WORSHIP WAS GOODS TODAY: A STUDY OF CONSUMERISM IN LITURGICAL ART

This study is an attempt to examine the effects of consumerism in contemporary liturgical art, and to begin a conversation that will help worship leaders disciple a church gathering of consumerists. As worship leaders seek to serve a culture that is heavily focused on consumption, a counterculture of mutual edification must be cultivated. After a brief clarification of terms, this paper will survey the positive and negative ways that consumer culture has affected contemporary liturgical art. Though the liturgical art of music will serve as the main focus, this paper will also study some effects of consumer culture found in church aesthetics, design, architecture and more. Second, I will offer steps toward creating a counterculture of mutual edification. These steps are designed to help contemporary worship leaders shepherd their congregations through the challenge’s consumerism has brought to their gatherings.

Clarifying Terms

The terms “consumerism” and “consumer culture” are belabored ones. Those who use them to condemn society are often hypocritically living in their cultural reality. Most Americans with a social security number are likely taking part in consumer culture. Those who regularly enjoy any mass-produced products are likely partaking in a form of consumerism. So, instead of trying to condemn consumer culture from afar, its essential to recognize it as a reality of our time in western society and explore how liturgical art can best serve those of us who live in it.[1]

So, to clarify terms, I will be referring to “consumerism” as a mindset of western culture where people’s happiness and identities are tied to the acquiring of consumer goods in ever-increasing amounts. This term is related to, but not to be confused with, “consumer culture,” which describes a society’s way of spending money on consumer goods to attain a lifestyle as mediated through markets.[2] With consumerism and consumer culture, one often fuels the other[MW6] . It is the consumeristic mindset of individuals that feeds  consumer culture, but it is also cultural goods and their markets which teach the individual to value consumption so highly.

On a more basic level, though consumerism may be more prevalent in todays [MW8] culture than ever before, its[MW9]  problems cannot be blamed solely on modern society.  Consumerism brings to the surface what is already in the heart of every man – [MW10] an insatiable desire for more than this world can offer. Modern Americans live in a time where these issues are in view regularly, and therefore they deserve our attention.  

Contemporary Worship as a Consumer Good

Since the contemporary worship movement began to blossom in the mid-1960’s, liturgical artists have sought out ways to help congregations experience the artistic language of their heart within the gathering.[3][MW11]  At this time[MW12] , worship styles began to shift toward the culturally relevant, the mutually enjoyed, and the monetizable. This is not to say that contemporary worship is the only culprit for consumerism in liturgical art. For example, a traditional hymn-sing can be executed with just as much of a consumeristic[MW13]  mindset, as a kind of karaoke of nostalgic songs. But along with the contemporary worship movement came a new industry where methods of consumer targeting were used to make popular liturgical art sell widely. This[MW14]  new cultural phenomenon, over time, has subtly taught contemporary church communities to think of liturgical art as product that is meant to be easily consumed.

Andy Crouch offers some helpful language for how to evaluate the positive and negative effects of new culture. He says that with every new cultural artifact, some things “flourish” and some things “wither.”[4][MW15]  So, to help us get a broad picture[MW16]  of how consumerism and consumer culture has affected our worship practices, I will offer a breakdown of its flourishing and withering effects.

Flourishing

With how popular it is to critique consumerism today[MW17] , one may expect to only find negative effects coming from its interactions with artistic practices. But even something which may have mixed motives behind it can be used for the edification of God’s people in remarkable ways.

Accessibility. In their book Lovin’ on Jesus, authors Lester Ruth and See Hong Lim describe “nine qualities of contemporary worship.” A few of the qualities they mentioned are colloquial language, centrality of musicians in a physical space, and reliance on technology.[5] The early appearances of contemporary worship was after World War II with the boomer generation, who was historically more inclined to move away from tradition. With a spirit like that of the Reformation[MW18] , contemporary worship began by seeking understandability within the language of the gathering in order to make church experience to feel less alien to the unchurched. So, churches grew, and a whole new world[MW19]  of popular worship songwriting began. Musicians were no longer confined to traditional forms of liturgical art and could write in any way that connected with the modern American. In effect, the product of the Sunday gathering became easier to consume.

