More examples of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising

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

At what point does the editing change from ethical to unethical? In my opinion, the editing of submitted songs reached a degree that is not normative of or proper for editing processes. Ethical editing allows for and includes minor corrections and enhancements (corrections of typos, errant notes, grammatical mistakes, for example), respect of the original content and context, clarification, proper attribution, and/or informed consent. Unethical editing involves and includes misrepresentation, removing important content and context, lack of transparency, and/or falsifying information. A distinction between ethical and unethical may often depend on whether the editorial changes mislead the audience and distort the truth.

More examples of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising PDF

---

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

A Little Leaven. Who is Winning Whom?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

How far we’ve come

In a recent Facebook group post, I mentioned that the Texas State Sacred Harp Association sponsored a monthly publication called the Sacred Harp Monitor. At the September 1913 session of the United Sacred Harp Musical Association, they adopted the Sacred Harp Monitor as an organ “for Sacred Harp singers of the United States. This was the result of a formal resolution read and passed by the Convention at Atlanta, Ga., at its recent session. T. B. Newton, of Woodstock, Ga., moved its adoption…”

In the same issue of the “Monitor” where this is announced (October 1913, p. 7), the editor, Elder M. W. Miracle, did not shy away from talking about “religion” (as some modern singers suggest we must do). He wrote an almost two-page piece about “On Jordan’s Stormy Banks I Stand” by Samuel Stennett. He says, “Like the children of Israel of old time, who had drank the dregs of Egypt’s bitter and its sweets, the children of Spiritual Israel have been made to realize the vanities of their temporal Egypt, and their eyes of faith are set on Canaan’s fair and happy land…This old sinful nature hangs like a dark cloud between them and the ‘other shore.’ It clogs their weary steps and dulls their spiritual appetites. O but for the sustaining grace and guiding hand of God, they would never reach the right crossing and ‘be forever blest.’ It is sweet to feel that uplifting and guiding hand when we fall, knowing that we never fall so low that His tender hand is not under to raise us up again, and place us on Pisgah’s lofty heights, bidding us to look eastward, northward, southward, and westward and behold the vernal beauties to which we are legal heirs” (Sacred Harp Monitor, October 1913, pp. 8-9). Beginning on the same page as the United announcement (p. 7), Elder Miracle wrote about “Afflictions” (see picture below).

Affliction though they seem severe,
Are oft in mercy sent;
They stopped the prodigal’s career,
And caused him to repent.

How far we’ve come from Atlanta 1913!

Can Two Walk Together?

Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). 

A Sacred Harp friend of mine hoped a new revision of The Sacred Harp book undertaken by the Sacred Harp Publishing Company would help bring unity between the Sacred Harp diaspora and the traditional Sacred Harp singers. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but I do doubt his sanity! I can’t imagine how he had come to that conclusion.

The new revision has not brought unity – though I don’t think it technically brought division. Rather it has exposed a deep but veiled division that already existed – a deep oozing wound over which we have been draping a towel while pretending it did not exist. The revision ripped off the towel for full disclosure.

The restroom rhetoric coming from some of the Sacred Harp conventions demonstrates that the Sacred Harp world is divided into two camps that cannot continue to walk together. The Covid clamoring is another controversial topic that reveals we are not headed in the same direction.[i] These are some of the nicer topics, and time would fail me to write about the “Queer Convention” scheduled for New Orleans in February.

A fair number of singings at points beyond still require a negative Covid test (and/or proof of vaccination, etc.) in order for attendees to be “welcomed and affirmed” at their singing conventions.[ii] After five years these folks cannot get beyond COVID-19 fears and restrictions, or…

One wonders whether it could be a clandestine method assured at keeping the most conservative of singers at arm’s length – we welcome everyone (but we don’t want you here)![iii] Tell me it’s not hypocrisy while at the same time explaining to me that 600-700 singers – many from “off summers” where they require publicized Covid policies – piled into Atlanta, Georgia to sing at the United Sacred Harp Musical Association with nary a mention of Covid precautions!

The “restroom rhetoric” is carefully catered to a certain left-leaning worldview. In all the houses in which I have lived in my life, each has had only had one restroom for everyone.[iv] You just go in and lock the door. We didn’t have to dub it as “gender-neutral” – it was just “the bathroom.” I don’t have a problem with that, just with the mindset that must meddle in politics over practicalities in order to force others into agreement, at least tacitly if not in fact.

