I’ve Been Everywhere

...in Rusk County.

[Intro]

I was totin’ my pack along the dusty old Jones Lake Road

When along came a pickup truck with-a-out any load.

“If you’re goin’ anywhere in Rusk County, Mack, with me you can ride”

And so I climbed into the cab and then I settled down inside.

He asked me if I’d seen a road with so much dust and sand,

And I said, “Listen, I’ve traveled every road in this county’s land.”

[Chorus]

I’ve been everywhere, man

I’ve been everywhere, man

Crossed the hills and hollers, man

I’ve breathed Mount Enterprise air, man

Of travel I’ve a-had my share, man

I’ve been everywhere.

[Verse 1]

I’ve been to old Gould, New Salem, Moss Temple,

Mt. Zion, Zion Hill, Pleasant Hill, fairly simple; 

Red Level, Smith Chapel, Harmony Hill, Leverett’s Chapel

Chapel Hill, Craig, Grandview, Jacobs, Crim’s Chapel.

Holley Spring, Springfield, Chinquapin, Gourd Neck,

Stringtown, Stewart, Turnertown, Prospect, don’t object!

[Chorus]

I’ve been everywhere, man

I’ve been everywhere, man

I’ve been everywhere, man

Cross the hills and hollers, man

I’ve breathed Mount Enterprise air, man

Of travel I’ve a-had my share, man

I’ve been everywhere.

[Verse 2]

I’ve been to Brachfield, Pine Hill, Church Hill, Eulalie,

Millville, Laneville, maybe even San Cosme;

Church Hill, Laird Hill, Chalk Hill, Caledonia,

Anadarko, Monroe, Shiloh, but not California!

Mayflower, Minden, McKnight, Striker Lake,

Shakerag, Cherokee & Martin Lake, for Pete’s sake.

[Chorus]

I’ve been everywhere, man

I’ve been everywhere, man

Cross the hills and hollers, man

I’ve breathed Mount Enterprise air, man

Of travel I’ve a-had my share, man

I’ve been everywhere.

[Verse 3]

I’ve been to Sulphur Springs, Big Spring, Union Spring, Pleasant Grove,

Sweetgum, Tatum, Mooretown, Irbyville, Valley Grove;

Roquemore, Greasy Kitchen, Gray Hill, Watt Hill,

Oak Hill, Oak Flat, Sand Flat, Sand Hill, what a thrill.

Gaston, Overton, Henderson, New London, even

Pone, Pirtle, Pitner’s Junction, see what I mean-a?

[Chorus]

I’ve been everywhere, man

I’ve been everywhere, man

Crossed the hills and hollers, man

I’ve breathed Mount Enterprise air, man

Of travel I’ve a-had my share, man

I’ve been everywhere.

[Verse 4]

I’ve been to Arlam, New Salem, Buford, Fairview

Bryce & Price, Carlisle, Concord, Bellview,

Easton, Egypt, Frog Pond, and Glenfawn

Ebenezer, Mansinger, Dewey, and Compton.

New Hope, Good Hope, Good Springs, Gum Springs,

Crossroads, Rhodes, Sexton City, Selman City, what a pity.

When it comes to traveling Rusk County, Texas, I’ve been everywhere…

Baptism and Church Communion

“To the Christian reader. 

“When it pleased God, of his free Grace, to cause me to make a serious inquiry after Jesus Christ, and to give me some taste of his pardoning Love, the sense of which did engage my heart with desires to be obedient to his will in all things, I used all indeavers both by Converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires of God, that I might be directed in a right way of Worship; and after some time concluded, that the safest way was to follow the Footsteps of the Flock (namely) that Order laid down by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced by the Primitive Christians in their times; which I found to be, that after Conversion they were Baptized, added to the Church, and continued in the Apostles’ Doctrine, Fellowship, Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; according to which I thought my self bound to be Conformable. And having continued in the Profession of the same for these forty years, although through many Weaknesses, and Fears, Temptations, and Sufferings, yet not without some Witness from God of his gracious Acceptance and Strength to this very day: The sense I have of my own Weakness and Inability, would have been a Bar to me to appear in this Publick way, did I not see a necessity lying upon me for the Truth’s sake, and the sakes of many, by reason of some that have lately risen up to weaken, if not to make void, that great Ordinance of Baptism, by indeavouring to maintain, that all persons that Believe, although they never did, nor do Practice the same, may partake of the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and all other Gospel instituted Duties.”

