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)

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?

Part of beating the system is learning to play it.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

We switched to “Faith on Tap.” Whatever.

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.

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.