It only seems appropriate that after one hotly debated issue related to licensing, it should be followed with another. A few weeks ago, I mentioned that we were starting up a Theology on Tap through Asbury here in Livermore. However, the morning after I wrote the post, I received an email from an employee of Renew International who works with the Theology on Tap program. Her email basically said “That’s great that you’re offering that – you just can’t use the name “Theology on Tap” or any derivatives.” Thus began a conversation that talked about issues of copyright, fairness, derivatives and the like.
I don’t really want to rehash those – as I’m certainly no expert on copyright law. But I did want to share with you my followup conversation with Renew International concerning this issue.
I spoke with a representative from Renew International (which is a non-profit organization) and she said that the Theology on Tap program has been a well-established Catholic program, done according to very high standards for the past 30 years. They offer support, materials and a list of speakers who could come to your area – all for $150/year and a $75 renewal fee each year. I shared with her that while I appreciate the offer, I was not interested in those resources and just wanted to gather some folks together over some beers and talk theology. She said, “That’s great. Do it. Just don’t call it Theology on Tap.”
She made the comparison to Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” and said that if I tried to do a program like “Meaning Driven Life” or anything like that, “Rick Warren would be all over you!” (Apparently rick is okay with The Porpoise Diving Life though…) I just don’t think that’s a fair comparison.
I get where they’re coming from to some degree. I think they don’t want people “stealing” a Catholic idea and using it and possibly trying to convert Catholics. I think they have that fear. But “Theology on Tap” seems like such a generic phrase – why the hot pursuit of anyone who is trying to do ministry (not at all thinking about – or even aware of – the connection to the Catholic church)?
The official response from Renew International Theology on Tap is below:
Our work in getting groups registered for Theology on Tap is not about enforcing the copyright on the program; rather, we’re looking to create a high quality and consistent experience for those who participate in the events that go by the name “Theology on Tap”. For the last thirty years, Theology on Tap has come to encapsulate a particular form of ministry—outreach to young adults in their 20s and 30s in a comfortable setting, usually in a Catholic context. We want to make sure that peoples’ expectations of what Theology on Tap is are being met when they attend events promoted by this name. If we did not seek to create this consistent experience by working with Theology on Tap groups, we would be doing both you and us a disservice by not staying true to the intention of the program.
We are open and willing to work with those who are looking to reach out to young adults in a manner that is respectful of the Catholic tradition. We ask groups of other denominations to stay true to the mission and intent of the program, and to work through proper channels within their respective denominations.
We charge a modest licensing and membership fee which we feel is justified by the resources, publicity, and web presence we provide, including a step-by-step Manual on how to successful begin and sustain a Theology on Tap program. If any group finds it difficult to pay this modest fee, we try to work with them to ensure that this vital ministry can prosper wherever there is interest.
To give them credit, they do say that they will work with ministries who find it difficult to pay the modest fee. So I suppose I could say that, but we’re not really a struggling church. In the end, I think it’s simply a question of whether they really do want to further this ministry? Are they making it easier for churches to do ministry when they contact them and demand that they use a different name? Are they making it easier for themselves to continue with their ministry when they spend time on the phone talking to bloggers about this issue (which they did with me, but they said themselves they don’t really have time for this – let alone time for litigation…)? Or are their efforts to keep a tight grasp of the name simply doing a disservice to the ministry and to others who wish to participate in this kind of kingdom work?
I’d offer that it’s limiting ministry – making it harder for those who want to meet the needs of young adults in this way – and not furthering Christian unity. But I’d love to know if you think differently.
Related posts:
- Starting up a Theology on Tap in Livermore
- A Theology of Play in Youth Ministry: What About Youth Group Games?
- Theology Pub in Livermore
- A Program-Less Youth Ministry ‘Program’
Share This Post:
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, I wonder what James Dobson would do if a Gay Christian ministry developed a venue called “Focus on the Family”. Surely he would insist copyright laws were being violated, and seek to not allow its reputation to be tarnished by someone else using its name. Just a thought.
