tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post89205657639788927..comments2023-11-05T02:55:10.230-06:00Comments on Gottesdienst Online: Difficulties of the LCMS Visited on LSB and CPHPr. H. R.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-31777781532863106932018-04-07T11:32:31.895-05:002018-04-07T11:32:31.895-05:00Having read most (not all) of this thread, my init...Having read most (not all) of this thread, my initial response is one of despair and sadness. So much misunderstanding, so much talking past and around others, so much over-reacting, so much complaining about things which you had no part in whatsoever. I could go on, but why. Perhaps there is a Bible verse I could refer too. I think I will ask a Baptist friend about that.<br /><br />BalaamsAss51https://www.blogger.com/profile/04427791905802091592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-23729380834204282872014-04-22T16:27:11.286-05:002014-04-22T16:27:11.286-05:00Last time I checked, people who worked for you did...Last time I checked, people who worked for you did what they were told. If not, they were fired.<br /><br />Rev. McCain--indeed everyone at CPH--works for Synod, which are the congregations and church workers of the LCMS.<br /><br />The Synod needs to fortify its testicular fortitude and demand that CPH release the text of the Small Catechism.<br /><br />If CPH refuses to do this, then then Synod needs to direct CPH's Board of Directors to start chopping off heads.<br /><br />Why let Synodical members be belittled by someone who works for them? That happens nowhere except in the LCMS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-30498870575671439482013-08-19T21:31:32.835-05:002013-08-19T21:31:32.835-05:00Long ago (but not too long ago - maybe during the ...Long ago (but not too long ago - maybe during the Barry Era - someone in St. Louis sent out a 'file' with the entire CPH/Synodical Catechism... <br /><br />Paul - do you remember WHO might have sent out that file - and perhaps answer WHAT we are allowed to do with the data?? thominkentuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17517149066704791385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-83041639985551619952013-03-20T09:39:12.361-05:002013-03-20T09:39:12.361-05:00I think it would be magnanimous of CPH to release ...I think it would be magnanimous of CPH to release it's grip on the SC and in celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, give it over to the people. I'm sure Luther would have no qualms with the same, and with copyright law being non-existant back then, he probably never made a penny on it himself. DavidBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846356593616151952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-19617747050288051672013-03-16T11:16:44.555-05:002013-03-16T11:16:44.555-05:00The official 1986 translation of Luther's Smal...The official 1986 translation of Luther's Small Catechism by the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod ought to be public domain for all of our congregations to use without royalty fees being paid to CPH. That is my opinion. <br /><br />One of Luther's major concerns was that we, as congregations and pastors, adopt one form of the Small Catechism and stick with it year in and year out for the sake of teaching the faith and building a common language. It is destructive to synodical harmony when each congregation has its own translation or each entity of the synod has its own translation because the royalty fees of CPH are punitive. <br /><br />The Concordia Catechetical Academy of Peace Lutheran Church (an official auxiliary of our congregation) was formed to promote Luther's Small Catechism and faithful Lutheran Catechesis to the Church at large. While one could argue that the CCA produces catechetical materials "commercially" our use of the Small Catechism is NOT for profit. CPH was instituted to be of support to the congregations and pastors of the synod in preaching the Gospel and teaching the faith, but as everyone at CPH knows, it does cost money to produce materials. The "modest fee" that we are charged for use of the Small Catechism is 10% of the retail cost of whatever volume the Small Catechism appears in. Our catechumen edition retails for $18, so our fee per volume to CPH is $1.80. Our Catechist Edition (which has exactly the same amount of copyrighted material in it as the catechumen edition) retails for $40 per volume, so our fee per volume is $4.00. Since the copyrighted material in both volumes is the same, this means that Concordia Publishing House is "profiting" off of what I have written in the Catechist edition to the tune of $2.10. I would prefer not to be lectured about our "commercial use" of the Catechism. <br /><br />We are a congregation of the Synod. We produce catechetical materials to help the church. We