Moving toward “The Generic Harp”

Did the Sacred Harp Publishing Company and their 2025 Revision Committee move The Sacred Harp 2025 Revision towards words with less explicitly Christian meaning? I believe so (and, whether carelessly or deliberately is a question to consider).[i] I analyzed the texts/words of the new songs added to The Sacred Harp 2025 (as well as the old songs removed from The Sacred Harp 1991) and divided the texts of these songs into 3 categories: (1) texts that might be generally accepted in principle as true by singers with any religion or no religion; (2) texts that might be generally accepted in principle as true by singers who believe in some idea of “God” or a higher power, though not necessarily the Christian God; (3) texts that could not be generally or readily accepted in principle as true by those who are not Christians. Here are the specific songs categorized and the results/conclusions from that. (You should hopefully be able to select the images and enlarge them for reading.)

Old songs that were added to The Sacred Harp 2025 (32).

32 songs from older/other sources were added to the 2025 Edition of The Sacred Harp.

• 3 with “Category 1” lyrics; this is 9% of the old songs added.
• 14 with “Category 2” lyrics; this is 44% of the old songs added.
• 15 with “Category 3” lyrics; this is 46% of the old songs added.

53% of the older songs that were added have somewhat generic texts, that could be more acceptable to non-Christians.[ii]

New songs that were added to The Sacred Harp 2025 (81).

81 songs by 49 living composers were added to the 2025 Edition of The Sacred Harp.

• 12 with “Category 1” lyrics; 15% of the new songs added.
• 38 with “Category 2” lyrics; 47% of the new songs added.
• 31 with “Category 3” lyrics: 38% of the new songs added.

62% of the new songs have somewhat generic texts, that could be more acceptable to non-Christians.

Considered together, 59% of the total songs added to the 2025 Edition have somewhat generic texts, that could be more acceptable to non-Christians.

Songs that were removed from The Sacred Harp 1991 (77).

77 songs that were in the 1991 Edition of The Sacred Harp were removed in order to make way for 113 songs added to the 2025 Edition of The Sacred Harp.

• 9 removed songs with “Category 1” lyrics; this is 9% of the songs removed.
• 15 removed songs with “Category 2” lyrics; this is 19% of the songs removed.
• 53 removed songs with “Category 3” lyrics; this is 69% of the songs removed.

These actions show favoritism toward removing explicitly Christian words over more generic ones.

Conclusion.

Of 113 newly added songs in 2025, 15 have “Category 1” lyrics and 52 have “Category 2” lyrics (a total of 67). This is 59 % of the songs added, exhibiting a tendency toward favoring songs that can be considered less explicit in the Christian message they contain.[iii] When comparing added songs to removed songs, the choices exhibit removing more songs with more explicitly Christian texts, while adding more songs with more generic texts. 59% of the newly-added songs have somewhat generic texts. 69% of the removed songs have somewhat more explicit texts.

This analysis is enough to raise serious questions and heighten further concerns about the theological and cultural “drift” of The Sacred Harp, its songs, and its message. These concerns should not be dismissed with a hand wave, but considered and addressed by a community whose tradition is based in and fed by Christianity. Overall, the Sacred Harp Publishing Company failed its trust.

---

[i] For example, was the committee (or some members of it) complicit in favoring song texts that would be less-offensive to non-Christian and anti-Christian singers? (If you do not believe there are anti-Christian singers, see footnote 3.) Was the committee careless in not articulating a committment to explictly Christian texts for an explicitly Christian songbook? How will these questions be answered?

[ii] As a plurality, the total old songs added slightly favor Category 3, but the total of Categories 1 and 2 favor generic readings. That fits well in the overall situation of past versus present, seeing that the older composers would have been less likely to specifically desire generic texts in the same way or for the same reason that modern non-Christian composers would choose them.

[iii] This is not to say they are not Christian hymns, but that the texts appear to have been picked in order to favor hymns or stanzas of hymns that are not as explicit in directly speaking of Jesus Christ, his atoning blood, his bodily resurrection, salvation through Christ alone, the exclusivity of the gospel, and so on. In past times, Christian singers would just understand all the songs from within their Christian worldview. The current participation of many non-Christians who like the music but not the theology turns that once-common understanding on its head. Shockingly (in his audacity), one composer who has a song in the 2025 Edition wrote on Bluesky that “Christianity isn’t morally acceptable.” (Perhaps it is not that audacious, since he hides cowardly behind a pseudonym.)

