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.

Freezing human embryos

A baby born from a 27-year-old frozen embryo has been big news recently. Molly Everette Gibson, born this past October from an embryo that was frozen in October of 1992, is just over 6 weeks old, yet only 18 months younger than her 29-year-old mother! The primary newsworthy item to the secular press is that Molly sets a record and makes history as the longest-frozen embryo to come to birth.

Dr. Jeffrey Keenan, President and Medical Director of the National Embryo Donation Center said, “I think this is proof positive that no embryo should ever be discarded, certainly not because it is ‘old!’ ... it’s a testament to how good God is, and to His infinite goodness and love.”

For some reason, this news item grabbed my attention in a way that such has not previously. I suppose I have never given this subject much deep thought. Assisted reproduction technologies have been around for decades, with great “success.” However, this success has created a surplus of frozen human embryos – around 1,000,000 in the United States alone, according to the National Embryo Donation Center.

If life begins at conception (as many of us believe), is it really moral and ethical to freeze live human beings?

The Golden Rule

In a society historically saturated with the teachings of Christianity, most folks have heard of The Golden Rule, usually summarized this way: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Having heard of it, how much do we know about it? The rule is stated twice in the Gospels, in slightly different wording.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Many other religions have rules that simulate the Golden Rule. For examples:[i]

• “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” (Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism
• “What I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to do to men.” (Analects 15:23, Confucianism)
• “Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.” (Mahabharata 5:1517, Hinduism)

These similarities are often highlighted by those who view all religions of equal ethical, moral and spiritual value. Interestingly, most “golden” statements of other religions are placed in the negative, as a prohibition of bad, evil, or immoral action. Jesus’s “Golden Rule” is active, a directive to positive, good, and moral action.

The “Golden Rule” of Christianity must be placed in the larger context of biblical ethics. Without that, the bare statement itself might be contrived to fit any form of reciprocity – no matter how vile or vulgar – just so it suits the pleasure of the contriver! Under such heavy spin, the drug dealer might justify her actions, saying, “I would like others to sell me heroin, so I ought to sell heroin to others.” Or the adulterer might say, “I would like her to have sexual relations with me, so I ought to have sexual relations with her.” These might “go down to their houses feeling justified,” while completely obliterating the moral ethic of the Bible!

The Golden Rule is generally considered an ethic of reciprocity, and often not distinguished from the reciprocal ethics of other religions.[ii] In its bare form, reciprocity is a mutually beneficial exchange, done solely for the purpose of the mutual benefit. In that form is little more than teaching selfishness as a virtue! The reciprocation is a means of getting what one wants. Ancient Egyptian philosophy stated the virtue of getting what one wants plainly by stating, “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.”

In contrast, seen in its context in Luke chapter 6, Jesus’s “Golden Rule” is not an exhortation to refrain from evil that evil might not be done to you, or to do good to get good. Jesus’s rule ultimately is to do good because it is the right thing to do! In Luke 6:27-30 Jesus states plainly and without equivocation that to love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them which despitefully use you, turn the other cheek and give to every man that asks of you – none of which hold out the gift of reciprocity. Further, Luke 6:32-36 he demonstrates that loving those who love you, doing good to those who do good to you, and loaning to those who can pay you back, sets Christians apart from no one. Everyone naturally does what is in their best interests.

The children of the Highest look most like their father when they are kind unto the unthankful and to the evil, showing mercy to those who may seem to deserve it the least. Do right because it is the right thing to do.

---

[i] Passages of religious texts in 14 faiths re the Ethics of Reciprocity found at Religious Tolerance.Org

[ii] Reciprocity is mutual exchange – doing something for another because that person has done for you, or doing something for another expecting that person to do something for you.

Pledge statement, or church call agreement

Over at the SBC Today blog, minister Kyle Gulledge posted a thread called Helps for the Pastor Search Committee. The “helps” include a link to a questionnaire and pledge statement in which the prospective pastor is queried whether he is a Calvinist, says he is not and pledges if he ever becomes a Calvinist he will resign and move on. The context or background for such helps are: (1) there are, apparently, Calvinists within the Southern Baptist Convention who, lacking honesty and integrity, accept non-Calvinistic churches with the hidden agenda of bringing them into the fold of Calvinistic soteriology; and (2) there are within the Southern Baptist Convention a number of who are vocally and actively working against the spread of Calvinism. The SBC Today blog plainly and persistently represents in this camp.

