simply fall under fair use. Did you know half the truth in this country? Don’t use any licensing company to protect them and they never get sued. Why ? Because this is a scam and churches are covered under the nonprofit clause of fair use .
Darn. I guess we'll just have to start using hymnals with actual theologically thought out lyrics approved by a denomination. Tbh even as a very traditional Lutheran I'm not against contemporary worship as a style. I get that there are different expressions of Christian worship, but there was never an excuse to abandon the words from historic hymns for shallow pop Christian songs. I understand non-denominational believers. I think the leaders have a lot to give an account for after the grave though.
Using hymnals is fine. But as you purchase hymnals, part of that price goes towards paying any necessary royalties. It’s a good thing, but let’s not labor under the impression that no one is getting some compensation.
Very informative video. I sincerely applaud the thorough case you have presented. This is very effective in raising awareness. It’s very difficult to argue against, because ultimately, it’s just about the want of money. This ought to weigh on the consciences of many prominent artists. I suppose rebuttals would begin justifying starting with…”I don’t deserve nothing “… of which I completely understand. The system is brings wrong incentives. Thanks for the work you put in on this video.
Great article, thanks for shining a light on this issue, worship theology must be at an all time low as artists commercialise their content to increase reach.
My new lead pastor has asked me to start writing worship songs for our church to sing. We shared our first song this past Sunday with several people asking where they could find the song and who it was by (which is unheard of at my church, so I know God is doing something) and then I stumble on this video. I can't believe it's coincidence. I would love to be a part of the beginning of a movement of churches that contribute original copyright free worship music to work towards detaching from CCLI. As much as I love so much music out there, this video has really convicted me. It rocked me, honestly, as a guy who has been leading worship for a while. It's crazy to think I've been unknowingly contributing to the problem, thinking I'm doing the right thing. If any other churches, pastors, or worship leaders out there are interested in being a part of this "reform," please reach out. I have uploaded our first original song (most recent one on my channel) so you can vet the quality of what we're doing at my church. Bad recording, good-ish song :)
That's great to hear. We expect there to be a platform created for this within a year. But the best thing to do in the meantime would be to create a high quality lyric video, sheet music, and other resources to help others learn the song and to be able to play it at church. Also ensure you dedicate it to the public domain to remove legal barriers: copy.church
@@SellingJesus Thanks for the reply! A high quality video is a ways off, but I'm looking forward to seeing this movement bring some real change. Thanks for what you guys are doing.
Anything with that labels itself "Christian", I run from because it is so flawed. Especially those that promote any nation as God's chosen. We are the chosen who follow Christ.
Many years ago I used to be responsible for sending details of songs used in our church to CCLI. There was space to add other songs so included two of mine giving details of my copyright info as an experiment but never received any notification from CCLI never mind royalties even though I know they were sung.
CCLI has thresholds for what artists they actually pay, and they also throw out a large portion of the data that comes in, in order to only pay the most popular artists. The deck is stacked against smalltime composers.
I truly think the premise of “worship song” writers and performers is the actual problem. Look at their concerts. CONCERTS! That’s entertainment, not worship. Most of them dance for the audience, have mood lighting, and follow templates for how they perform (not worship) on stage to induce a euphoric state in their audience that they attribute to the Spirit. I’m certain some people still write to give glory to God, and people in churches sing to give glory to God, but not all performers are there for God’s glory, and given the slop I just heard on my local “Christian” radio station, not all these modern worship singers have opened a Bible lately
It’s a really clumsy one. But to be honest CCLI is hardly enforced. Thousands of smaller churches don’t even know what CCLI is and they’ve never been sued for singing copyrighted worship songs. It seems to me that the unwritten rule is “pay if you can afford to pay”
It sounds like you feel the uncomfortableness of treating worship music as commerce! But if it was a pay as you can or want model then we wouldn't be making those churches law breakers in the process. And it would be a fundamental giving ministry model not a business commerce model.
@@windsurfersp I wouldn't use the word uncomfortable. Also, everything is commerce nowadays. Christian music is recorded in a secular studio, and studio time has to be paid for. The recording engineer is more than likely not Christian. The equipment used is not free because it's Christian music. Bringing the music to a wider audience is also expensive. Christian worship leaders need to be credited for not hounding churches for royalties. Unfortunately, we live in a world where everything is intertwined nowadays. Many say all sorts of things about Hillsong, but the reality is that most of the worship leaders are not rich, nor do they seek to be rich. Being popular is not the same as being rich. People have a perceived sense of glamorous living, but in reality, it's a grind going from event to event, leaving your children and family behind at home. It's not a cushy life, as most think.
It is not that CCLI is not enforced. CCLI is more like a shield against the copyright-owner's claim. If the artist or the company the artist sold the song to comes and says, you have used my song, then you can say here I licensed it via CCLI. Theoretically, you could get every single copyright owner's permit to stream / display / copy the music and it would be fine as well. Even better when the artist just released the song under a Creative Commons license (like CC BY-SA-NC) or explicitely to public domain because then you automatically have the permit.
This is so crazy I had to research it for myself, and it's all true. How not a single major Christian leader stood up and shouted about this is completely shocking!
@ I watched a Netflix show called “Beef” which featured modern worship songs and I was in disbelief that a church would allow their music to be used in such a manner. This answers the question, it’s non-Christians deciding how worship songs are being used…
Great video. Very informative and very true. I feel the issue here will be supporting ministries and Ministers that have a God given mandate to write songs for the body of Christ. The church has exploited them so the world has stepped in. We need to get our house in order literally and get secularism out of our worship but please suggest the mechanism for people to be able to focus on this ministry and other spiritual tasks. I’ve been involved in pastoral and worship ministry for about 30 years. I’ve written songs for and with many uk artists and worship leaders. I’ve written albums for my church. I’ve not receive a penny. So it becomes difficult with a family to sustain that. There needs to be a mechanism that is Christ centred and free from the greed and self centeredness that pervades society. Any suggestions. Right now we are mixing the profane with holy.
Why not treat it like any other ministry, where it has its own budget? Most churches will set aside a certain amount for each ministry (children, youth, mend group, homeless, refugees etc.) You can establish a music centred ministry and have congregations support the ministry.
2 Peter 2:3 KJV - And through covetousness shall they with feigned {imagined or invented} words make merchandise {commerce} of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
I have said from the beginning that CCLI is just a money grab. They claim that you can’t use music that they have copyrights to or they’ll come after you with legal action. It’s actually the publishers of the song that owns the copyright, not CCLI. CCLI is bullying people. Plain and simple. And now it’s prayer ??? How insane is that !!!
Times past myself discussed several times with other Christians about this enprisonment and disregard of God related to worship. But they did mainly not understand, since "bound" by the system (view). - Here in Germany So the church needs eventually come to grips, how to support or pay Artists, Singers and Musicians, so they are free to serve with their talent and calling, w/o such clutches as agencies. To restate it, a support, shall be independent of the artistic work brought forth. The work i.e. composition or song shall be free for common use the Glory of God. By the way, stop this dungeon & magic style of church gathering, especially during worship time. Or someone higher in rank will do it. Do not complain, when it happens - quickly.
At my church, there's a team that approves music. They look at the theology of the song as well as the artist who wrote it and the label that produced it. Only when all those line up will it be approved. It does mean that some songs that are good get declined as the artist has some wacko beliefs, for example.
Unfortunately, all the good songs are paid through CCLI as well, and can't be sung without permission (aside from the religious exemption for worship services).
We need to start by realizing that there is no such thing as "worship" music. You can worship God by singing His praise, but worship is anything that we do for His glory. Most churches use music to emotionally manipulate the church goers into giving money or having a fake spiritual feeling. In short, much of what we call "church", has become a routine that we follow and has very little if any worship in it. Much of the church will stand up on Sunday and sing "worship" music while not knowing or caring to know the people around them. The new believers are falling away, because real worship is to love God and to love their neighbor, but you have to care to know your neighbor before you can love them in a biblical sense.
I may be an atheist, but I do agree that profiteering off of worship to this degree is disgusting. Hollow greedy business practices should have no place in religious institutions. But alas, it was a problem even back in the New Testament.