In the end, I think it’s simply a question of whether they really do want to further this ministry? Are they making it easier for churches to do ministry when they contact them and demand that they use a different name?
I think I said this before: they don’t think you’re a ministry worth furthering because you are not a minister in the Church, i.e., the Roman Catholic Church. By telling you to stop they are furthering their ministry. Tough stuff, but I think at bottom that’s what this is about.
That sucks…but I bet you could come up with a name that works just as well.
Doctrine and Drinking?
I didn’t realize they had such a successful ministry with programs, speakers, etc. Which means, that outside the Catholic tradition, it must not be that successful a ministry. Which makes the comparison to Purpose Driven Life (which clearly is well known at least) like comparing apples to some obscure fruit only eaten in certain regions.
In any case, looks like you need another name. I kind of like the porpoise thing. Or Soteriology and Suds. Or “a churchy excuse to go drinking with friends”. (the last one might be a little long).
So really what this comes down to is, you didn’t get the answer you wanted so now this organization is not working to bring unity to the church. Kinda like you didn’t get the answer you wanted regarding your ordination, so the process for ordination must be wrong.
I am reaching/assuming when stating that but it seems to be a constant pattern. You need to respect that the ministry has asked you, politely, to not use their name. You are a smart guy, come up with something different.
When my ministry did an event at a campus and the newspaper credited that event to a campus fellowship instead of my ministry, you take it as a grain of salt and let it go. Life goes on and you continue to do what God has called you to do.
Adam, I guess I’m a little surprised by your response. Given that you know design, marketing and branding, I think you can appreciate a brand, especially one created over 30 years. The cost seemed reasonable, at least from my perspective, and you admit you could afford it if you needed to.
I guess if someone wanted to use “Pomomusings” as their own you’d probably respond the same way. If not, then you a generous man.
Hey Jonathan – thanks for your comment…I guess my thing is that Theology on Tap is such a generic thing – SO many churches have Theology on Taps at their church…and it seems that to search out all these churches doing ministry is a little unnecessary and not really furthering ministry like they claim to be…
Adam, I found you and your site from someone’s tweet to your Top 10 Reasons to Switch to WordPress, which was a good read. And the conversation following was enlightening as well. Seems to me that you’re an instigator. ;-) I think you hit the nail on the head in your summation in the last paragraph. The particular approach they are taking is “limiting ministry”, at least ministry under the specific name “Theology on Tap”. They feel they’ve established a program that is meant for a specific demographic and they have specific resources that they feel meet the needs of the program, etc. It’s an interesting dilemma. I see both sides. I did notice, for what it’s worth, on their site that it is always referenced as “RENEW Theology on Tap”. To me it would seem that a simple preface of “ASBURY Theology on Tap” would provide a differentiator and should allow for no misunderstanding. Technicality? Maybe. I would contrast all this with LifeChurch.tv, out of OK and their Open program at http://open.lifechurch.tv/. They make all their resources available for free in the interest of ministry. I think it’s more of the Catholic church afraid to lose members, personally.
I think that their prices and services are very reasonable. I doubt this is a money making operation in any way. It seems they are creating a good balance between cost, content, and quality. If they were going to just charge to use the name and not provide you with any of the services they provide the other groups that would be different. They are inviting you to join the “Theology on Tap” family and this is just an upfront cost, like becoming a Willow Creek Association church or opening up a Chipotle franchise.
Trademarks and copyrights are important things … and if they want to protect the “brand identity” of their program, they have every right to do so. Frustrating perhaps, but it is their right. Now is it a good idea? For something like a ministry program, perhaps.
What if you developed a creative ministry program called, “Penguins and Parables,” in which people dressed up like penguins and re-enacted the parables in a life-changing ministry? And what if others starting using that title, but doing a somewhat different program? Wouldn’t that cheapen your program and how it is perceived by others?
