Pastor problems

Gallup’s 2025 “Honesty and Ethics Survey” finds that the perceived “honesty and ethics” of clergy has dropped 40 points since its 1985 poll – 67% in 1985 versus 27% in 2025. I think that view combines actual problems created by clergy for themselves, and the perception of their honesty and ethics created by other factors. The latter can be seen as part of the equation because this perception varies in different demographics – for example older folks have a better perception of the honesty and ethics of clergy than younger folks do, and people with higher incomes trust clergy more than those with lower incomes.

Not that it should give much comfort, but clergy is still a more trusted group than journalists, lawyers, members of Congress, and telemarketers.

See Americans’ Trust in Pastors Hits Historic Low and Nurses Continue to Lead in Honesty and Ethics Ratings.

The Bible and Women in Ministry

Review of A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership (ebook).

Stone, Meredith J. A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership, Waco, TX: Baptist Women in Ministry, 2023.

A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership is a brief 21-page booklet provided by the Baptist Women in Ministry organization, written by the organization’s executive director. Meredith J. Stone has a PhD from Brite Divinity School (TCU), is Executive Director of Baptist Women in Ministry (organized 1983 as Women in Ministry, SBC), and is author of Empire and Gender in LXX Esther (2018).

The book is an easy read to provide an overview of the approach taken by some Baptist women who promote full access for women in Christian and church ministry. The author seeks to address questions of women in church ministry, leadership roles, ordination, etc. She acknowledges, “These questions have been the source of conflict for decades, and the heart of the matter is how we interpret biblical passages related to women’s roles and leadership” (p. 1).

The booklet starts with an unlabeled “Introduction,” followed by eight sections: Women in the Bible (3-4); Women and Creation (5-7); Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament (8); Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament (9-10); Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church (11-13); Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations (14-15); Conclusion (16-17); and Discussion Guide (18-21).

Stone initially inserts a misguided application of the priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church. This may appeal to unthinking Baptists, but lays a shifting foundation for the work. Just because some Baptists interpret the scripture on their own (which they are free to do), is no guarantee that the interpretation and resulting practice is correct. Just because a Baptist Church is free to govern itself and make its own decisions apart from the influence of any other church does not mean she should make decisions contrary to the word God. The priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church only function properly in submission to God and his revealed word. In this introduction, Stone signals early on that the authority of many biblical passages (at the least the ones that challenge “women in ministry”) will be dismissed on cultural and literary grounds (p. 2). These passages will be painted as complicated matters of interpretation which have been unshackled by “women in ministry” in recent years.

Women in the Bible. In this section Stone highlights certain women in the Bible that seem to fit her agenda – Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Mary, Anna, Lydia, Priscilla, Philip’s daughters – noting, “While some women in the Bible exist in submissive roles to men, other women have authority and are prominent leaders” (p. 3). While all these women have an important place in the Bible, the author primarily throws their names out and hopes the reader will come down on her side – rather than, for example, dealing with why none of the prominent women in the New Testament are ordained officers in the church.[i]

Women and creation. Without attacking the creation account directly, Stone delivers a dose of doubt by calling Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 two different creation accounts – rather than clearly affirming the second is giving the details of the same creation account.[ii]  She renders Adam amorphous by claiming a better translation of “man” in Genesis 2:4-25 is “person.”[iii]  A silly illustration of the animals created before the woman is made – trying to side line any discussion of the order of creation of Adam and Eve as ridiculous. That Eve was created to be a helper (Genesis 2:20) is dismissed because the Hebrew word is also used in reference to God (pp. 5-6). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is pitted against Romans 5:12-19 without resolution, beyond in her own mind simply impeaching 1 Timothy 2 (p. 6). Genesis 3:16 becomes merely “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” (p. 6).[iv] 

Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament. Galatians 3:28 is not exegeted for meaning, but simply given as a prooftext of equality of ministry (p. 8). 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 11:4 provides cover for women praying and prophesying, while the head covering is lifted as merely a respectful temporary item of the cultural context. Stone grabs on to a controversial passage that even liberals dispute the meaning of, that Paul supposedly “calls” Junia an apostle, so that supports the position of the author. Meanwhile, almost no one actually thinks Junia was an apostle.[i] Notably, when Jesus chose the twelve, he did not appoint any women.

Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament. Stone mentions Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The teaching of these texts may be set aside since they are in the epistle genre (p. 9) – a communication between two parties which a third party will not understand. This denies the perspicuity of most of the New Testament. Yet oddly, a third party like Stone is able to figure out that it does not mean anything in our culture today. This was only for particular wives in particular congregations in this particular time. The author writes, “A decision must be made as to how to interpret the passages in light of each other” (p. 10). However, no real decision is made other than that no interpretation is needed for the passages since they should not have to obey them in modern times.[v]

Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church. Often Stone uses a “double down” technique. First, the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 for women to be silent are contextual and not universally applicable (p. 11). Further! verse 36 should be considered a refutation of the command in verses 34-35, making “you” mean “you male Corinthians.” So, it means that only women in this very specific context at this time in Corinth were to remain silent, but wait … it actually means Paul was not telling them to be silent! The author plans to have her cake and eat it too. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the author focuses on “assume authority” (αὐθεντέω) as a hapax – a word used only once in the New Testament. She thinks it can only mean inappropriate power, and just in case, also limits it to a particular congregation (pp. 12-13). To be carefully complete, Stone rejects other matters in the context as irrelevant in “modern practice in worship” (p. 13). For a general principle, the author extracts that it means they were to act “in a way that is appropriate to one’s culture” (p. 13).[vi] To throw in the kitchen sink, Stone mentions that verse 15 is not consistent with salvation by grace through faith (making this a troublesome passage, without offering any explanation of it beyond simply using it to bolster her case for women in ministry). She feigns disbelief that such a passage exists, since women having children is not the cause or means of salvation.

Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations. A careful observer should notice a plan of action in A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. Stone accepts any “favorable” mentions of women in the Bible as prescriptive – promoting the idea that women should be in leadership. Stone rejects any “unfavorable” mentions of women in the Bible as descriptive – literary, cultural, and not teaching anything concerning women in leadership. It is “shocking” how it all works out in a way that is always consistent with what she is promoting! Nevertheless, we should again be reminded that the exceptions prove the rule. 

Conclusion. The conclusion reminds the reader that the book is intended to offer a perspective so “more women will be able to embrace and embody their callings…” (p. 16). In other words, the book did not set out to see what were the most valid interpretations of various passages of scripture, but to interpret them in way to fulfill the book’s purpose. For example, Stone highlights Joel 2:18-32 and Acts 2:14-18 and we are supposed to just accept it as meaning women should be in leadership roles in the church without any dealing with the prophecy, fulfillment, and its context. Apparently only the context should be noted when it can be used to nullify a command. One simple thing to note about Acts 2:14-18 is that Peter believed everything he preached on this day of Pentecost, including what he referred to from the prophet Joel. Yet he and none of the other apostles ever interpreted that as a reason to engage in the ordination of women.

Discussion Guide. The book concludes with a “Discussion Guide” with discussion questions. These are divided into general discussion questions, followed by specific questions related to each section of the book. The questions are more oriented toward feelings – “what does this text mean to you” than facts – “what does this text actually say.”

This book can be “recommended” as a good example of the application of a particular hermeneutic (the theory and methodology of the interpretation of biblical texts) that will support and promote the leadership of women in church ministry.[vii] Of this type of hermeneutic, former feminist Rosaria Butterfield states:

“Ordaining women is the gateway to gay theology. There is no denomination that ordains women that will not eventually ordain homosexuals. I’m not a prophet. I don’t need to be. You just have to read your church history. The reason it is the gateway is that it is the same hermeneutic – different Bible passages, but the same hermeneutic – that is used to ordain women is used to ordain homosexuals.” (“How Parachurch Ministries have Failed to Stand against the LGBTQ Movement.” You can start listening about 32:00 for context, and the quote is at about 35:14 in the video.)

I didn’t find this book existing in print. The book seems somewhat obscure, in that if you do not know of BWIM and their website, you probably won’t be aware of it. I only discovered it because someone promoting ordination of women and rebuking me for citing Rosaria Butterfield mentioned the BWIM site as providing valuable information about the calling of God on women’s lives to allay my ignorance on the subject. And thus, I came to give this review of the booklet.

As an example of what to not believe, I can point readers to A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. A cruise around the Baptist Women in Ministry site will demonstrate Rosaria Butterfield’s observation about hermeneutics and the ordination of women. BWIM does not just support women in ministry, but “is committed to supporting and advocating for any individual who identifies as a woman…to celebrating and supporting LGBTQ+ women and open and affirming congregations,” as well as “non-binary persons.” The book displays interpreting scripture in a way that fits the changing moods of society while rejecting the rather consistent historical interpretation of the churches for 2000 years. If the hermeneutic of this book is applied to homosexuality, it brings about the same approving results for ministry and ordination of homosexuals as it does for women.