That questionnaire and the pledge are clearly about Calvinism, but it brought to me the question of the propriety of a pastor agreeing to such a pledge statement with a church. If the pledge statement were generalized to the broader doctrines of a church rather than just Calvinism, it might read something like this:

“With integrity of heart, I have received the doctrinal statement of this church and the statements of explanation by the Pastor Search Committee, and I pledge that if my theology ever changes to disagree with these views, I will share with the Staff and Deacons my new beliefs and work with them in transitioning to a new place of ministry that is more in line with my newfound theological stance.”

Such a pledge is foreign to my experience of pastoring, but it brought to my mind the following questions.

• Is a “pledge statement” of this sort is a good idea? Is it biblical? Would you sign one?
• If you agree, to what areas of belief should this principle of a pledge statement apply? What if there were to major changes in an ecclesiological belief (e.g. from strict communion to open communion, or vice versa)? What if there were to major changes in an eschatological belief (e.g. from amillennial to premillennial, or vice versa)?
• If this is about honesty and integrity, would you stand behind and support his keeping the principle of the integrity of the pledge even if it something you believe he should change and teach the church to change? (E.g., the church practices segregation and the pastor changes to teach the church is “a house of prayer for all people.”)
• What if the pastor has been there 20 years before he changes, as opposed to 2 years? (Considering that a pastor who has been at a church that long probably is not tossed about with every wind of doctrine, and has probably earned the trust of his church.)

With hope I asked on SBC Today for someone to comment about the general principle, but the people there wanted to argue about Calvinism. What about the general principle of making a pledge statement?

As I searched the internet, I found that it may be fairly common, at least within certain denominations, for pastors to sign some kind of “call agreement” with the church. At TheChurchLawandTax.com Richard R. Hammar writes, “The relationship between a minister and church is based on contract. One court observed that ‘one becomes pastor of a church pursuant to a contract, made with the person or body having the authority to employ’.” The United Brethren web site cites a signed Agreement of Understanding between the pastor and congregation, of which “The intent is to prevent future problems of misunderstanding.” This one is not about doctrines, but issues such as moving, insurance, housing, etc. United Church of Christ web site contains a link to “an updated sample call agreement.” This agreement is not doctrinal in nature, but deals with scope of work, insurance, termination, intellectual property/copyright agreement, housing, vacation, salary and such matters. It in fact supports the pastor’s “freedom of expression in the pulpit as it pertains to matters of faith and faithfulness, trusting you to be responsible to the insight of scripture, the work of the Holy Spirit, the traditions of the United Church of Christ, and the contexts in which we live our lives.”[i] There probably are call agreements than include subscription to at least fundamentals of the faith, but I did not readily find any when searching the World Wide Web.

It becomes apparent to me and those who minister as I do, that signed agreements are representative of an employer-employee arrangement.[ii] For certain purposes a government may assume pastors are church employees, and many churches and pastors approach their relationship as employer and employee. This is foreign to my experience, and I believe also foreign to biblical faith and practice. A preacher without integrity, who wants to pastor a church for the money, esteem or power, will likely have no qualms about the expediency of signing such a statement to further his ends. A signed pledge or call agreement might have value to wrest power from such an individual, either as a coercive or legal means. Is that reason enough to contract such an agreement?

The calling of a pastor is not to regurgitate and reinforce a church’s doctrinal statement. The calling of a pastor is to teach the word of God (Eph. 4: 9-13; 1 Tim. 4:11-16).[iii] Churches should have doctrinal statements that clarify and announce “those things most surely believed.” But at best they are simply declarations. They are human documents that must yield to the light of biblical doctrine shined upon them. If they are wrong, they should be changed. Neither a church nor a pastor should bind themselves to a human document when the Bible is our rule of faith and practice.[iv]