A very hot topic not only for the churches but for all of us across the planet. Copyrights concerning any Christian content must be reformed and made free and unpunishable by law. It's not bearable that even the smallest churches have to pay such fees where the money is rather needed for other more relevant issues of the church. And it's a total mess that even poor Christians in 3rd world countries are submitted under these types of "rights" which are "unrights" for sure. Worship, Prayers and any Christian content must be deemed commonly owned by anyone member of the worldwide church of Jesus Christ our Lord!
1:59 Or writing their own songs. But songwriters, like preachers, have bills to pay and families to feed. Plus, a copyright protects your song from improper use, like the unauthorized changing of lyrics.
Once I came aboard the ministry team at my old Calvary Chapel I was introduced to this world of copyright worship music. I was shocked and sickened when I first found out as I was a Keith Green affilicando. The pastor and assistant pastor did not blink an eye and have the argument that the worker is worth his wages. In my heart I was like, "but it's worship...?" Suffice to say I did not last long asking questions about Calvary Chapel practices! Maranatha Music anyone?
This is why we don't even mess with that stuff. We don't pay for licensing as we don't stream our worship parts of service, or sell music, and most of what we even sing are written in house. We're less interested in contemporary music and more interested in true worship that is done in spirit and in truth.
30 years ago, Steve Camp immolated his career in no small part because he warned the CCM industry was becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers by selling to Secular Publishers. Now, not only is the entertainment music giving money to secular companies who decide what to promote on profit, not ministry, motives. But our worship music is being governed by the secular market. Not the glorification of a Holy Lord.
Thanks for mentioning Steve Camp. For those unfamiliar, he wrote this in 1997: "Genuine revival--a fresh return to obedience in Christ--is surely needed today, but that would be almost impossible given the current environment of our industry. Why? True revival is marked by repentance; true repentance brings restitution; true restitution demands that Christian music be owned and operated only by believers whose aim is the glory of God consistent with Biblical truth. This means that the current CCMI labels music return all the money they have received to their respective secular counterparts that purchased them and divorce alliances with them. The CCMI has gone too far down the wide road of worldliness and there is not the tenacity of character and the Biblical courage of heart and mind to do the right thing no matter what the cost." www.realstevecamp.com/_files/ugd/22c2b8_c69966a9c1214dc39d71762342e7aa79.pdf
I just found your channel through this video yesterday. I've watched about 6 videos now. Based on what you are saying I think I have an answer to the question I'm about to ask already but I'd still like to ask. I'm a missionary in Japan. If one day I end up using your videos as a starting point for writing scripts in Japanese to communicate the same anti-commercialization of Christ would you guys be okay with that? God bless
Actually, that's part of our point, that there haven't been any (known) cases since. You can find full details of the case with sources in footnote 10 of our article: sellingjesus.org/articles/worship-tax#fn10
We were thinking of creating one but there is hardly any available at all, so it would be a short list. But that's certainly something we hope to see in the long-term.
If the religious exemption in copyright law is for both "performance" and "displaying" the song (11:32), why are churches required to pay licensing fees for "displaying" the song with a LCD projector? What is meant by "displaying"? How could a church "display" the song in a way that conforms to the religious exemption?
You don't need a license to display it, just to copy and paste the lyrics. But you can't do the former without the latter. The law was written before computers were common, hence why it doesn't seem to make sense today. It's likely such situations are covered by fair use law anyway. But it hasn't been tested in court which is why the industry continues to exploit the legal gap. You can read the original article for more detail on this: sellingjesus.org/articles/worship-tax
@@SellingJesusTo clarify, if everyone in the church just happened to remember the lyrics and they weren't displayed (and hence not copied) there'd be no legal path for CCLI to sue?
There's a few other things to consider, like whether the service is being recorded, streamed, and the extent of that. But yes, if you're just singing off by heart with no extras you are exempt under US law. That's not the case for most countries though. Also CCLI wouldn't be the one to sue, the copyright owners would be.
Philippians 1:18 CSB What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice
The evolution of the term "worship" within evangelical circles, particularly its association with the musical segment of services, reflects broader cultural and theological shifts over time. Historically, evangelical worship encompassed a holistic approach, integrating prayer, preaching, sacraments, and congregational singing. Music, often in the form of hymns or psalm-singing, was a significant component but functioned alongside other elements to facilitate a comprehensive worship experience. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed the rise of the Jesus Movement, a pivotal period that introduced contemporary music styles into evangelical worship. This era emphasized personal expression and emotional engagement, leading to the incorporation of modern musical instruments and genres. As a result, the musical portion of services gained prominence, becoming a primary means through which congregants expressed devotion. As contemporary music became central to evangelical services, the term "worship" began to be closely associated with the musical segment. This shift was influenced by the development of "praise and worship" music, which prioritized personal and emotive expressions of faith through song. Over time, "worship" colloquially came to denote the singing portion of the service, distinguishing it from other components like sermons or announcements. Today, in many evangelical contexts, "worship" is often synonymous with congregational singing. This reflects a broader trend where music serves as a primary vehicle for communal expression of faith. However, it's essential to recognize that this represents a narrowing of the term's original scope, which encompassed all aspects of a believer's life and corporate gatherings dedicated to honoring God. One reason we may feel like "we’ve stopped actually worshiping" is that modern church culture sometimes emphasizes emotional or performative aspects of praise-lights, music, and energy-while neglecting the deeper, transformative aspects of worship that involve surrender, repentance, and awe before God. True worship is about the heart, not just the hands or voice. Jesus said in John 4:23-24 (BSB): "But a time is coming, and has now come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth." To restore authentic worship, we may need to go back to this foundation: worship isn’t just a song or a segment of a service-it’s a lifestyle of honoring God with everything we are. And while praise is a vital part of that, it’s just one expression of a heart fully yielded to Him.
@ well my point was actually looking at the definition of the Greek and Hebrew words that gets translated as worship in the Bible. It means to prostrate oneself.
Modern day churches are businesses and have already strayed from God’s Word. But thankfully we’re not saved by faithful church attendance. In these end times those who heed Rev 14:12 will be saved.
There is a lot of God honouring music out there. Music for worship, pray, teaching and reflection. Some of these songs are hymns and some are more modern. One genre cannot be elevated above another just because.....it's old, it's a hymn, it's a chorus, or even because it is new and that's what people like. Each song needs to be evaluated individually. Does it honour the God of the Bible? Does it teach the truths of God's word? Does it help reveal sin in your life and lead you to confess it? Is it prayful? The people who write the music and lyrics to these songs, whether old or new should be paid for the work they have done and CCLI is a great way for churches and worship leaders to legally access this music and use it in there services.
Now do Doug Wilson’s Christ Church who entered their congregation into a bond program where interest is made off the tithes offering of fellow member who did not purchase bonds.
I was not aware that CCLI is now in secular hands. I have always freely given of any of my music to anyone who approaches me, but I do appreciate the interaction. I also appreciate the (usually less than) $40, I get from CCLI annually, if nothing else, it is an encouragement that someone is using one or more of my songs. However, unless you are in the "popular, well-known artist" category, songs by "unknowns" like me, rarely get popular, even if they are of high quality (that is a matter of opinion of course), and the "big" churches, even in Australia, even big denominations, tend to favour their own songs, I think, for financial reasons. You do not sound like a musician, or a song-writer, I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but any serious song-writer, especially a worship song-writer, at some point will dream that their song might be sung by congregations across the world. I am not saying this is a good dream, but it would be dishonest to deny, and in the end, God can do anything if he chooses to. I guess my point is that unless you (or someone else) provide an alternative to CCLI, then most people like me, who do write worship songs, and appreciate the encouragement and acknowledgement of a small amount of income, will continue to licence their songs with them. And if you do provide an alternative, then you will be faced with having to decide which songs are worth encouraging further, which is not an easy task, and how to distribute the income fairly and in a godly way. This used to be done via printed books, like scripture in song and Graham Kendricks books (the source), and various others, even hymn books were a platform to raise certain songs to people's attention. If one of the"big names" came knocking at my door because of one of my songs, would I speak with them? probably yes, but I would then be extremely careful about what I was signing up for, and I would not sign up to something that was not from the Lord and for his glory. Thankfully, my income does not depend on my music, and never will, but the temptation remains.
