How far we’ve come

In a recent Facebook group post, I mentioned that the Texas State Sacred Harp Association sponsored a monthly publication called the Sacred Harp Monitor. At the September 1913 session of the United Sacred Harp Musical Association, they adopted the Sacred Harp Monitor as an organ “for Sacred Harp singers of the United States. This was the result of a formal resolution read and passed by the Convention at Atlanta, Ga., at its recent session. T. B. Newton, of Woodstock, Ga., moved its adoption…”

In the same issue of the “Monitor” where this is announced (October 1913, p. 7), the editor, Elder M. W. Miracle, did not shy away from talking about “religion” (as some modern singers suggest we must do). He wrote an almost two-page piece about “On Jordan’s Stormy Banks I Stand” by Samuel Stennett. He says, “Like the children of Israel of old time, who had drank the dregs of Egypt’s bitter and its sweets, the children of Spiritual Israel have been made to realize the vanities of their temporal Egypt, and their eyes of faith are set on Canaan’s fair and happy land…This old sinful nature hangs like a dark cloud between them and the ‘other shore.’ It clogs their weary steps and dulls their spiritual appetites. O but for the sustaining grace and guiding hand of God, they would never reach the right crossing and ‘be forever blest.’ It is sweet to feel that uplifting and guiding hand when we fall, knowing that we never fall so low that His tender hand is not under to raise us up again, and place us on Pisgah’s lofty heights, bidding us to look eastward, northward, southward, and westward and behold the vernal beauties to which we are legal heirs” (Sacred Harp Monitor, October 1913, pp. 8-9). Beginning on the same page as the United announcement (p. 7), Elder Miracle wrote about “Afflictions” (see picture below).

Affliction though they seem severe,
Are oft in mercy sent;
They stopped the prodigal’s career,
And caused him to repent.

How far we’ve come from Atlanta 1913!

The hem of his garment

Commenting on the woman who had an issue of blood (Luke 8), John Boys wrote that we learn “not to put any trust in the reliques of Saints, or impute any saving vertue to the vestiments of our Saviour. For the vertue which healed her went not out of any coat, but out of Christ immediately: he said not, there is vertue proceeded from my vesture, but I perceive that vertue is gone out of me, Luk. 8.46.  There was no great or extraordinarie vertue in his garments after his death, when the souldiers had parted them among them; nor in his life when he wore them, for the people that thronged him, received no benefit by them, but onely shee and they that touched him by faith. … Now the hemme of his humane nature was his passion, and his passion was a sacrifice for our sinne; so that to touch the hemme of his garment, is nothing else, but to beleeve with Paul, that Christ Jesus came into the word to save sinners, of whom I am chiefe.”

John Boys, The Works of John Boys, Imprinted for William Ashley, 1629, page 556

Hallelujah, he is risen

The words and music of this song were written by Philip Paul Bliss (1838 – 1876). “Hallelujah, He Is Risen” was written in the spring of 1876. The song “was first sung by him on Easter afternoon, 1876, in the Court House Square of Augusta, Georgia,” where a crowd gathered to hear the evangelist Major Daniel Webster Whittle. Memoirs of Philip P. Bliss (edited by Whittle, New York, NY: A. S. Barnes & Company, 1877, p. 143) states, “None who were there will ever forget the radiant face, or the triumphant, ringing tones with which he sang—He is risen, He is risen, Living Lord and coming King.” The following December, Philip Bliss and his wife lost their lives in the tragic Ashtabula (Ohio) Train Bridge Disaster.

The song apparently first appeared in print in 1876 in Gospel Hymns No. 2, edited by P. P. Bliss and Ira D. Sankey. It is song No. 50 and pairs below it the Bible text “He is not here, for he is risen, as he said.”—Matthew 28:6. This is a nice hymn text on the resurrection that probably should see more use than it does.

1. Hallelujah, He is risen!
Jesus is gone up on high!
Burst the bars of death asunder,
Angels shout and men reply:
He is risen, He is risen,
Living now, no more to die.
 
2. Hallelujah, He is risen!
Our exalted Head to be;
Sends the witness of the Spirit
That our advocate is He:
He is risen, He is risen,
Justified in Him are we.
 
3. Hallelujah, He is risen!
Death for aye hath lost his sting,
Christ, Himself the resurrection,
From the grave His own will bring:
He is risen, He is risen,
Living Lord and coming King.