Availability.  With the worship songwriting industry came opportunities that church musicians would have previously never dreamed of. As technology advanced, more and more songwriters had opportunities to publish their work.[MW20]  And now, with various online music platforms, discovering new music is easier than ever. This opportunity for discovery would not have been possible without the rise of consumer culture. These platforms for discovering music rely heavily on consumer targeting so that listeners can stumble upon even relatively unknown artists while browsing on a streaming service app. Now, it is easier than ever for liturgy planners to find songs that fit the theology, worship philosophy, and style that they are looking for.

Achievability. During the folk revival of the 60’s, people who were not as musically literate where [MW21] starting to pick up instruments.[MW22]  The harmonic structure in the songs of the Jesus People had only a few chords, and the songwriters who have stuck with the I-IV-V tradition have generally had better luck getting their songs picked up by churches because of their musical achievability.[6] Sing-ability had been a value in church music for centuries. It even shaped how we understand tonal harmony today. As my music theory professor would say, “Write your counterpoint so that a sixteenth century Austrian pig farmer could sing it.”[MW23]  But around the start of the contemporary worship movement, accompaniment in church music experienced its own wave of heightened achievability. This achievability could be one of the main reasons why contemporary worship (and popular music in general) took off so quickly[MW24] . Practically, learning three chords on a guitar is much less daunting than the many years it can take to learn SATB chorales on an organ.

This is not to say that all contemporary worship styles are easily achievable. Along with the simplistic songs of the Jesus Movement, there also came[MW25]  the Gospel Movement which often involved sophisticated harmony, acrobatic vocals, and an astute sense of groove.[7][MW26]  Not only that, but since its birth, contemporary worship has made its way into countless styles of all difficulty ranges. But, the Christian worship industry has thrived off of the simple styles, and many churches have been served well by them. For churches who may otherwise go with no accompaniment, the achievability of these songs has made accompanied singing possible. Simple songs became the new best-selling product of contemporary worship.

Emotional Engagement. Contemporary worship lyrics have often attempted to mimic colloquial prayer language. As Ruth and Lim explain, “A reoccurring quality of this worship style has been to speak honestly and authentically with God.”[8] Though this speaks to the accessibility of contemporary worship, it also seeks to model highly engaged personal prayer. On a compositional level, the popular worship movement has been developing methods of engagement over the years to accompany this language.

Building and releasing tension is at the core of most compositional practice,[9][MW27]  but artists like Matt Redman, Hillsong, and Elevation Worship have piloted the use of tension as a trademark style of emotional engagement in worship. Artists like this have reach such a level of popularity that their compositional style has become the signature sound of modern worship today. So much so, that their style is what contemporary American congregants often expect “worship” to sound like. These compositional techniques usually include high amounts of sustain, slow moving harmony, cyclical melodies tailored for repetition, and eighth-note builds that lead to the songs’ climax. With techniques as simple as these, even a mediocre worship band can make their music feel therapeutic[MW28]  for a wide audience. This is one of the core incentives offered by mainstream contemporary worship. A highly cathartic, and emotional experience has become an expected part of many worship gatherings. And now, almost any contemporary worship band can pull it off. The songs which help achieve this level of engagement may each have a chance to occupy the CCLI top 100. We will see that this type of emotional engagement can surely be abused, but it has also proved to be a powerful tool to help congregations feel the truth they are singing.[10]

Withering

It is important to note again that the consumeristic mindset found in church gatherings is a multi-faceted problem. It cannot be blamed only on our nature, or our culture, or our liturgical practices, but all of these rolled issues together. A constant desire for consumption is indicative to who we are as fallen creatures.[MW29]  The age of consumerism that we live in[MW30]  exacerbates our bent toward consumption. And, contemporary liturgical art itself, in borrowing from consumer cultures’ practices, has at times enabled a mindset of consumption in the gathering –[MW31]  teaching congregations to interact with liturgical art as a consumer good. As seen above, liturgical art becoming a consumer good has offered some benefits to contemporary worship practices. But, problems arise when congregants and church artists start to think of liturgical art as merely a consumer good.