According to Google AI a “gender-neutral bathroom, also called an all-gender or unisex restroom, is a restroom that can be used by anyone, regardless of their gender identity or sex. These facilities provide a safe and inclusive space for transgender and non-binary individuals…”

Therefore, it seems that the emphasis on “gender-neutral” is a subtle suggestion that transgender and non-binary individuals are affirmed, while conservative Christians still holding to the biblical teaching and worldview of only two genders might not be as welcome.[v] At least their views are not welcome inside and must be left outside the door, effectively demonstrating the intolerance of tolerance!

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Nay. The only way the two camps have been able to “walk together” thus far, is for the Christian camp to keep their heads down, their mouths shut, and their pens silent. Some of us are no longer willing to suffer it to be so. While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25), but it is high time to awake out of our sleep and rise to the challenge of defending the Christian nature of the hymns and traditions of The Sacred Harp.[vi]

Perhaps Pastor Kent Brandenburg’s portrait of the larger societal picture can help point us in the right direction:

“The only way to combat the cultural reality in the United States, I believe, is by boldly asserting the biblical and historical belief and practice, and then not back down.”[vii]

---

[i] There is also a third camp trying to straddle the fence; trying to hold hands with two sides that are walking in different directions. They will eventually have to make up their minds to go one way or the other.
[ii] “When you arrive at the registration desk outside the auditorium, we will check you in and confirm your proof of negative COVID-19 rapid test. We will have tests available for those who are not otherwise able to test the morning of each day of the sing. If you are waiting on a test result, we will ask that you remain outside the auditorium until it is complete.” (New England Convention, 2025). “COVID information ● We will have HEPA air purifiers running throughout the singing. ● Masks are welcome, but optional. We respect all who choose to mask! ● Please stay home if you’re not feeling well. If you feel ill after the singing, let us know so we can send an email to the group. (We’ll keep your name anonymous.)” (NC Shape Note Singing Convention, October 2025). “Day-of negative rapid test required; extra tests will be available. Vaccination required.” (Berkeley Weekly Singing, 2025). “We ask that attendees be vaccinated against COVID-19 and that each attendee provide a same day negative COVID test” (Vermont All-Day, March 2024).
[iii] There has also been the shift from the hospitable “Everyone is welcome” to appeal to various groups that they are specifically welcome: “Whether you are drawn to shape note singing for spiritual, secular, communal, artistic, historic, or other reasons—all are invited! All ages, levels of musical ability, faith traditions, and life experiences are welcome in the ‘hollow square.’” (NC Shape Note Singing Convention, October 2025) “The New England Sacred Harp Convention is a weekend of joining our voices in song to create sacred harmonies. We represent a breadth of identities related to age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, ethnicity, education, ability, class, and political affiliations. We also recognize that our tradition has historically given power to certain identities while marginalizing others.” (New England Convention, 2019).
[iv] With the possible exception of the earliest houses of my infancy that I do not remember, which may have only had “one long path.”
[v] “There are men’s and women’s restrooms on the ground floor, each with one accessible stall. Since these two are public restrooms, we regret that we will be unable to make them gender neutral, and encourage folks to use the bathroom that feels most comfortable to them. There are additional inaccessible restrooms on the third floor, which we will be able to designate as gender neutral.” (New England Convention, 2025) “There are gendered accessible restrooms on the main level. Single-stall, gender-neutral restrooms are located down a flight of stairs. Singing will take place on the main level.)” (NC Shape Note Singing Convention, October 2025). “Toilets are downstairs. There are accessible toilets, gendered toilets and gender neutral toilets available.” (Manchester All-Day, 2025).
[vi] Most of us “slept through” and/or had no knowledge of the scholarly paper “Reorienting Space: Queering Sacred Harp Singing” by Jonathon Smith, University of Illinois, presented at the Society for Ethnomusicology 64th Annual Meeting, 2019. According to Google AI, “Smith’s work explores how LGBTQ+ individuals engage with the traditional American shape-note singing practice of Sacred Harp, interpreting it as a way of ‘queering’ the space and its practices” and that “LGBTQ+ singers and communities reinterpret or reshape the meaning and social dynamics of Sacred Harp singing. This involves more than just their physical presence; it’s an act of reorienting the practice itself toward more inclusive, affirming, and personally meaningful ends.” The author and presenter is a Sacred Harp singer and well-known to members of the 2025 revision committee of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company. (These views are presented at greater length in Smith’s dissertation, “Imagined Space in Sacred Harp Singing.”) Also mark (Romans 16:17) The Hymn Society in the US and Canada as an “aider and abettor” of “queering” Christian music. Note, for example, their “Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community.” Shape note singers pitched in: “On Monday, January 13, 2025, the Baltimore Shape Note Singers met at Four Hour Day Lutherie for an evening that combined tradition with a focus on inclusion. The group sang ‘Love Astounding’, a poem by Jeanette M. Lindholm set to the tune ‘Holy Manna’ from The Sacred Harp. This performance was part of the Songs for the Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community project, recorded in the traditional Sacred Harp style.”
[vii] https://kentbrandenburg.com/2025/08/18/can-anyone-take-a-biblical-conservative-cultural-position-in-the-united-states-today/