Apostrophe Protection, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• A Century of the Simon -- “The man whose name is on Brenham’s famed Simon Theatre never saw it completed, but the renovated theater still reflects his vision a century later.”
• Apostrophe Protection Society -- “Since 2001, the Apostrophe Protection Society has had a mission to preserve the correct use of this important, though much misused, item of punctuation.”
• Can Anyone Take a Biblical, Conservative Cultural Position in the United States today? -- “The only way to combat the cultural reality in the United States is by boldly asserting the biblical and historical belief and practice, and then not back down.”
• “Can Two Walk Together Unless They Be Agreed”: The Origins of the Primitive Baptists, 1800-1840 -- “The writings of Primitive Baptist leaders clearly indicate that they did not see themselves as restoring anything. Rather, they were defending traditional ways of Baptist thinking and practice.”
• If you can’t see the conspicuous it’s because you won’t see it -- “Louis Gaussen, Divine Inspiration of the Bible, published in 1841, 40 years before the notorious novel 1881 Greek NT the pre-critical theology of inspiration was still being articulated.”
• “It was really hard for me to stay Protestant”: On Retrievalism and the Gospel -- “...historical theology must give way to exegetical theology as king of the disciplines. This is not only about the doctrine we hold, though; it is about our method...”
• Lake View Cemetery: One of the Prettiest in the World -- “Lake View Cemetery in Cleveland, Ohio, is one of the prettiest garden cemeteries in the world. With more than 115,000 gravestones, it is also huge. If you go, bring your walking shoes!”
• Living the Good Loaf -- “Armed with historical documents detailing the grain varieties grown in Texas in the early 20th century and some hazy information about mills powered by Austin’s Barton Springs in the 19th century...”
• Lodged in Time -- “Castroville, 25 miles west of San Antonio, was settled in the 1840s by immigrants from the Alsace region of France.”
• No, Southern Baptists Have Not “Officially Rejected” the Nicene Creed -- “Matthew Barrett, well-known SBC seminary professor and prolific author, has just published an essay explaining why he is leaving the SBC...he levels more than one broadside against the SBC and unfortunately bears false witness in the process.”
• O, Oh -- “Recently, a reader asked me what the difference was between the word ‘O’ and the word ‘Oh’ as they are used in a King James Bible.”
• Spurgeon’s College, influential Evangelical training center in London, to close after 169 years -- “The trustees stated that ongoing financial challenges — compounded by declining student enrollment and a difficult funding landscape for theological education — had left the college in a precarious position in recent years.”
• The Apparent Cainan Contradiction in Luke 3.36 -- “The scribal error explanation of Cainan at Luke 3.36 is beset with a significant difficulty: the manuscript evidence is clearly opposed to it.”
• The Strange Second Life of Ohio’s ‘Big Basket’ Building -- “At its peak in 2000, Dave Longaberger’s company employed more than 8,200 people, making it one of the primary employers in the Dresden, Ohio area.”
• Unscriptural and Extreme Forms of Separation -- “No doubt separation must occur out of obedience to God and His Word. However, the cancel culture exists with the purpose, not for others, but for self.”
• Why Critical Scholarship Disdains the King James Bible (and Fishermen) -- “The Sanhedrin came to its end in 70AD – the fishermen are still here, fishing.”

Church covenants and Church relationships

Churches should have a covenant relationship. Instead, many churches have consumer relationship.

Covenant relationship.

A covenant is a formal agreement or sincere promise between two or more parties to both act and not act in certain ways. Particularly in a church relationship, this also includes agreeing that they believe and not believe certain teachings. A church covenant relationship, then, is based on mutual agreement or sincere promises between the members of the congregation.

A “church covenant” is based on:

• mutual commitment
• interdependence
• brotherly love

A covenant relationship is a relationship with commitment (Romans 15:5-7; Ephesians 5:21), communication (1 Thessalonians 4:18;; 5:11; James 5:16), concern (John 15:12; Hebrews 13:17), devotion (Romans 12:10; 16:16), determination (Hebrews 10:24-25; Ephesians 4:32), and exhortation (Romans 15:14; 1 Timothy 6:2). A covenant cannot and should not be lightly broken. It is entered by the commitment of two parties (the church & the individual). There is a unified commitment to follow Christ as head and each observe his responsibility one toward another.

Consumer relationship.

A consumer is a person who uses a commodity or service; one who purchases goods and services for personal consumption (benefit). A consumer relationship, then, is based on the provision and consumption of services. When satisfactory service is no longer provided, a new provider is sought out.

A scan of the present “church’s desolation” makes it obvious that many members attach themselves to churches as a consumer in a consumer relationship. They attend the church when it provides the services they desire. When those benefits are no longer being provided, they leave and look for another church.

Question.

Will we choose to follow the Bible, or follow the world?

Acts 25:9-12

6-12 plaintiffs and Paul before Festus in Cæsarea

 Verses 9-10: Festus, as a politician and new governor, wished to curry favor with the Jews. It was the Jews desire to get Paul back to Jerusalem, though the reason was unknown to Festus (cf. verses 2-3). Therefore, he asked whether Paul was willing to go back to Jerusalem and be judged by the Jews. Here “before me” appears to refer to “the charges brought before me today” rather than the idea that he would be judged before Festus in Jerusalem. If agreed upon, it would take place under the imprimatur of Festus, but the judgment made by the Jews. If the Jews were able to execute their plain, there would be no judgment at all. Paul stood his ground. As a Jew he had done nothing wrong – to which he adds to Festus, “as thou very well knowest.” As a Roman citizen, he had the right to judgment under the Roman judicial system.

Verses 11-12: Paul’s appeal to Cæsar. Paul was courageous to stand judgment under Roman law – knowing he had done nothing wrong, and willing to suffer their punishment if they thought he had. “I appeal unto Cæsar…unto Cæsar shalt thou go.” Paul’s appealing to Cæsar was lawful, and God used this as a means to bring Paul to Rome. Some interpreters claim that Paul made a mistake – first, in trusting to the Roman legal system rather than God; and second, in making a legal mistake that prevented Festus from freeing him. However, compare again Matthew 10:17-20.

and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

By God’s providence this appeal set in motion the trip of Paul to Rome – his desire (Romans 1:9-13) and God’s promise (Acts 23:11). He might not travel the best cruise line, but it wouldn’t cost Paul (or the churches) one thin dime.

“God puts it into his heart to do it, for the bringing about of that which he had said to him, that he must bear witness to Christ at Rome, for there the emperor’s court was, ch. 23 11.” Matthew Henry, Commentary

 

“…it was ordered in divine Providence, that he should appeal to Caesar, that he might go to Rome, and there bear a testimony for Christ…” John Gill, Exposition

Agrippa’s statement in Acts 26 (31-32) indicates (1) Paul had engaged in nothing criminal [official recognition of innocence] (2) Paul’s appeal could not/should not be set aside.