Questions for the Revision Committee

The following thoughts and questions about the latest Sacred Harp Publishing Company songbook revision were addressed to two members of the 2025 Sacred Harp Revision Committee. First, after the October 2025 Board meeting, the committee’s music editor offered to answer questions about the revision committee music selection and editing process. However, after receiving the specific questions, he declined to answer but instead directed me to listen to remarks made at the symposium in Atlanta in September 2025 – none of which videos that are available directly address my questions. Some of the videos (even if they do answer the questions) are still not even available online over nine months after the fact. Failing in that effort, I next addressed the questions to the revision committee chair. His reply offered no answers. After reading the reply four times, I came away with the feeling that – written between every line was the mantra “we could care less about the singers who have concerns about the new book.”

So, here are the questions asked, presented for public consumption. I have changed the formatting somewhat in order to make it easier viewing for the reader. If there was nothing done unethically in or wrong during the process, why are the questions so hard to answer?

Submissions. The committee reported to the Sacred Harp community that 1155 song were submitted for consideration. 

• How many of the 1155 were new compositions and how many were previously published/old songs?
• Are there any statistics on how many songs were submitted per composer – that is, not how many did each individual submit, but perhaps an upper number (the largest amount submitted by a composer), a lower number (presumably one), and an average?
• Of these 1155 songs submitted, how did the committee arrive at the 113 chosen?
• Did the committee select songs based on what the song itself was, or what they envisioned it could be (considering the kind of editing that was done to some of them)?

Blind selection process. The Sacred Harp community and composers were assured that only the committee chairman knew the names of the songs and their composers. I have no doubt that the chair sincerely envisioned it that way. But perhaps such an ideal was a pipe dream from the start, considering the digital age in which we live. There were so many variables -- such as songs being printed in The Trumpet, submitted to FaSoLa Songwriters, the New Harmony Facebook group, YouTube, SoundCloud, composiums, other songbooks, on various websites, and such like. With all this, managing to keep the process “blind” not only to the committee but even to others singing at trial singings must have been an impossible challenge. Songs written by the committee members were obviously known to themselves.

• I have found 75 tunes that are publicly available and that could possibly have been known by the revision committee through various means (twenty-five are on Jesse’s site, SacredHarpTunes.com, so obviously  he knew those). 
• Considering the disconnect between what we were told and what was the situation, what assurances do we have against the appearance of conflict-of-interest, and that all composers were treated equally and respectfully?

Editing process. One of the more shocking revelations to some of us outsiders is the heavy editing of the songs that were selected for the new edition. I know you are aware of the situation with Linda Sides’s song, and you may be aware that she has demonstrated how her song was edited without her collaboration, then sent to her with a week’s notice to sign off on for inclusion in the book. This is when I first began to take close notice of the process. Other credible reports have surfaced of songs receiving the same or similar treatment, and of possibly one other composer refusing to sign off on the edited product. 

• Who decided that songs should be edited? (Not talking about fixing errant notes and typos, but changing the songs themselves.)
• Who decided which songs would be edited? Who did the editing? Did the entire committee approve the process both before and after editing?
• Of these 1155 songs submitted, were there not more songs that were deemed good enough substantially “as is” without having to edit possibly 50% (per Mike Hinton) or more of the songs to make them worthy to include in the book?
• What was the time frame of editing the songs?
• Were all composers given only one week to accept the edits proposed for their songs (in a process that overall covered nearly seven years)?
• Or did some receive preferential treatment? (For example, on a recent podcast, one composer said that after he submitted his songs, the revision committee reached out to him to say one of them had potential. So, he worked on it, and eventually his song made the cut.)
• I also noticed there are three songs in the 2025 edition whose composition dates are after the time for submitting songs was over.

Removal of songs. 

• What method or methods were used for removing songs that were not among the bottom 77 songs?
• For example:
• The song FEDERAL STREET ranked 187th overall, out of 554 songs. It was sung more than 367 other songs over the course of 30 years. It was removed.  
• The song CHARLTON ranked 552nd overall, out of 554 songs, over the course of 30 years. That is, this song was down near the very bottom among the least used songs. It was not removed.
• The old B. F. White arrangement SOFT MUSIC (ranked 293) was removed, while the weird THE BRIDE’S FAREWELL (ranked 545) was kept.
• How do you explain these kinds of choices?

I realize that the revision committee took on an enormous task beyond the scope of previous revisions (particularly in the number of songs submitted), and can appreciate that fact. However, I think that fact actually calls for all the more transparency, not less.

The “M’s” have it

Morphing off of a Facebook post by Pastor Jason Skipper, October 2025.

“M’s” you can mention in order to get in a big fuss with someone:

• Men only as preachers
• Music in church
• Modesty in apparel
• Manuscripts of the Bible

Yes, Doug, I am a genealogist

“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer

Last week, in contrast to Jonathan Burris, I mentioned that I have found non- and anti- KJV controversialists who are open, honest, and sincere.[i] I find others who are stuck playing one string on their banjoes and can pluck no other! In some cases, they may be willingly ignorant, determined to debate (regardless), and even deceivers & being deceived.

