-
YouTube Closes in on the Cover Artists
ICYMI, I’ve migrated the music that’s been on this site to YouTube. That took some time and effort but I think it’s worth it. The central reason for that is that it gives the artists (and their record companies) the opportunity to earn some revenue off of the music, even though most of them are either unable or unwilling to put the music back into distribution. As many of you know, this site specialises in the “Jesus Music” era of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
In the process of doing this, some of the albums were claimed by their copyright holders, usually the record companies or their agents, successors or assigns (how’s that for a little legalese!) And that’s fine; I didn’t go on YouTube to make money, and the channel (thanks to the recent change in YouTube rules) isn’t eligible for monetization because it doesn’t draw enough traffic. I’m glad to see that we’ve got a workable mechanism (not perfect but workable) to link the copyright holders with their music.
Most of the claims made during the process were for albums released by secular labels (which did happen in the Jesus Music era) where the album came from. There are a few for Christian labels, but they’re the exception, not the rule. But virtually all of the claims came for original artists.
This week I’ve seen a rash of claims for “covers,” i.e., songs not performed by the original artists. This is something new. It indicates to me that the algorithm for determining which songs are which has stepped up. With the new regulations coming from Europe, that’s going to be a survival mechanism. This tells me that YouTube has stepped up its game on this.
Fortunately in all cases they just claim revenue and let the album stay up. I suppose that, for music this old and frequently obscure, they’re glad to have any exposure for it, especially when someone else goes to the trouble of putting it out there. As of now this situation is IMHO a happy one for everyone, and I hope it stays that way.
-
Angel Tucciarone: If We Saw Him
-
Getting Past Bread: A Holy Week Reflection — The Bossuet Project
I have an Iranian office mate. My contact with the Iranians has been educational in my understanding of the Scriptures. One thing he’s really big on is bread. One time we went to a bakery where he brought a loaf of sourdough bread, which he consumed in its entirety–in one sitting. I bring bread from […]
via Getting Past Bread: A Holy Week Reflection — The Bossuet Project
-
Bob Ayala: Joy by Surprise
-
My Lifeway Memory: Doing Church of God Business in a Baptist Bookstore
The news that Lifeway Christian Stores will all close brought back a memory of something that happened in one of them that was, in some ways, life altering.
In 2010 the Church of God decided to abolish the Department of Lay Ministries, which I was working for at the time. That left me without a job with the church. Mercifully that wasn’t my main source of income, but there’s something special about doing God’s work, even when the institutions don’t always go your way. This was all complete by the end of August, a month after the church’s General Assembly.
Sometime during the fall I was in the Lifeway store in Chattanooga, when I ran into Dr. Donnie Smith, who was the Executive Director of the Church of God Division of Care. The Care Division includes the ministries of the denomination which used to be called “benevolent.” These include the Church of God Chaplains Commission (which trains and certifies chaplains for the military, prisons, etc.,) Church of God Ministerial Care (which works to restore ministers in the wake of personal disaster,) Operation Compassion (which furnishes supplies by the trailer load for disaster relief,) Smoky Mountain Childrens’ Home and, as much as Ilhan Omar hates to hear it, Ministry to Israel.

The Church of God Chaplains Commission Board, Fall 2008. Donnie Smith is in the front row on the right. At the far left is Tom Offutt, who figures into this story. Donnie’s wife Barbara, who was making a miraculous recovery from a stroke, was down from Cleveland to get her hair done, and Donnie had some extra time, so he went to Lifeway. We talked about church events and people for some time; it was nice to keep up.
But keeping up wasn’t the end of it: a couple of weeks later Donnie called me and offered me a position on the Care Board. Tom Offutt, who was from Winchester, VA (where my Aunt Dorothy had lived for many years) had passed away suddenly shortly after his appointment, leaving a vacancy of the Board. It was a pleasant surprise to get this invitation, and to get “back in the loop” in the life of the international church. I’ve been on the Board ever since; it’s been an excellent experience.
I’ve always thought it strange that two Church of God people–one a current General Assembly appointee (Donnie) and one former one (me) would gather in the Baptist bookstore to discuss Church of God things. But our own publishing house has had its share of misadventures in the “brick and mortar” store business; that’s why Lifeway got our business.
And 2010 was a year of other changes: about the same time my Kenyan department head at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and his Cameroonian assistant sat me down and asked me to obtain my PhD. This decade has been an adventure in many ways. God is always doing something new in our lives, and the fact that it was in Lifeway shows that he has a sense of humour too. For his part Donnie passed into eternity last summer, too soon gone; I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity on the Care Board that he did.