Can Two Walk Together?

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). 

A Sacred Harp friend of mine hoped a new revision of The Sacred Harp book undertaken by the Sacred Harp Publishing Company would help bring unity between the Sacred Harp diaspora and the traditional Sacred Harp singers. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but I do doubt his sanity! I can’t imagine how he had come to that conclusion.

The new revision has not brought unity – though I don’t think it technically brought division. Rather it has exposed a deep but veiled division that already existed – a deep oozing wound over which we have been draping a towel while pretending it did not exist. The revision ripped off the towel for full disclosure.

The restroom rhetoric coming from some of the Sacred Harp conventions demonstrates that the Sacred Harp world is divided into two camps that cannot continue to walk together. The Covid clamoring is another controversial topic that reveals we are not headed in the same direction.[i] These are some of the nicer topics, and time would fail me to write about the “Queer Convention” scheduled for New Orleans in February.

A fair number of singings at points beyond still require a negative Covid test (and/or proof of vaccination, etc.) in order for attendees to be “welcomed and affirmed” at their singing conventions.[ii] After five years these folks cannot get beyond COVID-19 fears and restrictions, or…

One wonders whether it could be a clandestine method assured at keeping the most conservative of singers at arm’s length – we welcome everyone (but we don’t want you here)![iii] Tell me it’s not hypocrisy while at the same time explaining to me that 600-700 singers – many from “off summers” where they require publicized Covid policies – piled into Atlanta, Georgia to sing at the United Sacred Harp Musical Association with nary a mention of Covid precautions!

The “restroom rhetoric” is carefully catered to a certain left-leaning worldview. In all the houses in which I have lived in my life, each has had only had one restroom for everyone.[iv] You just go in and lock the door. We didn’t have to dub it as “gender-neutral” – it was just “the bathroom.” I don’t have a problem with that, just with the mindset that must meddle in politics over practicalities in order to force others into agreement, at least tacitly if not in fact.

According to Google AI a “gender-neutral bathroom, also called an all-gender or unisex restroom, is a restroom that can be used by anyone, regardless of their gender identity or sex. These facilities provide a safe and inclusive space for transgender and non-binary individuals…”

Therefore, it seems that the emphasis on “gender-neutral” is a subtle suggestion that transgender and non-binary individuals are affirmed, while conservative Christians still holding to the biblical teaching and worldview of only two genders might not be as welcome.[v] At least their views are not welcome inside and must be left outside the door, effectively demonstrating the intolerance of tolerance!

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Nay. The only way the two camps have been able to “walk together” thus far, is for the Christian camp to keep their heads down, their mouths shut, and their pens silent. Some of us are no longer willing to suffer it to be so. While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25), but it is high time to awake out of our sleep and rise to the challenge of defending the Christian nature of the hymns and traditions of The Sacred Harp.[vi]

Perhaps Pastor Kent Brandenburg’s portrait of the larger societal picture can help point us in the right direction:

“The only way to combat the cultural reality in the United States, I believe, is by boldly asserting the biblical and historical belief and practice, and then not back down.”[vii]

---

[i] There is also a third camp trying to straddle the fence; trying to hold hands with two sides that are walking in different directions. They will eventually have to make up their minds to go one way or the other.
[ii] “When you arrive at the registration desk outside the auditorium, we will check you in and confirm your proof of negative COVID-19 rapid test. We will have tests available for those who are not otherwise able to test the morning of each day of the sing. If you are waiting on a test result, we will ask that you remain outside the auditorium until it is complete.” (New England Convention, 2025). “COVID information ● We will have HEPA air purifiers running throughout the singing. ● Masks are welcome, but optional. We respect all who choose to mask! ● Please stay home if you’re not feeling well. If you feel ill after the singing, let us know so we can send an email to the group. (We’ll keep your name anonymous.)” (NC Shape Note Singing Convention, October 2025). “Day-of negative rapid test required; extra tests will be available. Vaccination required.” (Berkeley Weekly Singing, 2025). “We ask that attendees be vaccinated against COVID-19 and that each attendee provide a same day negative COVID test” (Vermont All-Day, March 2024).
[iii] There has also been the shift from the hospitable “Everyone is welcome” to appeal to various groups that they are specifically welcome: “Whether you are drawn to shape note singing for spiritual, secular, communal, artistic, historic, or other reasons—all are invited! All ages, levels of musical ability, faith traditions, and life experiences are welcome in the ‘hollow square.’” (NC Shape Note Singing Convention, October 2025) “The New England Sacred Harp Convention is a weekend of joining our voices in song to create sacred harmonies. We represent a breadth of identities related to age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, ethnicity, education, ability, class, and political affiliations. We also recognize that our tradition has historically given power to certain identities while marginalizing others.” (New England Convention, 2019).
[iv] With the possible exception of the earliest houses of my infancy that I do not remember, which may have only had “one long path.”
[v] “There are men’s and women’s restrooms on the ground floor, each with one accessible stall. Since these two are public restrooms, we regret that we will be unable to make them gender neutral, and encourage folks to use the bathroom that feels most comfortable to them. There are additional inaccessible restrooms on the third floor, which we will be able to designate as gender neutral.” (New England Convention, 2025) “There are gendered accessible restrooms on the main level. Single-stall, gender-neutral restrooms are located down a flight of stairs. Singing will take place on the main level.)” (NC Shape Note Singing Convention, October 2025). “Toilets are downstairs. There are accessible toilets, gendered toilets and gender neutral toilets available.” (Manchester All-Day, 2025).
[vi] Most of us “slept through” and/or had no knowledge of the scholarly paper “Reorienting Space: Queering Sacred Harp Singing” by Jonathon Smith, University of Illinois, presented at the Society for Ethnomusicology 64th Annual Meeting, 2019. According to Google AI, “Smith’s work explores how LGBTQ+ individuals engage with the traditional American shape-note singing practice of Sacred Harp, interpreting it as a way of ‘queering’ the space and its practices” and that “LGBTQ+ singers and communities reinterpret or reshape the meaning and social dynamics of Sacred Harp singing. This involves more than just their physical presence; it’s an act of reorienting the practice itself toward more inclusive, affirming, and personally meaningful ends.” The author and presenter is a Sacred Harp singer and well-known to members of the 2025 revision committee of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company. (These views are presented at greater length in Smith’s dissertation, “Imagined Space in Sacred Harp Singing.”) Also mark (Romans 16:17) The Hymn Society in the US and Canada as an “aider and abettor” of “queering” Christian music. Note, for example, their “Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community.” Shape note singers pitched in: “On Monday, January 13, 2025, the Baltimore Shape Note Singers met at Four Hour Day Lutherie for an evening that combined tradition with a focus on inclusion. The group sang ‘Love Astounding’, a poem by Jeanette M. Lindholm set to the tune ‘Holy Manna’ from The Sacred Harp. This performance was part of the Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community project, recorded in the traditional Sacred Harp style.”
[vii] https://kentbrandenburg.com/2025/08/18/can-anyone-take-a-biblical-conservative-cultural-position-in-the-united-states-today/

