When it comes to matters of integrity and decency, the normal course of events it seems, is that the secular culture and the world often condones that which the church condemns. For example, when the world calls adultery an “affair,” justifies divorce without cause, or calls addictions “diseases,” it is then the church that holds its own people accountable to a higher standard of morality and has less toleration for a lack of integrity and morality.
Although we typically find the world celebrating sin and the church confronting it, there is one area where this seems to be reversed: Plagiarism.
When it comes to intellectual property, copying another person’s work, and presenting it as one’s own, the secular world has absolutely no room for toleration. However, the church too often fails to condemn the same behavior, and sometimes even boasts of its use!
Why?
Consider this, can you imagine a member of congress standing up and saying “Last night I was doing some research and 74% of …” when he didn’t, but was reciting another person’s experience? Or what about a CEO standing in front of his board of directors saying “I remember it like it was yesterday,” while every word he speaks is another person’s history? Or what about your child’s 6th grade English teacher grading a book report presentation that was actually memorized from another student’s report?
We all know what happens when people in the secular world behave this way. Last year, an aide to the president resigned. Ironically, a university was recently under fire for copying another school’s policy on, plagiarism. Even Oprah Winfrey has been embarrassed, twice, for endorsing books written by authors who have manufactured history. If this behavior was appropriate, why was Oprah embarrassed by it, and why was it a scandal in the secular press? How can it then be endorsed by those who claim the name of Christ, and be tolerated by churches who practice this deceptive behavior while claiming and even openly bragging about their churches being “authentic” and “genuine?”
So what exactly am I talking about, the reader might ask? Am I talking about a pastor who hears another pastor’s sermon and wants to share it with his congregation, uses the same outline and verse, and disclaims ahead of time what he is doing? While I think doing so should be rare, it isn’t what I am criticizing here. This post is also not concerned specifically with a pastor who reads another’s sermon aloud, and tells his congregation what he is doing. While that should be rare too, it isn’t what I am addressing in this post.
What I am focusing on is the use of the same sermon, the same text, the same examples, and the same experiences, even first person, as if they are one’s own.
Craig Groeschel, who gives his sermons away on the Internet for free says, “It isn’t plagiarizing if you’re given permission,” and also agrees that “just because it isn’t plagiarizing doesn’t always mean you shouldn’t give credit to others.”
While I agree with Pastor Groeschel’s definition, I think it is incomplete, because plagiarism, I believe, also includes the element of deception when a sermon is presented, because the expectation of the congregation, without being notified, is that the material is the speaker’s own work. Especially when examples, experiences, and testimonies are spoken in first person. Just because a pastor has permission to use someone else’s material, this doesn’t mean he is without responsibility to not compromise his integrity to his hearers by presenting the material to them as if it were the work of his own study and preparation.
When it comes to actual practice, Pastor Groeschel seems to agree with my expanded definition of the term, as demonstrated when he uses someone else’s material himself. He not only gets permission, but also is honest with his hearers regarding his usage of another source. Notice also that the consensus in the comments on Pastor Groeschel’s blog is that his doing so “is common courtesy and decency. AS WELL AS INTEGRITY.”
But what happens when a pastor, even with permission to use another’s material, doesn’t tell his congregation, and even claims the personal experiences as his own? Do we consider this to be acceptable in the church, when even the world rejects it?
Words can only explain this so far, consider watching the following examples to understand the full gravity of the question:
In this first example, watch Pastor Craig Groeschel’s introduction as he describes his VBS experience. The speaking starts around time marker 2:30 and his story concludes around the 5:00 mark:
Next, listen to Tadd Grandstaff, of Pine Ridge Church in Graham, NC, as he appears to use Pastor Groeschel’s material, as his own, in first person:
- Example 2: So You’re Dead – Part 3 of 3 – Tadd Grandstaff
- Download Tadd’s Text
- UPDATE: Here is a short audio with some back-to-back examples. (Thanks Robert!)
So are we to believe that both of these men had the same experience, at the same age, with the same details, exactly as described in first person by both of them?
Both men had a neighborhood vacation bible school, when they were 8 years-old, sat Indian-styled in a circle in the driveway, ate the cookie, drank the Kool-Aid, both were the only one to raise their hand and be taken to the garage to be told the same thing, with the same intonation, both race home and hide in the closet and pray the same prayer, and both fall asleep in terror of the same thing, and praying the same thing? I’m serious! I don’t believe it!