A Sober Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, William Kiffin, 1681 [“…we dare not break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt…” (pp. 130-31)]

Christopher Yetzer on Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation

By Christopher Yetzer, Baptist Missionary in Milan, Italy. (Used by permission.)

1. Inspiration

• 1. I affirm that God sovereignly inspired His words exactly as He intended (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). Inspiration rests in God’s act, not in my understanding of the process.

2. Preservation

• 2. I affirm that God has preserved His inspired words, as Scripture promises (Ps. 12:6–7; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35).
• 3. Preservation means that God’s words remain accessible to His people and have not been lost to history.

3. Progressive Access in History

• 4. I recognize that not every believer in every generation possessed the entirety of Scripture (e.g., Old Testament saints did not have the New Testament; early churches did not immediately possess the complete canon).
• 5. Therefore, preservation does not require identical distribution in every era, but faithful transmission within God’s redemptive plan.

4. Recognition, Not Private Revelation

• 6. I believe Christ’s sheep hear His voice (John 10), meaning believers are enabled by the Spirit to recognize and receive God’s Word—not to generate new revelation.
• 7. I believe I possess God’s preserved Word today and can receive it with confidence.

5. The Textual Foundation

• 8. I believe the Old Testament is most faithfully preserved in the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, and the New Testament in the historic Greek manuscript tradition received by the church.
• 9. Textual questions should be approached from this preservation framework rather than from a skepticism toward the text itself.

6. Translation

• 10. I believe God’s words can be accurately translated into other languages.
• 11. Accuracy does not always require word-for-word literalism but faithful representation of meaning and structure.
• 12. Changes in language over time (e.g., “ass” to “donkey”) do not necessarily constitute doctrinal or textual corruption.

7. Principles for a Translation

• I believe a faithful translation should aim for:
• 13. Accuracy — conveying the meaning of the original text faithfully.
• 14. Authority — broad ecclesiastical acceptance and proven use.
• 15. Beauty and dignity — language fitting for public worship and reverence.
• 16. Comprehensiveness — capable of expressing the full theological depth of the original languages.
• 17. Unity — promoting doctrinal and congregational stability where possible.

8. Application to English

• 18. For English-speaking believers, I believe these principles converge most fully in the King James Version.
• 19. I desire similar faithfulness, clarity, dignity, and unity in translations for other languages.

My confidence in a translation rests not on private spiritual impression alone, but on its historical continuity, textual foundation, doctrinal faithfulness, and long-standing use among believers.

Notes.

---

I think this very well represents the truth, and with which I understand and agree. Generally there is the modern evangelical denial of preservation as a biblical doctrine. More a “oh, what we have is just what happened to survive to the present” kind of preservation.

I believe the best preservation of biblical faith and practice occurred to a large degree underground during the ascendancy of the “hierarchical church” (Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox) from say the 500s to the Reformation. Both the people and the words of the Lord have been preserved. I see the Catholics and Orthodox as being heretical, and the truth generally preserved in persecuted bands of believers. (Not that no truths were preserved among the Catholics and Orthodox, but when they “hereticize” the doctrine of salvation outside of grace through faith, they have lost the plot.)

Jacob leaning upon his staff

Hebrews 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

“and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff; not that he worshipped the top of his staff, as the Vulgate Latin version renders it, either his own, or Joseph’s, or any little image upon the top of it; which would be an instance of idolatry, and not faith, contrary to the scope of the apostle; nor is there any need to interpret this of civil worship and respect paid to Joseph, as a fulfilment of his dream, and with a peculiar regard to Christ, of whom Joseph was a type; whereas, on the contrary, Joseph at this time bowed to his father, as was most natural and proper, Gen. xlviii. 12 nor is there any necessity of supposing a different punctuation of Genesis xlvii. 31 and that the true reading is not Mittah, a bed, but Matteh; a staff, contrary to all the Targums^f, and the Talmud^g, which read Mittah, a bed, seeing it is not that place the apostle cites or refers to; for that was before the blessing of the sons of Joseph, but this was at the same time; and the apostle relates what is nowhere recorded in Genesis, but what he had either from tradition, or immediate revelation; or else he concludes it from the general account in Genesis xlviii and the sense is, that Jacob, having blessed the two sons of Joseph, being sat upon his bed, and weak, he leaned upon the top of his staff, and worshipped God, and gave praise and glory to him, that he had lived to see not only his son Joseph, but his seed also, see Gen. xlviii. 2, 11, 20.”

John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, Vol. III, 1746, p. 435

---

f. Onkelos, Jonathan & Jerusalem in Genesis xlvii .31.
g. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 16. 2.