The object of attention and flattery

I recently saw an ad for one of these e-bee “soul winning” clinics that had the hosting pastor’s photo along with several of his “credentials,” one of which was the fact that he had seen one third of his converts baptized. It didn’t mention the other two thirds at all, nor did it offer any convincing evidence that even the one third really received Christ. Yet, his e-bee minions flocked to his clinic to hone their “soul winning” skills. Please don’t think I’m trying to sound overly humble with what I’m about to say, because I’m really not. I’m just trying to be honest and get across some helpful truths. How exactly does any decent preacher allow his photo to be published along with lofty words of praise in his honor? I’m dead serious. This sort of vanity is published and promoted continually in fundamental circles, and it appears that most of the brethren are okay with it, but WHY? What kind of man does this, and what kind of people accept it?

James L. Melton, By Their Fruits: Rediscovering a Biblical Standard, p. 18. [e-bee = empty believism]

How Great Was Sodom’s Sin

The hymn and song “How Great Was Sodom’s Sin” appears as No. 178 in Messages of Love Hymn Book: for Gospel, Sunday School, Special Services and Home Singing (St. Louis, MO: Bible Truth Depot, 1920). The tune Bath (Meter 6.6.8.6.8.8.) was written by W. H. Cooke. The author of the words is not given, and currently unknown.

1. How great was Sodom’s sin,
When God, so good and kind,
Must burn the place, and people, too,
Nor leave one thing behind!
O! how could Lot, who saw God’s grace,
Take part in such a wicked place?

2. But Abram was not there,
He loved the Lord too well;
He heard the God of glory call,
And there he would not dwell.
He trusted God—and God was more
To Abram than all Sodom’s store.

3. And when the dreadful day
Of Sodom’s judgment came,
And Lot, who “lingered” in the scene,
Was pulled from out the flame.
Then Abram stood with God apart,
And heard the secrets of His heart.

4. And you, my child, He calls
His glory home to share,—
To know and follow Him while here,
And live with Him up there.
Hark! how He calls—O, linger not,
Nor love this wicked world like Lot.

5. O, listen to His voice,
And trust in His great love;
Down to your little heart it comes,
From His great heart above,
To make you free from all the sin,
And holy, happy, safe with Him.

The tune Bath

Translations of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Some resources for folks doing Bible translation research.

English translation of Vaticanus.

• A Literal Translation of the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, on Definite Rules of Translation, from the Text of the Vatican Manuscript, 6th edition, Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker]. London: Evan Evans, 1863.

English translation of Sinaiticus.

• The New Testament: Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt. Sinai, Henry Tompkins Anderson. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company, 1916.

Other stuff.

• Four Hundred Years of University Printing and Publishing in Cambridge 1584-1984: Catalogue of the Exhibition in the University Library, Cambridge, David McKitterick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984
• Greek Interlinear Bible (NT) (F. H. A. Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus and the Authorized King James Version translation)

Exhibit 3, Organ Stashed

To accompany previous exhibits (drowned and burned), a brief mention of the organ controversy at the First Baptist Church in Tyler, Smith County, Texas.

One of the deacons had objected so strongly to an instrument of music in the house of the Lord that an organ acquired for the church was put in the baptistry, where it remained for some time. The two sons of the deacon, both good musicians, influenced their father after their conversions to give his consent to bring the organ out of the baptistry for church use.

The incident apparently occurred in the 1850s, as the telling of the incident is placed in the story of the pastorate of J. T. Bledsoe, 1856-1859. This baptistry was not in the church house, as many today, but was in a separate building apart from the church house. “In a large yard surrounded by trees, a brick building, forty by sixty feet, containing a baptistry was erected. Since there was no public water system in the town, the baptistry was never used for its original purpose; the ever-flowing spring continued to be used.” The First One Hundred Years: Centennial Story, the First Baptist Church, Tyler, Texas.

There is a later mention of a reed organ donated in 1878 by Mssrs. Beaird and Hamilton.