Brian Chapel points out this problem in his book Christ Centered Worship. He says, “Because they have not been taught to think of the service as having gospel purposes, people instinctively think of its elements only in terms of personal preference: what makes me feel good, comfortable, or respectful.” [11] A common example of this mindset can be found in the feedback that worship leaders get from their services. When the comment cards are brought out in the weekly staff meeting, the worship leader often gets the biggest stack. “Too loud. Too slow. Too fast. Too long. Too new. Too old.” The list goes on. But perhaps the most frustrating of all can be the response that tells the leader almost nothing. They ask a congregant, “How was the service today?” The congregant says, “Worship was good!” The leader asks, “What was good about it? Were people singing? Were you spiritually fed?” The congregant replies, “Oh I don’t know, I just thought it was good.” As liturgical art takes on the characteristics of a consumer good, congregants begin to evaluate it as such. I will now unpack how aspects of consumer culture have tainted the artistic practices of the contemporary worship gathering.[MW32] 

Limited Representation. One common trait that is immediately noticeable about popular worship bands is their appearance. In looking up any live videos[MW33]  of the top ten CCLI songs, one is likely to find a band of young fashionable people who could all be H&M models[MW34] . The Christian music industry has learned at lot from the start-producing machines of Nashville and LA.[MW35]  Not only does one have to be talented, but one also has to look the part. The fact is, modern Americans love youth culture.[MW36]  Young, beautiful people will always be enticing because of the innate desire all people have for celebrity and beauty.[12] But this has done long-term damage to congregations who try and copy this model. It has enabled the celebrity mindset that already gets easily cultivated for those who occupy church stages.[MW37]  And added to that, it has made some churches only let good-looking people lead contemporary worship songs. To be clear, people shouldn’t be frustrated at Phil Wickham for being handsome. But some churches are now experiencing the fallout of copying brands like his.[MW38]  Though these brands sell well, they can tend to ostracize church musicians who do not fit pop-star criteria.  

Lack of Contextualization. Many churches are being well served by the vast array of worship resources being sold online. But there is a temptation that comes when learning from a worship culture that is not your own. As a music director, one of the easiest things to do is try and mimic someone else’s worship culture. Isaac Wardell calls this “buying a worship culture off the shelf.”[MW39]  What’s difficult is, these artists are popular for a reason. They probably write amazing songs. They probably have great arrangements that are easy to play well for the average worship band. Nothing is inherently wrong with playing their music. But when every part is played note for note to their recording, and local church teams start dressing just like them, and local worship leaders start singing in a fake Australian accent, negative effects often arise.[MW40]  Church leaders might put all these things in place and wonder why their church isn’t reposing as passionately as the crowds were online. Alternatives to this will be discussed later. But the point here is that many worship resources designed for mass consumption will often be devoid of local musical expression if played just like the recording. Thankfully, there are songwriters who try and stress the fact that they don’t intend to have their arrangements played note for note. These artists would rather have them played in the various styles that best serve each induvial community. Otherwise, worship leaders may be buying the worship culture of Nashville or Sydney off the shelf.

Disposability.  An odd side effect of the consumerism in contemporary worship has been the increasing disposability of the songs being sung. Music philosophers have debated about what the qualities of “timeless” art are. And, some of this talk can be a bit frivolous because no art is truly timeless. But, there is a fruitlike quality to most art[MW41] . It slowly rises in popularity and appreciation, starts to lose steam, and then rots. In the case of art that interacts with consumer culture, the rotting phase can come with a stage where the consumer hates the product that they once loved. Songs like Blessed Be Your Name[MW42]  or How Great Is Our God may be a good example for some. There is nothing wrong with the content of these songs. And, there was a time where these served congregations extremely well. But now they won’t be touched by many churches who are searching for relevance. This is a classic biproduct of consumerism. Just like apple [MW43] is not proudly selling iPhone 5’s, many contemporary worship teams are not playing the worship hits of 2002.