The position of a pastor is not that of church employee. There are many pastors who have falsely installed themselves as head of and lord over the church.[v] That does not justify rectifying the problem with another false relationship. Both the church and the pastor have responsibility for what is taught in the pulpit. If they cannot agree on that, they should amicably part ways. None of these things justify a pastor subjugating his call from God to become an hireling.[vi]

Two parting thoughts:

• There are many unethical preachers who pretend to be what they are not. There have been such as long as I have been a preacher. Churches should be vigilant to not be taken in. Pledge agreements may hinder some but will not stop those who have no ethics regarding lying. Exercising spiritual discernment, rather than devising human methods, will go a long way toward resolving the problem. Nevertheless, some fools will fool some people.
• I would not sign a pledge agreement – not because I do not want to be ethical, but because I neither want to bind my conscience nor enter into an agreement to become a church employee. Ethical preachers can act ethically without either.

---

[i] The United Church of Christ doesn’t seem to be Confessional (holding to a detailed confession of the Christian faith) and has a rather brief Statement of Faith. Nevertheless, as a liberal denomination it is likely that the pastor’s “freedom of expression in the pulpit” would at some point become too conservative.

[ii] Galatians 1:10 “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 9:18 “What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.”

[iii] If it is based in the word of God, to that extent one’s preaching will “regurgitate and reinforce” the doctrinal statement. “The first and principal duty of a pastor is to feed the flock by diligent preaching of the word.” – John Owen; 2 Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.”

[iv] 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

[v] 1 Peter 5:3 “Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.”

[vi] John 10:13 “The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.” 1 Peter 5:2 “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre…” Hebrews 13:7 “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.”

Open Letter, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven

Posted with permission from J. D. Hall at PulpitAndPen.Org.

“An Open Letter to Lifeway and Other Sellers, Buyers, and Marketers of Heaven Tourism, by the Boy Who Did Not Come Back From Heaven.”

Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short.

I did not die. I did not go to Heaven.

I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible.

It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins (even though he committed none of his own) so that you can be forgiven may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible…not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough.

In Christ,Alex Malarkey.

* Is peddling malarkey and making money more important than the truth?
* Heaven Tourism

Heaven Tourism

What is "heaven tourism"? The term was coined by blogger Tim Challies to stand for a genre of books "that claim the author has journeyed to heaven" (or, as he says in one place, "I died and went to heaven books"). Another blogger, Phil Johnson, dubbed it the “Burpo-Malarkey doctrine”.

A quick search at Amazon yields a bevy of these "heaven tourism" books. The oldest I noticed was the Bantam paperback Embraced by the Light by Betty J. Eadie and Curtis Taylor (1994). The "modern" evangelical trend may have been jumpstarted by Southern Baptist minister Don Piper with his 90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death and Life in 2004. There is even at least one "hell tourism" book -- 23 Minutes In Hell: One Man's Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment by Bill Wiese in 2006. The "quick search list" of other "heaven tourism" books available from Amazon include:

• My Descent Into Death: A Second Chance at Life by Howard Storm (2005)
• My Time In Heaven by Richard Sigmund (2009)
• Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back by Todd Burpo (2010)
• Flight to Heaven: A Plane Crash...A Lone Survivor...A Journey to Heaven--and Back by Dale Black (2010)
• Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife by Eben Alexander (2012)
• To Heaven and Back: A Doctor's Extraordinary Account of Her Death, Heaven, Angels, and Life Again: A True Story by Mary C. Neal (2012)
• My Journey to Heaven: What I Saw and How It Changed My Life by Marvin J. Besteman and Lorilee Craker (2012)
• Waking Up in Heaven: A True Story of Brokenness, Heaven, and Life Again by Crystal McVea and Alex Tresniowski (2013)

Several of these books are self-published, but others are from notable Christian publishers such as Bethany House, Revell, Thomas Nelson and Tyndale House (as well as one from Simon & Schuster). “Heaven tourism” is lucrative business. Now the most notable of these books is The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven: A Remarkable Account of Miracles, Angels, and Life Beyond This World by Kevin Malarkey in July 2010 (supposedly telling the story of his son, Alex). Its notability turns on the repudiation of the heaven tourism and subsequent book – the story retracted by the very boy who supposedly went to and came back from heaven, Alex Malarkey. There is currently no evidence that the father, sole copyright owner, and the party contracted with Tyndale -- Kevin Malarkey -- has "repudiated" the book; but the publisher has withdrawn it from publication. The book copyrighted by Kevin is supposedly Alex's experience, and clearly Alex's to repudiate.