As a valid exposition of biblical truth, A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership gets “0” stars, and no recommendation. It is not Baptist. It is not biblical.

---

[i] Stone will later (p. 8), claim that Paul calls Junia an apostle (and inferring that Junia is a woman, this part probably correctly). This hangs a lot on a passage over which there is much dispute. Paul says, “Andronicus and Junia…are of note among the apostles,” not that they are apostles (though some people do receive it with that meaning).
[ii] Most (if not all) of these “Baptist Women in Ministry” supporters exist in the plain of liberalism, since conservatism is inconsistent with their views.
[iii] Most translators disagree, even moderate to liberal ones. For example, of the nearly 60 translations on Bible Gateway, only the idiosyncratic Complete Jewish Bible, the work of a single translator, David H. Stern, uses person in Genesis 2:8 –while all the rest use man.
[iv] One consistent theme is that commands that are inconsistent with the views of Baptist Women in Ministry are always the ones that are “descriptive.”
[v] Stone also used the proximity of the instructions to women to the instructions to servants and masters to further diminish the authority of the instructions (p. 10). She does not bother to explain that 1 Peter 3 has no such context and still exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands.
[vi] An uncomfortable conclusion of accepting this principle is that, at some point, women in the churches in the United States ditched not only the text, but the simpler principle as well, by starting to break out of the cultural norms that we had in place. As far as biblical church order, ordained ministers have a calling and an office, but are not of greater importance than everyone else in the church. Men who are not preachers have their gifts. Women have their gifts. All are a part of the church body (cf. Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12). All have differing gifts for the edification of the body. “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
[vii] Some women in leadership have dubbed their biblical interpretations “her-meneutics” as opposed to “his-meneutics” – a focus on women’s interpretation of the Bible. “Her.meneutics” is the Christianity Today blog for women.

I am in a strait betwixt two

A political post that will likely be disliked by the majority of readers on either side. In Texas in November, we will make a choice for U. S. Senator, predicted to be either Ken Paxton or James Talarico.

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about Ken Paxton:

The Republican Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29). For some members of the Republican party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Ken Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in his doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.

Recently, I compiled the following about James Talarico:

As bad, and probably worse, is the religious ignorance—and deliberate misrepresentation—from an oleaginous seminarian aspiring to be a slick politician. James Talarico is a very liberal member of a very liberal PCUSA church in Austin, Texas. He does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense (though probably having wide appeal among those who like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like). Talarico’s bizarre “biblical” claims include: God is nonbinary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy” (demonically using the virgin birth to promote murdering babies), the teachings of Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though we Bible believers know Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”).[i] James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. The problem is that his spiritual rhetoric is of the worst kind, departing from two thousand years of general understanding about what is the orthodox teaching of the churches from Scripture. Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible, are heretical! Summed up – like others he charges with being Christian nationalists, James Talarico also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of “Christian.” It is a version of Christianity that many Bible-believing Christians will not recognize. I do not and cannot trust heretics. (And in this case, the religious heretics is also a liar, as can be seen in his attempts to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race.)

Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two – dying to be with Christ or living to serve for Christ. Literally, there were only two options. He would either live or die. However, in the race for the U. S. Senate in November, there actually are more than two options. In addition to Paxton and Talarico, the following people will apparently be on the ballot for U. S. Senator from Texas, November 3, 2026: Ted Brown (Libertarian), David B. Collins (Green Party), Joshua Cain, Ronald Evans, Camencia Ford, Jade Simmons, and Hans Truelson (Independents).

We have no reason to be in a strait betwixt two. There are choices, surely (possibly? hopefully?) at least one of whom would be more in line with Christian values and principles than immoral Paxton or ungodly Talarico. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather can chose to vote for someone else. Until we grow a backbone, we will never change. I know the tired old line about only voting for either the Democrat or Republican, because one of them is bound to win. I hate the two-party control system, but that latter assessment is probably right. If so, is it not likely a sign that we are under God’s judgment, if he should raise up one of these two sorry rascals to represent us? Then again, regardless, maybe a rascal representing rascals is absolutely appropriate! Will we believe God, humble ourselves, and repent? The admonition to the people of Israel in 2 Chronicles 7:14 was not only to humble themselves, and pray, but also to seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways.

---

[i] I have documented all the statements by Talarico, in context, and will eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. If you want to see it sooner, let me know.

