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

Ethics and Sacred Harp 2

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

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

General ethical standards found in business, education, etc.

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

Specific ethical standards used in editorial processes

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

Some Bible-based Christian ethical standards

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

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

---

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

Ethics and Sacred Harp 1

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

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

Three examples.

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

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

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

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

In consideration.

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

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

Thoughts.

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

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

To be concluded, Part 2 tomorrow.

---

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

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

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

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!

Hymns can mean anything

Hymns can mean anything ... or can they?

“I tend to tell people that whatever meaning or relevance they take from that is up to them.” unnamed Facebook commenter, cited in Sacred Harp Singing in Europe: Its Pathways, Spaces, and Meanings, Ellen Leuck, p. 226[i]

“Flexible interpretations of texts permit singers with diverse beliefs and experience to relate to Sacred Harp in personally meaningful ways…” Traveling Home: Sacred Harp Singing and American Pluralism, Kiri Miller, page 132

Regarding the texts and scriptural bases for the songs in the Sacred Harp tune books, it is important to understand that they have a context and underlying meaning. They cannot just mean whatever someone wants them to mean. Now, I understand that different texts may touch different folks in different ways, make us think different things, or make us feel different things. However, we must also understand that what we think and feel about a text is not part of the text itself, and does not become the standard for the meaning of the text. First and foremost (except for a few patriotic songs, e.g. “Behold, the smiling happy land,” “My country, ’tis of thee”) the texts are Christian texts.[ii] Therefore, the songs have a Christian worldview and meaning. That fact does not mean the texts cannot touch someone who is not Christian. That fact DOES mean that Christian hymns cannot be removed from their context and mean just anything and everything to everybody. That folks think they can have their own meaning and eat it to is a sad commentary on an age that does not understand or believe objective truth. May God help Christian singers not acquiesce to this falsehood. The Christian texts have Christian meaning.

There is a fountain filled with blood,
Drawn from Immanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains.

---

[i] A couple more quotes from Sacred Harp Singing in Europe: Its Pathways, Spaces, and Meanings: “…Sacred Harp singers in Europe who identify as generally non-religious…find other ways of internalizing the meaning of the texts outside of the realm of religious worship” (p. 220). “…the religious words in The Sacred Harp do have meaning for secular participants, though not a literal meaning. They have meaning within the context of the music, and they perhaps facilitate tapping into feelings of emotional and spiritual depth that secular lyrics can do less easily. Furthermore, it is understood by the community-at-large that the meaning of the texts is interpreted by participants privately” (pp. 222-223).
[ii] The Christians who included the patriotic songs doubtless understood them to fit within their Christian worldview.

Two for one, Sacred Harp history

In researching a composer of a song in the 1911 J. L. White Sacred Harp, A. O. Jackson, I was not only able to identify him, but also Mattie Pope of the 1902 W. M. Cooper Sacred Harp, who I had previously failed to identify.

Jackson, A. O. Andrew Orestes Jackson was born August 20, 1888 at Glenwood, Alabama. He was the son of Andrew Jackson and Mary Ann Richburg. He graduated from the Alabama Polytechnic Institute in 1916 with a Bachelors of Science degree,[i] served in World War I, and afterward married Martha Matilda “Mattie” Pope (1889–1947) on September 7, 1919 in Luverne, Crenshaw County, Alabama. They were active in singing conventions in this area. Mattie is credited with arranging The Blessed Lamb in the Cooper Revision of The Sacred Harp. She taught music, including piano. A. O. Jackson served on the “Examining Committee” of the Sweetwater Musical Convention (1912), Secretary of the Luverne Annual Singing (1924), and in other offices A. O. worked at several occupations, but primarily as a teacher. He advertised as a piano tuner in Luverne in the mid-1920s. They lived in Luverne, Mountain Creek, and Montgomery in Alabama, and Miami in Florida (and perhaps other places). After Mattie’s death, A. O. Jackson married Germa Blanton in 1949. He died April 30, 1982 in Brooks County, Georgia. A. O. and Mattie are buried in the Laurel Hill Cemetery in Thomasville, Thomas County, Georgia.

