The Ethics of Singing Music by Tainted Hymnwriters
The issue of Liturgy entitled “Branded Worship,” guest-edited by Nelson Cowan. Here is an excerpt from Cowan's essay on the ethical choices involved in singing (or determining not to sing) songs written by hymnwriters who have been accused or convicted of sexual assault. –– Melinda Quivik
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The theological root of any trauma-informed approach to song selection should be the Apostle Paul’s metaphor of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12. While there are individual members within this body, each member is a part of an interdependent network. Each member needs the others. Continuing this metaphor further, just as a heart contains ventricles and atria, and just as an eye contains a retina, rods, and cones, individual worshipers contain the various intersections of what makes their personhood: demographic variables, life experiences, liturgical formations. These individual intersections inform what we bring to a service of worship and how we relate to one another within this larger, interdependent network of the body of Christ. When one member suffers, all suffer alongside it.
Those who might be antagonistic toward this principle of interdependence may point out verse 21 as rationale for not “cancelling” the tainted brands: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’” Perhaps that dynamic is not at play here. What happens is that bodies evolve. We know this from evolutionary biology. We have organs, teeth, muscles, and psychosomatic responses that are no longer evolutionarily necessary for humans. For example, wisdom teeth once served the purpose of grinding down food that was difficult to chew—our foods are much softer now and our jaws narrower, so they are not integral to our functioning. Just because a part of the body once served a purpose does not mean it must remain purposeful. That is not cancelation; it is adaptation.
If you are a church leader or worship planner reading this article, I hope you will consider evaluating the potential harm that might be at stake when singing the songs of a “tainted” brand. It is important to note that a brand might be tainted in ways beyond the trauma of sexual violence or abuse. For instance, how might an LGBTQ + affirming church approach singing worship songs composed by worship brands that have actively promoted organizations that denounce that “identity.” For churches that ordain women, what are the risks for singing hymns composed by people who do not affirm women in ministry? When two or three or more are gathered, there is a risk for harm. While there is no universally correct answer or approach, there are correct questions to ask. Who are the people in your pews or seats? What are the various intersections of their life that make them who they are? Which songs, artists, or musical groups might cause them harm?
How do you feel about supporting “tainted brands” financially with royalties? How do the values of your church intersect with harm reduction? How do those values intersect with your philosophy of song selection? Do people other than yourself have a say in this process? Are you willing to make structural changes, facilitating a shift in the worship culture of your church? Most importantly, are you praying about this and open to the leadership of the Holy Spirit? Any time you choose music for worship—tainted brand or not—there is the potential for harm to be done. What concrete steps might you employ to minimize that?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The full essay including references is available now in the digital and print editions of Liturgy. All of the essays in Liturgy 38, nos. 2–3 are available by personal subscription and through many libraries.
Nelson Cowan, the director of the Center for Worship and the Arts at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, is a worship leader and an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church.
Nelson Cowan, “When a Brand is Tainted: The Ethics of Song Selection in Corporate Worship," Liturgy 38, nos. 2–3 (2023): 39–48.