What we lose

As an old dinosaur, perhaps, I am particularly pained and puzzled by the move away from Bibles as books to Bibles on screens, phones, and computers. Now to be clear, I am not against using these resources when they can be a help – but, like Dustin Benge (a younger person and also an educator), overall, I see the switch is a loss rather than a gain.

What we lose when the Bible is only on a screen:

1. You remember where the verse lives on the page and aids memorization.

2. The page shows you much more at once. You see the context, not just a few verses at once.

3. The page keeps your notes. Years from now they will still be there, in your own hand.

4. The page cannot distract you with a notification. It only asks to be read.

5. The page is something your children watch you open and they know it’s the Bible.

The screen gives much. The page gives more.

- Dustin Benge

Cottonpickin’ hands

Do not assume you know the conclusion if you do not read the entire post.

The extent of folks rewriting history and “playing the race card” has become a wearisome but regular part of “politics as usual.” When everything is about race, eventually nothing is about race. Enter a discussion between radio host Rich Herrera and Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans about U. S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries inserting himself into a state of Virginia problem. Hakeem Jeffries lives in New York and represents New York in the U. S. House of Representatives. Herrara suggested that if Jeffries wants to be involved in Virigina politics, he should move to Virginia and run for office. He continued, “If not, get your cottonpickin’ hands off of Virginia.” Kiggans agreed with this sentiment.[i]

The condemnation was swift and brutal, with Democrats asserting that Jen Kiggans should “apologize and resign” – for something she did not even say. Elaine Luria sang a high harmony part, claiming, “The racist comments proudly endorsed today by Jen Kiggans warning House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to ‘Get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia’ are disgusting and beneath any elected official. I grew up in the South. I know what these racist dog whistles mean.” I did a little checking. Reperesentative Luria did grow up in the South, but that doesn’t make her any kind of expert on this subject. Her age, where she lived, that she attended a private school – and the content of what she said – makes me initially think that she does not know anything about picking cotton (or probably farming in general).

Unfortunately, Kiggans partly bought the lie. After complaining about the Democrats divisive tactics, she said, “The radio host should not have used that language and I do not — and did not — condone it. It was obvious to anyone listening that I was agreeing Hakeem Jeffries should stay out of Virginia.”

There is nothing wrong with “cottonpickin’ hands” and nothing specifically racist about the term “cottonpickin’ hands.” In the particular context, this is political theatre. If there are any racists likely involved – the real racists are the ones who apply their own prejudice in assuming that only black Americans picked cotton.

I expect the people who are most “enraged” by this actually know nothing about picking cotton (and probably could care less). Cotton was the “cash crop” of our Rusk County community. The children of all farming families picked cotton. “Cotton-pickin’ hands” was a common expression.[ii] It had nothing to do with the color of the person whose hands were picking cotton. The origin relies on the state of what the hands looked like after a day of picking cotton (often dirty, cut, and bleeding). It was a common rebuke for children. We were told, “Get your cottonpickin hands out of that,” or “Keep your cottonpickin hands off of that.” This is not to say that no one might or could use it with a racist connotation, but simply to acknowledge the fact that it is not inherently racist. Even if you believe the origins were racist – which requires accepting that prejudice that only black Americans picked cotton – it is still a silly accusation, like claiming the atheist who just told you good-bye has just turned into a theist because the origin of “good-bye” is “God be with you.”

Politicians are gonna politic, and I don’t suppose there is any cure for that! For Christians, I think we can “one another” from two directions.

• On the one hand, don’t “make a man an offender for a word” (Isaiah 29:21). If someone does not mean something offensive, don’t take it as or make it offensive.[iii]
• On the other hand, if a thing that is innocuous and allowable “make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13), we can choose to leave it off as a matter of liberty.[iv]

Provoked partisan politicians should not be our examples. Brothers and sisters in Christ working together in love on the two suggestions above will likely come out alright in the end.