The Gospel

Philip Doddridge wrote the following hymn, which is titled “Fruitful Showers, Emblems of the Salutary Effects of the Gospel.” The idea is derived from Isaiah 55:10-12.

For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

1. Mark the soft-falling snow
And the diffusive rain!
To heaven, from whence it fell,
It turns not back again;
But waters Earth through every pore,
And calls forth all its secret store.

2. Arrayed in beauteous green,
The hills and valleys shine,
And man and beast are fed
By providence divine:
The harvest bows its golden ears,
The copious seed of future years.

3. “So,” saith the God of Grace,
“My gospel shall descend,
“Almighty to effect
“The purpose I intend;
“Millions of souls shall feel its power,
“And bear it down to millions more.”

4. “Joy shall begin your march
“And peace protect your ways,
“While all the mountains round
“Echo melodious praise;
“The vocal groves shall sing the God
“And every tree consenting nod.”

This hymn was published posthumously in 1755 in Hymns Founded on Various Texts in the Holy Scriptures, by Job Orton (J. Eddowes and J. Cotton, 1755). It is Hymn CXI and is written in Hallelujah Meter (H. M.). The hymn does not seem to be settled with any one particular tune. It will fit well with Lenox, with which it has been paired at times, as well as Allerton. More recently, shape-note composer Raymond Hamrick arranged a tune named Harvest for this text.

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751) was an English Nonconformist minister and hymnwriter. In addition to his hymns, his published works include The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, The Family Expositor, Three Sermons on the Evidences of the Gospel, Ten Sermons on the Power and Grace of Christ, and A Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament. Doddridge died October 26, 1751, at age 49 while in Lisbon, Portugal. He was buried at the British Cemetery in Lisbon. Well-known hymns written by Philip Doddridge include “Grace ’tis a charming sound,” “Hark, the glad sound, the Saviour comes,” “O God of Bethel, by Whose hand,” and “O happy day, that fixed my choice.”

Liberalism at Southern Seminary

I am not Southern Baptist. I have never been Southern Baptist. I never intend to be Southern Baptist. However, I appreciate that of all the larger and mainline denominations in the United States, it seems only the Southern Baptist Convention has successfully pushed back against theological liberalism in any meaningful way.

In “The Conservative Resurgence and Southern Baptist Seminary,” Mark Terry sheds some personal light on what he experienced during his early tenure as a teacher at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. It is inconceivable that it had been allowed to get so bad, but perhaps more unbelievable that the conservatives in the SBC were able to oust the liberals from Southern.[i]

A few examples:

“He reported that he was the only student of ten who believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The professor himself did not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ.”

“The faculty members who studied at Southern in the 1980s shared experiences from their student days. One reported that he kept a running count of the curse words one professor uttered in class. He stopped counting at 152.”

“…one of the ethics professors often spoke at abortion rights rallies and made pro-abortion statements on local television.”

---

[i] I suspect, as happens in most things like this in religion and politics, that some “liberals” turned “conservative” as the tide was turning.

Ethics and Sacred Harp 2

Unethical editorial practices are real and widespread. When a reader recently noticed “undisclosed conflicts of interest in the peer review” of a paper, it set off a chain of events leading to the publisher Frontiers “retracting a batch of 122 articles across five journals.” Examples of other articles expressing such concerns may be found HERE, HERE, and HERE. The last demonstrates that the concerns are not just recent. Universities and/or their libraries such as those at Emory, Flagler, and West Georgia often provide resources about ethics and academic integrity.[i]

As we saw in the previous post yesterday, unethical means “not adhering to proper rules of conduct or standards of a profession.” In the Sacred Harp context, this raises the question, “What are the proper rules of conduct for or standards of revising The Sacred Harp tunebook?”[ii] For help in that regard, we might look at general ethical standards used in business, industry, and education, as well as specific accepted ethical standards used in editorial processes. Finally, considering that The Sacred Harp is a Christian book, reflect on Christian Bible-based ethical standards.[iii]  There is a lot of overlap in the three categories, but it might be helpful to sort them this way. Some general ethical standards may vary according to context, while biblical standards will be objective and absolute.[iv]

General ethical standards found in business, education, etc.