Thanks for your reflections. Many people had input into this video, at least one of whom is a songwriter with numerous songs. We might eventually create an alternative if need be, but our hope is that everyone will give their songs free of copyright out of love for God, regardless of how practical that may be right now. If you explore the rest of the content on our channel we hope you may be convicted in joining us in this.
@ thanks for replying. The other thing I didn’t mention is the cost of writing music. It costs only time to get a song written. But today, for people to take a serious look at a song it must be recorded and produced at a high level. People like me, are ok at singing and playing guitar, but to present a recording that the average person will listen to, is beyond my ability to do alone at my home. It costs a lot more than what people think. Especially if you are not surrounded by musicians and record producers. The process is enjoyable but is a careful and tricky financial decision. People such as me have to decide how much money can be put towards these things, knowing that it will not be recovered. Again I say this because in the end, for me, writing a song and recording it at a level where it will be listened to, is a significant financial loss. That being said, it is ok to lose money on things, as long as the decision is mature, and godliness and wisdom is involved. So, again, it seems ok to receive some financial return on songs I have invested in. For this and other reasons, I have not tried to write or record a song in a little while. People of faith might consider that the financial returns on their songwriting is a sign that they are on the right track, and that God is opening doors for them to continue. I’m not saying this is clearly theological, I am simply giving a different perspective. Again, God can cause a song to flourish, no matter how humble its origin, but most of us buy our groceries from Coles and Woolworths rather than from the person down the street with a great vegetable patch.
Just pray the prayers of historic theologians. Nothing said today hasn’t already been said hundreds of years ago because there’s nothing new under the sun. I play modern music but I couldn’t see myself praying a prayer that someone decided to copyright.
As we explain in the video, worship music creators should be supported by the free generosity of the Body of Christ. More about this on our website and in the free book thedoreanprinciple.org . This isn't new, since many ministries operate just fine, even at multimillion dollar budgets, purely funded by donations. You may find this article helpful: sellingjesus.org/learn/profiles#james-the-worship-composer
It would make sense that Christian artists would be supported in the genuine way missionaries and preachers/pastors *should* be supported. If they are doing God’s will, He will provide for their needs without dubious secular involvement. The modern church has a lot of fodder for table flipping…
Great video. Only one nitpick: I would advise Christian musicians not to release their music into the public domain, but a non-commercial Creative Commons license. The public domain permits future actors to create and monetize derivative works, ask Chris Tomlin did with amazing grace, while a non-commercial creative commons license prevents this.
Thanks for your comment. We've addressed your concern primarily in three articles: sellingjesus.org/articles/copyright-hijacking sellingjesus.org/articles/sharealike sellingjesus.org/articles/copyright-jesus-command-to-freely-give
Well, I do not copyright the songs GOD make me to write so anyone can use them for ministry. Even I miss lots of recordings of the live praise and worship or impromptu song writing on the spot. Selling Jesus = Jesus Business, yet Jesus did pay tax - so tithe=tax? Money business in ministries is mind boggling. Thank you for this enlightenment.
One point you seem to ignore is the importance of crediting the artist or protecting one’s work against it being exploited/butchered by others. I believe Creative Commons licensing is used by artists who want to be generous while protective of their work. And the issue isn’t necessarily new-hymnals make use of licensing as well. Hence why some hymnals make use of copyright protections against making photo copies.
1. Pray for reform 2. Help share this video to inform more Christians 3. Encourage Christian artists to dedicate their songs to the public domain 4. Educate yourself as much as possible at sellingJesus.org, copy.church, and by reading thedoreanprinciple.org Thanks!
The only problem I have with this video is it's soft tone. This deeply evil practice makes a mockery of Holy worship to God and must be harshly condemned everywhere. It is an utter disgrace that I have agrued about with friends for years now.
Good word! We should ponder profiting from Christian books, 18:26 Bible translations, mission trips and holy land tours. The temptation to profit from making disciples is saturated in the modern church experience. Why not let God provide as he taught his disciples? Maybe it would help us get back to making disciples of Jesus instead of disciples of this world hoping we’re serving Jesus. It is clear, you cannot love this world and have the love of the Father in you at the same time. Let’s come home to Jesus.
Royalty ! The word is royalty . Like to the king . All Christians should acknowledge they have One King . After all the Christian’s artists are popular only thanks to the other Christian’s interest. They are nothing otherwise in the secular world.
The music is a real problem because young people actively avoid churches with old music. The churches with the hymns are on the verge of death. But there's no reason to pay for prayers in the age of AI anymore.
A quick google search says its a measly $102.00 per year for the average churches CCLI subscription. 250,000 churches x $102 split 10 ways (although according to this video it only goes to Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation) doesn't amount to squat for the musicians after subtracting CCLI cut. Bottom line is churches are getting original worship music for next to nothing and exploiting their own on site worship leader too.
It's not so much about the amount but the principle of making it illegal to worship God through such songs unless you pay. More importantly, it's against Scripture's teaching. We have many different videos that go into this in depth.
I had no idea of this. I don't even like those top three - Bethel, Hillsong and Elevation. We can go back to those old school hymns if this is the case.
What's the path forward? First, learn more about the biblical way to support ministry th-cam.com/video/DUsAO3B3tu0/w-d-xo.html . If you're an artist, free your worship music from copyright by going to copy.church (though already published songs may be hard to get back). And if you wish to be supported in this, consider raising money through a fundraising platform, receiving donations just as missionaries do.
Hopefully in future there'll be an all-in-one solution for promoting free worship music, integrating it into presentation software, and donating to artists. But faithfulness to the Lord will be more pleasing to him than any compromise.
That's a bad idea. Musicians have to eat and support their families. Maybe pastors and all people employed in churches should give up their wages and do fundraising too!
@@sabremh it's fine to employ a worship pastor who writes music, just as long as they aren't selling it.
Your equivalent example would be a pastor who paywalls his sermons. Instead, pastors preach freely to everyone whether they gave money to the church or not.
@@SellingJesus You are contradicting yourself. The church is paying the pastor to preach, and yes the pastor preaches to anyone one who freely comes to the church. Church. So what's wrong with the church paying for worship songs that will be freely sung by anyone who comes to church. The pastor works hard to prepare a sermon, the pastor gets paid for preparing that sermon. But the pastor is not paid by everyone who hears the sermon. A songwriter gets paid for writing the song, but not everyone who hears the song or sings the song pays the songwriter. So who does pay the songwriter? The church hires the pastor to develop and preach sermons. Who hires the songwriter to write songs that the church can sing. The church pays the songwriter through licensing the song. It's the same thing. If the songwriter is supposed to write the song for free, then the the preacher should write and deliver the sermon for free. So stop paying the pastors or start paying the songwriters. Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a thief.
@@SellingJesus if you're doing fundraising, you're still not doing it for free. You're being paid for your product. Therefore, by your definition it would still be commercialization. Either people are allowed to receive money for their ministry or they're not allowed to receive money. Whether that money comes through a payment or through a donation, they are still receiving money. There's a need to be consistent here. There are people in ministry make an enormous amounts of money through donations. While others are receiving payment and making far less money. So which person is obsessed with money in that case? And which one is being more sacrificial in their ministry? To be consistent, either the ministry is free or it is not. Either The person is working to support themselves and doing ministry for free, or they are receiving payments in some form for their ministry. As some people have demonstrated, donations can be more lucrative than payments. It can be a far more profitable choice. Donations are not an alternative to commercialization, it's just another form of it. So if you want to argue for free ministry, then make it free, otherwise, for consistency's sake, you need to be willing to accept either fundraising or payments.
Yes, even donations can make some people rich and they can exploit that. That's an issue many people are already addressing. We're instead focused on the _means_ of funding. Specifically, whether the funding comes through colabor (e.g. donations, 3 John 1:8) or reciprocity (e.g. sales).
In your examples, the ministry and the person doing ministry are being confused. A pastor may not take a position if they can't be paid/supported, but when they do the actual ministry it needs to be free. This is why a pastor's "salary" is better referred to as a "stipend".