Acts 25:6-8

6-12 plaintiffs and Paul before Festus in Cæsarea

Verses 6-7: Festus stayed in Jerusalem a little over ten days, then went back down to Cæsarea. Jews from Jerusalem came down to press their charges against Paul. The day after his return, Festus sat on the judgment seat, called Paul in, and brought the case to account. The Jews charged Paul with many serious crimes (“many and grievous complaints”) but Luke adds of them, “which they could not prove.” It was one thing to charge Paul with many serious crimes, but quite another to prove them..

Verse 8: After the Jews rested their case, Paul “answered for himself.” His initial introductory answer gives the flavor of the charges:

• Paul violated the law of Moses (Neither against the law of the Jews)
• Paul profaned the temple (neither against the temple)
• Paul violated Roman law (nor yet against Cæsar)

Paul asserts that he had not offended in regards to any of these charges.

Misogynistic Ester

Misogynistic, adjective. Feeling or showing hatred of, prejudice toward, or discrimination against women.

The tune Ester by John Stringer Terry was added to The Sacred Harp in the 1870 revision (page 437). It has continued to appear in all three revisions of the book to the present (page 437 in Cooper and White books; page 37 in Denson editions). In the new 2025 Edition published by the Sacred Harp Publishing Company, it got a makeover.[i] The words of the hymn ran afoul of the woke folk on the left. The hymn beginning “Young ladies, all attention give” was switched out to the hymn beginning “Awake, my soul, in joyful lays.”[ii] Here are the words of the hymn originally attached to the tune Ester in The Sacred Harp.

1. Young ladies, all attention give,
You that in wicked pleasures live;
One of your sex, the other day,
Was called by death’s cold hand away.

2. This lesson she has left for you,
To teach the careless what to do;
To seek Jehovah while you live,
And everlasting honors give.

3. Her honored mother she addressed,
While tears were streaming down her breast;
She grasped her tender hands and said,
“Remember me when I am dead.”

4. She called her father to her bed,
And thus, in dying anguish said:
“My days on earth are at an end,
My soul is summoned to attend.

5. “Before Jehovah’s awful bar,
To hear my awful sentence there;
And now, dear father, do repent,
And read the holy Testament.”

Some factual history (should anyone actually care).

This hymn fits two genres popular in its day: (1) warning texts, especially with the exhortation to “attention give” and (2) death-bed texts, either death-bed confessions and/or death-bed exhortations to the living.

The author of this hymn is unknown. It was published in The Religious Telescope (Volume I, No. 14, February 2, 1842) in 25 stanzas. However, its origins could go back to around 1813. The Revivalist by Washington Glass (Columbus, OH: 1853) prints 26 stanzas “To the memory of Maria Roush, who died March 1st, 1813—Boon County, Ky.” Ultimately just about everyone is exhorted to be ready when death comes calling, including father, mother, brother, sister, and “young people all.”

Some other “All attention give” hymns.

• Come one, all attention give, this lesson is for you…
• Dear people, all attention give, to what a friend shall say…
• Let all, attention give, and I will teach you well…
• Like Cornelius, all attention give, and seek God’s grace that we may live…
• Young people, all attention give, and hear what I shall say…
• Young people, all attention give, while I address you in God’s name…

And there are variations within this genre, such as “Young people, all, on you I call, pray lend me your attention…”

Facebook reaction to the makeover of three Sacred Harp texts

Along came the woke folk and objected to singing a warning hymn – because it is addressed to “young ladies.” Of course, most of the folks objecting to this have no Biblical or Christian worldview, and are out of their depth in that regard. They have no clear understanding that any people need a warning, because it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.[iii]So they call the words “misogynistic” and claim victory because they have labeled the words with an objectionable adjective before which all should bow.[iv]

When I read the charge, I wondered whether these people even know what the word “misogynistic’ means?[v] If “misogyny” is hatred toward women and “misogynistic” reflects that hatred, tell me where is the hate here in this song? No, it is rather a desire for consideration of one’s eternal destiny. A Christian desire for “young ladies” to give attention to the fact that they will die and stand before God does not arise out of hatred, but out of love!![vi] And we must speak the truth in love. We desire for young ladies and young men, old ladies and old men, black and white, rich and poor. To address one specifically is to address them in love and concern, not hate. I suppose perhaps we should not expect a bunch of agnostics, reprobates, and unbelievers would understand that. It is all just “hate speech” to them.[vii] However, if this hymn shows hatred to women, it must also show hatred to fathers – see stanzas four and five where the young lady calls on her father to repent! And the original poem also calls on young men to repent, so I guess it includes hatred of men?[viii] Sadly, I’m sure most of the woke folk won’t let the actual facts get in the way of their anxious feelings.

---

[i] I would mention that there is another Sacred Harp Book Company that has not acquiesced to such demands.
[ii] Which hymn already appeared twice in the book, and has also been added another time (No. 459). There is nothing wrong with this newly-attached hymn. It is my opinion, however, that it was wrong to cave in to the godless objections to the old one. For full disclosure, I would be fine with changing the words used with this tune under different circumstances – Christians looking for another Christian text that Christians might sing more often than “Young ladies, all attention give.” I love this tune with the words, “Poor, weak, and worthless, though I am.” However, when it is nonbelievers objecting to and fiddling with Christian texts, it is time to push back.
[iii] Those who object to our worldview will likely also object to Paul’s use of “men” in Hebrews 9:27, but I’ll stick to quoting the Bible written and translated before everyone wanted to go “gender neutral” (the Greek of the 1st century – ἀνθρώποις dative, plural masculine – and the English of the 17th century).
[iv] However, it is at the name of Jesus every knee should bow!
[v] And do they care?
[vi] Compare Romans 10:1.
[vii] Hate speech = speech that is hated by those defining it as hate speech.
[viii] And is there such hatred of men that there is not even a good antonym for misogynist?