---

[i] And so do I. There is far too much outside meddling in the internal politics and policies of states. And it is not just a Democrat problem. Republicans do it too. Additionally, heating this up as a race issue exposes the weak overall position of the opposers of the Virginia Supreme Court ruling.
[ii] “Picking cotton” (as opposed to pulling the bolls) consisted of picking the cotton out of the boll as opposed to pulling the boll off the plant, with sharp hard edges often scraping and cutting the picker’s hands and fingers. “Cottonpickin hands” usually developed some calluses over time. In explaining the terminology, Michael Schwarz wrote, “The slang adjective ‘cottonpickin’ means ‘damned’ or ‘confounded.’ No sane person in 2026 believes that it has anything to do with the enslaved people who harvested the cash crop of the antebellum South.” I think Schwarz makes two mistakes. First, in seeming to accept that only enslaved people picked cotton in the antebellum South. Second, in relying solely on Dictionary.com for his definition. As someone who grew up regularly hearing the expression, and accepting that it is a euphemism, I do not think people necessarily meant “damned” or “confounded.” Probably more often it was considered an intensifier of dirty or defiled. Another colloquial saying derived from cotton-picking culture is “fair to middling” – a quality grading of cotton (middling being the average). This became a general expression for something that was average, sort of okay but not that great – and also for how a person feels. Another more general farm colloquialism meaning roughly the same as “cotton-pickin’ hands” is “pea-pickin hands.”
[iii] “Just because you are offended doesn’t mean that you’ve been wronged,” Keith Foskey
[iv] In this, I mean things that we are at liberty to do or not do (such as eating meat, in the context of 1 Corinthians 8). When it comes to obeying God, we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) – regardless of who might be offended. Let us carefully judge our motives in all things.

Pot calling the kettle

https://baptistnews.com/article/how-a-group-of-presbyterians-is-trying-to-reshape-the-sbc/

How a group of Presbyterians is trying to reshape the SBC:

“…there is no independent nonprofit called the Center for Baptist Leadership. CBL is only a d/b/a (doing business as) moniker of American Reformer…”

A laughable position?

From a report that a Sacred Harp singer made about the September United Association weekend:

“Over the weekend I heard a lot of sacred harp politics and gossip, including some dissatisfaction over the revision process and consultation with composers. … Unsurprisingly there seems to be a small schism forming that intends to stick with the 1991 book, rejecting the 2025 due to all the non-Christians and queers who worked on the book or who have their music included. This is a laughable position if one has even superficial knowledge of Sacred Harp history.”

The above excerpt is from a report that one singer wrote about his experience at the singing of the United Association in Atlanta in September. (He rejoiced in “the presence of many transgender singers able to be themselves with such apparent confidence.”) Take note of a few things stated in the excerpt.

1. The “dissatisfaction over the revision process and consultation with composers” is quickly passed over to make it about “all the non-Christians and queers who worked on the book or who have their music included.” This takes the focus away from the discussion of ethics and makes it more of an emotional appeal to get people on the side of what might be made to seem like a minority. However, from the beginning the main objections concerned questionable ethics, a premeditated agenda, and the lack of promised impartiality in how the revision played out. Who knew what when? How many times did the committee know who submitted certain songs? Why did the committee revise songs without the permission of the composers? Why did some composers have opportunities to revise their songs, while others had their songs revised by someone on or working for the committee – with a “here it is, take it or leave it” option? Why do songs appear in the book dated after the submission deadline? None of these answers have been forthcoming. There is no transparency, but rather subterfuge in its place.

• Re ethics, see: https://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2025/09/outside-looking-in-part-2.html

This is not to say we are not dissatisfied with leaders trying to normalize behaviour that is inconsistent with the historic practice of Sacred Harp, and outside of Christian worldview and morality. It is to say that leaders apparently want to put the focus on this and hope for a sympathetic reaction – because they cannot and will not answer the ethical questions.

2. “a small schism…” The author wishes to dismiss and downplay the “schism” as “small.” I do not doubt that more people are now using the new 2025 than are using the 1991 book. However, might does not make right. Additionally, that fact does not necessarily mean that all who are using the 2025 like everything about the new book or the way the revision process was conducted. It may mean that some singers have just accepted the book as what is now being printed and that they are willing to live with. It may mean that some singers are unwilling to stand against these things to the point of not using the new book. It may mean that a few people are in “la-la land” and have no idea what is going on. It is a known fact that some people who are using the new book have complained of some things about it. Eventually, the euphoria will wear off and time will test the quality of the work done for the 2025 revision.

3. “Unsurprisingly…” The author uses the word “unsurprisingly” when referencing a schism over the book. Why is it “unsurprising”? Because you knew this would lead to dissatisfaction, dissension, and division? Yes, this is a (perhaps unintended) admission that folks pushing the boundaries knew that they were moving things in a direction that would lead to schism. So, you now say that it is “unsurprising” when it occurs, and call the ones who you knew would object schismatics.