What's the ministry of the pastor? It's sermons, prayers, counselling, etc. All of which is received free of charge by attendees. What's the ministry of a songwriter? It's the music, which should be given free of charge.
Even if a church is paying for songs on behalf of the attendees, it doesn't change the fact that the ministry (the songs) are being sold. If a pastor were to sell his sermons, which often happens with conferences, that would also be a violation. We're not just focused on songwriters. Many pastors also sell their teaching which we also speak against.
it is written "My house shall be a house of prayer" but you have made it into a den of thieves!
- Jesus
My favorite moment of the bible.
He was flipping the tables.
These for profit companies may be able to get away with it for now, but when the time of judgement comes, they will have a full accounting of their Earthly actions. I pray they have placed their profits in furthering planting churches and evangelizing Jesus, for the time of his second coming draws near and many must be saved. God Bless.
That scripture was directed to people who were selling for profit, things to be used as sacrifices in the temple. It has nothing to do with paying someone to use there song in a worship setting.
@sabremh "people who were selling for profit, things to be used as sacrifices in the temple."
that's a perfectly accurate description of what's happening. our worship is our sacrifice. the music being created for the purpose of worship is an offering to the Lord, aka a sacrifice, and it's being sold for profit.
The sheer irony of somebody suing over a performance "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" is almost too much to believe. I'm going to have trouble singing that song from now on
It really is ironic. There is no fear of God no reverence for the things of the Lord, I've actually been singing that song this last year in my living room am I going to get sued?
@@chazisflyingHey...I won't tell if you won't.
@@reepicheepsfriend Hey, don’t let one video on TH-cam interfere with your praise and worship. That’s exactly what the enemy would want. CCLI literally charges about $1 per song. So in a small church of 100 people, you’re not singing because of a penny.
@@jaypie0864Did you watch the video? My sentiment doesn’t have to do with the CCLI system, but the fact that the author of that particular song sued a congregation over its use
@@reepicheepsfriendOk, with love, I'll reword my sentiments: Don't let ONE artist suing ONE congregation interfere with YOUR praise and worship. That distraction (that literally has nothing to do with you) is exactly what the devil would want on a Sunday morning.
Give me old hymns any day. I grew up with them and miss them.
Agreed
not all hymns are old enough to be public domain. hymn exclusive traditional churches license music too
Our little country church still does exclusively traditional worship, from the Heavenly Highway Hymns.
why do you miss the.There are churches who still use them.
AMEN
copyrighting a prayer is crazy
It's disgusting
Thinking you have to recite someone else's prayer is even more crazy!
Copyrighted prayers are common though rarely enforced. The main point is both prayers and songs are written in worship of God. What's offensive about copyrighting a prayer is also offensive about copyrighting a worship song, it's commercializing our communication with God.
Copywriting something that a person has put time and effort into creating is reasonable. If a person writes a song, or a book that contains prayers, there's nothing wrong with copywriting that. It is up to the church to decide whether they want to use something that is copyrighted, or create their own material. Churches use copyrighted material, because they find value in that material. If they find value in it, then paying royalties to the producer is very reasonable. We are not talking about a large amount of money unless a large amount of churches find value in whatever that item is. Hymnals are not free, Bible study books are not free, brochures , signs, websites are not free. Churches pay for items they feel have value. Why would they not pay for the songs that others have created that they use. While it may seem inappropriate to pay for a prayer, Churches can simply choose to write their own. But if a church finds a collection of prayers that have been written which they would like to use, then it would be appropriate to pay the person that wrote that collection of prayers. Should Sunday school material be made available for free, vacation Bible School material, Bible studies? Those are all intellectual properties that were created by someone. It's not legal to buy one copy and then photocopy it for everyone else. The idea that if you're creating something for ministry that it should always be given away is ridiculous. Should people who create websites do it for free for churches? They have to feed their families as well.
Copywriting something can be fine in my eyes, for the mere legality of it and to hopefully protect it from being commandeered by wicked people. The problem though is, when we demand our own family (Christians) pay us to use something we copyrighted. Or when God is glorified, we demand payment. It shows we made that thing for money and not worship or prayer.
Should we really be singing the songs of those who would sue us for using them? 🤔
THIS
1 Corinthians 6:1-8 NLT
[1] When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! [2] Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? [3] Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. [4] If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? [5] I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? [6] But instead, one believer sues another-right in front of unbelievers! [7] Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? [8] Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.
I would say nope.
@@jonathanspeicher5298 another way to word that question: should people who put hours of work into creating a song sue people who steal that song instead of paying for its use ? And the answer to that question is that it's extremely rare for someone to sue a church for stealing their song. But it's extremely common for churches to steal songs and other copyrighted material. Thou shalt not steal.
@marknichols8394 if that's true then copyrighting Amazing Grace should equally be considered theft. 👍
Thank you for this video. I know there's been many debates at many churches regarding this issue, but this really clarifies everything. Also, Keith Green was an amazing Christian artist, I still remember listening to his music on cassette tape with my brother.
This is an outstanding topic to address, and one that will likely not be resolved anytime soon.
But it could be! I think the church is ripe for moral clarity on the issue!
@cco3 hmmm, maybe... however, though the blue laws have been constitutionally upheld at the federal Supreme Court level, states have continually chosen not to enforce their blue laws or have rescinded them because of Commerce... in other words, this is simply a symptom of a more foundational issue that is directly tied to sabbatarianism...
Its unbelievable that worship artists sell their music to investors. Excellent video, loved the point about secular lawmakers trying to protect sacred music!
It's so much easier to get paid that way. It's almost impossible for an individual artist to get any royalties unless they've signed their rights to a publisher.
True signs of a dystopia.
*capitalism
The reform begins when Christian musicians (who understand the simplicity of modern contemporary song structure) begin by composing and use their own song creations in worship. It’s not rocket science. Colossians 3:16. Share worthy songs amongst fellow congregations. One final word. We have also seem to have forgotten. Sing The PSALMS.
1st Corinthians 6:1-8 is clear Believers shouldn’t sue each other let alone a church.
That’s right almost all CCLI lawsuits are against those that use copyrighted material to mock God. Church of Satin gets special attention. Which I am all good with.
Yes, well done brother. So many channels on this platform "selling Jesus" as well with commercials and coffee mugs and t-shirts. Christians need to stop supporting these "businesses" that are selling God.
The only way I think we can really see this practice abandoned is to go back to the liturgies and hymns. The mindset behind most contemporary music is to replace the music which was there before with things that are new to better appeal to the present society. Worship is effectively seen as marketing, which perpetuates a generally commercial mindset within the church. In more traditional churches when someone writes a new hymn it’s not with the mindset that the old hymns need replaced, but that the new hymn can better the church not just today, but for generations to come.
Keep spreading the true word of God and the message of the Gospel. Thanks.
Reawaken Hymns by Nathan Drake gave permission for my previous church to use his guitar song videos when our worship team wasn’t available.
We voluntarily gave him a contribution to support his ministry.
I do believe that is the way the church should work.
I was about to comment Nathan, I'm glad you did it first
Great video! I've always been concerned about our renting of music. Worship is of the heart and not from the production line.
I am a Christian and full time musician and song writer. I CATEGORICALLY CONFIRM THESE CLAIMS! YOU ARE CORRECT!!! I HAVE INDEED FREELY RECIEVED THE GIFT I HAVE FROM JESUS AND FREELY I GIVE IT AS WELL FOR THE UPBUILDING AND UPLIFTING OF MY DEAR BROTHERS AND SISTERS!!! I LOVE YOU ALL DEARLY EVEN IF WE'VE NEVER MET YET AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SPENDING ETERNITY GETTING TO KNOW EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU!!! If Jesus puts it on your heart to support me, I will graciously and gratefully accept, BUT, I WILL NOT REQUIRE OR DEMAND YOU TO DO SO!!! show me one single example anywhere in the new testament where Christians charge each other money in exchange for anything?!!! The opposite is our example!!! Christians sold their belongings to support each other!!! READ THAT AGAIN!!! Money is a SECULAR and demonic construct, the love of Jesus denies this evil mentality and practice.
i have a lot of Christian friends who make music, and even though their merch has a price tag, all of them are more than willing to give any of it for free. one musician doesn't even have price tags at all, just a sign that says to give what you feel. and when he does his merch plug during his performances, he says he doesn't charge anything because if God's grace is a freely given gift, then it's only right that his own work should also be freely given.