give away catechetical materials to foreign Lutheran Church bodies and missions. We are not in this to "make money" commercially. We have been told that charging for use of our translation of the catechism is just the way business is done in the publishing business, yet it is only Concordia Publishing House that treats us this way. <br />We have made use of the New King James Version in all of our materials since 1997. Thomas Nelson Publishers charges us nothing for the use of their translation as long as we follow their copyright guidelines, which we are more than happy to do. Thomas Nelson Publishers recognizes that such generous copyright permissions ONLY ENHANCES THE PURCHASE OF NKJV Bibles and materials. The same would be true for CPH when it comes to the Small Catechism and the liturgy and prayers in LSB. <br /><br />We, the Concordia Catechetical Academy, encourages our clients to purchase such things as Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, The Treasury of Daily Prayer, and the "Blue hardcover Catechism" from CPH (which contains the synodical explanation to the Small Catechism), and many other fine resources that CPH produces. <br /><br />There was a time, when the CCA first started its work, that we were not altogether certain that CPH would be producing the kind of fine confessional materials we have seen over the last ten to fifteen years. I am very grateful for the work that CPH has done in recent times. But the CCA is no threat to CPH, in fact, what we do only serves to support the confessional materials they publish.<br /><br />The Small Catechism, Book of Concord, Liturgy and Prayers of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod belong to all of us. These works are very different from original works by authors where copyright protection and royalties are appropriate. But when it comes to the Catechism, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Liturgy it is my prayer that we would stop charging each other royalties for their use. We would all benefit. But most of all, the capacity to preach and teach the Gospel would be enhanced.Rev. Peter C. Bender, Concordia Catechetical Academyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031779729476539034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-24590182101853366442013-03-14T05:52:08.331-05:002013-03-14T05:52:08.331-05:00Or $14.00 for a paperback (pocket) Concordia? Tha...Or $14.00 for a paperback (pocket) Concordia? That price should be cut in half. Timothy C. Schenkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11770741345144496175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-38700179143845035822013-03-14T05:48:55.868-05:002013-03-14T05:48:55.868-05:00Pastor Wolfmueller, why would you or any LCMS past...Pastor Wolfmueller, why would you or any LCMS pastor do this without permission in the first place? Timothy C. Schenkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11770741345144496175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-28372135245090557812013-03-12T16:42:06.875-05:002013-03-12T16:42:06.875-05:00Oh, and one more thing: if I had to pay double for...Oh, and one more thing: if I had to pay double for Gerhard so that lots of people got free Catechisms, I wouldn't hesitate. And would gladly apply the Law to anyone who would.<br />TSTapani Simojokihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050897388566829272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-73494055207303358912013-03-12T16:37:09.677-05:002013-03-12T16:37:09.677-05:00(continued)
The thing is that, when it comes to t...(continued)<br /><br />The thing is that, when it comes to the property of the Holy Catholic Church, the distinction between what is mine and what is everyone's is always and necessarily blurred. John Mason Neale never protected any of his translations of ancient hymns, because he was convinced that they weren't his to own but the church's property. I have contributed to a hymnal myself, and for the reasons laid out above I claim copyright to my work; but I have not charged royalties or restricted its use, for reasons I learned from Neale. Where others draw the line is for them to decide. Where I would always draw the line, and would insist on others doing the same, is the Liturgy. How anyone can claim to 'own' the Liturgy, or in good conscience restrict its use, is utterly beyond my comprehension. I'm not alone: the Lutheran Church in Australia, not awash with billions, has <a href="http://www.lca.org.au/approved-worship-services.html" rel="nofollow">shown us what to do with the Liturgy</a>.