4. The author finds that those who are dissatisfied have a “laughable position if one has even superficial knowledge of Sacred Harp history.” This in itself is laughable from someone who has been involved in Sacred Harp less than 10 years, to think he has a firm grasp on Sacred Harp history while those from families that have been singing it for multiple generations are quite slow on the uptake! It is also a disrespectful dig at the living elders who have passed this Christian faith singing tradition down from the previous generation to the present generation. Such is the hubris of the new non-traditional singer. Considering that kind of attitude, I guess a schism is unsurprising after all!

He Is Mine And I Am His

I love the song He Is Mine And I Am His by G. T. Speer. Maybe it is just me, but I have always felt it was a good combination of “old school” and “new school” styles.

A recent mention of this song by a friend brought to mind an incident that happened in the 1980s. This was at what we Texans call a “little book” singing (“new book” for some others). We had a Saturday night singing that rotated between several churches. One night we were at an old church called ____ ____. Most of the singing was class/congregational, though “specials” were allowed. A large group from “off summers” were present. (Not far off, but only peripherally connected to the churches that hosted the singing rotation; somebody was kin to somebody at ____ ____.) At some point fairly early in the singing, a person from that group was called by the chair to lead a song. Afterward, that person (not the chair) called another of their people to come up and sing, and then they did this again, and again, and again… This went on probably 15 or 20 minutes, or perhaps the discomfort of the situation made it seem longer than it was. THE singing had become THEIR singing. The chair did not want to be the “bad guy” and put a stop to this, but finally he sensed (and felt) enough discontent in the class that he finally told them, “One more, and that’s all.” They got mad and went outside. They stayed around outside for a good while, vocally complaining about how they had been “mistreated” (even though they were the ones who had infiltrated and changed the format of the singing). I had the grand good fortune of being the next leader called to follow all this disorder!! I led He Is Mine And I Am His.

1. God’s amazing grace, sent down from heaven,
Rescued me from death and from shame;
Opened up my eyes and brought salvation,
Now I’m his, praise his holy name!

2. ’Tis so sweet to know I have Jesus with me,
He will keep me from sin and from strife;
He delivered me from condemnation,
Now I have eternal life!

Chorus:
Now I know (I know) that he is mine (he’s mine)
And I’m his (I’m his forever),
He is leading (leading) me along life’s way (along life’s way);
He’ll be holding (holding) to my hand (my hand)
When I cross death’s river (crossing death’s river),
He will take (he’ll take) the sting of death away (death’s sting away).

Christian shape note

It is a sad commentary on The Sacred Harp that it is rather consistently promoted in modern times as a secular non-Christian activity. Yes, they will usually make some admission to its Christian origins and the existence of Christian hymn texts – but the emphasis is that this is for anyone and everyone. It does not matter what you believe, what is your lifestyle, or even if your worldview is antagonistic toward Christianity.

Now, we recognize that it is true that singings have always been public events to which anyone and everyone was invited. Sacred Harp singers thought their activity was a good thing that could be a blessing to anyone. However, that has been turned on its head, so that anyone and everyone should be strategically involved in how Sacred Harp should be conducted, promoted, written, and revised. 

In contrast to modern “standards,” the old conventions had detailed constitutions and bylaws. Every member had to agree to and abide by those rules. The North East Texas Musical Convention was organized circa 1866 (based on the dating of its annual sessions). “Article 9th” of the Constitution stated “The Sacred Harp shall be our text book at each meeting.” Not only was decorum expected at the convention, but outside of it as well. For example, “Article 10th” of the Bylaws stated “If any member be guilty of any bad conduct, such as drunkenness or disturbing the pease at Public worship, shall be dealt with as the Body may deem wright.”

Obviously the name “Sacred” Harp, the Christian themes of the hymns, and the purpose of conventions promoting “sacred vocal music” indicate what the origin and history of the music is. As one of our bright young Alabama singers reflected, “No one is going to make people say the apostles creed at the door, however, it’s the bare minimum to recognize the Christian nature of what is being participated in.” She also noted, “If that’s a turn-off for someone, perhaps they have been mocking God with a solemn sound upon a thoughtless tongue.”

In the context of that conversation, my daughter also emphasized, “It’s fair to say it’s increasingly evident that describing it [Sacred Harp] transparently as Christian is important and necessary.”

Some of us want to take back our tradition to what it was and is. This is not disinviting non-Christians, but a refined invitation asserting that you need to know and understand what this is before you come. If you do not like that, no one is making you do anything. Your choice.

AI Worship (and Preaching)

“Can a soul-less artist produce a soul-full act of worship?”