There are churches that make huge money but don't pay their worship leaders enough. This may be why Christian song writers or churches may want to get so royalties
@@samchs222Have you ever considered replacing professional church leaders with carpenters and tent makers?
I'm sure most Christian artists would be willing to let their compositions be used freely in churches. I agree we must support these artists (and the many in the industry who work in relevant support and administrative systems). But no one wants to be exploited.
I remember years ago when I was part of church's music team and the red tape we needed to get through to play modern worship songs.
Other than the example mentioned in the video, I wonder if other Christian musicians/studios threaten lawsuits...
Money is not evil in and of itself. It’s the “love of money”, friend.
Keith Green and Don Francisco are such an example to us all. They're the reason why all of my Christian plays and songs are adapted from public domain works and are 100% free to any church or Christian theatre company that wants to produce them!
@@sgste while it's true that Keith Green gave away his music, you're omitting one very important fact. Keith Green was paid for his music. He just allowed people to choose how much they paid for it. And if they couldn't afford anything they could accept it for free. But he did receive payment for his music. And without those voluntary payments, his ministry would have ended. And that's great, I applaud him for doing that. And if Christians were more generous as they should be, then more people could do that. I remember going into a Christian bookstore in the '90s, and asked the owner about the security camera in the CD section. They told me about the huge problem they had with people stealing Christian CDs out of the Christian bookstore. So they had to install a security camera. Too many people in the church have bad ethics. And some of that theft came from the attitude That it's Christian music so they shouldn't be charging for it. Therefore it's okay for me to steal it. It's the same attitude churches have when they violate copyrights. I think it's awesome when people are able to provide their work for free to churches. But I don't expect that of everybody. Some people do that work as a hobby and have a separate full-time job. For some people that is their full-time job. They cannot afford to give it all away for free. Nor should they be expected to. The workers at the temple in the Old testament were provided for. We should also appreciate the work and the talents and abilities of those doing ministry And support that work in whatever ways we can, including financial. Missionaries raise support so that they can make a living while doing their missions work. I would never accuse them of commercializing ministry. That is no different than any other ministry work that somebody receives payment for.
So glad you mentioned Keith Green, I was thinking of him the whole time. He made at least one album that was entirely free.
Thank you for this well-thought-out video. The dialogues created from it will help reform the church. I pray you are Blessed thoroughly by the King for this!!
“freely ye received, freely give” Matthew 10:8
If your church can be sued for copyright infringement, it's not a church. It's a business.
Amen!!!
They also shouldn’t have to pay a license because churches are nonprofits and nonprofits are allowed fair use of copyright music as long as you don’t make a profit off of the music you’re using which includes recording it without permission permission or monetizing your TH-cam page…
That would be the only way you make money off of music during the service … they are bending the law and using it to trick people into buying these licenses and no one in the 30 years I’ve been around has dared to question this at all
@ I remember I was so confused when I first learned about this. I was such a new Christian and so full of joy at becoming a follower of Jesus. I could not comprehend how someone would seek to profit or even make a nice living as a musician getting paid each time a worship song is sung to God.
This is an interesting video and has given me a lot to think about. I have the perspective of being the person at our church that builds the ProPresenter presentations. We use MultiTracks for our licensing, not CCLI, partially because it allows us to have synced chords for the stage display that we can shift key on (plus the worship leader can get the click track and change the arrangement). The ease of pulling in the files right in the interface is so very important as it saves time and reduces errors. We would need not just artists to give music away for free, but a service built into ProPresenter, as CCLI and MultiTracks are, that allow you to directly import the lyric and click track files. (An added bonus is that you could refuse songs from Bethel and make sure all songs are theologically accurate.)
We need some more Keith Greens out here!
Yes… unfortunately his music is copyrighted and his wishes don’t seem to be followed on his music.
@@travelwithroland2I didn’t know that, that’s tragic to hear.
@@travelwithroland2 Keith Green copyrighted his music. That was his choice. He was also paid for his music, he offered it at whatever people could afford to pay. If they couldn't afford to pay anything he gave it away for free. Sometimes people paid far more than the price of one album when they bought one album. Because they wanted to support what he was doing. Nevertheless, unlike people on here seem to think, Keith Green's ministry would not have existed without people paying money for his music and ministry. Those were considered donations and people were allowed to pick how much they wanted to pay, if any. But his ministry would have ended if people had not paid him.
@ did you read the book and his heart?
Where it changed was when he died.
I was moaning about it… yes… but it was more the fact that churches can get sued by CCLi which is owned by non-Christians for using a worship song lyric on their screens… sometimes for songs that the original lyrics were King David’s.
I find that kind of thing Satanic. do you think it was in the Father’s heart that we should have to pay a fee every time we worship God?
As a musician, who was a musician for over 20 years full-time, there are other ways of making money.
Putting out a song or series of songs on an album is a great way to do it.
But where are the options for the poor now? The only reason churches in the Philippines (where I now live) don’t get sued is that they are too poor to be worth it for global companies like CCLi.
But where are the options for churches like these to legally sing songs from CCLi?
My former church had a method, but I am not going to advertise that cult. They created their own label and made it freely available. My songs are all on that label.
I have now encouraged my new church to write their own songs, and I am going to help them.
@@marknichols8394 paying to play someone’s song by your own hands is not remotely comparable to paying to listen to someone’s music that they are or have performed. You conflating the two is strange.
this is something to be mad about. This is ABSOLUTELY a good reason to be angered and pushed to create change. While I understand the purpose behind royalties for music that is streamed/sold, as an artist myself, there should absolutely not be any price to pay to sing a song in church... unbelievable. Until this is fixed, churches should boycott CCLI and their predatory practices and write their own music to sing congregationally.
What’s even more maddening is churches are covered as nonprofits under the fair use clause in the copyright law.
None of the licensing is necessary. It’s just someone told a church a lie and started a company “ save us from unnecessary lawsuits”
Instead, we should allow the lawsuits to come go show the fair use clause and tell the secular recording company to shove it .
Instead, we all coward behind this licensing company and now there’s another one just so that we could believe we are “ protected” from lawsuit when we already were…
And someone is making money off of churches handover fist.
How scam is it that the licensing changes based on how many people attend your church?
If it’s a license, it should be the same regardless of the size of your church and if it’s real, that would make sense .
That’s why I know this is a scam and I learned about copyright law while getting a an audio engineer recording degree in college.
I was so upset, realizing that the CCLI licensing is unnecessary, and that most churches can simply fall under fair use.
Did you know half the truth in this country? Don’t use any licensing company to protect them and they never get sued.
Why ?
Because this is a scam and churches are covered under the nonprofit clause of fair use .
Darn. I guess we'll just have to start using hymnals with actual theologically thought out lyrics approved by a denomination. Tbh even as a very traditional Lutheran I'm not against contemporary worship as a style. I get that there are different expressions of Christian worship, but there was never an excuse to abandon the words from historic hymns for shallow pop Christian songs. I understand non-denominational believers. I think the leaders have a lot to give an account for after the grave though.
I have a friend who calls it "Jesus My Boyfriend" music.
@@kellymiyake1357
That sums it up
Ehh, many of the songs in the old hymnals were theologically suspect and/or content free, just hanging on because of nostalgia.
Using hymnals is fine. But as you purchase hymnals, part of that price goes towards paying any necessary royalties. It’s a good thing, but let’s not labor under the impression that no one is getting some compensation.
Enlightening. Thanks for this video. *Subscribed*
Hey thanks for your message. And thanks for incorporating my Keith Green medley. Glad you appreciated it. :)
Very informative video. I sincerely applaud the thorough case you have presented. This is very effective in raising awareness. It’s very difficult to argue against, because ultimately, it’s just about the want of money. This ought to weigh on the consciences of many prominent artists. I suppose rebuttals would begin justifying starting with…”I don’t deserve nothing “… of which I completely understand. The system is brings wrong incentives. Thanks for the work you put in on this video.
