## Summary This source cluster consists of a 10-section worship-music vetting compendium compiled by Courtney for St. John's UCC (Chambersburg, PA), plus two companion articles: Brian Hehn's account of the ecumenical CCLI vetting project (Calvin Institute, 2024) and Taylor Burton-Edwards's history of how the UMC CCLI Top 100 project began (UMC Discipleship, 2017). Together they form the most comprehensive treatment in the wiki of how to select, evaluate, and screen congregational music for a progressive, Open and Affirming UCC congregation with NAR-adjacent, ex-charismatic, and traditional-hymn-lover constituencies. ## Source metadata | Field | Value | |---|---| | **Primary document** | `2. Areas/Worship/Worship Music Vetting Resources.md` | | **Document type** | Courtney-authored synthesis compendium | | **Date compiled** | 2026-04-20 | | **Companion article 1** | "Brian Hehn on an Ecumenical CCLI Top Songs List" — worship.calvin.edu, synced 2026-04-21 | | **Companion article 2** | "How the CCLI Top 100 Project Came to Be" (Taylor Burton-Edwards) — umcdiscipleship.org, synced 2026-04-21 | | **Tradition** | Mainline Protestant / progressive / Open and Affirming | | **Scope** | Practical: St. John's UCC Chambersburg; also broadly applicable to any progressive mainline congregation | ## Ten-section summary of the compendium ### §1 — Denominational vetting projects (the main cluster) Five CCLI-vetting projects and one ecumenical meta-project are cataloged: 1. **UMC CCLI Top 100 + Beyond Project** — the originator (2015, 2017, 2021, 2024 rounds). Taylor Burton-Edwards's origin story shows the project grew from three converging needs: an open-source liturgy platform, a contemporary worship symposium, and an upcoming UMC hymnal revision. Key insight from Chuck Fromm: *"A hymnal is a vetted, curated collection of congregational song. That's all it is. Its real value is in the vetting."* Theology double-weighted in scoring, per Wesley's emphasis. Green/yellow classification system. The "+ Beyond" expansion explicitly lifts up Black, Latino/a/e, Asian artists and underrepresented themes (lament, inclusion, justice). 2. **CRC (Christian Reformed) Vetting Project** — theology, language, singability criteria; same color coding. Key formation insight: singing one theologically thin song once is fine; singing thin themes over years forms the congregation toward individualism, transactional faith, or limited Trinitarian imagination. 3. **ALCM (Lutheran)** — *CrossAccent* Fall/Winter 2023. 4. **Anabaptist/Mennonite Project** — led by Sarah Kathleen Johnson, Emily Ralph Servant, Anneli Loepp Thiessen; late 2024/early 2025 release anticipated. 5. **Ecumenical meta-project** — [[Center for Congregational Song]] (Brian Hehn). Goal: distill all denominational verdicts into a single ecumenical "songs greenlit by everyone" list. Hehn's Calvin Institute interview notes that CCLI is partly an echo chamber weighted toward larger, higher-resourced churches; smaller congregations' practice is underrepresented in the data. 6. **Calvin Institute meta-resource** — "Vetting CCLI Songs for Faith Formation" interviews [[Kathryn Ritsema Roelofs]] (CRC) and Nelson Cowan (UMC) together. *Becoming What We Sing* (CICW Liturgical Studies series) is recommended as a book-length companion. > [!question] UCC vetting gap > No UCC denominational CCLI vetting project exists as of 2026. The UCC polity (strongly congregationalist) may explain the absence. Brian Hehn at the [[Center for Congregational Song]] is actively soliciting more traditions' participation; a UCC regional project would close a documented ecumenical gap. ### §2 — UCC-native worship music resources - **National UCC**: Music and Liturgical Arts page; The New Century Hymnal (NCH); UCC Musicians Association (UCCMA); Worship Ways (original liturgies, English and Spanish). - **UCC Open and Affirming Coalition**: worship resources; *Songs for the Holy Other* (Hymn Society, free PDF) — affirming hymns for LGBTQIA2S+ community. - **Many Voices Worship Catalog** — Black church movement for gay and transgender justice. - **Queer Sacred Music** — original inclusive scores and recordings. - **Regional conferences** — Penn Central Conference (Chambersburg's conference) publishes lectionary and event resources. - **UCCDM Disabilities Ministries** — Access Sunday resources for accessibility review (physical, sensory, cognitive). ### §3 — Progressive and inclusive-language music sources - **[[Convergence Music Project]]** — Bryan Sirchio (ordained UCC pastor, McFarland UCC, WI) co-founded with [[Brian McLaren]] and Cameron Trimble. Sirchio's *The 6 Marks of Progressive Christian Worship Music* (2012) is the theoretical framework. Key affiliated artists: Christopher Grundy (Eden Seminary, UCC), Mark Miller, Richard Bruxvoort-Colligan, The Many, Andra Moran, Micky ScottBey Jones. - **The Many** — creative collective; lyrics by Lenora Rand; explicitly makes music for "people with faith and doubt, lament and gratitude." - **Christian Feminism Today** — inclusive-language music and hymns list with commentary. - **Jann Aldredge-Clanton** — body of inclusive hymnal collections published 2006–2015. - **Global song sources** — GIA Publications, OCP/Taizé/Iona, World Library Publications, Hymnary.org. ### §4 — The