I ran into copyright issues a while back when I was publishing on my blog an edited version of a form of prayer found in the Lutheran worship book, Evangelical Lutheran Worship. I had to take it down because of copyright issues, something I did reluctantly. I disagreed with the decision, because A) the form of prayer I was using was essentially a collection of ancient prayers (an order largely borrowed from the non-copyrighted Book of Common Prayer) – who knew that you could slap a copyright on ordering ancient prayers, or on a form of prayer largely borrowed from another tradition gracious enough to not copyright their own material?, and B) I saw it as a way of limiting the distribution of prayer forms through new media. But they did it, and I took it down.
We have to follow the rules, however annoying they are. Call it something else.
I absolutely agree with the representative from Theology on Tap. They are working to maintain a consistent theology and program, and supporting churches who want to see this sort of ministry happen, and happen well. Frankly, if I were a member of one of these groups and then moved to your area and wanted to get involved with something similar, I think I would be disappointed that it was called the same thing but did not match what I knew.
My advice: get over it and think of a different name.
let me make use of kan’ts moral distinction between ‘is’ & ‘ought’. The ‘is’ is the reality of the situation. Yeah there are things like branding and copyright laws, which they have behind them.
But the ‘ought’ of the situation is that it should be open source, creative commons share alike licensed. We are all under the one brand, Jesus Christ. There is no reason for fussing & fighting over such silly things. Who needs to be worrying about branding though, when we are not meant to be of this world, anyway?
I second the vote for Soteriology & Suds. Or Propitiation & Pitchers. Or New Adam & Ale.
i know someone who’s doing “guiness and the good news” in NC. i like the names above. yes, i think it’s time to move on.
We have used TAB “Theology And Beer” before. It seemed catchy enough to draw people in. From my experience, people will commit to something because of a positive, shared experience…not because of what the event is titled. I’m guessing this is why youth ministers are abandoning cool monikers for their youth groups and just calling it “youth group” or “high school ministry”.
Seriously? We JUST renamed our High School Ministry to THE ROCK and Middle School Ministry to WHAM!
cleave,
it isn’t a generic phrase vis. their copyright. just do it is a phrase i use a lot, but if i were to start a line of athletic gear and use that phrase to market my gear, that would be pretty clear copyright infringement. the words, when associated in a particular capacity, are a core part of the brand. thus the reason you have to pay to use them.
this is an organization that has overhead costs. it is a bit naive to suggest that their ministry, or your ministry, or even jesus’ ministry is “free” (judas held the purse). you have clearly taken steps to support your blog because hosting isnt free and you spend time with it. this is no different; just a larger scale.
From my understanding, whether they like what you are doing and support it or not, in order for them to enforce any kind of copyright law, they have to do their best to enforce it in all instances. It can’t be okay for one group to use and not another because then they have no basis for a copyright claim. It kind of sucks that it’s that way, but is understandable if they want to protect their name, since they have no control over what the other group is doing or teaching. If it’s something bad, it could tarnish them.
But yeah, it does seem within ministry we limit others more than support sometimes and that there should be ways around legal stuff like that.
I tried to see your side on this one, Adam, I really did. And I tried out the other arguments, too. In the end, though, I’ve gotta go with Team Catholic on this one. I don’t think it’s got anything to do with their paranoia, or desire for exclusivity or even short-sightedness.
In the end, I think they have a vision, and they’re staying true to the vision. There isn’t anything wrong with that. That’s good business, and it’s good ministry. They’re hitting who they’re called to hit, the way they’re called to hit them. They’ve offered a way for you to get on board. If you don’t want to, then they’ve invited you to get your own vision. It’s just that simple to me.
This is a trademark issue, not a copyright one. There is an important difference—trademarks theoretically last forever, but the owner has to be far more vigilant in enforcing their ownership. If they’re not, a court can rule that they have abandoned the mark and possibly even turn the ownership of the mark over to someone else who is willing to fight for it.
