'Footprints' Marches into Court (by Becky Garrison)
Some days the material writes itself. As reported by The Washington Post , Mary Stevenson’s son claims that as his mother penned the infamous poem, “Footprints in the Sand,” he seeks any royalties earned from said literary work.
For those of you who tend to walk away from Christian kitsch, “Footprints in the Sand” describes that moment when two sets of footprints morph into one as Jesus goes from walking beside you to carrying you when you are too weak to carry yourself. Inspirational to many, insipid to others, the poem has been plastered on plaques, postcards, posters, prayer cards, and pretty much anything else that can produce a biblical buck.
As a writer, I sympathize with anyone who has found their work used without their consent for commercial purposes. But in this case, it seems to me that the son is playing footsie with the facts. Raise your hand if you’ve heard different preachers take the same folksy story and then repeat it with only slight variations, without giving proper credit. Such stories become woven into the oral fabric of American Christianity to the point where no one really knows where and when they first heard this theological tidbit. Also, skim the sermons delivered across the country on any given Sunday by priests and ministers who use a common lectionary, and you’ll find very similar themes emerging. Such is the nature of the collective consciousness when guided by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, there are genuine copyright infringement cases, but in this case, I think this dude appears to have stuck his foot in his mouth. Given a claim by Brooklyn journalist and literary sleuth Rachel Aviv that she can trace elements of "Footprints" to a sermon delivered in 1880, one does question whether or not Mary Stevenson’s poetic footprints are indeed the earliest fossil record on file. Furthermore, I have to question why her son tiptoed around the issue of copyright given this item was allegedly penned during the Great Depression. While I can't speak for Mary Stevenson, it seems to me that if she had intended to commercialize her work, she or her estate would have secured the necessary copyright a long time ago.
To date, at least a dozen people claim that they received the divine spark that set their pen afire to create these words of wisdom, including one Margaret Fishback Powers, a Canadian poet and "itinerant evangelist" whose marketing efforts appear to have legs. To her credit, she claims to direct what little profits she has made toward her youth ministry programs.
So here’s a modest proposal. How about the parties who claim to have penned this prose promise that any profits garnered from the sale of said Footprints be given to, say, the AIDS Walk, where people actually walk the walk?
Becky Garrison will be featured in the upcoming documentary The Ordinary Radicals, directed by Jamie Moffett, co-founder of The Simple Way.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Of course, in this poster, the footprints lead to a set of craggy rocks, which also might have explained God's apparent absence.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 3, 2008 1:32 PM
This is the exact picture I felt compelled to remove from my bathroom wall after my wife hung up a garage-sale specimen. Given it was in her second language and her country of origin has very little religious kitch, I was at pains to explain to her why I didn't want it hanging up in the house. I suppose if one had never read the poem nor heard the concept before, nor have grown up with Christian consumer products ad nauseum, one would see it differently.
Posted by: I and I | June 3, 2008 2:48 PM
For a humorous take on the Footprints saying, Google "Buttprints in the Sand." I doubt the son could sue for rights to that one!
Posted by: Nance | June 3, 2008 3:35 PM
I'm always somewhat amused at those that speak of devine annointing, revelation, or inspiration when I've complimented them on some evidence of work they've offered up, such as song lyrics, or sermon notes when they've already rushed out to insure their copyright privileges are protected -which I completely understand and believe is important with some material. But my point is this, if what they have produced was truly given to them directly from God as they claim, would He not be the just owner of the rights to it, rather than the mere messengers themselves?
Anyway, IMO the son of Mary Stevenson or the relatives of anyone else claiming to be the originator of such works should be more focused on producing such an inspiring item of work themselves, rather than legalistically trying to reap the financial benefits from the work of someone else. Maybe her son should see that the true roality pay out should be Mary's legacy, and not her estate worth.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 3, 2008 3:59 PM
Aww,c'mon, guys!
