Keywords:
I do not know if I should feel honored or confused that I was invited to edit this issue of Liturgy. Tongue-in-cheek statement aside, I struggled with the title. “Branded worship” makes it sound as if the corporate actions of the community on the Lord’s Day can be capitalized upon by corporate entities (different “corporate”) and marketed to the masses. Well, like it or not, it is already happening. Actions, things, words, melodies, mission and vision statements—everything that intersects with worship can be branded, and it probably is. The pews we sit in, branded. The paraments we order, branded. The hymnals we sing from, branded. The presentation software we use for the live stream, branded. The microphone that amplifies the voice of the liturgist, branded. The bibles and worship books we read from, branded. You get the point.
Branding, and branding in worship is so ubiquitous that it blends in with our quotidian lives of ministry. I remember when the pandemic was just beginning, and my church’s worship planning team got into an argument about which brand of prepackaged communion elements would be most suitable for our congregation. The brands and options are even more plentiful now. We priced them, we taste-tested them, and we considered variables such as design, ease of use, and shelf life. However, it was the reputation of the brand that impacted our decision the most. (If you must know, we decided upon TrueVine’s “chalice-style” prepackaged elements with a small chunk of bread on one side and unfermented grape juice on the other—yes, I’m a Methodist).
To understand branding in the twenty-first century is to understand the enterprise of capitalism. According to the American Marketing Association, a brand “is a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers.”Footnote1 However, as neutral as it may sound, branding has a storied history that predates capitalism. The verb “to brand” has its etymological roots in the Old English verb “to burn.” Branding by fire is a longstanding practice for claiming ownership of livestock. It also has a strong tie to slavery, ancient and modern. Enslaved people in the American colonies were branded to signify their status as someone else’s property, but also as a form of torture and mockery. This abhorrent practice is still utilized in modern human trafficking.
Branding’s checkered past and present is enough to give anyone pause, especially as it relates to branding in worship. The articles in this edition of Liturgy consider the wide scope of the implications of branding in worship––positive, negative, helpful, critical, and everything in between. Our first two essays address the visual dimensions of branding. Kate Williams gives us an inside look into GIA's process of their institutional rebranding. Her article features an engaging conversation about the logo design process with graphic designer Daniel Kantor. Together, they offer practical advice for communities of faith that might be looking to clarify their approach to branding. Our second essay by Hyemin Na considers the case study of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Better World, which was launched by Onnuri Church, a Korean megachurch in the Presbyterian tradition. Na’s decolonial approach offers a visual analysis of Better World’s logo, which uncovers its embedded racial logic that works against its own humanitarian aims.
The second set of articles discuss worshiping communities that either fully engage the concept of being branded or push up against it. Emily Snider Andrews writes about the totalizing nature of branding at Pentecostal megachurch and worship music creator, Bethel Church of Redding, California. She explores how Bethel operates within a branded consumer paradigm to its advantage, connecting this to scholarly discussions of liturgical inculturation. Judith Kubicki takes us across the pond to the community of Taizé. After offering a fascinating history of the community and its liturgical practices, Kubicki raises the question: does the Taizé community operate as a brand that was never meant to be, or is it an anti-brand?
The final article, my own, invites worship leaders or pastors—or anyone who selects music for a worship service—to consider the ethical dimensions of offering the work of a “tainted” musical artist or group. Utilizing online forums for pastors and church musicians as a site of research, I consider the case studies of two notable tainted brands that impact the Church’s sung worship: global megachurch Hillsong Church and Catholic composer David Haas.
Before you read the main articles, you will encounter two UnMute Yourself columns written by members of the Liturgical Conference board. David Bjorlin’s column, “Musings on the Obstacles of Worship’s Impact on Ethics,” discusses what might stand in the way of liturgy’s formative influence on one’s ethical behavior. Michelle Baker-Wright’s piece, “Closing the Divide between Liturgical Theory and Practice,” describes the importance of academic study to pastoral work.
Recently, I had lunch with some administrators from a local Christian college. As they were sharing their educational philosophies, I noticed that they didn’t use that near-ubiquitous term in academia, “educational philosophy.” Instead, they spoke of the “brand promise” of their college. What is one of this college’s most popular programmatic emphases? Worship, of course. Branding and worship go hand in hand. I hope these essays give you valuable ways to ponder and assess this dynamic.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Nelson Cowan
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.
Notes
1 American Marketing Association, “Branding,” https://www.ama.org/topics/branding/.