The Gary Hudson-Doug Kutilek-Rick Norton team of contenders seem to fit that description. They have lit on their “true truth,” found the one string they can pluck, and will not be dislodged from it regardless of the evidence. In “The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of ‘KJV–Onlyism,’” Doug Kutilek writes:

In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (died 1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants.

They have determined to dismiss “King James Only” theology and history out of hand by foisting on it a genealogy error. Doug Kutilek and others have made a cottage industry out of it.

Find someone who believed only the King James Bible was the word of God before Benjamin Wilkinson? “Dismissed! They can’t be KJVO because that does not fit our pre-determined genealogical scheme.” If my Baptist ancestors never heard of Benjamin Wilkinson, J. J. Ray, Fuller, or Ruckman, but believed their King James Bibles represented the inspired word of God? “Dismissed! This can’t be so, because we have already set the parameters and drawn the lines.” There is no reasoning with these guys. They will not be budged by any kind of evidence. How do we know? We’ve tried, and they still won’t move.[ii] 

The H-K-N team excels in hypocrisy. When olden King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team then erases them from the line of “KJV Only” supporters. However, when contemporary King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team charges that these are lying and are still to be considered “KJV Only.”

These are:

• Deceivers, Deceiving, Being Deceived?
• Woefully Willfully Ignorant?
• Dogmatically Dead-Set to Debate?
• Quibblers Qualified in Quibbling?

“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer

---

[i] When I first became acquainted with him, I thought Mark Ward fit in that category. Continued interactions with him make me doubt it.
[ii] 1. One of Rick Norton’s perennial lines is that Archbishop Richard Bancroft (or another prelate or somebody) altered “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37 to make it say “robbers of churches.” He can find one old 1671 quote to that effect; inflate the claim with dozens of others with no evidence other than the first claim; ignore the fact that that translation previously appeared in the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible; ignore the fact that the King James translators used “churchrobber” in 2 Maccabees 4:42, clearly in reference to the temple; and then just keep repeating the claim ad infinitum. 2. Plenty of Pre-Wilkinsonian historical evidence has been provided of the existence of supporters of the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the word of God. It seems to be dismissed out of hand because they simply cannot be KJVO. For a few samples, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.

What is a Ruckmanite?

Anyone who engages in the Bible Versions debates will become familiar with the name of Peter S. Ruckman. Some elevate him as a demigod and others despise him as the devil. My opinion about him can be found here: The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman.

Because Ruckman is such a lightning rod, it has become a popular tactic to identify a King James Bible supporter as a “Ruckmanite.”[i]

What is a Ruckmanite?

Is there a standard definition that is useful and consistent when using the term “Ruckmanite”? Here are three explanations I found online, with one being very broad, and the other two relatively close.

• A Ruckmanite is one who follows the teachings (or most of the teachings) of Peter Ruckman and defend his divorces and cursing and such.
• A Ruckmanite is anyone who is King James Version Only.
• A Ruckmanite position is one that is hyper-dispensationalism (e.g., OT saints saved by works, etc.) and hyper-KJVOism (advanced revelation, KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew, foreign language Bible should be translated from the KJV, etc.).[ii]

Valid or not, like the wording or not, these represent explanations that I found online. I think the term “Ruckmanite” gets used in all three of those ways. Based on the comments I have read in Facebook discussion groups and elsewhere, the terminology “Ruckmanite” is undefined (i.e., it has no standard and easily recognized meaning). It means anything and everything – whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It is not worth much other than as a pejorative. (It really fits the modern secular divide-and-conquer methodology.) Calling a KJV supporter a “Ruckmanite” is the equivalent of calling a person a racist, Nazi, and such like .The term is not very useful beyond that, and should be avoided.

Is there a proper, standard, and consistent way to define a “Ruckmanite”? What are your thoughts?

---

[i] -ite is a suffix of nouns denoting especially persons associated with a place, tribe, leader, doctrine, system, etc. (for example, Campbellite; Canaanite; Hittite; Israelite).
[ii] When Peter Ruckman speaks against hyper-dispensationalism, I think he means the view that starts the church mid-Acts or later. On the other hand, those using it in reference to Peter Ruckman are pointing out his teaching of different ways of salvation in different dispensations.

King James Idolatry

One slick maneuver in the King James Version debate... 

Call “King James ‘Onlyists’” idolaters and the King James Bible an idol. That is, they are saying that those who hold the King James Bible as the only true English Bible have made it an idol. This is a strong piece of rhetoric that plays well with many people. For an example, notice a commenter on the Haifley-Ward video discussion “Do We Need a KJV Update? A Candid and Cordial Conversation.” He wrote concerning the KJV, “The problem is that the bronze serpent in the wilderness is being repurposed as an idol.”