I remember the fits the Sadducees had– oops, of course I mean 'the Liberal-Christian National-Council-of-Churches' types– had when the song 'In the Garden' came out. Be nice. If you can't appreciate personal devotion to God in Christ, perhaps you're in the wrong religion.
'Examine yourselves, as to whether you are in the Faith.' Of course, that was just Paul…
The Second Great Commandment is 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Can any of you tell me what the First Great Commandment is?
I love 'In the Garden' and I love 'Footprints.' And it doesn't hurt my commitment to God's Justice or to my neighbor a bit.
He made us for fellowship with Himself. That's why He came down in the cool of the day, just to hang out with us– the man and the woman, and all their descendants, jointly and severally…
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | June 3, 2008 4:02 PM
While this poem is not a favorite of mine I think Ms. Garrison is WAY out of line. Trying to find the actual author of a piece is not a waste of time.
Like it or not, this piece has spoken to many -- usually those going through a hard time. If Christian musicians can make a living with the stuff they write, and even authors of Christian books can make a living -- why would the family of this piece have to give it all away?
Even if Stevenson's son is mistaken, it would drive me crazy if stuff my father authored was credited to someone else. I also think (despite my theological issues with the piece) that if someone in my family wrote it, I would have the good kind of pride in it. It would be part of my legacy and my heritage.
I guess Ms. Garrison doesn't value those things.
Posted by: frankie | June 3, 2008 4:02 PM
Frankie, besides Becky's letting us know she doesn't like this little piece, I think her point about finding the actual author is that it's impossible.
If you read between the lines of what Becky, she's saying that this piece is a bit of religious folklore and its authorship will always be unknown. Click on the image above and it will take you to three different versions of the piece, one from three decades earlier than the other two. And also note that they are not identically worded, though the meaning is essentially the same. This is characteristic of folklore: variant forms will turn up over long periods of time, but nevertheless, the basic content is similar.
The original author is unknowable. This is what Becky is saying.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 3, 2008 4:16 PM
I can't think of Footprints now without also remembering the change of punch-line that I heard at an end-of-term revue: "That's when we were hopping"
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 4:29 PM
frankie wrote: "Even if Stevenson's son is mistaken, it would drive me crazy if stuff my father authored was credited to someone else. I also think (despite my theological issues with the piece) that if someone in my family wrote it, I would have the good kind of pride in it. It would be part of my legacy and my heritage."
I agree completely frankie, but to support the notion of financially rewarding her son through royality suits from all those that have used the poem in the past, present, or future when Mary herself made no such assertion (as far as I know) is another animal altogether.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 3, 2008 5:02 PM
That's what copywrite laws are all about. I'll give Mr. Stevenson his day in court to show the documentation of his mother's work. If he has it, then the versions that came after are not considered originals. That's when they test the paper and the ink and stuff to see if it could have come from a pen available then, or typewriter, etc.
Financial legacies are a very valid thing to leave your kids. Just because someone wants fair compensation for what is rightfully theirs (and they can prove it) doesn't mean they are money-hungry. The people who put together the bookmarks, posters, pictures, etc. are all making money off of it too.
Posted by: frankie | June 3, 2008 6:22 PM
I don't like this term 'Christian kitsch'. It's basically hate-speech. I don't hear anything about Jewish kitsch or Buddhist kitsch. But if I were to use the word 'kitsch' against a religion, which I would never be guilty of, I think I would have to say I find New Age stuff the most kitschy. I don't trust any religion that tries to get me to buy stuff. The TV preachers are almost as bad as the New Agers but the former give away more free stuff. I don't want a religion that involves taking vitamins, getting massages, beating on bongos, doing breathing exercises, or seeing a psychotherapist. Also the King James Bible has much better poetry than anything you'll find in a New Age bookstore.
Posted by: Ed Eggleston | June 3, 2008 7:56 PM
Come on, Becky, all of Ms. Powers' profits are going to aid the Canadian Air Force in its battles in Afghanistan! Apparently, it had a flat tire yesterday. Support the war on terrorism!!
