Ethics and Sacred Harp 2

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

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

General ethical standards found in business, education, etc.

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

Specific ethical standards used in editorial processes

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

Some Bible-based Christian ethical standards

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

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

---

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

Ethics and Sacred Harp 1

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

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

Three examples.

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

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

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

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

In consideration.

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

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

Thoughts.

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

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

To be concluded, Part 2 tomorrow.

---

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

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

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

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.