• Avoids any conflict of interest
• Exhibits fairness, impartiality, and neutrality
• Prohibits retaliation
• Provides honesty and integrity
• Refrains from undue influence of familial relationships
• Seeks no unfair advantage
• Shows respect and gains trust
• Shuns secret agendas that conflict with the publicly expressed agenda

Specific ethical standards used in editorial processes

• Allows for corrections and enhancements
• Applies the same standards equally
• Encourages toward improvement
• Maintains proper attribution
• Protects the original intent/substance
• Quashes plagiarism
• Rejects misrepresentation and lack of transparency
• Requires collaboration between parties
• Respects original content and intellectual property

Some Bible-based Christian ethical standards

• Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
• Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
• Romans 12:9 Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
• Romans 12:10 ...in honour preferring one another
• Romans 12:16 Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
• Romans 12:17 Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
• Proverbs 16:3 Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.
• Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord.
• Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
• Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths…
• Colossians 3:16 …teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

To answer the question “What are the proper rules of conduct for (or standards of) revising The Sacred Harp tunebook,” we can look for help by considering general ethical standards, specific editorial ethical standards, and Christian Bible-based ethical standards. What is past is past, but we can look to the future with hope. Looking to the future begins with acknowledging past problems, remediating those that can be remediated, and then firmly establishing a goal and will to proceed by nothing less than ethical standards going forward. Let us call for and expect only this.

---

[i] For example, Emory expects all employees to avoid actual or perceived conflicts between their personal interests and their responsibilities; to maintain the highest ethical standards in all conduct and decisions; and to avoid retaliation.
[ii] From the beginning of the revealing of the new 2025 Sacred Harp book, the main objections concerned questionable ethics, a premeditated agenda, and the lack of promised impartiality in how the revision played out. Noticeably, the committee denied having a preset agenda. “The committee has no preset agenda other than to produce the best possible revision that will satisfy the singing public for the next 25–30 years.” Revision-Music Committee Status Report, July 2020. At what point does the editing process change from ethical to unethical? Ethical editing allows for and includes minor corrections and enhancements (corrections of typos, errant notes, grammatical mistakes, for example), suggestions for improvement, respect of the original content and context, clarification, proper attribution, and/or informed consent. Unethical editing involves and includes misrepresentation, removing important content and context, lack of transparency, and/or falsifying information. A distinction between ethical and unethical may often depend on whether the editorial changes mislead the audience and distort the truth. One concerned party summed it up this way: “Don’t lie about who wrote the song. Don’t rewrite people’s work without their consent. Don’t treat certain composers with preference in the rewrite process.”
[iii] Speaking in principle, ethical behavior is right for everyone. Nevertheless, the ethical behavior of each one will be based on his or her standards of right and wrong. Acting in ways consistent with one’s view of right and wrong will (or should) for the Jew be based on the understanding of the Old Testament, on the Holy Bible (OT & NT) for the Christian, the Qur’an for the Muslim, the Bhagavad Gita for the Hindu, and so on. (These might have some problematic results when badly mixed!) Since the United States of America is neither Jewish, Christian, Muslim, nor Hindu, the ethics of the U. S. as a nation generally must be based on its Constitution, laws, community standards, etc. – proceeding in ways consistent with those. Since The Sacred Harp is a Christian songbook published in the United States, the ethics of the revising of the songbook should be consistent with not only U. S. standards, but especially consistent with a Christian worldview based on the Holy Bible.
[iv] For example, in a family business, it would not be unethical for the owner to promote his child to the highest-ranking position in the company, while it could be unethical for the CEO of large and diverse corporation to do so.
[v] Considering there was at the least perceived partiality toward insuring the inclusion of non-Christians, we might be reminded of the biblical standard, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Ethics and Sacred Harp 1

unethical, adjective. Not adhering to proper rules of conduct or standards of a profession.

In past posts I have considered unethical practices that occurred in the 2025 revision process of the 1991 Sacred Harp. (For examples, see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.) This brings up the questions, “What are the proper rules of conduct in revising a traditional shape note songbook” and “Have they been followed in the past?” We might question whether, in addition to the present, some things in the past were handled unethically.[i]

Three examples.

There are examples of past odd and/or unethical behavior that perhaps laid the groundwork for present excuse of unethical behavior. These seem to fall in a category of misattribution or false attributions.

