Poor Old John

Back in September of last year, I mentioned a sad state of affairs. Leftists, liberals, and lost unbelievers asked for the keys to shape note singing, and some shape-note singing leaders gladly handed them over. In that context, I noted the “Prodigal Misgendering” of John Newton’s hymn text about “The Prodigal Son.” The prodigal son and his father are male (in the Bible both in Greek and English, Matthew 13:37-42; and in John Newton’s hymn, Olney Hymns). Nevertheless, persons who regularly complain about people misgendering others are fine with misgendering the prodigal son and his father. What is good for the goose was not good for the gander!

A fellow singer pointed out to me another song in which John Newton’s words have been attacked, altered, and adulterated. This time God is “misgendered” – changing the pronouns from “he” and “his” to “she” and “her.” The second stanza of the song is not original to Newton, but has been attached to his hymn at least as early as 1868. Curiously, while the arranger changes the gender from masculine to feminine in reference to God – he then changes when speaking of humans in the second stanza and rather chooses to use neutral terms so as not signify one gender or another. The reference to “Hell” is also removed.

The texts are presented below for comparison. In the left column is the sixth stanza of the hymn “The Wheat and Tares” by John Newton (Olney Hymns, Book I, Hymn 86), and the additional stanza (possibly by L. Hartsough).[i] The hymn as corrupted and used with the tune Wheat or Tare (Song No. 233) in the 2024 shape-note songbook The Valley Pocket Harmonist is shown in the right column (as arranged by Joshua Rush Barnett, 2020). I use strikethrough (left column) for removals from the original and yellow highlight (right column) for changes or additions.

There is an agenda to being pushed. The Valley Pocket Harmonist is helping push it.

---

[i] The first stanza is by John Newton, but the second stanza was added to Newton’s hymn – possibly first in The Revivalist by Joseph Hillman and L. Hartsough (1868). L. Hartsough was the music editor of The Revivalist and the arranger of “The Wheat and Tares” on page 67. The song in The Valley Pocket Harmonist also has a chorus: For soon the reaping time will come, And angels shout the harvest home. See also The Wheat and the Tares.

Oceanfront property

2025 Revision Committee: “We used a blind selection process to select songs for a new revision of our book. Coincidentally, we just happened to blindly pick two songs by two composers whose two other songs in the 1991 book we wanted to remove; and so we swapped them out.”

Me: “Yes. And I have some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona.”

Scoring songs

I was looking at the Protestia website and noticed that they have a series in which they analyze songs and recommend whether they are good songs to use in churches. I found their method interesting and even consider that it might be applicable to the new song choices for The Sacred Harp. When they analyze a song, they consider five areas.

1. Doctrinal fidelity – are the words/meaning biblically accurate? “Corporate worship should not require the pastor to add a footnote afterward explaining the congregation’s singing.”
2. Doctrinal specificity – is the song direct and specific in the doctrines it presents, or is it vague and elusive? (For example, Could a Mormon be comfortable with the words? An agnostic?)
3. Focus – is the song focused on God or man (is it directed Godward or manward)?
4. Associations – do the associations or connections of the authors bring along possible baggage that is a distraction? With whom is it associated (for example, if it is written by an heretic or immoral person, it can distract or lead in the wrong direction). 
5. Musical usefulness – is the song singable for a congregation, and what is its musical effectiveness? (Note: this category received the least weight, and the first category, doctrinal fidelity, received the most weight.)

The author made this interesting point:

“Every song chosen excludes another, so merely being catchy, popular, or technically orthodox in parts is not enough. The song should justify its place through doctrinal fidelity, specificity, focus, associations, and musical usefulness.”

In other words, when the use of a particular song is included, the use of some other song is excluded. Is the included song good enough to justify excluding the other?

---

Note: The last paragraphs do not suggest that every song we use is of equal value, but rather that there are some songs that do not have enough value to be considered.