Alex's repudiation of the book goes back to at least August 2011, barely over a year after the book was published. On a Facebook fan page for the book Alex commented, “1 of the most deceptive books ever.” (The comment was subsequently removed by the owner of the fan page.) Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times writes, "Alex Malarkey and his mother, Beth, have been trying to get his book withdrawn for two years, despite his father's resistance." There is credible and visible online evidence that the concerns about this book have been actively made for about three years. Yet the publisher and some Christian booksellers (such as Southern Baptist's LifeWay) act as if they have just heard about it.*

E-mails prove correspondence between Alex's mother and Tyndale as early as April 2012 -- over 2-1/2 years before Tyndale decided to take the book out of publication. No doubt part of the problem was the fact that the contracting party, Kevin Malarkey, had not repudiated the book. Jan Long Harris, a publisher with Tyndale House, wrote to Beth Malarkey in 2012: "Also, I’m sure you can understand that we can’t break a contract with an author just because someone else – even if the someone else is the author’s spouse – makes accusations about him." Having issues with breaking the contract, however, is not the same as NOT KNOWING about the problems with the book.

In light of the breaking news last week, Tyndale House spokesman Todd Starowitz stated, "It is because of this new information that we are taking the book out of print. For the past couple of years we have known that Beth Malarkey, Kevin's wife and Alex's mother, was unhappy with the book and believed it contained inaccuracies." The "new information" cannot be the fact that Alex had repudiated his trip to heaven. They already had that information. The new news must have been that the retraction had become big news!

LifeWay has chosen the same approach. They issued a statement January 15th. Director of Communications Martin King stated, “LifeWay was informed this week that Alex Malarkey has retracted his testimony about visiting heaven as told in the book The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven. Therefore, we are returning to the publisher the few copies we have in our stores.” It is not clear what changed for LifeWay. They already had information that "Alex Malarkey has retracted his testimony about visiting heaven" and Alex did not directly contact them with this information. That leaves them looking like they have egg on their faces -- that what changed was that this book had suddenly become big big news! Baptist Press, the news arm of the SBC, has remained silent as a mouse.

The revelation is presently bad news for Tyndale, booksellers such as LifeWay, and the "heaven tourism" business in general. Whether it continues to be so remains to be seen. Tim Challies says, “I am hoping that this allows the genre to die out.” That is probably too much to hope for!

More links on this topic
* After recantation, LifeWay withdraws ‘The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ -- "LifeWay Christian Resources issued a statement Jan. 15 in response to an inquiry from Patheos blogger Warren Throckmorton."
* Don Piper Did Not Go To Heaven -- "I haven’t read a single book in the heaven-and-back genre, but it does chap my hide every Sunday when I see them atop the NY Times Bestseller lists."
* Heaven Tourism -- "I’ll grant that the cost of this type of journey is rather steep (you’ve got to die, though only for just a few minutes), but it’s a sound investment when you factor in the sales figures."
* Southern Baptist Convention resolves that heaven tourism books & movies are antithetical to scripture -- "...the messengers to the 2014 Southern Baptist Convention has addressed the issue through a resolution which states these accounts cannot be corroborated, are self contradictory and are antithetical to Scripture."
* The boy who didn't come back from heaven: inside a bestseller's 'deception' -- "No true evangelical ought to be tempted to give such tales any credence whatsoever, no matter how popular they become."
* The boy who didn’t go to heaven — and how ‘heaven tourism’ conquered the publishing world -- "Heaven is a swell place to visit, the books’ authors say."

* The book is still available from Amazon, and no doubt will be until copies run out. That is a shame, but I am not aware that Amazon claims to conform their business practice to Christian ethical standards. It would be interesting to know which Christian booksellers will not remove it from their shelves and their lists! It is as frustrating as the Christian Aggie fans who could overlook the antics of Johnny Manziel, and as unbelievable as Tom Brady not knowing the footballs he was throwing were under-inflated.