That means that you can’t just turn a blind eye if someone uses your mark. So, for instance, if I were to start a web design company and call it ‘Cleave Design’ Adam could figure that I’m no threat and leave me be. However, I could eventually decide I don’t like Adam’s use of the term and ask a court to clarify its ownership.
That would get ugly and expensive, and Adam would most likely win—but that’s not guaranteed.
What Adam should have done is written me a letter asking me to stop using the name, pointing out that he’s prepared to instigate legal action if necessary. However, he’s a nice guy and he wants to help, so he might offer to allow me to use the mark on particular terms. I could either stop using the names or accept the terms Adam proposes.
That’s exactly what the Theology on Tap folks have done.
On the generic name thing, that’s really for a court to decide. If you decided to use the name anyway and it went to court you could offer it’s genericalness as a defence, but you’d have to be able to prove that it’s so. Somehow, I’m not sure the court would agree.
Well.. doesn’t surprise me – from the denomination that gives their folks only single-gender priests, no open communion, a very standardized liturgy from church to church, I would also agree. They ARE spreading their theology as one commenter put it.
“Religion and a Pint” sounds much more refined to me!
Keep up the trouble-making!!
I’ve heard of a number of Theology on Tap groups, never any of them (to my knowledge) “official” or catholic. I don’t think they can make the claim that the name “Theology on Tap has come to encapsulate a particular form of ministry” that is specific to their program. IMO, they have already lost control of their brand. Much like many of us use kleenex that aren’t Kleenex(tm).
If most people’s first association with Theology on Tap is with that catholic program then that’s a different story, but I don’t think that is the case.
I didn’t read all of the other comments, so I may be repeating. I apologize if I am.
She’s right. Ministry or not, well-meaning or not… their work in tilling the ground on this is something that has yielded great results and is likely to have touched the lives of numbers of folks. For the sake of consistency and meeting the expectations of those who are counting on a similar experience, they can and maybe should ask folks to be on board with what they say they are. Think Alpha.
Young Life has had similar run ins with Christians who own secular businesses ad took issue with the well meaning, for the sake of kids knowing Christ, logos that were manipulated, or slogans assumed for the camps and retreats that enticed kids to furher their faith. Copyright infringement was cited all over the place in that instance.
I wonder what book-writing Christians might think of their titles being wholly used as church programs with no mention of the author or the work they did. I’m honestly curious… would it be enough to know that (just for examples purposes) the book title and concept of A New Kind of Christian was being used as bumper sticker fodder, t-shirt emblem, or the like… all for the sake of folks identifying their faith, but maybe not for the sake of aligning with the concepts or theology in the book and certainly without royalties being distributed on…
I understand that it’s frustrating, but I commend them on leaning toward integrity and no doubt working toward refining and equipping folks with what they’ve been called to do. “Furthering the ministry” can be a slippery slope if what it looks like to the outsider is that it entitles us to take from one another without permission.
My first take is that you likely did not come up with “Theology on Tap” on your own. You heard about it someplace else, likely due to the good work of others. Perhaps, the thinking that it is generic is just a sign that the those who pioneered the effort did a good job.
From what you reported about your conversation, Renew did not try to stop you as a non-Catholic from signing up and putting on TOT. So the comment that it is a fear of convert thing seems pretty spurious and maybe a projection of a stereotype about Catholics. (Yes, I’m Catholic) But, maybe they said something more that you didn’t mention that supports the assertion.
I don’t buy the thought that it is a limit on ministry. But, so what if it were? We could look at the $1500 as a block. Or, we could look at is as a pretty minimal and fair contribution to those who have gone before you in this work and who continue it.
J Mark, first, I’ve heard about “Theology on Tap” for years — with absolutely no connection to the Catholic church – but from groups that friends of mine were a part of, or that local churches were putting on. It was only when someone warned me that the Catholic church would require me to change the name did I find out that it was a specific Catholic program.
So, I think the fact that people have heard about it and are familiar with the name “Theology on Tap” really has probably nothing to do with the success of the Catholic church’s program, but rather the fact that many other people already do use the name.