Misogynistic Ester

Misogynistic, adjective. Feeling or showing hatred of, prejudice toward, or discrimination against women.

The tune Ester by John Stringer Terry was added to The Sacred Harp in the 1870 revision (page 437). It has continued to appear in all three revisions of the book to the present (page 437 in Cooper and White books; page 37 in Denson editions). In the new 2025 Edition published by the Sacred Harp Publishing Company, it got a makeover.[i] The words of the hymn ran afoul of the woke folk on the left. The hymn beginning “Young ladies, all attention give” was switched out to the hymn beginning “Awake, my soul, in joyful lays.”[ii] Here are the words of the hymn originally attached to the tune Ester in The Sacred Harp.

1. Young ladies, all attention give,
You that in wicked pleasures live;
One of your sex, the other day,
Was called by death’s cold hand away.

2. This lesson she has left for you,
To teach the careless what to do;
To seek Jehovah while you live,
And everlasting honors give.

3. Her honored mother she addressed,
While tears were streaming down her breast;
She grasped her tender hands and said,
“Remember me when I am dead.”

4. She called her father to her bed,
And thus, in dying anguish said:
“My days on earth are at an end,
My soul is summoned to attend.

5. “Before Jehovah’s awful bar,
To hear my awful sentence there;
And now, dear father, do repent,
And read the holy Testament.”

Some factual history (should anyone actually care).

This hymn fits two genres popular in its day: (1) warning texts, especially with the exhortation to “attention give” and (2) death-bed texts, either death-bed confessions and/or death-bed exhortations to the living.

The author of this hymn is unknown. It was published in The Religious Telescope (Volume I, No. 14, February 2, 1842) in 25 stanzas. However, its origins could go back to around 1813. The Revivalist by Washington Glass (Columbus, OH: 1853) prints 26 stanzas “To the memory of Maria Roush, who died March 1st, 1813—Boon County, Ky.” Ultimately just about everyone is exhorted to be ready when death comes calling, including father, mother, brother, sister, and “young people all.”

Some other “All attention give” hymns.

• Come one, all attention give, this lesson is for you…
• Dear people, all attention give, to what a friend shall say…
• Let all, attention give, and I will teach you well…
• Like Cornelius, all attention give, and seek God’s grace that we may live…
• Young people, all attention give, and hear what I shall say…
• Young people, all attention give, while I address you in God’s name…

And there are variations within this genre, such as “Young people, all, on you I call, pray lend me your attention…”

Facebook reaction to the makeover of three Sacred Harp texts

Along came the woke folk and objected to singing a warning hymn – because it is addressed to “young ladies.” Of course, most of the folks objecting to this have no Biblical or Christian worldview, and are out of their depth in that regard. They have no clear understanding that any people need a warning, because it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.[iii]So they call the words “misogynistic” and claim victory because they have labeled the words with an objectionable adjective before which all should bow.[iv]

When I read the charge, I wondered whether these people even know what the word “misogynistic’ means?[v] If “misogyny” is hatred toward women and “misogynistic” reflects that hatred, tell me where is the hate here in this song? No, it is rather a desire for consideration of one’s eternal destiny. A Christian desire for “young ladies” to give attention to the fact that they will die and stand before God does not arise out of hatred, but out of love!![vi] And we must speak the truth in love. We desire for young ladies and young men, old ladies and old men, black and white, rich and poor. To address one specifically is to address them in love and concern, not hate. I suppose perhaps we should not expect a bunch of agnostics, reprobates, and unbelievers would understand that. It is all just “hate speech” to them.[vii] However, if this hymn shows hatred to women, it must also show hatred to fathers – see stanzas four and five where the young lady calls on her father to repent! And the original poem also calls on young men to repent, so I guess it includes hatred of men?[viii] Sadly, I’m sure most of the woke folk won’t let the actual facts get in the way of their anxious feelings.