Great article, thanks for shining a light on this issue, worship theology must be at an all time low as artists commercialise their content to increase reach.
My new lead pastor has asked me to start writing worship songs for our church to sing. We shared our first song this past Sunday with several people asking where they could find the song and who it was by (which is unheard of at my church, so I know God is doing something) and then I stumble on this video. I can't believe it's coincidence. I would love to be a part of the beginning of a movement of churches that contribute original copyright free worship music to work towards detaching from CCLI. As much as I love so much music out there, this video has really convicted me. It rocked me, honestly, as a guy who has been leading worship for a while. It's crazy to think I've been unknowingly contributing to the problem, thinking I'm doing the right thing.
If any other churches, pastors, or worship leaders out there are interested in being a part of this "reform," please reach out. I have uploaded our first original song (most recent one on my channel) so you can vet the quality of what we're doing at my church. Bad recording, good-ish song :)
That's great to hear. We expect there to be a platform created for this within a year. But the best thing to do in the meantime would be to create a high quality lyric video, sheet music, and other resources to help others learn the song and to be able to play it at church. Also ensure you dedicate it to the public domain to remove legal barriers: copy.church
@@SellingJesus Thanks for the reply! A high quality video is a ways off, but I'm looking forward to seeing this movement bring some real change. Thanks for what you guys are doing.
The state of the Christian music industry is so sad
Anything with that labels itself "Christian", I run from because it is so flawed. Especially those that promote any nation as God's chosen. We are the chosen who follow Christ.
Many years ago I used to be responsible for sending details of songs used in our church to CCLI. There was space to add other songs so included two of mine giving details of my copyright info as an experiment but never received any notification from CCLI never mind royalties even though I know they were sung.
And you're not the first to get no response or royalty from the scammers CCLI
CCLI has thresholds for what artists they actually pay, and they also throw out a large portion of the data that comes in, in order to only pay the most popular artists. The deck is stacked against smalltime composers.
I truly think the premise of “worship song” writers and performers is the actual problem. Look at their concerts. CONCERTS! That’s entertainment, not worship. Most of them dance for the audience, have mood lighting, and follow templates for how they perform (not worship) on stage to induce a euphoric state in their audience that they attribute to the Spirit. I’m certain some people still write to give glory to God, and people in churches sing to give glory to God, but not all performers are there for God’s glory, and given the slop I just heard on my local “Christian” radio station, not all these modern worship singers have opened a Bible lately
It’s a really clumsy one. But to be honest CCLI is hardly enforced. Thousands of smaller churches don’t even know what CCLI is and they’ve never been sued for singing copyrighted worship songs. It seems to me that the unwritten rule is “pay if you can afford to pay”
It sounds like you feel the uncomfortableness of treating worship music as commerce!
But if it was a pay as you can or want model then we wouldn't be making those churches law breakers in the process. And it would be a fundamental giving ministry model not a business commerce model.
@@windsurfersp I wouldn't use the word uncomfortable. Also, everything is commerce nowadays. Christian music is recorded in a secular studio, and studio time has to be paid for. The recording engineer is more than likely not Christian. The equipment used is not free because it's Christian music. Bringing the music to a wider audience is also expensive. Christian worship leaders need to be credited for not hounding churches for royalties. Unfortunately, we live in a world where everything is intertwined nowadays. Many say all sorts of things about Hillsong, but the reality is that most of the worship leaders are not rich, nor do they seek to be rich. Being popular is not the same as being rich. People have a perceived sense of glamorous living, but in reality, it's a grind going from event to event, leaving your children and family behind at home. It's not a cushy life, as most think.
It is not that CCLI is not enforced. CCLI is more like a shield against the copyright-owner's claim. If the artist or the company the artist sold the song to comes and says, you have used my song, then you can say here I licensed it via CCLI. Theoretically, you could get every single copyright owner's permit to stream / display / copy the music and it would be fine as well. Even better when the artist just released the song under a Creative Commons license (like CC BY-SA-NC) or explicitely to public domain because then you automatically have the permit.
This is so crazy I had to research it for myself, and it's all true. How not a single major Christian leader stood up and shouted about this is completely shocking!
Yes it is sad. You can also find all sources in the footnotes at the end of our article: sellingjesus.org/articles/worship-tax#fn1
@ I watched a Netflix show called “Beef” which featured modern worship songs and I was in disbelief that a church would allow their music to be used in such a manner. This answers the question, it’s non-Christians deciding how worship songs are being used…
Great video. Very informative and very true. I feel the issue here will be supporting ministries and Ministers that have a God given mandate to write songs for the body of Christ. The church has exploited them so the world has stepped in. We need to get our house in order literally and get secularism out of our worship but please suggest the mechanism for people to be able to focus on this ministry and other spiritual tasks. I’ve been involved in pastoral and worship ministry for about 30 years. I’ve written songs for and with many uk artists and worship leaders. I’ve written albums for my church. I’ve not receive a penny. So it becomes difficult with a family to sustain that. There needs to be a mechanism that is Christ centred and free from the greed and self centeredness that pervades society. Any suggestions. Right now we are mixing the profane with holy.
Why not treat it like any other ministry, where it has its own budget? Most churches will set aside a certain amount for each ministry (children, youth, mend group, homeless, refugees etc.) You can establish a music centred ministry and have congregations support the ministry.
Why not use the beautiful old hymns that are free of copyright?
Cause they’re not cool enough, I fear..
2 Peter 2:3 KJV - And through covetousness shall they with feigned {imagined or invented} words make merchandise {commerce} of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
I have said from the beginning that CCLI is just a money grab. They claim that you can’t use music that they have copyrights to or they’ll come after you with legal action. It’s actually the publishers of the song that owns the copyright, not CCLI.
CCLI is bullying people. Plain and simple.
And now it’s prayer ???
How insane is that !!!
Times past myself discussed several times with other Christians about this enprisonment and disregard of God related to worship. But they did mainly not understand, since "bound" by the system (view). - Here in Germany
So the church needs eventually come to grips, how to support or pay Artists, Singers and Musicians, so they are free to serve with their talent and calling, w/o such clutches as agencies. To restate it, a support, shall be independent of the artistic work brought forth. The work i.e. composition or song shall be free for common use the Glory of God.
By the way, stop this dungeon & magic style of church gathering, especially during worship time. Or someone higher in rank will do it. Do not complain, when it happens - quickly.
At my church, there's a team that approves music. They look at the theology of the song as well as the artist who wrote it and the label that produced it. Only when all those line up will it be approved. It does mean that some songs that are good get declined as the artist has some wacko beliefs, for example.
Unfortunately, all the good songs are paid through CCLI as well, and can't be sung without permission (aside from the religious exemption for worship services).
@@SellingJesushymns
We need to start by realizing that there is no such thing as "worship" music. You can worship God by singing His praise, but worship is anything that we do for His glory. Most churches use music to emotionally manipulate the church goers into giving money or having a fake spiritual feeling. In short, much of what we call "church", has become a routine that we follow and has very little if any worship in it. Much of the church will stand up on Sunday and sing "worship" music while not knowing or caring to know the people around them. The new believers are falling away, because real worship is to love God and to love their neighbor, but you have to care to know your neighbor before you can love them in a biblical sense.
Amen!
This. This right here. Say it louder for those in the back!
I may be an atheist, but I do agree that profiteering off of worship to this degree is disgusting. Hollow greedy business practices should have no place in religious institutions. But alas, it was a problem even back in the New Testament.
To the athiest, Jesus despised religion so rethink Christianity.
A very hot topic not only for the churches but for all of us across the planet. Copyrights concerning any Christian content must be reformed and made free and unpunishable by law. It's not bearable that even the smallest churches have to pay such fees where the money is rather needed for other more relevant issues of the church. And it's a total mess that even poor Christians in 3rd world countries are submitted under these types of "rights" which are "unrights" for sure.
Worship, Prayers and any Christian content must be deemed commonly owned by anyone member of the worldwide church of Jesus Christ our Lord!
1:59 Or writing their own songs. But songwriters, like preachers, have bills to pay and families to feed. Plus, a copyright protects your song from improper use, like the unauthorized changing of lyrics.