A well-known and oft-repeated history of The Sacred Harp is the alto misattributions in the 1911 J. S. James Original Sacred Harp. This book adds alto to some 300 to 400 songs, and attributes them to someone other than the actual composers of these altos.[ii] Ironically, this long-standing affront was finally addressed in the 2025 edition by adding the correct names of alto composers.[iii] 

Another practice of misattribution was the arrangement of songs by old New England composers (such as Abraham Maxim, Samuel Holyoke, and others) either without acknowledgment of the composer or even attribution to Sacred Harp composers/singers.[iv]  

The third oddity is a deliberate misdirection or misattribution by the composer to some other person who did not write the song. This practice has been styled by some as “dedicatory attributions” – that is (evidently) that another person is credited as the composer as honor or dedication. In Makers of The Sacred Harp (p. 82), Warren Steel writes: “There is one additional form of authorship that I have rarely encountered outside the Sacred Harp tradition. A few songs are credited to an individual as a form of tribute or dedication, but are actually composed by another person, perhaps a well-known Sacred Harp composer who already has many tunes to his credit. This has the effect of recognizing a person for his or her service to the cause of Sacred Harp singing by transferring credit for a given song, while modestly reducing the share of songs credited to any one author.”[v]

In consideration.

Perhaps in the past some questionable situations were handled with “kid gloves” (at best, explained discreetly) because of respect for the tradition and respect for those persons who acted unethically.[vi] Into the early 21st-century the standard explanation for the 1911 alto misattributions was how easily two people might write the same alto for a song that already had three parts.[vii] To not straightforwardly deal with issues allows them to fester and get worse – which we see in the latest revision.

Also, we must carefully consider one thing that has changed dramatically in recent times. That one thing is the explosion of the number of people who composed and submitted what they believed were songs in the Sacred Harp style. In the past, to a great degree, the revisers of Sacred Harps have been composers who were adding their new songs to the book. “Our book, our songs,” so to speak. In the 20th century, the nature of the beast, so to speak, was that people who composed and submitted songs were small in number and somewhat limited in a tight circle. That changed a bit with the 1991 revision of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company. Then (I think) there were around 100 songs submitted, according to committee member Raymond Hamrick – from what was probably a pool of about two dozen composers. Contrast this with the 2025 edition, which had 1155 songs submitted that were written by over 200 composers (a large portion of those living composers). Because of this difference, the 2025 revision committee placed a great emphasis on the idea that none of the composers were known to anyone but the committee chairman.[vi]

Thoughts.

I do not think having a book and having a procedure of “it is our book and we will put our songs in it” is unethical. However, to make a pretense of neutrality, equality, and fairness but then actually proceed with “it is our book and we will put our songs in it, and do whatever we want” is unethical. To pretend that one’s agenda is not one’s agenda is unethical. To project that someone who did not write a song wrote the song is unethical. To steal someone else’s song or song idea and then claim it as one’s own is unethical. It is possible that how to revise a Sacred Harp has not been properly marinated in ethical thought.

• Past unethical practices should not provide a pattern for current, ongoing, or future unethical practices.
• Ethical guidelines should be thought out, agreed on, understood, and followed.

To be concluded, Part 2 tomorrow.

---

[i] If so, it does not excuse or erase what recently happened.
[ii] A large portion of the alto came especially from the 1902 Revised Sacred Harp by W. M. Cooper. Cooper sued James over the theft, but lost the suit. The loss seems to come over a bad technicality imposed by the judge – yes, James did take altos from Cooper, but the alto part is not so important as to matter legally. Also, the trial was carried out on what might be considered James’s “home turf.”
[iii] In 1991, the revision deleted the references to names of alto composers. Warren Steel acknowledged some of this and recognized some of the composers in Makers of the Sacred Harp.
[iv] Some of the 19th-century cases – particularly the writing down of melodies that were passed along orally – exhibit a different concept of authorship (that is, the person who was capable of putting it in music on paper was considered the author). A few cases seem to be an accidental attribution to the person who submitted (rather than composed) the song. Most of these historical misattributions have been corrected.
[v] Steel notes a few of those in the “Biographical Sketches of the Composers” section of his book (pp. 119, 141, 171). David Wright discusses some of this in “The Variety of Influence: Forms of Craftsmanship in the 1960 Edition,” as does Jesse Karlsberg in “Raymond C. Hamrick’s Contributions to Sacred Harp Singing and Scholarship.”

[vi] None of us are guiltless, generally. The best of men are men at best. All have sinned

[vii] A few close calls, yea. Hundreds of times? No way, Jose! Only the wide-eyed enthusiasts could actually believe that. Or perhaps the ostrich with head buried in the sand.
[viii] Until 1991 there was no pretention of neutrality (as far as I am aware, in other words, “our book, our songs”). In 1991, at the public singing and recording of the songs, all reference to the names of composers was removed. However, it is clear that only the public and not the committee were operating under this constraint, since a committee member mentioned the deliberate intent “to give our northern and western singers an interest in the book to be published.” Additionally, a composer shared with me that one of the committee members told him (at the public singing) that he recognized his songs by his writing style.