<br /><br />The translation of the Catechism is a slightly different kettle of fish. As it happens, the ELCE has benefited from just the kind of thing that Pr. Petersen mentions in a recent comment: we persuaded CPH to allow us to print an Anglicised version of the Enchiridion, without a charge. The Lutheran Heritage Foundation paid for the printing, and we give it away free. I'm sure CPH would have been unwilling if we had sold the Catechism for profit. Thanks to LHF, the Small Catechism with Explanation exists in several African languages, and around ¼ million copies of the Swahili version alone have been given away free in Eastern Africa over the past decade. It's been a tremendous mission tool within and beyond the Lutheran churches there. If the LCMS is serious about Lutheran missions at home, the least it could do is to give away the Enchiridion to anyone who asks, with a spare copy for company!<br /><br />As for the LSB, I agree with Pr. Peters that it is as good a book as one can expect in these dark days. It frustrates me to pieces all over the place, but the competition is a lot worse. My congregation are slowly learning that complaining about hymns doesn't work, and that learning a new hymn—even a German dirge—isn't beyond the realms of possibility, or even a bad thing. Again, in a small church body like the ELCE, it's not that hard for us to fix things and get those fixes implemented across all the congregations. It's harder for those of you living in the Babel that is the LCMS.<br /><br />However, it does distress me—no less—to see how quickly these discussions turn ugly amongst people who ought to be brothers. Firing from the hip, a shortage of 8th-commandment graciousness, table-thumping and verbal eye-rolling seem to come out amongst us Lutherans quicker than you can say Gemütlichkeit. It ought not to be so. Manners maketh man, especially a Christian man.<br /><br />My tuppenny's worth.<br /><br />In Christian love,<br />Rev. Tapani Simojoki<br />Fareham, United KingdomTapani Simojokihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050897388566829272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-62336935479954187242013-03-12T16:36:02.928-05:002013-03-12T16:36:02.928-05:00With fear and trepidation, I will tread into this,...With fear and trepidation, I will tread into this, late and with a light tread.<br /><br />Not being from or in the LCMS—I was brought up in the Ev.Luth.Church of Finland, and I serve a congregation in the Ev.Luth. Church of England, I come from a slightly different angle, I hope.<br /><br />First, a clarification. Copyright and charging are two different things. Protecting one's work with a copyright notice is a useful and necessary thing. It prevents others from profiting unfairly from your work by passing it off as theirs. It also protects your reputation by preventing others from mangling your work in your name. Whether one wishes to charge others for the use of materials whose copyright you hold is an entirely separate matter, guided by an entirely separate set of questions and principles. In the discussion above, this point seems to have got lost more than once.<br /><br />Whether CPH ought to be holding the copyright to the synodical translation is not all that controversial. There's no greed involved, but it does help to protect the synod from theft of effort and from defamation. Whether it should charge for the use of the text is another matter. A friend in the ELCE, a lawyer who specialises in these matters, suggested a couple of years ago that <a href="http://creativecommons.org" rel="nofollow">Creative Commons Licencing</a> would be a far better way forward, not least because it's a far more nuanced system of rights protection than a blanket copyright. Unfortunately, the discussion very quickly got very unpleasant, a bit like some of the commenting above, and that was the end of that discussion. You can read it all <a href="http://confessingevangelical.com/2010/05/01/how-free-should-the-catechism-be/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tapani Simojokihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06050897388566829272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-62446440490418442292013-03-12T07:06:42.309-05:002013-03-12T07:06:42.309-05:00FWIW I too am overwhelmed by the price of the tech...FWIW I too am overwhelmed by the price of the technology resources of CPH -- both initial cost and the cost of support and licensing to keep using it. I have been told that this is due to the small market for such Lutheran specific resources, or even LCMS specific resources. I do not know enough to judge whether this justifies the cost. Most baffling is when we no longer used a piece of CPH technology and gave it to a small mission and when they went to set it up, they were told by CPH that they had to pay for it. In the end I intervened and something was worked out but really... we had paid over $1000 for it initially and then no longer used it and gave it to a small mission and they had to pay the same upfront cost? I do not believe that the technology end and the rest of CPH should be equated since they are different but it is a conundrum.