Copyright isn't a biblical way of responding to potential misuse of works: copy.church/objections/heresy/
Once I came aboard the ministry team at my old Calvary Chapel I was introduced to this world of copyright worship music. I was shocked and sickened when I first found out as I was a Keith Green affilicando. The pastor and assistant pastor did not blink an eye and have the argument that the worker is worth his wages. In my heart I was like, "but it's worship...?" Suffice to say I did not last long asking questions about Calvary Chapel practices! Maranatha Music anyone?
Yes it's a common response unfortunately. You can check out our website for detailed responses from Scripture to these things.
This is why we don't even mess with that stuff. We don't pay for licensing as we don't stream our worship parts of service, or sell music, and most of what we even sing are written in house.
We're less interested in contemporary music and more interested in true worship that is done in spirit and in truth.
Jesus would be flipping over these tables
30 years ago, Steve Camp immolated his career in no small part because he warned the CCM industry was becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers by selling to Secular Publishers. Now, not only is the entertainment music giving money to secular companies who decide what to promote on profit, not ministry, motives. But our worship music is being governed by the secular market. Not the glorification of a Holy Lord.
Thanks for mentioning Steve Camp. For those unfamiliar, he wrote this in 1997:
"Genuine revival--a fresh return to obedience in Christ--is surely needed today, but that would be almost impossible given the current environment of our industry. Why? True revival is marked by repentance; true repentance brings restitution; true restitution demands that Christian music be owned and operated only by believers whose aim is the glory of God consistent with Biblical truth. This means that the current CCMI labels music return all the money they have received to their respective secular counterparts that purchased them and divorce alliances with them. The CCMI has gone too far down the wide road of worldliness and there is not the tenacity of character and the Biblical courage of heart and mind to do the right thing no matter what the cost."
www.realstevecamp.com/_files/ugd/22c2b8_c69966a9c1214dc39d71762342e7aa79.pdf
Jesus would flip tables over this my former church we did this to sing Hillsong music but today don't listen to b e t h e l elevation or Hillsong
That’s really encouraging -thank you!
I just found your channel through this video yesterday. I've watched about 6 videos now. Based on what you are saying I think I have an answer to the question I'm about to ask already but I'd still like to ask.
I'm a missionary in Japan. If one day I end up using your videos as a starting point for writing scripts in Japanese to communicate the same anti-commercialization of Christ would you guys be okay with that?
God bless
Absolutely!
Are there any churches who have been sued for breaking copyright within the last 10-15 years?
250, 000+ churches are paying not to find out....
Short answer: NO! This video has created a strawman argument with one unnamed artist allegedly suing one unnamed congregation.
@@jaypie0864 Well, it is disturbing that CCLI is owned by an entity which has a stake in Playboy.
Actually, that's part of our point, that there haven't been any (known) cases since. You can find full details of the case with sources in footnote 10 of our article: sellingjesus.org/articles/worship-tax#fn10
Is there a list or organisation compiling uncopywritten music ?
We were thinking of creating one but there is hardly any available at all, so it would be a short list. But that's certainly something we hope to see in the long-term.
This site has lots of old hymns though: openhymnal.org/genindex.html
Are the copyright bibles in the same mode ? Their names are displayed on sermon screens .
We've written an article about that question: sellingjesus.org/articles/bible-publishers#bible-publishers-stewards-or-gatekeepers
Big Eva... gotta love it.
Wow. I didn’t know it worked this way. The religious industrial complex strikes again.
If the religious exemption in copyright law is for both "performance" and "displaying" the song (11:32), why are churches required to pay licensing fees for "displaying" the song with a LCD projector? What is meant by "displaying"? How could a church "display" the song in a way that conforms to the religious exemption?
You don't need a license to display it, just to copy and paste the lyrics. But you can't do the former without the latter. The law was written before computers were common, hence why it doesn't seem to make sense today. It's likely such situations are covered by fair use law anyway. But it hasn't been tested in court which is why the industry continues to exploit the legal gap. You can read the original article for more detail on this: sellingjesus.org/articles/worship-tax
@@SellingJesusTo clarify, if everyone in the church just happened to remember the lyrics and they weren't displayed (and hence not copied) there'd be no legal path for CCLI to sue?
There's a few other things to consider, like whether the service is being recorded, streamed, and the extent of that. But yes, if you're just singing off by heart with no extras you are exempt under US law. That's not the case for most countries though. Also CCLI wouldn't be the one to sue, the copyright owners would be.
Philippians 1:18 CSB
What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice
Like Paul, we still rejoice that Christ is worshipped, but also like Paul, we still confront things that go against his will.
I’m still trying to figure out when did praise become worship. And why have we stopped actually worshipping
The evolution of the term "worship" within evangelical circles, particularly its association with the musical segment of services, reflects broader cultural and theological shifts over time. Historically, evangelical worship encompassed a holistic approach, integrating prayer, preaching, sacraments, and congregational singing. Music, often in the form of hymns or psalm-singing, was a significant component but functioned alongside other elements to facilitate a comprehensive worship experience.
The 1960s and 1970s witnessed the rise of the Jesus Movement, a pivotal period that introduced contemporary music styles into evangelical worship. This era emphasized personal expression and emotional engagement, leading to the incorporation of modern musical instruments and genres. As a result, the musical portion of services gained prominence, becoming a primary means through which congregants expressed devotion.
As contemporary music became central to evangelical services, the term "worship" began to be closely associated with the musical segment. This shift was influenced by the development of "praise and worship" music, which prioritized personal and emotive expressions of faith through song. Over time, "worship" colloquially came to denote the singing portion of the service, distinguishing it from other components like sermons or announcements.
Today, in many evangelical contexts, "worship" is often synonymous with congregational singing. This reflects a broader trend where music serves as a primary vehicle for communal expression of faith. However, it's essential to recognize that this represents a narrowing of the term's original scope, which encompassed all aspects of a believer's life and corporate gatherings dedicated to honoring God.
One reason we may feel like "we’ve stopped actually worshiping" is that modern church culture sometimes emphasizes emotional or performative aspects of praise-lights, music, and energy-while neglecting the deeper, transformative aspects of worship that involve surrender, repentance, and awe before God. True worship is about the heart, not just the hands or voice. Jesus said in John 4:23-24 (BSB): "But a time is coming, and has now come, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
To restore authentic worship, we may need to go back to this foundation: worship isn’t just a song or a segment of a service-it’s a lifestyle of honoring God with everything we are. And while praise is a vital part of that, it’s just one expression of a heart fully yielded to Him.
@ well my point was actually looking at the definition of the Greek and Hebrew words that gets translated as worship in the Bible. It means to prostrate oneself.
Ironic about "They will know we are Christians by our love"
감사합니다 정말 몰랐습니다
Modern day churches are businesses and have already strayed from God’s Word. But thankfully we’re not saved by faithful church attendance. In these end times those who heed Rev 14:12 will be saved.
I look forward to the day that King Jesus returns and puts the property in order.
There is a lot of God honouring music out there. Music for worship, pray, teaching and reflection. Some of these songs are hymns and some are more modern. One genre cannot be elevated above another just because.....it's old, it's a hymn, it's a chorus, or even because it is new and that's what people like. Each song needs to be evaluated individually. Does it honour the God of the Bible? Does it teach the truths of God's word? Does it help reveal sin in your life and lead you to confess it? Is it prayful? The people who write the music and lyrics to these songs, whether old or new should be paid for the work they have done and CCLI is a great way for churches and worship leaders to legally access this music and use it in there services.
Jesus paid for us as we recite the prayers he taught his disciples.
I wrote a praise song called "What Diety?" You can find the info for it on my channel. Anyone reading this, feel free to use it!
I'm so happy bethel is part of that group
eye opening!
Great video.
Now do Doug Wilson’s Christ Church who entered their congregation into a bond program where interest is made off the tithes offering of fellow member who did not purchase bonds.