The “converting” Catholics was a very small part of our conversation. I brought it up by simply saying that I was certainly NOT one of those types of Christians who doesn’t think that Catholics are “real” Christians – and I had no interest in trying to start up something under the “guise” of a Catholic name to try to convert Catholics or get them away from the Catholic church.
The funny thing is that this is clearly a term that is popular in the way that others aren’t (trying googling “sociology on tap,” “presbyterianism on tap,” etc.). Something–probably the group–has led this to become part of the cultural lexicon, at least within some young adult American communities. On the other hand, this is a phrase which, as I said in response to the last post, that has been used for the last hundred years. It was already in the public domain. It’s in the interest of the group to go to modest efforts to protect their franchise, and it’s probably also in your interest to keep this as much as possible a public, nonsectarian term. And neither of you are likely to get a lawyer over it. I would offer a generic apology and run the group as theology on tap and quote the Auburn review from 1900: “theology on tap, easier to turn on than to shut off.”
I can’t believe it. Once again the question arises among the Christian community, “is it about ministry and growing the kingdom, or about arguing over the color of the carpet and semantics?” I do understand some of the legal issues surrounding such a title since it is an officially recognized organization. But, c’mon already. Shouldn’t we be about the things of God and not the world that only creates barriers to effective ministry? I get really concerned when Christian organizations try and lock up a market to a point where they become so anal about it, it no longer looks like something from God. The unchurched, critical-against-christianity folks pick it up rather quickly.
Having said that, I plan on doing a theology on tap where I’m going. Whether I call it that or not, we’ll see. But I shouldn’t have to worry about it.
Adam,
Thanks for your reply.
On the converting, your post speculated that that Renew’s motivation was fear of someone using TOT to convert Catholics, “I think they have that fear.” But, from what you related, that was not the reason Renew gave you. So, you either got some evidence of the fear from your conversation with Renew or you are imposing that motivation on them without any reason to do so which is not particularly charitable. I brought it up because it seems like an odd thing to say without some reason.
On Jonathan’s point that the phrase has been around for the last 100 years. Really? I know it’s been around since ’81 when TOT start in Chicago. Does anyone among us have access to LexisNexis? If so, can you run a search of TOT for citations in 1909 or prior to 1981? It would be great to see what comes up.
Thanks all.
The phrase was first used in 1900. See this comment from the previous thread on Theology on Tap.
HL Mencken used the phrase in 1940 also. It really has a nice pedigree.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4t4EAQAAIAAJ&q=%22theology+on+tap%22&dq=%22theology+on+tap%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1981&as_brr=0&pgis=1
Adam –
I ran into the same thing, only the Diocese of Washington, DC immediately threw out the “s” word: they threatened to SUE us.
We switched to “Faith on Tap.” Whatever.
Dear Theresa Seeber, Ben, Jonathan Brink, Thom, Chris, Jenny Smith, Jamey, Melissa, Chelle, Cameron, Michelle, and J Mark:
WTF??????? Have you ALL lost your collective minds???
First of all, RENEW Theology on Tap did not “work hard to create a brand identity.” They are opportunists who STOLE an existing brand identity from the public domain and trademarked it so the thousands of groups ALREADY using it would be at a legal disadvantage. Huge difference, people. Huge difference.
Focus on the family, Purpose Driven Life, and even the phrase “Just Do it” all belong to individuals or organizations that in the public eye are almost UNIVERSALLY associated with the corporate entities they represent. I challenge ANY of you to walk into ANY shopping mall in America and ask passersby what organization is represented by the phrase “Theology on Tap.” If even a single person could tell you that it’s the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, I’ll sit down and shut up. But that won’t happen, and you all know it.
By the way, some of you I listed above have pretty cool sounding names. I’m thinking of taking out a trademark on one or more of them. Don’t worry, you’ll get my threatening legal letter in the mail soon enough.