Consumerists have a high value of the new and the now. James K.A. Smith, in a few of his writings[MW44] , has talked about “the liturgy of the mall” where consumers are sucked into a kind of spiritually transformative experience while navigating a shopping mall. He says, “What the mall valorizes as sacred today will be profaned tomorrow as ‘so five minutes ago’ … [W]hat makes such serial acquisition consumptive is precisely the treatment of things as disposable.”[13] Contemporary worship has taken advantage of these methods in a number of ways, which has led to a heightened disposability of modern liturgical art.

Individualism. Perhaps the most alarming side effect of consumerism in the gathering has been a malformation of people’s expectations for what liturgical art should accomplish. Ascetics[MW45] , architecture, language and musical style can be tailored to communicate unanticipated messages to one’s congregation. Many churches want to cultivate an “inviting” and “comfortable” experience. This is a good thing.[MW46]  But, the tactics used have often been borrowed from consumer culture. A coffeeshop, a mall, and a concert hall are all spaces that the general public knows how to behave themselves in. So, these are natural choices to borrow aesthetic ideas from[MW47] . But,[MW48]  these spaces are also designed specifically for the consumer in an individualist society. We see that these designs, if modeled by churches, can all do damage to a church’s corporate identity.

The mall, as mentioned above, has mastered the arts of “nowism[MW49] ” and individualism. It may be a subtle message, but churches who borrow from mall architecture and advertising may be communicating an overly current picture of the Christian faith. Just as the mall widow displays change rapidly, churches struggle to keep up with aesthetic trends. Just as the mall offers a customized product that shapes the identity of the consumer, churches struggle in trying to customize liturgical art for the individual congregant.

The concert hall is designed for the intake of content in a way that focuses the audience intently at the stage. Its lighting and architecture, no matter how beautiful and embroidered, in the end is meant to make everything around you seemingly disappear when the main act comes on. It is an ultimately passive experience that draws people’s attention away from their surroundings and one another.

The coffeeshop, though perhaps the most communal of these spaces, is still designed for the individual, especially in the case of personalized product. It is the place where the consumer gets exactly what they want, or they get to chew out the barista (sadly, Starbucks baristas get chewed out by customers all day[MW50] ). Churches are bound to fail at customizing their artistic products for the lasting enjoyment of individual.

Regarding the songs of the church, contemporary worship has simplified its thematic dimensions by orienting the worshipers vertically. As songwriters began to focus on personal prayers toward God, the horizontal orientation of the congregation singing to each other started to decrease. Added to this, worship bands who have developed a “play the hits” mentality have led congregations to compare their church band to the popular worship bands they are trying to imitate. The band says, “Look congregation, we’re playing your favorite songs just like you heard Hillsong play them!” The congregant says, “Sure, I like a few of songs the songs you played this morning, but they sounded better when I heard them on K-Love.”

If gone unchecked, all these aesthetic and musical choices can teach congregants to evaluate the quality of their church service based on how well it serves their individual preferences. This does long term damage to the corporate identity of the individual congregant. Over time this develops an idea that liturgical art is supposed to serve their personal preferences, and if it doesn’t succeed to do so, it has failed.[MW51] 

Elitism as Veiled Consumerism

As mentioned in the opening of this paper, there is a temptation to try and look down on consumer culture, as if you aren’t a part of it. This shows itself in the arts in some funny ways. A jazz enthusiast may look down on someone who’s only exposure to jazz harmony is Bruno Mars and Kendrick Lamar. A coinsure[MW52]  of fringe oil paintings might look down on someone who’s favorite artists is Norman Rockwell. Someone into high fashion might look down on people who shop at Banana Republic.