manipulation question (scholarly and pastoral) The most distinctive section. Four scholarly frameworks for understanding how worship music can manipulate rather than form: **[[Valerie Hobbs]]** (University of Sheffield linguist) — corpus-assisted discourse analysis of religious language. Identifies in manipulative worship: *simulated intimacy* (mass-scale personalization creating facade of personal encounter); ambiguous enemy language; momentous chord progressions in fast-fashion production cycles; secular pop idiom for familiarity. Blog post: "'God, you come back with the head of my enemy': Hillsong, Bethel and Emotional Manipulation in Worship Music" (2022). Book: *An Introduction to Religious Language* (Bloomsbury, 2021). **[[Monique Ingalls]]** (Baylor ethnomusicologist) — *Singing the Congregation: How Contemporary Worship Music Forms Evangelical Community* (Oxford UP, 2018). Identifies five *modes of congregating* (concert, conference, church, public, networked). Shows how a song carries its originating context's formation into a new setting: singing a stadium song in a small sanctuary imports the stadium's formation. Richard Ingold's Hillsong linguistic analysis (*Literature & Aesthetics*, 2014) is an adjacent resource. **Christianity Today (2023)** — "Worship Music Is Emotionally Manipulative. Do You Trust the Leader Plucking the Strings?" Notable because it comes from an evangelical-adjacent outlet taking the manipulation question seriously. References Kelsey McKinney: *"Are you crying because the Lord is staging some kind of intervention in your life, or are you crying because the chord structure is built to make you cry?"* **Music theory — the build mechanism**: Four-chord loop (I–V–vi–IV "axis progression") held 5–10+ minutes (trance induction); progressive dynamic layering; key change at climactic moment; syncopated solo vocal line that displaces the congregation from active singers to passive receivers; room atmospherics (dimmed lights, haze); ambiguous addressee; spontaneous prophecy bridges identical in structure to cold-reading; unresolved sustained final chord. Bill Johnson's own statement on the mechanism (published): *"Music bypasses all of the intellectual barriers, and when the anointing of God is on a song, people will begin to believe things that they wouldn't believe through teaching."* This is the movement's self-articulation of what the music is designed to do. > [!contradiction] Formation vs. manipulation framing > The music-formation literature (Ingalls, CRC vetting project) frames the problem as *unintentional formation* — congregations absorbing individualism and thin theology through repeated exposure to theologically thin music. The manipulation literature (Hobbs, CT, Johnson's own statement) frames it as *intentional induction* — building procedures are borrowed from trance and concert production to produce a desired emotional state. Both critiques apply to Bethel/Hillsong/Elevation, but they name different mechanisms. The formation critique is the more useful frame for a pastoral vetting process; the manipulation critique is the more useful frame for explaining the problem to ex-NAR congregants with harm histories. ### §5 — The hymn-lovers question Traditional hymnody is structurally healthier for congregational formation because: metric regularity enables corporate singing; harmonic progression with voice leading engages rather than hypnotizes; four-part harmony includes the whole congregation; theological density per verse develops a theological argument over 3–5 stanzas; "we/our/us" address shapes communal rather than individualistic identity. Specific hymns with broad appeal identified: *Come Thou Fount*, *Immortal Invisible*, *For All the Saints*, *My Song Is Love Unknown*, *Let Streams of Living Justice*, *Many and Great O God*. > [!contradiction] Nostalgia vs. formation > Hymn-lovers may prefer traditional forms for aesthetic or cultural reasons unrelated to theological formation. The formation argument for hymnody is substantively different from (and more defensible than) nostalgia. Vetting should distinguish the two when presenting the case for hymn inclusion. ### §6 — Music theory and ensemble practice Practical guidance for musicians: - Luke Woodard (Discover Worship) on blending choir and worship team — why choir cannot cleanly sing highly syncopated CWM. - Constance Cherry (Institute for Worship Studies) — convergence vs. style-blended: ask *what function does this moment need?* rather than *which genre?* - Kenneth Berding (Biola) — tactical notes: keep drums on older songs for continuity; resist "fixing" hymns with edgy beats. - Teresa Ledford, *Blended Worship 101* (2024). **Ensemble ethics checklist** derived from manipulation research: dynamic restraint as discipline; resolving cadences vs. sustained final chords; lighting as signal; mic/mix choices (congregation's voice in the room); syncopation vs. corporate singability; key selection for congregational range; song length vs. liturgical function. ### §7 — St. John's UCC vetting rubric (draft) Seven scoring categories, each 1–5, with theology double-weighted per UMC precedent. See [[Worship Song Vetting Rubric St Johns UCC]] for full rubric text. Tier system: **Green** (recommend without major reservation), **Yellow** (recommend with caution and pastoral framing), **Yellow-italic** (extra caution; avoid during Lent, funerals, crisis seasons), **Red** (do not use — source, associations, or theology too harmful). Two categories beyond standard UMC/CRC models: - **Sourcing and royalty flow**: does performing this song route CCLI reporting back to a harmful ministry? - **Harm potential for vulnerable congregants**: will this retraumatize ex-NAR/ex-AoG members? Documentation should remain private and pastoral. ### §8–10 — Concrete next steps and further reading Near-term actions: 1. Download UMC and CRC vetting PDFs. 2. Check St. John's CCLI reporting history (establishes baseline). 