Posted by: canucklehead | June 3, 2008 9:07 PM
If the poem (if that's the right word for it) was divinely inspired, the copyright should go to the Holy Spirit - who, of course, has the right to give it to more than one person independently...
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 10:25 PM
"I don't like this term 'Christian kitsch'. It's basically hate-speech. I don't hear anything about Jewish kitsch or Buddhist kitsch."
Actually, this is a very reasonable point. Why is it necessary to note that some folks find the poem banal? Those who buy a framed copy of the poem aren't siding with anyone w/r/t copyright issues.
We have a copy of "Footprints" adorning our walls. My wife says it reminds her of her struggles with God as she faced life-threatening surgery.
What am I to say to that?
"Sorry honey, trite sentiments hold no currency here. Save your bourgeois Christianity for the pleeeeeebs. I've got a Coldplay poster to hang."
That wouldn't end well.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 4, 2008 12:13 AM
Hate speech? C'mon folks, Becky's not talking about people here! Sure, "kitsch" is a pejorative word; after all, the borrowed word is German for trash. But the usual English meaning is "art that is intended for a popular audience that is of little artistic or economic value." Like it or not, isn't that a fair and accurate description for the kinds of mass-produced knickknacks that Becky is talking about here?
I don't think Becky is deliberately offending here, though I can understand why some might be offended. Neither do I think she's trying to proffer a kind of Christian artistic elitism, nor, certainly not!, is she lampooning those who find comfort, solace, or inspiration in the sentiment expressed in the "footprints" text or similar writings.
But reflecting on those occasions when I've walked into a Christian bookstore and have found myself surrounded by a plethora of items of like nature--some of them carrying rather steep price tags--I can't help but feel Becky is onto something in complaining of a certain level of hucksterism involved in the production and sale of these things.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2008 8:43 AM
I don't hear anything about Jewish kitsch or Buddhist kitsch.
Dunno about that. Whether the term is used or not, such art certainly exists.
I remember when I was in college and my roommates and I moved into an off-campus apartment. The previous tenants had left a plaster cast of Buddha. It was obviously of little value and had been mass-produced. It hadn't even been painted.
Come December, cheap menorahs on display in Jewish households will be about as common as cheap nativity figurines in Christian households. Not to mention star-of-David jewelry and those miniature scrolls with Hebrew lettering.
And who has been in an Islamic shop or home and hasn't seen a copy of that gaudy, framed, reproduced portrait of the Ka'aba in Mecca, some with faux-gold embossing?
Religious kitsch is certainly not limited to Christianity--not by any means.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2008 10:11 AM
Ed, rest assured that there is also plenty of Buddhist and Jewish kitsch. And there is an unbelievable amount of New Age kitsch, especially if one considers certain expressions of speech to be kitsch. But that does not negate the fact that there is far too much Christian kitsch, and pointing out any of this does not qualify as "hate speech."
By the way, there's plenty of Che kitsch, too.
Posted by: I and I | June 4, 2008 10:21 AM
I agree with Don. There is absolutely nothing hateful about the use of the term "Christian kitsch." There's plenty of New Age kitsch out there, too, but the term "kitsch" really means the trivialization of something that's supposed to be deep and meaningful. Thus, to say that Christianity has produced a lot of kitsch, far from being hate speech, is actually a profound compliment to the religion that also has produced poems like this one by George Herbert:
Love bade me welcome, yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey'd Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack'd anything.
"A guest," I answer'd, "worthy to be here";
Love said, "You shall be he."
"I, the unkind, the ungrateful? ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee."
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
"Who made the eyes but I?"
"Truth, Lord, but I have marr'd them; let my shame
Go where it doth deserve."
"And know you not," says Love, "who bore the blame?"
"My dear, then I will serve."
"You must sit down," says Love, "and taste my meat."
So I did sit and eat.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 4, 2008 10:22 AM
...a profound compliment to the religion that also has produced poems like this one by George Herbert...