I am very concerned about AI in general, and when it invades Christian preaching and singing, so much the worse.[i]

In 1996, I wrote an imaginary “Possible Scenario – Any Church, USA,” lamenting how some churches were projecting music and preaching on screens instead of having real people lead their worship. In the “possible scenario” the church pews became people-empty, but filled with cassette players. The silence was broken only by an occasional electronic “amen.”[ii] Not as good as Orwell’s book 1984, yet my “1996” has become “2026.” Except perhaps the members now won’t even bother with a source for electronic amens. Now here is this.

“How does Ray feel about this sudden success? He doesn’t. Because Ray doesn’t feel anything. His voice, his songs, his music, his appearance and even his ‘Mississippi Soul’ branding are entirely AI-generated. The current No. 1 ‘Christian artist’ is not a person. It is a product.”

The No. 1 “Christian artist” is neither Christian nor an artist. “He” is not even human.

We can complain about it – and rightfully so – but modern Christians have been headed toward this path for years. We just didn’t have all the technology previously (and don’t have all the technology now that we will have).

Disclaimer: I first saw this report at Baptist New Global (BNG), which I have linked to, and have not looked elsewhere for a better source. This link is definitely not a recommendation of BNG or the author of this piece. Nevertheless, we agree on the problematic nature of “AI worship.” “My real concern with AI-generated worship music is not so much that AI songs will ‘infect’ Christian worship, but that Christian worship already has drifted into a thin, commercialized space where emotional accessibility is mistaken for spiritual depth.”

---

[i] We have to wonder how many sermons are now created by AI rather than study, sweat, and prayer – and the Holy Spirit.
[ii] Yes, that was a few years ago! I updated it in 2016 to “CD players, DVRs and such like,” but I think that is mostly out of date now too.

An extremely troubling politician

A sitting Senator from Virginia has recently stated that he finds it “extremely troubling” for anyone to teach or believe that that our rights come from God rather than from our laws or our government. I find it “extremely troubling” that we have a Senator who finds that “extremely troubling.” The simple fact of the matter is that if our rights come from the government, the government can take away our rights. (If it is theirs to give, it is theirs to take away.) Since our rights proceed from our Creator God, then it becomes the governments duty not to give or take away, but simply protect what God has given.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

More examples of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising

On Thursday, September 11, 2025 I posted on my blog “An example of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising.” That post discussed the song that Linda Sides sent to the Sacred Harp Revision Committee (a committee approved by the board of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company) for consideration in the new revision of the song book. The committee severely revised the song without Linda’s permission, then sent it to her with only a week’s notice for her to sign off on for inclusion in the new 2025 edition of The Sacred Harp. Linda chose to reject their proposal. See the following file for six examples that show more of the type of editing done by the committee or some of its members.  Sometimes it was done in changing the harmony parts, fuge entrances, and such like, and sometimes a nearly complete rewrite! In the examples, the first picture of a song is how it appeared before entering the 2025 edition, and the second picture of the song is how it appears in the 2025 edition. The changes are “circled” to help show where they appear, using green for treble, red for alto, yellow for tenor, and blue for bass.

At what point does the editing change from ethical to unethical? In my opinion, the editing of submitted songs reached a degree that is not normative of or proper for editing processes. Ethical editing allows for and includes minor corrections and enhancements (corrections of typos, errant notes, grammatical mistakes, for example), 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.

More examples of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising PDF

---

Note: I have been in communication with the Sacred Harp Publishing Company and anticipate a reply from them.

A Little Leaven. Who is Winning Whom?

“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (Galatians 5:9)

A Sacred Harp friend of mine asked, “How can we win others to Christ if we do not allow them to join us in worship?” I don’t doubt his basic sincerity, but I do doubt his biblical skill. I would simply reply, “Look in the Bible and learn how to win others to Christ.” Is it go and preach the gospel, or invite them to come worship with us?[i]

The right biblical stance does not depend on success or the lack thereof. Nevertheless, as far as the success of this proposed method, I have to generally agree with what a fellow singer posted in a Facebook group, “I want to believe that it can happen, but I have seen exactly zero converts so far.”[ii]

In addition to this, in the current climate of Sacred Harp in its broader new context, we must ask, “Who is winning whom?” I’d say the win goes to the unbelievers winning converts to their side. My mind can wander to several individuals I know who have wandered down the broad way proposed by the woke folk.