3. Individual pastoral conversations with ex-NAR/ex-AoG congregants (private, no agenda). 4. Music ensemble conversation framed around craft ethics, not song selection. 5. Introduce one or two CMP songs as test cases. Medium-term: adapt and adopt a vetting rubric; write a brief congregational piece explaining *why* St. John's vets; cultivate one ongoing resource partnership (Bryan Sirchio offers workshops; Brian Hehn at Center for Congregational Song is actively seeking UCC engagement). Long-term: build a local Obsidian vault archive of vetted-song decisions. A UCC regional vetting project would close the ecumenical gap; Brian Hehn is the contact. Books: Sirchio (*6 Marks*), Ingalls (*Singing the Congregation*), Hobbs (*Introduction to Religious Language*), Ledford (*Blended Worship 101*), Huron (*Sweet Anticipation*), Ruth & Lim (*History of Contemporary Praise & Worship*). ## Notable quotes - "A hymnal is a vetted, curated collection of congregational song. That's all it is. Its real value is in the vetting." — Chuck Fromm (Worship Leader Magazine / Maranatha! Music), cited by Taylor Burton-Edwards. - "Are you crying because the Lord is staging some kind of intervention in your life, or are you crying because the chord structure is built to make you cry?" — Kelsey McKinney, cited in CT (2023). - "Music bypasses all of the intellectual barriers, and when the anointing of God is on a song, people will begin to believe things that they wouldn't believe through teaching." — Bill Johnson (Bethel Church), published. - "Singing one theologically thin song won't immediately harm; but sung theme-over-theme for years, it forms the congregation." — CRC vetting team framing (paraphrased). ## Connections to existing wiki - **[[Worship Music Vetting Projects]]** — this cluster substantially expands that concept page, adding Brian Hehn's ecumenical meta-project, the manipulation scholarship, and the ensemble ethics dimension. - **[[Worship Songs Evaluated]]** — the rubric in §7 provides the criteria framework for that living list. - **[[Blended Worship]]** — §6 adds Cherry's convergence/function framing and ensemble-specific guidance. - **[[Convergence Music Project]]** — §3 identifies Bryan Sirchio as CMP co-founder (currently unnamed on the entity page); adds more associated artists. - **[[Inclusive Language Hymnody]]** — §3 adds *Songs for the Holy Other* and Jann Aldredge-Clanton's collections. - **[[NAR Worship Critique Traditions]]** — §4 adds the manipulation mechanism taxonomy and the manipulation vs. formation distinction. - **[[United Church of Christ]]** — §2 catalogs UCC-native resources; §1 names the UCC as the major denomination without a CCLI vetting project. - **[[St. John's UCC Chambersburg]]** — this entire document is directly scoped to St. John's context. ## DARVO / high-control pattern check The compendium names these patterns explicitly. The Bill Johnson quote is the clearest documentation of an NAR leader using manipulation-by-design language about worship music. The DARVO frame is implicit in section §4.6 (Reformed critiques come from the same axis as charismatic-accountability concerns; conservative voices acknowledging the manipulation problem validate it for ex-NAR congregants who might dismiss progressive framing). ## DEIB note The compendium explicitly attends to: global song sources (to avoid white-middle-class monoculture); LGBTQIA2S+ congregants (ONA Coalition resources, *Songs for the Holy Other*); ex-NAR and ex-AoG congregants with harm histories (pastoral-care triage tier in the rubric); accessibility concerns (UCCDM Access Sunday); Latinx, Black, and Asian artists underrepresented in standard CCLI reporting. ## Open questions > [!question] UCC vetting project > Brian Hehn is actively seeking UCC participation in the ecumenical meta-project. Has anyone in the Penn Central Conference or UCCMA engaged? If not, Courtney is potentially positioned to initiate this. > [!question] Sourcing triage in practice > The rubric proposes "red" tier for songs that route CCLI royalties to harmful ministries. Does this mean performing those songs is off the table even if the theological content passes? The compendium suggests yes, but a pastoral edge case (a beloved song deeply associated with a member's healing story) would test this. > [!question] Ensemble ethics adoption > The §6.2 checklist asks musicians to examine their own practice — dynamic restraint, resolving cadences, lighting choices. Has St. John's worship team had this conversation? The compendium frames it as a craft question rather than a theological one, which lowers threat.