504       The Love of God

Pope, Mattie. Martha Matilda “Mattie” Pope was the daughter of George William Pope and Sarah Missouri Head of Crenshaw County, Alabama, born January 29, 1889. She arranged The Blessed Lamb, a song already in The Sacred Harp on page 454, when she was about 13 years old. The greatest part of the arrangement of this tune is the change of the initial section from 3/4 to 2/4 time. There are a few note changes as well. Minnie Floyd added the alto part. In her youth, Mattie was active in the singings in Crenshaw County. She served as secretary of the all-day singing at Luverne in 1908 (as well as other years). W. M. Cooper was among the “prominent visiting singers present.” Mattie taught music in school, and taught private piano lessons. She married fellow Sacred Harp singer A. O. Jackson at Luverne, September 7, 1919. They lived in Luverne, Mountain Creek, and Montgomery in Alabama, and Miami in Florida (and perhaps other places). Mattie died in Miami, Florida. A. O. and Mattie are buried in the Laurel Hill Cemetery in Thomasville, Thomas County, Georgia.

454       The Blessed Lamb (arranged)

 

Jackson, A. O.

U.S. Censuses 1900-1950

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/176908845/andrew_orestes-jackson

“The Sweet Water Singing Convention,” Crenshaw County News, Thursday, August 8, 1912, p. 4

“Singing Convention at Campground,” The Luverne Journal, Thursday, July 29, 1915, p. 8

“Luverne Annual Singing,” Crenshaw County News, Thursday, June 5, 1924, p. 1

“For Piano Tuning,” Crenshaw County News, Thursday, July 3, 1924, p. 3

 

Pope, Mattie

U. S. Federal Censuses, 1900-1940

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/176908826/martha-matilda-jackson

“News of Luverne,” The Montgomery Advertiser, Tuesday, June 9, 1908, p. 2

“Pope-Jackson At Luverne,” The Luverne Journal, Thursday, September 18, 1919, p. 1

“Mrs. A. O. Jackson Dies At Her Home in Miami,” The Montgomery Advertiser, Saturday, November 1, 1947, p. 8

---

[i] Alabama Polytechnic Institute is now Auburn University.

Shifting sand

Certain non-Christian Sacred Harp singers accuse certain Christian Sacred Harp singers of moving the goalposts, changing the way things have been – when it is in fact those non-Christian singers who have moved the goalposts and changed the way things have been. Consider the facts of history. The book was compiled by two Baptist Christians in Georgia, with an eye to serving a (generally Protestant) Christian community. The texts were religious and patriotic texts that fit within their Christian worldview. For most of its history the Sacred Harp community moved along and within those norms. Within the norms, as well, was the idea that the singings were events to which anyone was welcome. One interviewee for the article “Sacred Harp: the punk rock of choral music” said, “I’m not religious” – in a world known for singing Christian religious texts – and added, “It’s rare that you find a group that all you have to do is want to be a member and you are.” I think that comment fairly summed up the past state of things. People came and they participated in singing. However, that is in the past. The present is not the past – not because the Christians moved, but because others took advantage of our good will. We didn’t cross the line. You crossed the line. You came and became part of the group. Eventually you were not satisfied with the group you were part of and wanted to change it.

You went:

• From “we’re here and we want to sing” to “we can’t sing those words.”
• From “we can’t sing those words” to “you can’t sing those words.”

Eventually some singers got tired of the gradual shifts, but suddenly now we are the bad guys when we say we are tired of it!

I do not stand on shifting sand
And fear the storm that rages;
But calm and sure, I stand secure
Upon the Rock of Ages.

---

Note, in even more recent developments.

• From “we’re here and we want to sing” to “we’re here and we’re queer.”
• From “we’re here and we’re queer” to “we’re here, queer, and you cannot disapprove our lifestyle.”
• From “we’re here, queer, and you cannot disapprove our lifestyle” to “we’re here and we’re queering ‘The Sacred Harp’!”

Christian shape note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.