Calling Your Number

Several years ago, Sacred Harp singers on the Fasola Discussions listserve conducted a brief but intense discussion about announcing and repeating the song numbers at singing conventions. That sounds like something simple. Probably attracted no impassioned supporters or detractors, right? Wrong!

At Sacred Harp singings anyone who wishes is given an opportunity to call a number, stand in the “hollow square” and then lead it (or “teach the class a lesson” as it is called in singing school vernacular). Some people come to the square and announce their numbers clearly and distinctly. Others may speak in a way that is less audible. When this happens, someone in the class may ask for the number, and someone else may repeat the number loudly.

Knowing the page number of the song being sung is a necessary part of the democratic process of joining in sacred song. If you do not know the number of the song then you’re left out of singing it – at least to begin with (you may eventually find it). After a song is started, experienced singers will often know where to go. Beginners will still be left out. It is a given that numbers MUST be repeated in such circumstances. Herein in the rub. Who will repeat it, how often, and how loudly?

It has been suggested that there are some problems with repeating the number. Here are the stated problems (as discussed on the listserve), followed by my replies.

Assertion 1. Loud calling or re-calling of the number disturbs the spiritual moment of preparation to singing.

Answer 1. Even if this were true (though I don’t understand it to be), not knowing the number certainly disturbs the spiritual moment and even the singing moment. Therefore, perhaps we either have two competing “spiritual moments” that cancel each other, we have to decide the lesser of two evils (or, most probably, loudly calling the number does not actually disturb the spiritual moment of preparation; people easily annoyed might more likely be in the flesh rather than the spirit).[i] For comparison, might it be more or less spiritual for a minister to mutter his text so few could understand from where he is reading, or to state it and state it clearly so all who wish may read along? I think the answer is obvious.

Assertion 2. Loud calling or re-calling of the number negatively affects sound recordings that are being made.

Answer 2. Perhaps this can be true. Nevertheless, singings are for SINGING. Listening, recording, and such like are merely by-products of the singing.[ii] The recording of a singing should not trump the singing itself. Hopefully a happy medium can be achieved, but singing comes first. If there is no singing, there is nothing to listen to and nothing to record. If the singers do not know the song number, what will they be singing? How might the recording sound if some singers are singing from different numbers!

Assertion 3. Loud calling or re-calling of the number should be undertaken by the officers of the singing or someone approved/appointed to that task (front row tenors, for example).

Answer 3. There is not a universal tradition of how this should be done, but apparently this is held as appropriate in different areas. I do not think that many people would object to the convention taking the lead in this area. If this is the practice of a certain region or convention we should abide by it, and the convention officers should see that the service is actually being provided. Under this tradition, the convention officers should be notified if it is not, and they should make certain – to the best of their ability – that singers have the opportunity to know the page numbers of the songs being sung.[iii] (I say to the best of their ability because there are situations like folks not hearing because they or folks next to them are talking, people who have significant enough hearing loss that they will not understand the number regardless, etc.).

Assertion 4. Loud calling or re-calling of the number can be more hindrance than help if the person re-calling the numbers is getting the numbers wrong.

Answer 4. This is true when the numbers are called wrong. How can we call it more of a hindrance? Not knowing the number is not knowing the number, whether it is because it cannot be heard to begin with or because it is miscalled. The second situation is basically the same situation as the first – not knowing the number of the song. The solution to both of these problems is to call the number clearly and distinctly.

It is incumbent on leaders at Sacred Harp singings to learn to announce their numbers for all to hear (again to the best of their ability). Some folks are capable of being more distinct and articulate than others. For some perhaps the quiet muffled announcement is ignorance, misunderstanding, or just the thought that the front row WILL repeat their numbers. Some may have been taught this. If so, their teachers performed a disservice to the Sacred Harp community. Do not assume someone will or should repeat your song number. I was taught to announce the number loudly and clearly. I hope I accomplish that. To you leaders I say, “Do you just want only those seated right in front of you to sing?” Or, “Do you expect help from the entire singing class?” Announce your number to whomever you expect to sing with you! Stand up, announce your number clearly before you come forward, and again when you are in the square. Speak the numbers distinctly by saying each number separately – four, six, eight (468). Even turn around and say it once to the altos who are behind you Someone pointed out that 3-digit song numbers can be repeated four times in less than ten seconds. Everyone in the class is entitled to locate the number that is being sung before the singing of it starts.[iv] Proactive leaders announcing numbers distinctly will go a long way toward reducing the need of loud repeating of numbers.[v]