Update: At the time I wrote this, Baptist Press had not reported on it. By the time the scheduled post posted, they had. Yet they were late to the game -- for example, the independent Baptist News reported on it on the January 16th, but Baptist Press did not get to it until the 23rd. Further, they reported that LifeWay had removed the books but did not question the 2-year or so window in which they had known about the controversy and did nothing. In very interesting contrast to Tyndale and LifeWay, Ambassador Speakers Bureau removed Kevin Malarkey from their roster of speakers nearly three years ago, because they "believed Beth was telling us the truth."

Culture of cheating

* On scale of 1-10, it's 11 for Patriots in deflate-gate mess -- "This isn't a coincidence."

It's official. The New England Patriots were caught cheating. Again. Eleven of twelve footballs that the Patriots furnished for themselves at the AFC Championship game were under-inflated. Eleven of twelve footballs violated the rules of the game. Tom Brady -- who handled these footballs on nearly every offensive play -- originally called the charges ridiculous. Rob Gronkowski made a joke of it. And the coach's penchant for cheating has earned him the nickname "Belicheat".

Are the Patriots so different from other teams? I don't think so. I think they are simply a part of a larger culture of cheating. Not just in football. Not just in professional sports. But there is a culture of cheating in football. Former players and fans wave it off. Just let them play. What does it hurt? Everyone does it. From the youth "little league" to the High School that skirts the UIL rules to the illegal recruiting in college, the whole of its background prepares the way for a culture of cheating. It is "win at all costs" and "the end justifies the means." 

Christian coaches and players (if there are such) need to lead the way in cleaning it up. Fans should insist on it. Sadly, can we even begin to hope to limp toward such a goal?

I heard a commenter on the radio say that 4 times as many people will watch the Super Bowl as watched the President's State of the Union address on Tuesday night. We love our football. The Super Bowl reigns. We are enraptured with the culture of cheating, from cradle to the grave. These things ought not be.

Last fall the Copper Basin Youth Football League was expelled (for the season) from the Smokey Mountain Youth League for altering player's birth certificates (to allow older kids to play on younger teams).
In the fall of 2013, a Louisiana High School used another school's username and password to obtain that rival's game plan.
The NCAA is currently investigating 20 colleges for academic misconduct regarding athletes.
Picture of General Shills Cheaties breakfast cereal with Coach Belicheat on the box.

Just a little more

Reporter: “How much money is enough?"

John D. Rockefeller: “Just a little bit more.”

Goodwill Baptists

In Let's Use a New Modifier in a New Century to Describe Baptists, an article on EthicsDaily.com, Robert Parham suggests a new name, or modifier, for moderate Baptists -- Goodwill Baptists. I have my doubts that it will catch on.

In suggesting the name "Goodwill" as a modifier or descriptor of "moderate" Baptists, does Brother Parham suggest that Baptists who are not moderates are "Badwill" Baptists, or Baptists of ill will? I know not Robert Parham's motive, but I have read enough moderates on the internet to know that at least some moderates think that conservatives, fundamentalists, hardshells, landmarkers, and non-cooperative Baptists are vicious and mean-spirited. No doubt some of us can be. Do not be fooled, though. Behind their "goodwill", some of the moderates can be "just as mean" as us, for example, calling SBC conservatives "virus-infected detractors", or referring to the death of Jerry Falwell as the reason for "the lovely lack of humidity (hot air) today..." We'd probably better leave off what they call hardshells and landmarkers! ;-D

It seems to be an oft-used debate tactic to attack the person rather than respond to and/or differ with the substance of the person's position. It would be better for us to assume the other person's motive is honorable and they really do sincerely believe what they believe, unless proven otherwise. That seems like goodwill to me.

Update: In Why Does the SBC President Think Jesus' Agenda Is Liberal?, a "Goodwill Baptist" suggests that the SBC's non-participation in the New Baptist Covenant indicates racism, politics, and nursing old wounds: "I hope that they will set aside racial prejudice, secular political loyalties and hurt feelings, attending what will be a celebration of a new day for all Baptists in North America." So much for Goodwill, I suppose.