Adam, you should stick with calling your group “Theology on Tap.” My Theology on Tap group is progressing nicely, and I know of several others who have started similar groups because of this. The Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago might sue you, but only after they settle their multi-million dollar Pedophile Priest lawsuits, and at that point, they’ll be so broke that hopefully “Theology on Tap” will pass into the public domain again, until some other copyright/trademark troll snaps it up…
I’ve not lost my mind.
I just don’t agree.
I think being told no can sometimes mold ones character. Believing that to be the case has sometimes helped me to not loose my mind.
Your welcome to my name, I think my mom stole it from a Beatles song.
Neal, I am learning a lot about TOT thru this blog, and appreciate your wisdom – just not your tone LOL. Excuse me, you know, I don’t claim to have all the answers. It was just a thought to get the ball rolling. I had never even heard of TOT but I find Adam to be compelling and challenging and wanted to be a part of this conversation. I am glad he didn’t wig out on me the way you did, but you know, I think I can be cool with you anyway. LOL
The question of whether or not to like or even to support the trademarking of a particular phrase for a particular purpose (commercial, ministerial, or otherwise), is an interesting one, but not the one that Adam asked. I’m more interested in the question “Does a trademark like this hurt ministry and promote division rather than unity in the body of Christ?”
In my opinion, the answer is “no.” Well, actually, my VERY honest opinion is that the question itself is silly and a bit arrogant.
By asking the question, Adam, you seem to be implying that your very ministry will suffer if you give it a different name. It’s troubling to think that this question seems to equate the success of one’s ministry with its name rather than its substance. Does renaming your ministry change the character of it? Does it change the nature of the conversations that will happen over a beer? Does it change the heart of the faith that you are encouraging others to explore together? I’d hope not! So I’m not sure why its worth making such a big deal about the naming conflict, nor am I sure why it is worth inflating the situation to an artificial question of whether trademarks hurt ministry.
Ministry is about what you do, not what you’re called.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called, retain that dear perfection which he owes.”
IMHO, pick your battles.
What difference does it make what you CALL it? What matters is that you DO it!
Goodness, you’re as bad as a bunch of disciples trying to call down fire on Samaritans because they won’t let you go through their part of the city. Jeez, man, go around! (Luke 9: 52-55).
The kingdom of God will neither be hindered by their decision nor by yours. God is SO not controlled by what you NAME a ministry.
Melissa — I disagree passionately with you, especially that merely by raising the issue, Adam is somehow “arrogant.”
You want to know how issues just like this one are cutting to the heart of ministry? Here are some examples that should make any Christian sit up and take notice:
1. The coffee shop where some talented kids from my youth group used to play music was shut down because of legal threats when kids played cover songs from their favorite bands, and the coffee shop didn’t have the appropriate license (which are so exorbitant a local coffee shop could never afford).
2. The girl scouts of America were sued by ASCAP for merely singing copyrighted songs around campfires at their meetings.
3. Several churches across the nation were forced by legal threats from the NFL to shut down super-bowl parties, many of which were organized as fundraisers for local soup kitchens.
4. A musician friend of mine was sent threatening legal notices from a major CHRISTIAN publishing company because she recorded the public domain song “Amazing Grace” — the company said the legal burden of proof rested with her to *prove* that her version wasn’t the same as one from one of their artists. She couldn’t afford the legal fees, so she simply yanked her recording off the internet.
Let me ask you this: by using the phrase Theology on Tap, is Adam (or any number of churches who use it) in some way causing detriment or harm to the ministry of the group that owns the trademark? It isn’t likely.
In most cases like this, the ones who hold the trademark or copyright represent the legal “power” and those who are threatened with legal action are the marginalized, powerless, and victims of the situation. Sure, it may not quite rise to the level of AIDS or global hunger, but I suspect I know who Jesus would side with in cases like this one.
To answer your question, no, I don’t think Adam is likely to do harm to the ministry of the group who owns the trademark. But they don’t know that; they also don’t know that someone else out there might use it for purposes detrimental (intentional or not) to their ministry. Don’t get me wrong – I think it’s sort of silly to trademark something like that, but I just think it’s equally as silly to elevate the issue of what to name a ministry over the purpose of the ministry itself.