We could also think of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Handel's Messiah, Milton's Paradise Lost, Bach's St. Matthew Passion, and thousands of other momentous artistic achievements. Similar achievements by non-Christian artists (e.g., poetry of Rumi and Galib, the wonderful Hindu and Buddhist native-rock carvings in India, etc.)
Herbert is one of my favorites, by the way. I love that poem.
D
Posted by: Don | June 4, 2008 10:35 AM
I'm wondering what folks regard as the best examples of "non-kitsch" Christian art. Sistine Chapel? Michelangelo's Last Supper (minus all the DaVinci Code stuff)?
Posted by: carl copas | June 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Oops!! Don beat me to it.
Posted by: carl copas | June 4, 2008 10:48 AM
Kevin, your story reminds me of a conversation about twenty years ago when a couple co-workers and I were laughing about goofy, self-pitying songs that were popular on the radio: "I am a Rock," "Reflections of my Life," "I Started a Joke," etc. I made a quip about Neil Diamond's song "I Am I Said" and its dumb line about "no one heard at all, not even the chair." To which one man replied that the song came out shortly after he moved to a large city and was alone and discouraged, wondering if he was choosing the right direction for his life, and that the song had been of great comfort to him. It led me to realize that what struck me as silly spoke to the very real human feelings of another person, and I realized that for me to continue to poke fun of the song was to invalidate those feelings and experiences.
Just as at the core of the song was the universal feeling of loneliness, at the core of the Footprints poem is the very real experience of feeling abandoned by God and the resolution of that problem. There is nothing silly about that. So if that picture and poem spoke to your wife in her difficult times, that humanitarian function is far more important that any aesthetic judgment we impose on it.
Posted by: I and I | June 4, 2008 10:51 AM
I and I -
Agreed. There was also a particular point in my life when I recall being touched and even inspired by the "Footprints" poem. Tough times can do that to you.
The merit of something like the Herbert poem is that, as I sit here reading it in my living room on an ordinary day, it has already brought me to tears twice. Behind those tears is a universe of deep, shifting, mysterious wonder that Herbert's words are capable of summoning up through a magic that I barely comprehend. That's the difference between great art and kitsch.
I say this, BTW, not to make fun of kitsch, but to recommend great art.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 4, 2008 11:01 AM
Everybody is trashing the person claiming authorship. I don't know about "Footprints", but I do have first-hand knowledge of the story "Christmas Shoes." This first appeared in a local newspaper written by a lady in our community. She didn't bother to copyright it, nor did she know anything about copyright law. What happened was that someone ripped her off, took the story and made a song, with the author "anonymous." Next thing you know, it's a made-for-TV movie. Being a humble person in a small rural town, the last thing she would ever do would be to hire a lawyer and sue these people. But it does happen. People who are supposedly Christians will rip you off and screw you over. The author has passed away, and her family doesn't want make a fuss. But just watch out. This does happen.
Posted by: Brian Stucky | June 4, 2008 4:15 PM
Thanks to Kevin S for making me nearly spit out my coffee.
As Ms. Garrison notes in her piece, it seems highly unlikely that Mary Stevenson wrote "Footprints." Therefore, this controversy is a poor vehicle for debating the legitimate issue of copyright law's place in the church.
Posted by: aquaman | June 4, 2008 4:51 PM
I just bought me wifey a nice teardrop pendant containing two drops of genuine H2O from the Sea of Galilee and three archeologically-verified grains of sand from the Galilean shore. Cost me $199 and that was on sale.
You laddies wouldn't be calling my act of signal devotion a concession to kitsch now, would yuz?
Of course, a recent copy of the CBA journal did casually mention that roughly 80% of Bible book store sales consist of, ahem, "gift" items.
Btw, I'm leading a tour this fall to the Holy Land = "Surf Today Where Jesus Walked." Anyone interested?
Posted by: canucklehead | June 4, 2008 10:44 PM
Brian, is this "Christmas Shoes" story the one about the boy whose father asked him to take the money he was saving to buy a rifle and use it to buy shoes for the widow lady and her family down the road instead?