These people, from a posture of elitism, look down on more popular forms of their art and bemoan the lack of critical appeal it has. I speak from personal experience here, being a lover of all things indie rock growing up.[MW53]  This attitude can trick people into thinking that just because their favorite versions of the art haven’t been “dumbed down” for mass consumption, they are devoid of consumer culture’s trappings. If anything, an attitude like this can lead to an even stronger bent toward consumerism as higher and higher tastes are cultivated. Though the elitists’ art may stand up to tougher criticism, and may even have a less disposable quality than mainstream art, in a church setting this attitude will only drive them farther toward a consumptive understanding of liturgical art.

I cannot stress enough[MW54]  how important it is for church leaders and congregants to avoid elevating themselves over consumer culture. Zach Hicks cautions against the making of “little pharisees” in your worship culture.[14] Though we as worship leaders may have strong convictions about what a healthy philosophy of worship may be, taking a posture of condemning culture will not lead to ultimate change.[15]

Discipling a Consumerist Community

Consumer culture is so familiar to Westerners that one might think there is no real alternative to its problems. If it is so indicative of how we think and live, how can it be avoided? Church leaders cannot reshape the secular liturgies of their congregants’ daily lives, for it is within them that the majority of the consumer mindset is cultivated.[16] But, they may be able to change the liturgical practices of their church.

Liturgical Art as Communion

I once heard Matt Boswell say to a room of worship leaders says, “I don’t want us to think of our songs as something to consume for a while and then hate afterward. I want us to think of our songs as for communion rather than consumption.” Boswell gives us a helpful paradigm for what the alternative to consumerism could be. Though the language of communion can get convoluted because of its typical reference to the lord’s supper[MW55] , the word itself describes the opposite of individualistic consumption. It describes the mental and spiritual exchange of thoughts and feelings. It describes a vulnerability of heart that is shared with someone. Where consumption at its best if for personal edification, communion is for mutual edification[MW56] .[17]

A Counter-Culture of Mutual Edification

Consumer culture in the gathering meets an already indoctrinated consumerist people. Both the world we live in, and our very nature cultivates this attitude. So, in order to combat this attitude instead enabling it, churches should build a counter-culture of mutual edification within their worship practices. Andy [MW57] Crouch in his book Culture Making drives home the point that the only way to change culture is to make new culture.[18] In his systematic analysis of Christianity’s common approach to culture, he shows how many Christians have condemned, critiqued, copied, and consumed culture, but all this has made very little positive change in the culture. So, I would like to offer five practices that help create a counter-culture of mutual edification in the liturgical art of the local church:

Preference and Deference. The late Carl “Chip” Stam coined the phrase “preference and deference” concerning the way congregations should interact with the style of liturgical art.[MW58]  As mentioned above, we live in a culture that is constantly feeding individualistic preferences. For those who want to help their congregation to overcome a consumerist mindset, this a great place to start, because many of us live in a place where we[MW59]  secretly believe that our preferences are somehow more correct or more spiritual than others. We as consumers have spent far too much time elevating our preferences over the preferences of others, so this mindset will not change overnight. A concept like this will probably need to be taught at a pastoral level. But,[MW60]  it starts by learning to enjoy the edification of one’s neighbor. As congregants see their fellow church member enjoy a style of liturgical art that does not inspire them, learning to cherish this instead of scoff at it will lead them towards a mindset of mutual edification. Church leaders should encourage their artists and our congregants to be ready to lay aside their stylistic preferences for each other (Phil 2:3), striving to “live in harmony with one another” (Rom 12:16) amidst their diverse styles and expressions.

Diverse Representation.  As mentioned above, popular contemporary worship has struggled in the area of representation. Having a young hipster on guitar, a grey-haired piano player[MW61] , a geeky looking choir, and a bass player with a Tony Stark goatee would not sell very well in branding a new pop band. But this is often what the multigenerational congregation looks like. In order to help communicate the idea that all types of people should be worshipers of Christ, churches should strive to have a diverse group of people on stage from Sunday to Sunday. Worship leaders should look at the diversity of their congregation and see what demographics of people need more representation on stage.