Empty Believism

There’s a term that I use to describe this less-than-salvation doctrine that rules in many churches. The term is EMPTY BELIEVISM. The standard term most commonly used for this is EASY-believism, but some take issue with this term because it could be used to imply that salvation isn’t easy. In fact, that’s one of the snarky arguing points used against Bible believers for using the term, so I won’t use the term at all. I’ll just call it EMPTY believism, because, after all, this damnable religion is most certainly very empty. It’s empty of common sense; it’s often empty of personal concern and compassion; it’s empty of any Bible basis, and it’s empty of Holy Ghost guidance and conviction. Empty believism.

James L. Melton, pastor of Bible Baptist Church, Sharon Tennessee, The Sevenfold Sin of Empty Believism

The Church’s Desolation

I am just going to place this here with very little comment. This is among my favorite “sad but true” songs.

The Church’s Desolation

1. Well may thy servants mourn, my God,
The Church’s desolation;
The state of Zion calls aloud
For grief and lamentation.
Once she was all alive to thee
And thousands were converted,
But now a sad reverse we see,
Her glory is departed.

2. Her pastors love to live at ease
They covet wealth and honor;
And while they seek such things as these,
They bring reproach upon her.
Such worthless objects they pursue
Warmly and undiverted;
The church they lead and ruin, too—
Her glory is departed.

3. Her private members walk no more
As Jesus Christ has taught them;
Riches and fashion they adore,
With these the world has bought them.
The Christian name they still retain
Absurdly and false-hearted;
And while they in the church remain,
Her glory is departed.

4. And has religion left the Church
Without a trace behind her?
Where shall I go, where shall I search,
That I once more may find her?
Adieu, ye proud, ye light and gay,
I’ll seek the brokenhearted,
Who weep when they of Zion say,
Her glory is departed.

5. Some few, like good Elijah stand,
While thousands have revolted,
In earnest for the heav’nly land
They never yet have halted.
With such religion doth remain,
For they are not perverted;
Oh! may they all through them regain
The glory that’s departed.

The tune was written or arranged by Jesse T. White for the 1844 Sacred Harp. The author of the words is unknown. The closest we have to an attribution, when in 1865 an unnamed “Sister” wrote to the Southern Christian Advocate (Macon, Georgia, December 7, 1865, p. 1) that it “was written by the late Rev. William Arnold.” Oh! if the author could only see us now!

In other words, of information

• agnotology, noun. The process of intentionally creating or encouraging doubt or ignorance, for example, by spreading false information.
• articulate, adjective. Expressing oneself readily, fluently, and effectively.
• articulent, adjective. (Of a voice, reader, or spoken delivery) Exhibiting a high degree of precise articulation, rhythmic pacing, and phonetic clarity; marked by controlled cadences, distinct enunciation, and vocal flow.
• biopic, noun. A biographical movie or TV show (a portmanteau of biography + [moving] picture).
• cognitive dissonance, noun. (Psychology) Anxiety or discomfort that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes or beliefs.
• critical, adjective. involving criticism, or skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.
• diaspora, noun. The spread or dissemination of something originally confined to a local, homogeneous group, as a language or cultural institution.
• fusty , adjective. Having a stale smell; moldy, musty; old-fashioned or out-of-date.
• intellectual dishonesty, noun. The intentional misrepresentation, omission, or distortion of facts, arguments, or evidence in order to support a desired conclusion or win an argument, even though one knows the truth.
• iterative, adjective. Marked by iteration (i.e., the act of repeating; a repetition).
• kern, verb. To remove a portion of space between (adjacent letters) in preparation for printing.
• kernel, noun. The softer, usually edible part contained in the shell of a nut or the stone of a fruit.
• myopic, adjective. Nearsighted; having myopia; (by extension) shortsighted; lacking foresight.
• nepenthe, noun. A drug or drink having the power to bring forgetfulness of sorrow or trouble; anything inducing a pleasurable sensation of forgetfulness, especially of sorrow or trouble.
• nontraditional, adjective. Not following or conforming to tradition; not adhering to past practices or conventions.
• plenipotentiary, noun. A person invested with full power or authority to transact business on behalf of another.
• quanked, adjective. Overcome by fatigue; extremely exhausted.
• riff, noun. (Jazz music) A melodic phrase, often repeated as an accompaniment or part of an accompaniment for a soloist; a new variation on or a different manifestation of an existing thing or idea (usually followed by “on”).
• splenetic, adjective. Irritable; peevish; spiteful.
• thanatopsis, noun. A view or contemplation of death.
• thanatosis, noun. The act of faking or feigning death.
• tycoon, noun. A person of great wealth, influence, or power; magnate.
• xanthan gum, noun. A polysaccharide that is produced by fermentation of carbohydrates by a gram-negative bacterium.

The 1991 Sacred Harp, removed songs

Removing Songs from The Sacred Harp

Consider reading the prior posts about the current shape note scene.

• He and They, a “Prodigal” Misgendering
• Singing Convention Reflections
• An example of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising
• Outside Looking In, Part 1
• Outside Looking In, Part 2

Removal of songs. In order to add 113 songs to The Sacred Harp 2025 Edition, the revision committee of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company removed 77 songs that were in The Sacred Harp 1991 Edition. A list of the 77 songs can be seen HERE.

There are 554 songs in the 1991 Edition of The Sacred Harp. These songs have been ranked for use over the past 30 years (see stats page at Fasola.org). The ranking is based on how many times these songs were called and sang, based on minutes of singings from 1995 to 2024.