So, the three questions. Who will repeat the number? Whoever the convention designates, or, whoever, if no one is designated. How often? As needed. How loudly? Loud enough for the class to hear. (All within reason, as discussed above, and in the endnotes.)

Lastly, let us all be considerate of one another and seek to have the best singing each time we come together.

---

[i] Oddly, some who made this argument are not Christians, and only have a singing moment rather than spiritually God-ward moment.

[ii] Additionally, recordings can be edited to remove extraneous material. Considering that is another reason to think carefully about inserting consideration of recording above the quality of the actual singing experience.

[iii] At the East Texas Sacred Harp Convention, we have alleviated the situation by the arranging committee projecting the song number on a screen. This works very well – as long as the leader calls the song so that the arranging committee can hear the number! The only drawback is that the altos have to turn around to see the screen, since it is on a wall behind them.

[iv] Perhaps the situation has also been exacerbated in recent times because of the rush to try to see how many leaders can be put up at a convention. Sometimes that is done to the frustration of the overall enjoyment of the entire class.
[v] Since writing most of these comments years ago, I am now a member of the hard-of-hearing class. Now more than ever I appreciate the clear enunciation of the song number. Also, I can appreciate that, due to no one’s fault, sometimes the hard of hearing among us will just have to find another way to know the number, such as looking at our neighbor’s book to see what page he or she is on.

Moving toward “The Generic Harp”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion.

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

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

---

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

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

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

Questions for the Revision Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of songs. 

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

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

Al Mohler on Sacred Harp

On “The Briefing” podcast, June 26, 2026, Al Mohler (president of Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky) answers a question sent in by a listener: “[Would] Love to hear your thoughts about the leftist takeover of the sacred harp singing community.”

Here is an excerpt from the answer. Go to the Part V at the link to the podcast to hear Mohler’s answer in its entirety.

“My thoughts are, here’s the way the world works. The sinful world will hijack anything and so what I think you have here is another example of something good and wonderful and beautiful and true being hijacked by a culture committed basically to subverting those very things while using the music and even taking the tunes. And what surprised me coming from some of these folks is they say they’re even taking the words because they don’t mind singing the words because they are just words. Those original sacred harp communities who sing those words never saw them as mere words.”

https://albertmohler.com/2026/06/26/briefing-6-26-26

Far From My Thoughts

THIS LINK contains a recording of Emily Creel leading Westford (“Far from my thoughts, vain world begone”) at the Rusk County Singing Convention. In addition to the thoughts of the hymn and its meaning, I also have pleasant memories of our friend Leon Ballinger loving and often leading this song.

The words are by Isaac Watts, and remind us of our delight in worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ – generally, in church, and in singings. Watts originally called it “The enjoyment of Christ; or, Delight in worship.” Daniel Read used three stanzas of it with his tune Westford. There are three more stanzas not used with the tune, which I print below the three that go with it. May this wonderful song always serve as a reminder to us that when we sing, we are delighting in worship!

1. Far from my thoughts, vain world, begone!
Let my religious hours alone:
Fain would mine eyes my Saviour see;
I wait a visit, Lord, from thee.

2. My heart grows warm with holy fire,
And kindles with a pure desire;
Come, my dear Jesus! from above,
And feed my soul with heavenly love.

3. Blest Jesus, what delicious fare!
How sweet thine entertainments are?
Never did angels taste, above,
Redeeming grace and dying love.

The trees of life immortal stand,
In flourishing rows, at thy right hand,
And in sweet murmurs, by their side,
Rivers of bliss perpetual glide.