I think that all of the examples you have laid out are valid critiques of an over-legalized society that has decided it is easier to draw boundaries around “mine” and “yours” via legal means than to give people the benefit of the doubt. And yet on the other hand, we also have a society that is full of people (especially my generation and younger) who live with such a sense of entitlement, who assume that everything in this world, even another person’s creative ideas, are theirs for their use.
I guess I’m just thinking that there are some battles that are worth picking and others that aren’t. This is a justice issue when it is truly a justice issue (some of our examples point to that), but it is also an entitlement issue, which is why I’m not ready to simply label those who hold the trademarks as “bad” and those who want to use that trademarked content as “good.”
Moreover…I might be wrong about this, but from the post and the comments, I’m getting a distinctly anti-authority vibe. There are moments when it feels like we’re arguing against the powers-that-be simply because they are powers-that-be; turning this issue into an excuse to challenge authority for the sake of challenging authority. But I could be mistaken.
Wow, I rambled there. Let me do better and put it another way:
I agree 100% that issues of trademark and copyright can be power/oppression sorts of justice issues. But are matters of trademark and copyright ALWAYS social justice issues? And would you consider Adam’s circumstances an instance of a “legal power” threatening a “marginalized, powerless, victim?”
This is probably a far more fruitful point from which to begin discussion than my previous rambling.
I guess my question would be, what’s your purpose in all this? If the purpose is to have a group that meets to discuss theology over beer in a bar, then just do it and call it something else. If the purpose is to challenge copyright/trademark/branding laws, I would ask: does your suds & soteriology group think that’s the most pressing issue for them to address? And if you’re saying that in a perfect, more Godly world we wouldn’t use copyrights and trademarks, then model it. Create the group, call it something else, make it wildly successful, and then encourage anyone who asks to use the name
Part of beating the system is learning to play it.
Another thought is that since alcohol is invovled maybe the Catholic church doesn’t want somebody taking their program and abusing it. I’m not saying you wouldn’t use all the care and caution available but it is possible that someone could drink too much, drive home and cause an accident. I’m not arguing about liability and legal issues, I’m just saying that maybe they want people being careful with the program and by “licensing” you to be a part of that they can put some greater controls around it. Once it came out that something happened from a Theology on Tap event the news would love nothing more than to track it back to the Catholic Church.
Also, what if I wanted to start a Pomomusings eZine and all I did was spout MarK Driscoll. (I only use his name becasue I know if your disdain for him). You would then spend your time and energy talking about how your “not THAT Pomomusings.” Maybe TOP wants to simply avoid that.
I guess I just don’t understand why you want to fight everyone and everything that doesn’t agree with you? When do you just let things go, only when they go your way?
Does a ministry really “have” to have a name? My question to the OP is why does it matter what you call your ministry? Marci hit the nail on the head when she referred to “Theology on Tap” as “a churchy excuse to drink with your friends”. Why can’t a ministry develop and care more about the people they are reaching than create a “cool” monicker? Personally, I would name my church drinking group maybe, “Shots for Souls” or “Beers on Bibles” or “Whiskey for the Word”, maybe, I mean if your more interested in what’s on “tap” than the souls of your young adults then I think you should seriously consider your motivation or purpose of why you even wrote this post or why your even in ministry. I agree with Margaret. the “fruit” of your ministry will be seen by the fruit of your kids, not by the name you put to it.
Adam–I apologize for my earlier hostile comments. I was reacting in part to my own frustrations at beating my head against walls, but that ought to make me more sympathetic to other people’s frustrations, so I’m sorry. Bruce Reyes-Chow posted a comment on his facebook page about not playing the “My passion is more important than yours game,” and he’s right.
I wish I had the time and the babysitter to attend a Suds and Soteriology group, but I’d be up for hosting it in my living room (hint, Neal)
{ 3 trackbacks }