---

[i] I would mention that there is another Sacred Harp Book Company that has not acquiesced to such demands.
[ii] Which hymn already appeared twice in the book, and has also been added another time (No. 459). There is nothing wrong with this newly-attached hymn. It is my opinion, however, that it was wrong to cave in to the godless objections to the old one. For full disclosure, I would be fine with changing the words used with this tune under different circumstances – Christians looking for another Christian text that Christians might sing more often than “Young ladies, all attention give.” I love this tune with the words, “Poor, weak, and worthless, though I am.” However, when it is nonbelievers objecting to and fiddling with Christian texts, it is time to push back.
[iii] Those who object to our worldview will likely also object to Paul’s use of “men” in Hebrews 9:27, but I’ll stick to quoting the Bible written and translated before everyone wanted to go “gender neutral” (the Greek of the 1st century – ἀνθρώποις dative, plural masculine – and the English of the 17th century).
[iv] However, it is at the name of Jesus every knee should bow!
[v] And do they care?
[vi] Compare Romans 10:1.
[vii] Hate speech = speech that is hated by those defining it as hate speech.
[viii] And is there such hatred of men that there is not even a good antonym for misogynist?

The 1991 Sacred Harp, removed songs

Removing Songs from The Sacred Harp

Consider reading the prior posts about the current shape note scene.

• He and They, a “Prodigal” Misgendering
• Singing Convention Reflections
• An example of 2025 Sacred Harp committee revising
• Outside Looking In, Part 1
• Outside Looking In, Part 2

Removal of songs. In order to add 113 songs to The Sacred Harp 2025 Edition, the revision committee of the Sacred Harp Publishing Company removed 77 songs that were in The Sacred Harp 1991 Edition. A list of the 77 songs can be seen HERE.

There are 554 songs in the 1991 Edition of The Sacred Harp. These songs have been ranked for use over the past 30 years (see stats page at Fasola.org). The ranking is based on how many times these songs were called and sang, based on minutes of singings from 1995 to 2024.

Thought experiment. If we desire to add X number of new songs, then we could remove the lowest X number of songs. That is a beginning working theory, to which a few complexities must be added. In simple theory, since the 1991 revision has 554 songs, removing 77 songs could be removing the songs ranked 478 and below.[i] Or in simple theory, adding 113 songs could require removing the songs ranked 442 and below.[ii] Of course, it is not quite that simple! For example, song Y being added may not fill the same number of pages as song Z being removed (and vice versa). Another example, when Rose of Sharon is removed (six pages), it makes room for a different six page anthem, six songs that occupy one page, three songs that occupy two pages, or 12 songs that occupy a half page (and there could be varying combinations of these).[iii] Additionally, there is some consideration of not doing violence to the existing pagination. Nevertheless, using this thought experiment, one would think that any songs that ranked 400 and above should be safe. Not so. Some were not!

Caveat 1. I do not have any significant attachment to the 77 songs removed – in that none of them are among my “favorites” and with the disclosure of Soft Music being my paternal grandfather’s favorite song. Interpretation – I am not complaining because of losing songs I cannot stand to lose. I am considering this according to the principle of the thing.

Caveat 2. The stats at https://www.fasola.org/minutes/stats/ are slightly quirky in that the total is 557 rather than 554. This is because songs 24t, 24b, and 25 are included. These three are part of the “Rudiments of Music,” but people occasionally lead them and they get listed in the minutes. Nevertheless, these three do not figure into the issue of songs added and removed, and I do not figure them into my discussion. So, for example, 24t and 25 rank below the song on page 407, but I do not consider that in my discussion. Also, this quirk makes the worst ranking song in the musical selections of the 1991 rank as 556, when actually as the last of 554 songs, it is 554. There are also songs that are at times “tied” for ranking, since they have the same count.

Objective and Subjective removals. Hopefully the committee will soon reveal the methods they used for determining which songs they thought ought to be removed (and which were finally removed because of these methods). There was a long-standing active effort behind petitioning and convincing the committee to get rid of or change the words on certain songs. Singers lobbied for the removal of songs they did not like – for various reasons, but most often for violating a vague standard of “offense.”  A good example of this was exhibited at the 2019 New England Convention. Organizers assembled a “Do Not Call” list of four songs.[v] The songs on the list were Edmonds, Stafford, War Department, and Whitestown.[vi] Of these do not call songs, Edmonds and War Department were legitimately on the chopping block for removal, being the two least used songs in the book. Stafford and Whitestown were hounded, harassed, and hazed for perceived violations – of “anti-semitism” (though the reference to “envious Jews” is biblical and was actually made by another Jewish person, not a modern American “racist”) and because of the connotations of applying Psalm 107 to the colonization of New England. Since Stafford and Whitestown were relatively popular songs despite the war against them, the revision committee gave them a makeover (new words) rather than removing them from the book. Ester had a so-called “misogynistic” text, and got a makeover as well.