<br /><br />As for the above comment on Luther's intellectual property, it must be remembered that the cost of Luther's works includes the cost of translation as well as publishing. This is not a small matter. In fact, the Small Catechism may be a small part of this but Luther's works are a deep mine of investment that may not be recouped by CPH for a long time -- if ever! Something to think about.<br /><br />As I have said before, however, CPH acts at the discretion of the Synod. Don't like their policies, address their BoD or the Convention of Synod. If enough agree, the policies will be changed. Period.Pastor Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-40566520752937121422013-03-11T22:24:05.453-05:002013-03-11T22:24:05.453-05:00From Cyberbrethren "in fact, we routinely pub...From Cyberbrethren "in fact, we routinely publish at a “loss” resources like: ... all the digital resources you are enjoying."<br /><br />That is confusing. CPH needs $500 for an update of Shepherd staff we bought 4 years ago for $1300? Needs $1000+ for 3 years of LSB Builder; $400+ for 3 years for a very weak Confirmation Builder, and if you stop paying, you lose your entire investment and must spend $hundred more annually to keep it working. And $700 for 31 cds of recorded LBS hymns?Rev. Weinkaufhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109679164669873385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-57140575167558106562013-03-11T21:55:24.009-05:002013-03-11T21:55:24.009-05:00I could be wrong, but I think the point of this wh...I could be wrong, but I think the point of this whole discussion seems to be this: how can any company, CPH or otherwise, copyright something that was not written for them, that belongs in fact to all of Christendom? That is my question. How can CPH claim rights on Luther's "intellectual property"? What if I translated the Catechism and came up with the exact same translation as the 1986 translation of the Catechism? <br /><br />This seems to be the point of inquiry here. Rev. Paul L. Beiselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16165560935974759610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-67878417885035457942013-03-11T13:37:50.600-05:002013-03-11T13:37:50.600-05:00Sorry for all the "deletes" ... I felt i...Sorry for all the "deletes" ... I felt it better to provide an unabridged version of the blog post that Bryan Wolfmueller [selectively] quotes from over at my blog site, rather than try to reprint it here.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-2753620803369222812013-03-11T13:33:48.465-05:002013-03-11T13:33:48.465-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-32061062102501444482013-03-11T12:58:08.120-05:002013-03-11T12:58:08.120-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-22049159519583333162013-03-11T12:57:53.171-05:002013-03-11T12:57:53.171-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-29584394784763624122013-03-11T12:57:12.126-05:002013-03-11T12:57:12.126-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rev. Paul T. McCainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04846468267196335350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-83566155734138327402013-03-11T12:18:44.383-05:002013-03-11T12:18:44.383-05:00In this place: Http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/04/30...In this place: Http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/04/30/free-the-catechism-or-free-the-catechism-thoughts-on-accessibility-to-the-small-catechism/ it is argued that the two options are CPH with a guarded Small Catechism, or a free Smalll Catechism and no CPH. Here is the apocalyptic assertion: <br /><br />So, if folks want CPH to release the text of the most current translation of the SC into the public domain they can expect: prices on all our resources to go up, and for us to shut down publishing the very books and resources they say they love. It’s just that simple folks. You can’t have it both ways. <br /><br />I’m not sure this is defensible; I know it hasn’t been defended, only asserted, and asserted in such a way that we are all expected to believe it and act according to it. In other words, the cry for the freedom of the catechism is to be stopped by an appeal to our sympathies for the tenuous financial situation of CPH. <br /><br />This, then, is the strongest argument against having the catechism in the public domain: the weakness of CPH’s finances. And I am inclined to be sympathetic. But then, about an inch away, we read these words: <br /><br />I do not say this as a boast or brag, but simply as a statement of fact. There is no other publishing company in the world today, that has our internal capacity, size and resources, able to publish confessionally Lutheran materials on the scale and to the extent that Concordia Publishing House does. <br /><br />I will admit confusion, but I don’t think this belongs to me. <br /><br />We are presented with the dual assertion that, on the one hand, CPH (and all the people there) are doing a bang up job, that they are worth the money, that this is the greatest (strongest and best looking) publishing house in “the world today,” but that, on the other, all that strength is so tenuous that a free catechism would undo it. And this is simply asserted, not defended!