Thought experiment. If we desire to add X number of new songs, then we could remove the lowest X number of songs. That is a beginning working theory, to which a few complexities must be added. In simple theory, since the 1991 revision has 554 songs, removing 77 songs could be removing the songs ranked 478 and below.[i] Or in simple theory, adding 113 songs could require removing the songs ranked 442 and below.[ii] Of course, it is not quite that simple! For example, song Y being added may not fill the same number of pages as song Z being removed (and vice versa). Another example, when Rose of Sharon is removed (six pages), it makes room for a different six page anthem, six songs that occupy one page, three songs that occupy two pages, or 12 songs that occupy a half page (and there could be varying combinations of these).[iii] Additionally, there is some consideration of not doing violence to the existing pagination. Nevertheless, using this thought experiment, one would think that any songs that ranked 400 and above should be safe. Not so. Some were not!

Caveat 1. I do not have any significant attachment to the 77 songs removed – in that none of them are among my “favorites” and with the disclosure of Soft Music being my paternal grandfather’s favorite song. Interpretation – I am not complaining because of losing songs I cannot stand to lose. I am considering this according to the principle of the thing.

Caveat 2. The stats at https://www.fasola.org/minutes/stats/ are slightly quirky in that the total is 557 rather than 554. This is because songs 24t, 24b, and 25 are included. These three are part of the “Rudiments of Music,” but people occasionally lead them and they get listed in the minutes. Nevertheless, these three do not figure into the issue of songs added and removed, and I do not figure them into my discussion. So, for example, 24t and 25 rank below the song on page 407, but I do not consider that in my discussion. Also, this quirk makes the worst ranking song in the musical selections of the 1991 rank as 556, when actually as the last of 554 songs, it is 554. There are also songs that are at times “tied” for ranking, since they have the same count.

Objective and Subjective removals. Hopefully the committee will soon reveal the methods they used for determining which songs they thought ought to be removed (and which were finally removed because of these methods). There was a long-standing active effort behind petitioning and convincing the committee to get rid of or change the words on certain songs. Singers lobbied for the removal of songs they did not like – for various reasons, but most often for violating a vague standard of “offense.”  A good example of this was exhibited at the 2019 New England Convention. Organizers assembled a “Do Not Call” list of four songs.[v] The songs on the list were Edmonds, Stafford, War Department, and Whitestown.[vi] Of these do not call songs, Edmonds and War Department were legitimately on the chopping block for removal, being the two least used songs in the book. Stafford and Whitestown were hounded, harassed, and hazed for perceived violations – of “anti-semitism” (though the reference to “envious Jews” is biblical and was actually made by another Jewish person, not a modern American “racist”) and because of the connotations of applying Psalm 107 to the colonization of New England. Since Stafford and Whitestown were relatively popular songs despite the war against them, the revision committee gave them a makeover (new words) rather than removing them from the book. Ester had a so-called “misogynistic” text, and got a makeover as well.

The reason for the removal of other songs, however, can only be imagined. The only reason I have been able to imagine are the subjective standards of “it’s not in the Sacred Harp style” or “I don’t like to sing it.” The heads of several popular songs were chopped off; up until now, at least, the charges against them are unknown. Consider some other removed songs.

Notice this self-evident comparison. This shows the very subjective nature that crept in at times in choosing what songs to remove and what songs to keep. One song was popular and was removed from the book – the other occupied a seat near the bottom (in popularity, with only two “Do Not Call” songs worse than it), but was kept nevertheless.

• The song Federal Street ranked 187th overall, out of 554 songs.[vii] It was sung more than 367 other songs over the course of 30 years. It WAS removed.[viii]  
• The song Charlton ranked 552nd overall, out of 554 songs. That is, this song was down near the very bottom among the least used songs. It WAS NOT removed.

Review. There are 554 songs in the 1991 Edition of The Sacred Harp. They have been ranked for use over the past 30 years (1995-2024). Considering these rankings, I find some removals especially surprising – Federal Street, Soft Music, and Pleyels Hymn (Second). Here are some of the removed songs that had the best song use rankings of the 77 songs that were removed.

No.                  Title                                             Rank

50b                  Humility                                     361

254                  Rose of Sharon                         282

323b                Soft Music                                 293

334                  O Come Away                              281

438                  The Marriage in the Skies       368

491                  Oh, What Love                           377

515                  Federal Street                          187

523                  Pleyels Hymn (Second)             254

• 515, Federal Street. At an overall ranking of 187, it was sung more than 367 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 523, Pleyels Hymn (Second). At an overall ranking of 254, it was sung more than 300 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 334, O Come Away. At an overall ranking of 281, it was sung more than 273 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 254, Rose of Sharon. At an overall ranking of 282, it was sung more than 272 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 323b, Soft Music. At an overall ranking of 293, it was sung more than 261 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 50b, Humility. At an overall ranking of 361, it was sung more than 193 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 438, The Marriage in the Skies. At an overall ranking of 368, it was sung more than 186 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 491, Oh, What Love. At an overall ranking of 377, it was sung more than 177 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.

A couple of song losses that I have noticed being lamented on Facebook and elsewhere are Warning (213b) and Rose of Sharon (254).[ix] Rose of Sharon was likely removed to buy a large piece of real estate! Six songs now appears where it once was. Nevertheless, that a 6-page anthem – a difficult song that many would hesitate to lead – is ranked as high as no. 282 is a sure sign that it was liked. As with Doddridge, “Rose of Sharon, None can save you.” Warning might be considered a strange little song. It occupied a lower quarter of page 213, and continued to be presented as four parts of three staves. Yet, perhaps because of rather than instead of, its oddity, it was liked by many. Yet its overall ranking of 447 could not spare it from the cry of the Queen of Hearts, “off with its head!” The best explanation of these removals – sans the committee relaying one of its own – is that the committee did not like these songs.