The reason for the removal of other songs, however, can only be imagined. The only reason I have been able to imagine are the subjective standards of “it’s not in the Sacred Harp style” or “I don’t like to sing it.” The heads of several popular songs were chopped off; up until now, at least, the charges against them are unknown. Consider some other removed songs.

Notice this self-evident comparison. This shows the very subjective nature that crept in at times in choosing what songs to remove and what songs to keep. One song was popular and was removed from the book – the other occupied a seat near the bottom (in popularity, with only two “Do Not Call” songs worse than it), but was kept nevertheless.

• The song Federal Street ranked 187th overall, out of 554 songs.[vii] It was sung more than 367 other songs over the course of 30 years. It WAS removed.[viii]  
• The song Charlton ranked 552nd overall, out of 554 songs. That is, this song was down near the very bottom among the least used songs. It WAS NOT removed.

Review. There are 554 songs in the 1991 Edition of The Sacred Harp. They have been ranked for use over the past 30 years (1995-2024). Considering these rankings, I find some removals especially surprising – Federal Street, Soft Music, and Pleyels Hymn (Second). Here are some of the removed songs that had the best song use rankings of the 77 songs that were removed.

No.                  Title                                             Rank

50b                  Humility                                     361

254                  Rose of Sharon                         282

323b                Soft Music                                 293

334                  O Come Away                              281

438                  The Marriage in the Skies       368

491                  Oh, What Love                           377

515                  Federal Street                          187

523                  Pleyels Hymn (Second)             254

• 515, Federal Street. At an overall ranking of 187, it was sung more than 367 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 523, Pleyels Hymn (Second). At an overall ranking of 254, it was sung more than 300 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 334, O Come Away. At an overall ranking of 281, it was sung more than 273 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 254, Rose of Sharon. At an overall ranking of 282, it was sung more than 272 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 323b, Soft Music. At an overall ranking of 293, it was sung more than 261 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 50b, Humility. At an overall ranking of 361, it was sung more than 193 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 438, The Marriage in the Skies. At an overall ranking of 368, it was sung more than 186 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.
• 491, Oh, What Love. At an overall ranking of 377, it was sung more than 177 other songs in the 1991 edition, yet became one of 77 songs that were removed.

A couple of song losses that I have noticed being lamented on Facebook and elsewhere are Warning (213b) and Rose of Sharon (254).[ix] Rose of Sharon was likely removed to buy a large piece of real estate! Six songs now appears where it once was. Nevertheless, that a 6-page anthem – a difficult song that many would hesitate to lead – is ranked as high as no. 282 is a sure sign that it was liked. As with Doddridge, “Rose of Sharon, None can save you.” Warning might be considered a strange little song. It occupied a lower quarter of page 213, and continued to be presented as four parts of three staves. Yet, perhaps because of rather than instead of, its oddity, it was liked by many. Yet its overall ranking of 447 could not spare it from the cry of the Queen of Hearts, “off with its head!” The best explanation of these removals – sans the committee relaying one of its own – is that the committee did not like these songs.

Being seasonal songs (for the season of Christmas) did not save Portuguese Hymn or Cookham from removal. Among basement dwellers that got a reprieve were these (not just ranked below 478, but 532 and below); despite very poor ranking, they were not removed: 

• Restoration Second (ranked 532)[x]
• Shepherds Rejoice (ranked 539)
• Funeral Thought (ranked 541)
• Land of Rest (ranked 544)
• The Bride’s Farewell (ranked 545)
• Elder (ranked 548)
• Charlton (ranked 552)