Grassroots Creativity. The “play the hits” model is enticing for a number of reasons, but most of all may be its ease. With countless resources online to help teach parts to worship bands, anyone with the right instrumentation can be a Hillsong cover band. Though it’s not as easy, the alternative to this has opportunity for profound benefits for local congregations. It is a method that takes more work and intentional discipleship, but grassroots creativity is a way to cultivate liturgical art that better serves a local community. Instead of letting liturgical style be dictated by whatever is being put out by mainstream worship distributers, worship leaders should let the unique the voices of the artists in their church community be heard. Mike Cosper’s chapter in Doxology & Theology gives some advice on this. He says, “Part of this (grassroots creativity) means developing the creative leaders you have, rather than the leaders you don’t have. We may wish we had Radiohead for a worship team, but God has given us The Oak Ridge Boys.”[19] Looking for songs that a church loves to sing, reimagining old songs with church musicians to better fit their current church culture, getting creative people involved in the aesthetic decisions the church makes, these are all ways to cultivate grassroots creativity.

Healthy Engagement. With a church that values mutual edification in liturgical art, there should come a balanced understanding of engagement. Congregations experiencing healthy engagement will be marked by three main qualities. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but these are some qualities that stand in direct contrast to a consumeristic mindset. These qualities are (1) emotional experiences which are informed by truth, (2) various outward signs of engagement, and (3) long-term spiritual transformation.

First, emotional experiences in the service should primarily come from God’s revelation of truth rather than the compelling quality of the musical composition and performance.[20] This is a difficulty in many modern worship ministries because some contemporary worship compositions are just so compelling it almost doesn’t matter what is being said. I will admit, every time I hear a well done eight-note build I get goose bumps. But, the compelling quality of music should not deter church musicians from using engaging compositional tools. The composition should not be the chief concern when it comes to emotional response, it’s the content.[21] If we as worship leaders are successfully cultivating a mystical wonder for the truth of Christ, we are doing it right.[22] If our congregations are having emotional experiences that are not grounded in truth, we may be selling them mere catharsis.  

Second, along with emotional experiences comes outward responses to truth. There are biblically modeled expressions that should in some effect show themselves in the gathering. Actively engaging one’s intellect, emotions, and body in the proclamation of the gospel yields profound benefits within gathered worship. Given the life-altering realities of God’s grace, various forms of passionate expression should be a natural response from God’s people (Ps. 47:1; 95:6; 134:2). Though nuanced by local culture and emotional temperament, passionate worship can be beneficial for the hearts of congregants. A congregation that sings loudly (Ps 33:3) and visibly worships wholeheartedly (Ps 103:1) is an encouragement to each other and a radical witness of the gospel to the watching world. Singing may be the most important of these outward expressions.

Lastly, perhaps the most undervalued sign of engagement is long term spiritual transformation. Dr. [MW62] Mathew Westerholm[MW63]  in a talk entitled “Look at All These People” at the Doxology & Theology conference, spoke about the long-term work of the spirit. He said, “The Spirit has moved like river rapids, quickly, vivaciously, startling to see; and the Spirit moves like a glacier, subtly, cumulatively, and sometimes so imperceptibly that the impatient believer might be unaware of his work.”[MW64]  If congregants are regularly hearing and responding to the truth of the gospel within the rhythms of worship, some of the Spirits’ work will be seen in immediate ways, but most of it may be seen over time. Songs will stick with them for years, some songs for the rest of their lives. Liturgical rhythms of rehearsing the gospel will, over time, form the gospel in them as a way of understanding the world. It might not look like someone is passionately engaged, but if they are partaking in the basic rhythms of the liturgy, the fruit of their engagement may not be realized for years to come.