Haste then, but with a smiling face,
And spread the table of thy grace;
Bring down a taste of fruit divine,
And cheer my heart with sacred wine.

Hail, great Immanuel, all divine,
In thee thy Father’s glories shine;
Thou brightest, sweetest, fairest One,
That eyes have seen or angels known.

The above hymn is Hymn 15 in Book Two of Hymns and Spiritual Songs (1707). Watts also has a “Part the second” with six more stanzas on the topic. It is Hymn 16.

7. Lord, what a heaven of saving grace,
Shines through the beauties of thy face,
And lights our passions to a flame!
Lord, how we love thy charming Name!

8. When I can say, my God is mine,
When I can feel thy glories shine,
I tread the world beneath my feet,
And all that earth calls good or great.

9. While such a scene of sacred joys
Our raptured eyes and souls imploys,
Here we could sit, and gaze away
A long, an everlasting day.

10. Well, we shall quickly pass the night
To the fair coasts of perfect light;
Then shall our joyful senses rove
O’er the dear object of our love.

11. There shall we drink full draughts of bliss,
And pluck new life from heavenly trees:
Yet now, and then, dear Lord, bestow
A drop of heaven on worms below.

12. Send comforts down from thy right hand,
While we pass through this barren land,
And in thy temple let us see
A glimpse of love, a glimpse of thee.

Ethics and Sacred Harp 2

Ethics and Sacred Harp, Part 1

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[v]
• 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] Interestingly, in a time when the participation in Sacred Harp has grown and there is much talk of the diversity of the community, in 2020 the guardrails against nepotism in the bylaws of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company were removed. The following sections of “Article VI” restricting who might serve together on the “Board of Directors” were removed: “Section 3. No two immediate relatives such as a husband-wife, parent-child, brother-sister, or aunt-uncle may serve on the Board of Directors at the same time. Section 4. No more than two (2) first cousins may serve on the Board at one time.” The current bylaws do not include any restrictions on family relationships.
[vi] 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 judge dismissed the suit). The loss seems to come over a bad technicality imposed by Judge Newman – 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.

Speaking in the square

In Imagined space in Sacred Harp singing, Jonathon M. Smith writes about controlling divisiveness by limiting leaders addressing the class from the hollow square. Today, this is often presented and misrepresented as the standard historical practice which must be held as the norm. Yet, Smith himself acknowledges this is a teaching method imposed in modernity that does not actually square with historical practice.[i] On page 246, footnote 139, Smith writes:

“Documentary evidence suggests that this norm was regularly breeched in Sacred Harp singings in the Southeast throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by singers who addressed the class when called to lead. However, modern singing schools promote the ideal of refraining from speaking from the center of the square as an important historical precedent.”

Just because you can get up a singing camp to promote the views of a select group as normative does not change historical facts. In days gone by, when the standard practitioner of Sacred Harp was a Christian, no one tried to suppress testimonies in the square. They were offensive to none, with the possible exception of someone who went on and on with no end in sight! However, that was about the consumption of time, not the content of the talk. Today, many modern practitioners feel a special need to suppress such spiritual expressions, since they offend their worldview of unbelief. Somehow they are able to compartmentalize the sacred nature of the old Christian hymns in The Sacred Harp, but cannot abide a real-time expression of the same sacred nature made by living Christian witnesses. May God help us.

---

[i] Smith twice alludes to this being standard historical practice, including claiming that “early Sacred Harp singings” adopted the practice of not speaking in the square. Significantly, he does not actually provide any historical evidence.

[ii] Some things to think about. Who says the purpose was to control divisiveness? Is there any historical evidence that it was used this way? Why is this a modern concern? Who brought in divisiveness?

Sacred Harp and Historical Reenactment

“Sacred Harp is not historical reenactment!” You can find this statement cried loud and long online. Notice this example:

“…the practice of singing is not a historical reenactment, but a gathering of enthusiasts. Over the last ten years, Sacred Harp has gained popularity in Europe with singing groups establishing themselves in many countries. The spirit of Sacred Harp is primarily that of communion in song, and while it has religious and local origins, today the Sacred Harp is international and open to all. In the cultural porosity of our times, Sacred Harp has paved its way to become a universal and inclusive singing practice. All voices and ages can sing the Sacred Harp.”