Removed words. I mentioned above three songs whose words were replaced with different words. The most long-standing argument of which I am aware has been over the first stanza of a hymn by Isaac Watts: “See what a living stone the builders did refuse; Yet God hath built his church thereon, in spite of envious Jews” (“envious Jews” being the offending words). I have written extensively and zealously about this text, arguing against its removal (most recently, I think, in “The Living Stone”). The position of some folks who see nothing wrong with text is “let’s just change it to another text, since it offends some people.”[xi] I could go along with that if it were my personal offense to someone. But this offense is against God’s words, the Christian hymn text written by Isaac Watts, and the Christian structure of The Sacred Harp. Let me be clear – I am not attached to having to sing about “envious Jews.” The other stanza the committee picked is a fine text. Nevertheless, the reason behind changing the text is not fine! Christians should oppose any such changes as that one – because it is a non-Christian mindset that elevates their human philosophy above the Bible. The Bible does describe certain Jews as envious Jews (for example, Matthew 27:18; Acts 13:45), who opposed Jesus and his followers (who were also Jews). I can give in on personal issues, but I cannot give in to attacks against the Bible, just to pacify non-Christian singers. The committee obviously took a different tack.

Concluding thoughts.

This series of articles about the 2025 revision of The Sacred Harp has looked at several issues. I suppose my primary emphasis is on:

1. The state of “Sacred Harp” in the 21st century.
2. The gradual movement from a primarily Christian spiritual activity (with emphasis on both the texts and the style of music) toward a “renaissance” of folk music, that is, an activity based primarily on the style of the music in the book than the meaning of the texts of the book. 
3. The details about the revision of The Sacred Harp 1991 Revision authorized in 2018 and completed in 2025.

That musical focus probably explains many of the choices made by the 2025 revision committee – that is, the overall current state of The Sacred Harp as published by the Sacred Harp Publishing is musical more than spiritual, secular more than Christian. The overall result of the revision appeals to that focus, and perhaps can be regarded as a success by those who agree with the “Sacred Harp” as music over meaning.[xii]

Outside this circle of popular agreement stand some of us who are disappointed with the result. Among the disappointed stand those who will continue to use the 1991 Edition rather than the 2025 Edition.

Endnotes:

---

[i] I used Excel to check my count, and the Excel counter agreed that songs ranked 478 to 554 would count as 77 songs.
[ii] I used Excel to check my count, and the Excel counter agreed that songs ranked 442 to 554 would count as 113 songs.
[iii] See the newly released “New Song Page Numbers in The Sacred Harp: 2025 Edition,” which shows they placed six songs where this one was located.
[iv] Though this effort ramped up after the Sacred Harp Publishing Company authorized a revision of The Sacred Harp 1991 Edition, this debate had a long history. For example, see the section “Songs People Won’t Sing” in Traveling Home, by Kiri Miller (University of Illinois Press, 2008, pages 188-194).
[v] The lists were printed and placed on the name-card table. Recently a fellow singer told me about calling War Department at a singing in Pennsylvania. He had picked it because he wanted to sing a 3-part song, and was a new singer unaware of any taboos. He was flatly told to choose something else. I am unaware that the any of the dastardly inhospitable Southern singers have ever told anyone that they would not sing a song that was called. On the humourous side, I do know of an occasion when a bunch of old lovable knot-heads would not sing a song at the clip the leader wanted, and he had to give up.
[vi] In addition to the “Do Not Call” list, there was also list of “manners” people should have at the singing, and even a demonstration of those manners. The convention gave instructions, and “demos” of “how to behave” – including, you have to ask people what their preferred pronouns are You should ask this so that you do not even refer to a person in their absence by the wrong pronoun. You are not to hug anyone without asking if they would like a hug first. In July 2020, a letter signed by 90 people was forwarded to the revision committee, urging them to reject “the push for removing songs that [some singers] deem offensive in some way, but rather to follow the proven method of “removing songs that are seldom sung.” It seems that the committee generally followed this objective method, but at times launched out to remove songs in what might be called “stylistic targeting” – songs they did not like, and/or deemed not “Sacred Harpy” enough.
[vii] Because of the quirk in the way the ranks are compiled, though ranked 552, Charlton has three songs that fall below it – Fatherland, Edmonds, and War Department.
[viii] Federal Street occupied the place of being the most popular of the songs that were removed.
[ix] In this I note that these were supporters of the new revision who were lamenting the loss of those songs. Another lamentation was over O Come Away.
[x] Interestingly, this song which was kept was tied with Millennium, which got the axe.
[xi] When the method of appeasement is chosen, then “the finders” simply find that there are more texts they do not like. “Proper station” offends us, and we don’t like the sound of “plantation” in 335. “Like so many other texts in the SH, I feel like we need to afford ourselves some interpretative license to make the music work for us. ‘Chosen station’ would be better!” And so it goes.
[xii] Though only time will tell regarding the enduring quality of the songs that were added to the book.