Unity at The Lord’s Supper. William Cavanaugh, in his book Theopolitical Imagination: Recovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism[MW65] , advocates for what he calls a “eucharistic counter-politics.”[23] The liturgy of communion, he explains, is the most politically unifying act that we have as Christians. Never could there be a better representation of unity than being invited into one body, the body of Christ. This expression of unity may be the ultimate protest to our age of consumerism. For a culture that is obsessed with the now, The [MW66] Lords [MW67] Table reminds us of our past, present [MW68] and future in Christ. For a culture that is obsessed with individualism, The Lords Table unifies the most diverse group of people into one body. For a culture that is obsessed with consumption, The Lords Supper offers us bread and wine -[MW69]  consumable products that represent something completely indispensable. They represent a spiritual food that will never leave us hungry, a sacrifice that will never be forgotten, a savior who’s work in this world will stand through all the ages of man.

Conclusion

As Christians, we live in a point in time where we are interacting with liturgical art just as we interact with a consumer good, perhaps now more than ever. We evaluate its effectiveness at fulfilling our personal incentives, and our evaluation usually stops there. This mindset of consumerism has had a significant influence on contemporary liturgical art. At its best, it has made liturgical art more appealing to a modern age. At its worst, it has enabled even more of a consumeristic attitude among congregants. But in the end, consumerism is not the ultimate culprit for our chronic-discontentedness. This age of consumerism helps bring to the surface a desire that is at the core of who we are. Solomon, who had everything the world could offer, still concluded that “there was nothing to be gained under the sun.” (Eccl. 2:11) We have a hunger for a kingdom that is not yet fully realized. But,[MW70]  we have a feast to look forward to. And until then, we point or congregations past the all-encompassing now, and toward the day when our every desire will be satisfied in Christ.[MW71] 

Cavanaugh, William. Theopolitical Imagination: Recovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism. London, England: T&T Clark, 2002.

Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013.

Chapel, Brian. Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice. Grand Rapids, MI: Barker Academic, 2009.

Arnould, Eric Et, all. Consumer Culture Theory (Cct): Twenty Years of Research, Goteborg, Sweden : Association for Consumer Research, 2005.

Hicks, Zack. The Worship Pastor: A Call to Ministry for Worship Leaders and Teams. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2016.

Cosper, Mike. Rythems of Grace: How the Church’s Worship Tells The Story of the Gospel. Wheaton, IL. Crossway. 2013.

Smith, James K.A. You Are What You Love. Grand Rapids, MI. Brazos Press. 2016.

Lim, Swee Hong. Ruth, Lester. Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship. Nashville, TN. Abingdon Press. 2017.

Carson, D.A. Worship by the Book. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan. 2002.

[1] Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013.

[2] Arnould, Eric Et, all. Consumer Culture Theory (Cct): Twenty Years of Research, Goteborg, Sweden : Association for Consumer Research, 2005.

[3] Lim, Swee Hong. Ruth, Lester. Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship. Nashville, TN. Abingdon Press. 2017.

[4] Crouch, Culture Making, 37

[5] Ruth & Lim, Lovin’ on Jesus, 2

[6] Westermeyer, Te Deum, 280

[7] Westermeyer, Te Deum, 282

[8] Ruth & Lim, Lovin’ on Jesus, 89

[9] Begbie, Gestures of God, 18

[10] Begbie, Faithful Feelings, 335

[11] Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 21.

[12] Smith, You Are What You Love, 48

[13] Smith, You Are What You Love, 52

[14] Hicks, The Worship Pastor, 43

[15] Crouch, Culture Making, 73

[16] Smith, You Are What You Love, 27

[17] Carson, Worship by The Book, 30

[18] Crouch, Culture Making, 73

[19] Cosper, Doxology & Theology, 120

[20] Begbie, Faithful Feelings, 336

[21] Begbie, Gestures of God, 186

[22] Hicks, The Worship Pastor, 29

[23] Cavanaugh, Theopolitical Imagination, 51