<br /><br />The instinctive desire of every Lutheran to have the Small Catechism free is NOT an attack on CPH. In fact, this desire is taught to us by the catechism itself. (See Luther’s Introduction to the Large Catechism, 12-14, McCain’s BOC site: http://bookofconcord.org/lc-1-intro.php#para12.) It is possible to want the Small Catechism free and to want CPH to do well, and make lots of money. That is what I want. But if profits growing from the protections around the common translation of the Small Catechism are the thing keeping CPH standing, then CPH has bigger problems, and needs more help than us keeping our mouths shut.<br /><br />So, an appeal to CPH: defend the assertion. Show us, with numbers, with facts, what damage the release of the common Catechism into the public domain would have. Give us a glimpse at the copyright-protected strand by which you hang. <br /><br />Apart from being convinced of this, I don’t think there will be any stopping of the cry to free the catechism. Pastor Wolfmuellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00176920585700447486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-8708855627720322572013-03-11T11:24:12.685-05:002013-03-11T11:24:12.685-05:00Rev. McCain, with all due respect, you still have ...Rev. McCain, with all due respect, you still have not answered the "why" question. What you have done in response to Pastor Westgate's question is tell us "what" it is, but still not why? You also have not answered my question. What you have done is successfully regurgitated CPH's copyright policies. I am well aware of CPH's copyright policies, thank you.<br /><br />However, your defensiveness in refusing to answer questions is a put off. Good day, and blessings in Christ this Lenten season.The Rev. Mike Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05902941965399294815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-56673281019216735642013-03-11T08:52:58.346-05:002013-03-11T08:52:58.346-05:00Pr. Peters writes: "I can work with LSB EASIL...Pr. Peters writes: "I can work with LSB EASILY within a congregation with a fully Eucharistic piety, comfortable with fuller Lutheran ceremonial, and careful about confessional practice. Pr Petersen and everyone on this board should be able to make the same statement."<br /><br />I can't make that statement, but I think Pr. Peters makes many good points. Even if we had a magical, perfect hymnal, it would be hard work to maintain orthodoxy in our culture - as it has always been. "Easily" and "hard" are relative terms, in any case. I am thankful for much that is in LSB. I prefer, to be sure, to both LW and TLH. My main discomfort is the hymns. People are very good at finding the hymns in the hymnal that they heard, and loved, at the Baptist funeral. Again, I restate that I do not think LSB is guilty of containing heretical material and I believe there is room in a healthy diet for a little chocolate pudding now and then. Still, the inclusion of so many hymns and the exclusion of so many essential hymns, such as the Luther hymn above, is a sad reality. Petersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953264105046882429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-64084977302437182792013-03-11T08:48:03.856-05:002013-03-11T08:48:03.856-05:00The part of this discussion I have refrained from ...The part of this discussion I have refrained from entering has to do with CPH finances and salaries. As far as I know, since CPH is wholly owned by the LCMS, the LCMS (read that BoD, CPH elected Board, or Convention) can act here. If transparency is the issue, I agree with transparency in finances. I have never heard the $30 M figure and realize that effective managerial leadership may mean salaries a couple of times the average parish Pastor. If accounting for the costs and prices is the issue, should not this be directed to the Board of CPH?Pastor Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-47284093911876569912013-03-11T08:44:03.636-05:002013-03-11T08:44:03.636-05:00I did not say one could not be critical. I have my...I did not say one could not be critical. I have my own ideas of what should have been kept or left out or new stuff that should have been included. I am reacting to the idea way the discussion is framed. The idea that " the pastor has to really work and sometimes he has to suffer the decisions that the