I was not aware that CCLI is now in secular hands. I have always freely given of any of my music to anyone who approaches me, but I do appreciate the interaction. I also appreciate the (usually less than) $40, I get from CCLI annually, if nothing else, it is an encouragement that someone is using one or more of my songs. However, unless you are in the "popular, well-known artist" category, songs by "unknowns" like me, rarely get popular, even if they are of high quality (that is a matter of opinion of course), and the "big" churches, even in Australia, even big denominations, tend to favour their own songs, I think, for financial reasons. You do not sound like a musician, or a song-writer, I may be wrong, and I apologise if I am, but any serious song-writer, especially a worship song-writer, at some point will dream that their song might be sung by congregations across the world. I am not saying this is a good dream, but it would be dishonest to deny, and in the end, God can do anything if he chooses to. I guess my point is that unless you (or someone else) provide an alternative to CCLI, then most people like me, who do write worship songs, and appreciate the encouragement and acknowledgement of a small amount of income, will continue to licence their songs with them. And if you do provide an alternative, then you will be faced with having to decide which songs are worth encouraging further, which is not an easy task, and how to distribute the income fairly and in a godly way. This used to be done via printed books, like scripture in song and Graham Kendricks books (the source), and various others, even hymn books were a platform to raise certain songs to people's attention. If one of the"big names" came knocking at my door because of one of my songs, would I speak with them? probably yes, but I would then be extremely careful about what I was signing up for, and I would not sign up to something that was not from the Lord and for his glory. Thankfully, my income does not depend on my music, and never will, but the temptation remains.
Thanks for your reflections. Many people had input into this video, at least one of whom is a songwriter with numerous songs. We might eventually create an alternative if need be, but our hope is that everyone will give their songs free of copyright out of love for God, regardless of how practical that may be right now. If you explore the rest of the content on our channel we hope you may be convicted in joining us in this.
@ thanks for replying. The other thing I didn’t mention is the cost of writing music. It costs only time to get a song written. But today, for people to take a serious look at a song it must be recorded and produced at a high level. People like me, are ok at singing and playing guitar, but to present a recording that the average person will listen to, is beyond my ability to do alone at my home. It costs a lot more than what people think. Especially if you are not surrounded by musicians and record producers. The process is enjoyable but is a careful and tricky financial decision. People such as me have to decide how much money can be put towards these things, knowing that it will not be recovered. Again I say this because in the end, for me, writing a song and recording it at a level where it will be listened to, is a significant financial loss. That being said, it is ok to lose money on things, as long as the decision is mature, and godliness and wisdom is involved. So, again, it seems ok to receive some financial return on songs I have invested in. For this and other reasons, I have not tried to write or record a song in a little while. People of faith might consider that the financial returns on their songwriting is a sign that they are on the right track, and that God is opening doors for them to continue. I’m not saying this is clearly theological, I am simply giving a different perspective. Again, God can cause a song to flourish, no matter how humble its origin, but most of us buy our groceries from Coles and Woolworths rather than from the person down the street with a great vegetable patch.
Most trendy NAR Christian songs promote self and make God our servant 😢. Worse for us, are the adverse spiritual connections.
Keith Green was a true artist and even more a true follower of Christ.
Just pray the prayers of historic theologians. Nothing said today hasn’t already been said hundreds of years ago because there’s nothing new under the sun. I play modern music but I couldn’t see myself praying a prayer that someone decided to copyright.
This is sick, nowadays so many baptist churches turned to “modern worship”, that doesn’t satisfy the soul but the body. So sad…
Such a racket. Keith Green was so based… I’m rethinking my own model now. I’ll have to look in to Keith’s model.
And Bibles?
Yes, bibles: sellingjesus.org/articles/bible-publishers
@ video blog?
Coming soon?
Just wondering if you don’t have to pay for the music how will the artists be able to keep the lights on ?
As we explain in the video, worship music creators should be supported by the free generosity of the Body of Christ. More about this on our website and in the free book thedoreanprinciple.org . This isn't new, since many ministries operate just fine, even at multimillion dollar budgets, purely funded by donations. You may find this article helpful: sellingjesus.org/learn/profiles#james-the-worship-composer
@@SellingJesusin a perfect world or should i say a perfect church.
It would make sense that Christian artists would be supported in the genuine way missionaries and preachers/pastors *should* be supported. If they are doing God’s will, He will provide for their needs without dubious secular involvement. The modern church has a lot of fodder for table flipping…
Great video. Only one nitpick: I would advise Christian musicians not to release their music into the public domain, but a non-commercial Creative Commons license. The public domain permits future actors to create and monetize derivative works, ask Chris Tomlin did with amazing grace, while a non-commercial creative commons license prevents this.
Thanks for your comment. We've addressed your concern primarily in three articles:
sellingjesus.org/articles/copyright-hijacking
sellingjesus.org/articles/sharealike
sellingjesus.org/articles/copyright-jesus-command-to-freely-give
Well, I do not copyright the songs GOD make me to write so anyone can use them for ministry. Even I miss lots of recordings of the live praise and worship or impromptu song writing on the spot. Selling Jesus = Jesus Business, yet Jesus did pay tax - so tithe=tax? Money business in ministries is mind boggling. Thank you for this enlightenment.
One point you seem to ignore is the importance of crediting the artist or protecting one’s work against it being exploited/butchered by others. I believe Creative Commons licensing is used by artists who want to be generous while protective of their work. And the issue isn’t necessarily new-hymnals make use of licensing as well. Hence why some hymnals make use of copyright protections against making photo copies.
Thanks for your comment, our other site explains the problems with various Creative Commons conditions: copy.church/explain/objections/#licenses
Now that I've been made aware of this... What do I do?
1. Pray for reform
2. Help share this video to inform more Christians
3. Encourage Christian artists to dedicate their songs to the public domain
4. Educate yourself as much as possible at sellingJesus.org, copy.church, and by reading thedoreanprinciple.org
Thanks!
Support artists who give their ministry instead of charging for it, where and when possible.
@@SellingJesus I trust that your channel is also not monetizing these videos
They dont, see the video description. @@beeper_123
@@beeper_123 correct
The only problem I have with this video is it's soft tone. This deeply evil practice makes a mockery of Holy worship to God and must be harshly condemned everywhere. It is an utter disgrace that I have agrued about with friends for years now.
They will know we are Christians by our ignorance…😮
Can't argue with that.
This is why I prefer the tehilim. Primarily when you both sing/play/edit.
Elders please refuse to use copyrighted material.
Good word! We should ponder profiting from Christian books, 18:26 Bible translations, mission trips and holy land tours. The temptation to profit from making disciples is saturated in the modern church experience. Why not let God provide as he taught his disciples? Maybe it would help us get back to making disciples of Jesus instead of disciples of this world hoping we’re serving Jesus. It is clear, you cannot love this world and have the love of the Father in you at the same time. Let’s come home to Jesus.
Amen! Our channel, podcast, and website are dedicated to addressing many of the specific ways Christ is commodified and commercialized.
Why we only ude old old hymns and a puano and violin only.
Ughhh… as a worship leader, ccli and ccm really tick me off.
All modern bibles have a copyrights too. Only the King James Version has no copyright! Anybody can print it! For Free......
That's not the case: copy.church/initiatives/bibles/
Royalty ! The word is royalty .
Like to the king .
All Christians should acknowledge they have One King .
After all the Christian’s artists are popular only thanks to the other Christian’s interest. They are nothing otherwise in the secular world.
Amen!
The fact that Bethel, Elevation, and the like charge so much for their music shows the real intent of getting their music and influence out there...
The music is a real problem because young people actively avoid churches with old music. The churches with the hymns are on the verge of death.
But there's no reason to pay for prayers in the age of AI anymore.
A quick google search says its a measly $102.00 per year for the average churches CCLI subscription. 250,000 churches x $102 split 10 ways (although according to this video it only goes to Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation) doesn't amount to squat for the musicians after subtracting CCLI cut. Bottom line is churches are getting original worship music for next to nothing and exploiting their own on site worship leader too.
It's not so much about the amount but the principle of making it illegal to worship God through such songs unless you pay. More importantly, it's against Scripture's teaching. We have many different videos that go into this in depth.
I had no idea of this. I don't even like those top three - Bethel, Hillsong and Elevation. We can go back to those old school hymns if this is the case.
Tomlin and Giglio wrote alternative 3rd and 4th verses as well