“*The religiosity of Sacred Harp, as in gospel singing, is an integral part of the origins of the tradition and gives vibrancy through customs that remain true to the original practice (the day opens with a blessing, the texts are from a liturgical repertoire etc.). However, the practice considers itself secular; atheists and members of all faiths are welcome and celebrated, as are people of all ages and social backgrounds. Everyone is free to define the spirituality that he or she wishes to find. This is what makes the practice of Sacred Harp a unique space to mix and meet people of all denominations, generations, and backgrounds in a climate of tolerance and openness.”[i]

Funny how no one ever thought about or discussed Sacred Harp being historical reenactment until it became filled with folks who don’t believe the words of the songs they are singing. Then it became a necessary “thing” to carefully explain they were not doing historical reenactment! Why would anyone think they were doing so in the first place? Because they do not believe what they are singing.

Historical re-enactment and living history are immersive activities/gatherings of individuals and/or groups that perform accurate recreations (from music to war). They do research to confirm accuracy – re-enactors often conduct extensive research in order to replicate the details of their activity. Many non-traditional non-Christian Sacred Harp singers do just that.

Singings ran by unbelievers re-enact the sitting in the square, opening & closing with prayer, the memorial lesson, the way to lead/keep time, and so on. I have observed that non-traditional singers are often the ones who are the most fastidious and fussy in their attempts to re-enact the traditions accurately and vociferously condemn any perceived deviation from their way of re-enacting the tradition.[ii] Why? Because their sense of being part of the Sacred Harp tradition is found not in the Christian tradition of Sacred Harp, but in the accurate recreation of the outward motions.[iii]

For atheists, non-Christians, and those who otherwise reject the meaning of the hymns, Sacred Harp is supposedly not re-enactment for them because the singings have historical continuity. Certainly, singing from The Sacred Harp has historical continuity, but without a genuine religious feeling, some continuity interacting with the text and not just the music, there must necessarily be some element of historical re-enactment by non-Christian Sacred Harp singers – no matter how much they enjoy the practice or loudly and vociferously re-enactment is denied.

No, Sacred Harp is not just historical re-enactment for the non-traditional non-Christian singer.[iv] Yes, there is an element of refuge in historical re-enactment for the non-traditional non-Christian singer. They imply it in many camouflaged ways. Why not just be straightforward and say so clearly? Then we can move on to the next issue.

---

[i] The above quote was copied from few months ago, but currently (March 2026) is no longer available online. A Google search suggests it first appeared online April 15, 2017. It touts the fact that Sacred Harp is not historical reenactment, while laying groundwork showing that, for some people, it actually is.
[ii] “Orthopraxic obsessions in matters of musical performance also sideline the issue of authentic feeling in a way that frustrates many singers. Some suggest that no matter how perfectly one reproduces the musical characteristics of an eighteenth century of Civil War era performance, singing religious music without religious faith is not historically accurate…” (Traveling Home, Kiri Miller, page 185). Miller goes on to discuss an online debate about Sacred Harp historical re-enactment, including whether non-Christian singers were “firing blanks.”
[iii] This is not to say that Sacred Harp does not touch these folks beyond the outward formality. Obviously, for many/most it does. However, their sense of being part of the tradition is nevertheless grounded in being able to recreate what traditional Christian singers have received supernaturally. Sacred Harp singers who are not Christians cannot recreate the internal belief and therefore must recreate the external trappings. Often the leaders of the non-traditional singers become obsessed with exactitude –the sixth must always be raised, all songs much meet our exacting standards of dispersed harmony, and so on. It is my opinion that this brand of external formality played some part in what songs were added to and what songs were removed from the 2025 edition of The Sacred Harp.
[iv] Again, I acknowledge “not just” historical re-enactment, but assert yes there “is some” historical re-enactment.

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!