hymnal committee has made. It is part of the sad state of our synod and the tyranny we simply suffer..." implies that an orthodox use of LSB is possible with great effort, discernment, and an informed and orthodox congregation. I disagree. An orthodox use of LSB is not possible -- it is the norm. It is the opposite that one has to work at -- sifting through to find the "weak" stuff is harder work that using the solid and Lutheran liturgical and hymn resources of LSB. It is "possible" to use the ELCAs ELW by an orthodox congregation -- hard work, yes, but possible. LSB is an entirely different resource. It is made for LCMS doctrine and practice. Of course you can dislike some choices and regret some of the decisions made but the point I am trying to make is that it is an easy resource to use and to use well by any LCMS congregation. It does not require a huge effort or might theological discernment or expertise to use its strengths. I have my own list of "wishes" for an LCMS hymnal but I can work with LSB EASILY within a congregation with a fully Eucharistic piety, comfortable with fuller Lutheran ceremonial, and careful about confessional practice. Pr Petersen and everyone on this board should be able to make the same statement.Pastor Petershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-81774496593773204702013-03-11T07:53:06.428-05:002013-03-11T07:53:06.428-05:00I like many aspects of LSB too. I use it in my con...I like many aspects of LSB too. I use it in my congregation. Can't say I'm a huge fan of Setting IV (reminds me of an imitation version of a Divine Service). I think it is sad that there are only two Ordination/Installation hymns, but scads of Mission and Witness hymns (contrast that to TLH, which has about 14 Ministry hymns). I also think it is unfortunate that some of the good, sturdy Reformation hymns from TLH were left out (like Hymn 260 mentioned in the post). Many of Stephen Starke's hymns have good texts, but so many are set to new melodies that we really don't sing them much. I refer to TLH a lot. There are so many more hymn choices for certain times of the Church Year. I reprint hymns from TLH every so often when I can't find what I'm looking for in LSB. I can sing the praises of LSB like any other guy, but I don't really understand the desire to say nothing critical of it. Rev. Paul L. Beiselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16165560935974759610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-27007243203880319422013-03-11T07:47:14.071-05:002013-03-11T07:47:14.071-05:00Paul,
I claimed that CPH is driven by its need to...Paul,<br /><br />I claimed that CPH is driven by its need to make a profit. I don't think that is evil or satanic. I understand the need to keep CPH afloat, to pay livable salaries and benefits, etc. <br /><br />Do you have some existential crisis that is causing you to post such things? Because Lutherans have never had a problem with profit. Why would you think that is an accusation of satanic motivation? Do you secretly feel some guilt over CPH profits? <br /><br />Can we get a report of CPH's finances? I'd really like to know how the sale of Catechisms at $14 a piece is necessary to support the work of CPH? I wonder how long CPH could last on its $30 million dollar nest egg if $14 catechisms were reduces to $7. I wonder what it would take to instill some austerity measures for the sake of dropping hymnals to $20. I wonder if we could let our partner churches use some of the copyrighted material that is owned by CPH for free. How quickly would those things eat through $30 million?<br /><br />What if one exec's salary was lowered to match the Missouri district guidelines? Just pay him what a really well compensated pastor makes, or even better that the highest paid pastor in Missouri. Pay him a full $90,000 a year plus benefits for his work. Then take the $100,000 year savings and sell Catechisms with Explanation at $4/ piece! After CPH sells 10,000 Catechisms it could raise the price back to $14 until the next January. That would be no loss. It shouldn't hurt CPH operations a bit. And the exec wouldn't have to pay taxes on that extra $100,000. So it would be kept out of the governments pockets. Does CPH sell 10,000 catechisms a year? Certainly, $90,000 a year, is a solid wage in St. Louis and 10,000 Catechisms is a lot of catechisms. Think how much your friend in St. Louis could do!<br /><br />But maybe I am misreading something. Is profit not the cause of CPH's prices? Is the sale of Catechisms underwriting the whole mission of CPH? Please, fill us in. Because it seems to me that there is no real risk and releasing the 1986 translation in the public domain. Telling us that we can use non-CPH material, is not an answer. <br /><br />DavePetersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953264105046882429noreply@blogger.com