That is nevertheless an insincere tactic for those opponents who continue to use the “I love the KJV” trope. I adjure those who sincerely believe this charge of idolatry to come up to the lick log and prove they believe what they say. Stop playing the “nice card” and call for demolishing the idol. That’s what Hezekiah did.

[Hezekiah] … brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

160 Years of Rumbles on Bible Revision

Awhile back I began to put together a file to help keep up with and find again online materials related to opposition of revising the King James Bible. The research and file have expanded to include a few other things, that I thought worth formatting and sharing with others. I settled on a time frame of 19th century to “mid”-20th century. This began as an effort for my own benefit, because I have trouble keeping up with things that I have found. I decided it might be useful to others also. 

So, I cleaned up the file, did some formatting, created an index, and am posting it here. The material is divided into three sections. The first begins in the 19th century (1801) until the 1870 Convocation vote to revise the King James Bible. The second begins in 1870 until the appearance of the Revised Standard Version New Testament in 1946. The third is from 1946 to 1961. There ends the review.

The file is “Rumbles on Revision” and may be viewed by selecting the following link:

Rumbles on Revision: A Resource on the Rejection of, Objections To, or Uncertainty Toward Revising our Common English Bible, the Authorized or King James Version – Spanning 160 Years, 1801-1961

Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks.

Who are the Missionary Baptists?

In a discussion thread on the Baptist Board, a member asked another member, “Why do you use the name of Missionary Baptist or why is it used?” Here is a response with an historical summary of the reason.

During the 19th century in the United States (roughly 1820-1840), there was a controversy – and finally a split – among Baptists over the nature of “missions.” The development of a national missionary society and other types of church auxiliaries gradually festered a sore spot. The “General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions” (more commonly called the Triennial Convention) was formed in 1814. Within a few years Baptists were writing treatises questioning the propriety of and authority for such an organization. In more recent times, this has often been incorrectly framed as a controversy over preaching the gospel. Most, if not all, of the Baptists believed in preaching the gospel to those who had not heard. The objection to the formation of missionary societies was ecclesiological rather than soteriological. One of the early treatises, Daniel Parker’s A Public Address to the Baptist Society...on the Principle and Practice of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, clearly shows the ecclesiological argumentation.

Once the churches divided into camps favoring or opposing missionary societies, mission boards, and some other church auxiliaries, those who favored the formalized missionary efforts were classed as “Missionary Baptists.” They referred to the other side as “anti-missionary.” Those “anti-missionaries” used Regular, Old School, Primitive, etc. for self-identification. Due to this background, the name “Missionary Baptist” is usually applied to those with historical origins that trace back to the Regular Baptists in the United States and the Particular Baptists in England (i.e., the Baptists among who this split occurred). The name is seldom applied to churches with a background rooted in the General Baptist movement (historically). For example, most Freewill Baptists and General Baptists in the United States favor some type of organized missionary effort but would not normally use “Missionary Baptist” in any kind of official or descriptive way.

The name “Missionary Baptist” still falls in the realm of those churches descending from the “missionary” side of the 19th century U.S. Baptist split. Any of them may be “missionary Baptists” while it is a minority that officially uses “Missionary Baptist” in church and organizational names. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th, the “Missionary Baptists” split over the way to do missions. Some favored missionary societies or mission boards, while others favored Gospel missions or direct missions. Therefore, today there are independent churches and associations who are “Missionary Baptists” who would have greater ecclesiological agreement on the matter of missions with Daniel Parker, for example, rather than J. M. Peck.

Seeing “Missionary Baptist” in a church name will not tell the same story in different regions of the country. In East Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi – and probably Tennessee and Missouri – “Missionary Baptist” likely means one of two things: (1) a predominantly white church that is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or (2) a predominantly African-American church that is affiliated with one of the National Baptist Conventions. In my visits to northern Alabama and northern Georgia, I have found that if a church had “Missionary Baptist” in the name it was usually Southern Baptist.

In my outdated list of Baptist Groups in the United States, I believe you will find churches in the following groups who use in some official way the name “Missionary Baptist.” I probably miss some.

• American Baptist Association
• Baptist Missionary Association of America
• Independent Missionary Baptist Associations
• Independent Missionary Baptist Churches
• Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of America
• National Baptist Convention of America
• National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
• Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
• Some (probably a small minority) Southern Baptist Convention

For the most part it seems that fundamentalists have moved away from using “Missionary Baptist.” Nevertheless, J. Frank Norris’s World Baptist Fellowship was once called the World Premillennial Missionary Baptist Fellowship.