Being seasonal songs (for the season of Christmas) did not save Portuguese Hymn or Cookham from removal. Among basement dwellers that got a reprieve were these (not just ranked below 478, but 532 and below); despite very poor ranking, they were not removed: 

• Restoration Second (ranked 532)[x]
• Shepherds Rejoice (ranked 539)
• Funeral Thought (ranked 541)
• Land of Rest (ranked 544)
• The Bride’s Farewell (ranked 545)
• Elder (ranked 548)
• Charlton (ranked 552)

Removed words. I mentioned above three songs whose words were replaced with different words. The most long-standing argument of which I am aware has been over the first stanza of a hymn by Isaac Watts: “See what a living stone the builders did refuse; Yet God hath built his church thereon, in spite of envious Jews” (“envious Jews” being the offending words). I have written extensively and zealously about this text, arguing against its removal (most recently, I think, in “The Living Stone”). The position of some folks who see nothing wrong with text is “let’s just change it to another text, since it offends some people.”[xi] I could go along with that if it were my personal offense to someone. But this offense is against God’s words, the Christian hymn text written by Isaac Watts, and the Christian structure of The Sacred Harp. Let me be clear – I am not attached to having to sing about “envious Jews.” The other stanza the committee picked is a fine text. Nevertheless, the reason behind changing the text is not fine! Christians should oppose any such changes as that one – because it is a non-Christian mindset that elevates their human philosophy above the Bible. The Bible does describe certain Jews as envious Jews (for example, Matthew 27:18; Acts 13:45), who opposed Jesus and his followers (who were also Jews). I can give in on personal issues, but I cannot give in to attacks against the Bible, just to pacify non-Christian singers. The committee obviously took a different tack.

Concluding thoughts.

This series of articles about the 2025 revision of The Sacred Harp has looked at several issues. I suppose my primary emphasis is on:

1. The state of “Sacred Harp” in the 21st century.
2. The gradual movement from a primarily Christian spiritual activity (with emphasis on both the texts and the style of music) toward a “renaissance” of folk music, that is, an activity based primarily on the style of the music in the book than the meaning of the texts of the book. 
3. The details about the revision of The Sacred Harp 1991 Revision authorized in 2018 and completed in 2025.

That musical focus probably explains many of the choices made by the 2025 revision committee – that is, the overall current state of The Sacred Harp as published by the Sacred Harp Publishing is musical more than spiritual, secular more than Christian. The overall result of the revision appeals to that focus, and perhaps can be regarded as a success by those who agree with the “Sacred Harp” as music over meaning.[xii]

Outside this circle of popular agreement stand some of us who are disappointed with the result. Among the disappointed stand those who will continue to use the 1991 Edition rather than the 2025 Edition.

Endnotes:

---

[i] I used Excel to check my count, and the Excel counter agreed that songs ranked 478 to 554 would count as 77 songs.
[ii] I used Excel to check my count, and the Excel counter agreed that songs ranked 442 to 554 would count as 113 songs.
[iii] See the newly released “New Song Page Numbers in The Sacred Harp: 2025 Edition,” which shows they placed six songs where this one was located.
[iv] Though this effort ramped up after the Sacred Harp Publishing Company authorized a revision of The Sacred Harp 1991 Edition, this debate had a long history. For example, see the section “Songs People Won’t Sing” in Traveling Home, by Kiri Miller (University of Illinois Press, 2008, pages 188-194).
[v] The lists were printed and placed on the name-card table. Recently a fellow singer told me about calling War Department at a singing in Pennsylvania. He had picked it because he wanted to sing a 3-part song, and was a new singer unaware of any taboos. He was flatly told to choose something else. I am unaware that the any of the dastardly inhospitable Southern singers have ever told anyone that they would not sing a song that was called. On the humourous side, I do know of an occasion when a bunch of old lovable knot-heads would not sing a song at the clip the leader wanted, and he had to give up.
[vi] In addition to the “Do Not Call” list, there was also list of “manners” people should have at the singing, and even a demonstration of those manners. The convention gave instructions, and “demos” of “how to behave” – including, you have to ask people what their preferred pronouns are You should ask this so that you do not even refer to a person in their absence by the wrong pronoun. You are not to hug anyone without asking if they would like a hug first. In July 2020, a letter signed by 90 people was forwarded to the revision committee, urging them to reject “the push for removing songs that [some singers] deem offensive in some way, but rather to follow the proven method of “removing songs that are seldom sung.” It seems that the committee generally followed this objective method, but at times launched out to remove songs in what might be called “stylistic targeting” – songs they did not like, and/or deemed not “Sacred Harpy” enough.
[vii] Because of the quirk in the way the ranks are compiled, though ranked 552, Charlton has three songs that fall below it – Fatherland, Edmonds, and War Department.
[viii] Federal Street occupied the place of being the most popular of the songs that were removed.
[ix] In this I note that these were supporters of the new revision who were lamenting the loss of those songs. Another lamentation was over O Come Away.
[x] Interestingly, this song which was kept was tied with Millennium, which got the axe.
[xi] When the method of appeasement is chosen, then “the finders” simply find that there are more texts they do not like. “Proper station” offends us, and we don’t like the sound of “plantation” in 335. “Like so many other texts in the SH, I feel like we need to afford ourselves some interpretative license to make the music work for us. ‘Chosen station’ would be better!” And so it goes.
[xii] Though only time will tell regarding the enduring quality of the songs that were added to the book.