There are many who disparage Lifeway for their restrictive policies on what they would carry. But it’s like the places I can’t teach: institutions make decisions that they must live with, and it’s their prerogative to do so. Personally I think that Lifeway’s closing of their stores is a net loss for the church in this country. But that’s just me.
-
Word of God: New Life
-
The Limitations of “Trad” Catholicism
To be Roman Catholic these days is an unenviable business, especially if you’re aware of what’s going on in the Catholic Church (and many Catholics, sad to say, are not.) It’s easy to comment on what’s happening, but what really matters is how one plans to fix the problems that face the Church.
Let’s start with what won’t work: the idea of the Pope and the “reappraisers,” to use Kendall Harmon’s expressive term. As one who was raised in the Episcopal Church, one gets a “déjà vu all over again” feel about this. As I’ve pointed out before, the idea of Francis and other “reverends pères jesuites” using their “morale accommodante” to advance the Church has a long history. Progressive Protestants have done the same thing and the empty churches speak for themselves; Roman Catholicism can’t expect a different result.So what is to be done? One group of people with “the answer” to these problems are the “trads,” those whose idea is to return to some kind of traditional Roman Catholicism. They’ve been around since their church was turned upside down with Vatican II, although many have had to operate in the shadows. Now, as was the case with the Anglican-Episcopal world, the combination of the internet, social media and wider broadcast choices have made networking easier to do. (A sympathetic former Pope didn’t hurt, either.) So do they really have the answer?
I think the best reply to that question is…sort of.
Stating the obvious is the quickest way to get Americans angry, but let’s start there anyway. “Trad” Catholicism is not, to use a good Scholastic term, univocal. We have the #straightouttairondale types and we have the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) types, and they don’t always get along. That’s a typical problem with groups which focus on liturgical precision, and Trad Catholics certainly do that. The first thing that Trad Catholics need to do is to promote unity amongst themselves, even if they don’t agree on every point.
That leads to the next problem: Trad Catholics are too focused on the sacramentals and not enough on the sacraments. What Trad Catholics of all types are trying to do is to reconstruct the Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II years, down to the last devotion and spiritual discipline. Their idea is that Vatican II wrecked the church by throwing the doors open, which led to the exodus of people and religious that has led to the current crisis. This ignores something that Europeans should understand but Americans don’t: that the decline in Catholic numbers in Europe long antedated Vatican II, Tridentine Mass and all. Vatican II was called in part to address this issue; for the American church, booming (like their Episcopal counterparts) in the post-World War II environment, such a reform was almost unnecessary.
The biggest challenge the Trads face, however, is the structure of the Catholic Church itself.
The church the Trads find themselves in is the result of the greatest triumph of long-term Trad Catholicism: ultramontanism. The term means “beyond the mountain,” and refers to the centralisation of power and authority in the Pope. Largely facilitated by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic upheaval, it eliminated practices such as the regale and curtailed the national autonomy churches had guarded for centuries. The proclamation of the Pope’s infallibility at Vatican I (the same time the Italians trashed the Papal States) sealed the deal. It eliminated meaningful national autonomy and certainly any lay input into the life of the church, something Vatican II tried to address without much practical effect. Both autonomy and lay involvement would have been handy for American bishops to deal with the sex abuse crisis; instead, the Vatican ran interference and the American church will suffer the consequences.
What this means for the Trads is that, should the Vatican continue to move leftward, they will leave the Trads in the lurch. That’s because it is difficult in the Catholic parish system, which have no voice in their selection of priests, to have a distinctive identity. That’s what messed up the Catholic Charismatics forty years ago; they found it next to impossible to have Charismatic parishes. Their solution was the covenant community system, but that had problems too. And ultimately those communities which remained found themselves being made offers they could not refuse. The Trads, which are more dependent upon the sacerdotal and sacramental systems, are even more vulnerable to this kind of pressure.
None of this should obscure the fact that the Trads have some strong points: they have a definite idea of what Christian life should be all about, they’re good at attracting people to vocations (something that may be a life saver in a priest-starved church,) and their people, like Bossuet’s characterisation of God, tend to be fertile.
I’m not sure that the Trads Latinate, legalistic and overly sacramental view of Christian life will have the broad appeal they think it will, although they will attract some in this way. I would like to see the Trads, to borrow more Scholastic terms, differentiate more meaningfully between the essentials and the accidentals. But I’m afraid, as was the case with the Charismatics a generation plus ago, that the Church itself will be the worst enemy of those trying to renew it, and that’s the saddest part of the whole business.