If so, yes, it has been circulating the Internet for the last several years.
D
Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 6:50 AM
Brian --
I also have a question about the Christmas Shoes -- I hate it because when I was little (which is now like 30 years ago) my mom would tell a flash card story in Jr. Church of the same story, only in the Philippines. I'm not sure that it was a Christmas story -- he just wanted her to have new slippers when she went to meet Jesus.
As for Christian Kitch (which we call Jesus Junk in my family)I personally like giving a friend a rock where I've caligraphied, "Ebeneezer" after they've gone through a rough spell. I'd hate it if someone marketed that -- in a way -- in another way I'd think it would be one of the better things if the Christian bookstore.
As for the countless Christian poems -- most of them came from the era when every sermon was made of 3 points and a poem.
I also think Christain cliches -- and Footprints has become cliche -- are like classics. The original is a classic because it points to a universal truth -- but when you put a classic plot in yet another storyline (like Jane Austin for example) it becomes predictable and dull. That should not distract from the original brilliance of it. If you live long enough, I'm sure Footprints will speak to you at some point.
Posted by: frankie | June 5, 2008 11:53 AM
Weeelllll...this seems to be an act of money grubbing to me. I remember the free choruses we sang at prayer meetings back in the late 60's and early 70's. We had chorus books written up, typed, copied, and collated by hand. Then presto! Our chorus books were illegal because suddenly these simple tunes were now copyrighted....with the copyright dated 20 years after we started singing them!
Posted by: John | June 5, 2008 5:35 PM
For years what trips me up about the third version of this beautiful sentiment poem is where it says "One night A MAN had I dream...." Do women not dream ! So at least for the opening line and the universal sentiment of the poem let's keep it "One night I had a dream...."
Posted by: Carried by Him | June 5, 2008 6:26 PM
I don't understand what people find offensive about this poem. It may not be to all tastes, but is there anything theologically objectionable about it?
It isn't an exclusionary use of religion, like some other pious cliches I can think of, like "God Bless America," ("...all other nations go to hell," I mutter sarcastically whenever I hear that one). It doesn't present a God who's going to whack our enemies for us. It isn't naive about suffering: it doesn't say that Jesus took away all the pain when he "carried" the believer, but merely that he was there, though unseen. What's wrong with this message? Would Jesus be offended at it? Are people's objections a matter of theology or of taste?
Personally, I find I can't trust a church in which everything, EVERYTHING, is in impeccable taste. The professional-sounding choir is selected by competitive auditions, and sings music of such refinement that the best-meaning member of the congregation can't or daren't sing along. Every statue or stained glass window could be a museum-piece: no overwrought Sacred Hearts or sweet-faced Madonnas, please. (OK, I give myself away here: I'm Catholic, at least most of the time. But the Oppressively Aesthetic Church transcends denomination.) If we're to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as little children, what child is nourished on nothing unrefined?
If it's commercialism that bothers you, don't blame the poem. The whole reason it's reprinted on so many commercial items now is because whoever wrote it didn't bother to copyright it, so that it's now public domain, free for any card company to use. So's the Bible, and you'll see lots of Bible verses on kitschy posters of sunsets or flowers or cuddly animals, too.
Posted by: Pauline | June 6, 2008 7:42 AM
If people find that Xtian Kitsch speaks to the needs of their souls, who are we to speak contemptuously of it and by inference, them. Go learn what it means to say: "I desire love, not sacrifice," and that was said of sinners, not people whose taste differs from ours. Since I'm a Roman Catholic, I say in Latin, "De gustibus..."
Posted by: John Manning | June 6, 2008 9:46 AM
If anyone's actually still reading the thread...I was at someone's house the other day and saw one of those dark blue and white Jonathan Livingston Seagull posters that was so ubiquitous in the 70's. Thought of how kitchy our culture is and has been. I think it's an American thing, niot a Xian thing.
Posted by: I and I | June 8, 2008 10:07 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?