An article by National Public Radio about the recent United singing in Atlanta (September 12-13) helps make the point.[iii] Journalist Lucy Grindon tells the story of a composer of a new song added to The Sacred Harp 2025 Edition published by the Sacred Harp Publishing Company:

“He grew up in a Pentecostal church that did not accept LGBTQ+ people, and he was surprised to meet so many at his first singings at age 19. Eventually, he said, he started to feel that Sacred Harp people only cared about the music, not other singers’ sexual orientations. It gave him the courage to come out.”

Notice that this person met “so many” LGBTQ+ people through Sacred Harp that it “gave him the courage to come out.” Through the influence of other Sacred Harp singers, he said, “Ok, let’s rip the band-aid off. I can be who I want to be — who I am, and stop hiding myself.” Now this man is “engaged to marry a man.” Who is winning whom?

The NPR journalist also notes, “As the pool of singers shifts younger, it also contains more people of color, LGBTQ+ people and non-religious people.”[iv] Who is winning whom?[v]

There are the cases of specific singers raised under a Christian worldview who have chucked it for a Leftist worldview, under the new influence of other singers. Not only this, there is the conversion of Sacred Harp itself. As the unbelievers, woke folk, and gender confused singers invite their friends, Sacred Harp is being converted from what was a primarily Christian body of singers, to a group whose unity is based on enjoying a secular musical experience. Yes, the texts are still Christian, but their experience is not! Who is winning whom?

I fear that much of the process, for Christian singers, is not about speaking to unbelievers for and about Christ. Rather, it boils down to the optimistic wish “I’m being a good influence on them.”[vi] Bread usually isn’t a good influence on leaven, however, and a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

---

[i] I do not discount the possibility that a lost person might come hear the word of God in song, hear the truth of the gospel, be convicted by it, and believe. However, that is an exception, and clearly not the plan of evangelization that Jesus Christ commanded to his people. Cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; et al. I am aware of one case where a person heard Sacred Harp singing, then sought out and found some Christian singers. Providentially he found folks for whom Sacred Harp is deeply integrated into their church faith and practice. It could have been a very different outcome if he had first made contact with folks who only sing because they like the tunes, lecture folks on using the proper pronouns, and give out lists of songs not to call! Or even if he had showed up at a singing where they say “we don’t talk about politics or religion.” Ultimately the testimony in that case supports the position of letting Sacred Harp be overtly Christian rather than hiding in a corner.
[ii] I hear Christians defending and encouraging the acceptance all kinds of people into the singing family so we can “win them to Christ.” In this context, I take notice of several things. 1. Singings have always been publicly announced events to which “All are welcome.” Today, however, there is a developing notion that we should make certain kinds of people “more welcome.” 2. There is much talk of winning others to Christ, but little talking to these others about Christ being the only way of salvation. 3. The “conversion stories” related by Christian usually boil down to “I had an opportunity to talk to someone about spiritual matters” or “this unbeliever is having some kind of ‘spiritual experience’ while singing Sacred Harp. Of the former, so far, I have heard a testimony of the end being conversion. Of the latter, some Christian singers interpret that “spiritual experience” as some sort of conversion, even though the words can just as easily be understood as fitting most any kind of generic belief, not necessarily even Christian ones. Who is winning whom? Adieu ye proud, ye light and gay; I’ll seek the broken hearted—who weep when they of Zion say, her glory is departed. “…ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned…Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump…” 1 Corinthians 5:2, 5-6.
[iii] Latest update of 1844 American songbook reflects new generation of ‘Sacred Harp’ singers
[iv] Winning youth and people of color to or back to Sacred Harp is a good thing. It is wrong to characterize the trait of skin color and the state of life in the same way as lifestyle choices such as sexual orientation and religious affiliation.
[v] One of the singular composers mentioned in the story uses the plural “their” pronoun. A revision committee member stated, “The new composers simply reflect the current community.” Sadly, the new composers as a whole go a long way in reflecting what the Sacred Harp community has become. “The people who submitted songs are the people who sing out in the world. They’re pretty markedly different even from who sang in 1991.” Who is winning whom?
[vi] This makes me think of the singer who wrote that she was “Having a rough time as a gender non-conforming person.” I feel sympathy for your plight. Of course, you are having a rough time. You are denying the truth, denying who God made you, and must live in that continual state of denial as long as you remain “gender non-conforming.” Yes, you are going to have a rough time, but none of your “welcoming and affirming” friends are going to tell you that. And your Christian Sacred Harp friends apparently cannot or will not tell you either. But there is hope and help with the God who made you. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God: which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever Psalm 146:5-6. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Romans 5:1.

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!

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/

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?