Well, I am back on the grid after a series of trips and time in the wilderness – a literal wilderness not a spiritual one. I have a number of ideas outlined from this time of camping, work and reflection and hope to get them worked up as blog posts shortly. This includes some thoughts on Landon Whitsitt’s book Open Source Church, which played into what I want to talk about today.
In my brief time back on the grid a bit over a week ago the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released the PDF version of the new Book of Order and initially charged for it. This was a break from tradition, both for the PC(USA) specifically as well as for Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in general. There was an initial uproar about it and a few days later the decision was reversed. As Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons tweeted (@gradyemp) “I will confess that we have not explained well the move to charge for the download.” With that the controversy quickly died down — We have returned to normal and all is right with the world again.
First, thanks to all who wrote me with the update that the download was once again free. I did catch it just before going off the grid again but did not have time to properly respond. Now I have had a chance to reflect on this a bit.
Some observations:
1. Once again “the medium is the message” and the medium now is Twitter. I have found it interesting how quickly a topic can get circulated via Twitter. As one article says, “Twitter Does Not Supplant Other Media, It Amplifies It.” This change was quickly amplified on Twitter and that is where the majority of the questions, answers, guesses and complaints were circulated, all in 140 characters or less.
2. As I indicated in my initial response the move to charge crossed a line that I am not aware that any other Presbyterian or Reformed denomination had previously crossed. (Please correct me if I missed one.) This does not mean that the PC(USA) should not have taken this route. The fact that they started down this road, even if they quickly turned back, is an indication that cost recovery needs to come from somewhere, especially if sales of hard copies are dropping as more people acquire the electronic version. If the Book of Order is to support itself then as sale of print copies decreases it only makes sense to charge for the electronic copies. I am pretty sure that was the rational behind the move. The other alternative is that initial publication costs be funded through per capita.
3. As the quote from the Stated Clerk above indicates the move was not done well. Again, the medium is the message. In addition to the change being made with no advance warning or interpretation the license terms of the new version were not explained. The copyright notice it carries is the same as the print version. Does that mean that I have to pay $10 for every computer I want to store it on? Can I store it in the cloud on something like Dropbox or Google Docs? Can all the ruling elders in a single household use the same download copy? Can a church, presbytery or synod office pay for one copy for the administrative and ecclesiastical personnel to share? Should it contain DRM measures to control the use? I could keep on going. While the questions are currently moot the issue is that the world has changed and that electronic use agreements can not be the same boiler plate we are used to in the paper copyright statements.
4. A couple brief quotes from Landon Whitsitt’s book are applicable here:
In so many areas of church organizational life, I believe that part of the problem we in the church have is that we unreflectively mimic what we see played out in the business world. “Business” is hard to avoid because it affects so much of our lives. [p. 148]
and
But when we employ modern business practices unreflectively, we begin to internalize the value systems from which those practices spring. [p. 149]
Now, those familiar with the book may comment that the book deals with orgaization and leadership while this controversy has to do with the sale of a document. True enough, but in making the decision to start charging for it did the organization reflect on why to charge or was it reduced to a “business decision.”
5. Speaking of Open Source Church, when I saw that The Book of Order download was no longer free my first reaction was that somehow violated open source principles. (And I was not the only one.) But it was only with a little reflection that I came to realize that the Book of Order does not even come close to the Open Source Definition. Again, Landon had a lot to say about this as well.
Let me suggest that this incident says a lot more about how we operate than whether we are willing to shell out a few bucks for our constitutional document. It says a lot about how we communicate with each other, or don’t communicate as the case may be. As I suggest, if we have to pay for the paper version why should we not have to pay for the digital version. (Maybe the paper version should have a premium price to pay for the materials as well as the labor of putting it together.) But it also suggests that more thought needs to be put into the differences between an electronic and paper version in regards to how they are used.
Let me also suggest that the church as a whole should be open to new models. How about an even more radical form of the Book of Order that I have not had time to pursue yet (so go ahead and run with this if you are interested). What if the Annotated Book of Order was online as a Wiki. Yes, it would require permission to upload all the text, but the idea is that the actual text and official annotations are displayed and locked, but us polity wonks generate additional commentary and discussion on the material. It would be possible to include preceding versions of the text for historical perspective and language from other branches for comparison. Think of it as sort of a Presbyterian polity midrash.
It is fascinating to view the interaction here of the top-down control structure and the new instantaneous bottom-up feedback made possible through social media. The church needs to adjust to the media in many different aspects, if not embrace it, as the technology advances.