Ok, it may be unpopular to say, but it seems to be that one of these men is lying to his congregation.
I am not certain who wrote or first preached the sermon. I assume Pastor Groeschel’s is the author since he is the one giving his material away for free. Perhaps one of them can share with us those details, and if they approve of the other’s use of their material in this manner?
But to the one who copied the other I ask, why not just show the video of the other guy? Why not tell the congregation he wrote it and tell the story in third person? Do people really believe God is using the copier as an oracle for His message, when he is deceptively claiming he “remembers it as if it was yesterday,” while in reality it never really happened in his own history?
Besides the blatant audacity of copying another person’s sermons and presenting them as your own material, while simultaneously claiming that “God has spoken to me, so plainly,” there is even more shocking aspects to this than first meets the eye.
For starters is the observation that there is no apparent shame in this by its proponents. In responding to similar criticism in the past, this practice is not denied, but bragged about and promoted. Steven Furtick says “if my bullet fits your gun, shoot it” as he boasts that everyone is really doing this, so it therefore must be justified. Gary Lamb, and Tadd Grandstaff of his famous “Stupid People” rant, call it “collaboration.” In the comments on Tadd’s blog, Gary mocks those who would dare question such methods. However, in claiming “collaboration” for the message both Tadd and Gary preached, neither chose to reveal that Perry Noble actually preached a very similar sermon earlier than either one of them! Did they “collaborate” with Noble too? If so, why not mention that at this time?
Furtick is correct to acknowledge that pastors share anecdotes, stories, and illustrations. However, pastors who have integrity quote their sources and give credit, or acknowledge another writer, even if the original writer is anonymous. He is simply wrong that most pastors do what these guys are doing! Most pastors certainly do not recite entire sermons as if they wrote them, nor do they quote specific detailed experiences as first-person testimony when the events really never happened to them. To do either is blatantly dishonest and out of line for a Christian, much less a pastor.
The second thing that deserves pointing out is what this type of “preaching” does to the image of preachers, Christians, and to the church, in the eyes of the unbelieving world. Moreover, when this point is contrasted against their own stated goals, the hypocrisy and inconsistency is glaringly obvious. For example, Tadd Grandstaff in his “I Hate Christians” message (which is eerily similar to chapter one of Craig Groeschel’s book Confessions of a Pastor) rants and rails about how traditional and orthodox churches have disenfranchised a demographic of our culture with their lack of genuine faith practice, lack of authenticity, and abundance of hypocrisy, and how it is the goal of his church to “reach” these people. There certainly is no denying that there are those who have had bad church experiences who need to be reached with the gospel, but is it ethical or even pragmatic to try to reach them with more lack of genuine faith practice, more inauthentic behavior, and more hypocrisy?
Unfortunately this practice is not new as a way to disgrace the pulpit. In this piece by Terry Mattingly, the Rev. Scott Gibson, director of the Center for Preaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, recalls an experience A. J. Gordon had in 1876, said,
“”This is not a new problem,” said Gibson. “Some people think the World Wide Web came along and suddenly you had thousands of pastors copying other people’s sermons with a few clicks of a mouse. But there has always been a lot of laziness out there.””
Mattingly continues,
“In his study, Gibson defines “plagiarism” as preaching someone else’s sermon research or content without giving public credit for it.”
The article continues to pontificate on the legitimacy of this practice and the burdens pastors face, but rightly concludes which behaviors should be considered appropriate, and which are over the line,
“But all preachers read and hear stories and insights that they want to share with their flocks. It makes a sermon more colorful to feature a quotation by an author “who simply says something better than you can,” … Attributing direct quotes also adds authority, especially when quoting figures such as Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis or Billy Graham.
This is safe territory. The danger is when pastors appropriate entire outlines or sermon texts and claim them as their own. Perhaps the strongest temptation is to personalize anecdotes that happened to other people.
But it only takes seconds, noted Gibson, for a preacher to cite the source of a story or to say something like, “I heard a great sermon on this biblical text by pastor so and so and I want to share some of his insights with you.”… It’s easy for preachers to play it straight, said Gibson. The question is whether many congregations have become so mesmerized that they will overlook plagiarism.“
Sadly he concludes, that,
“Some churches today just don’t care.”
Fortunately for some this is still considered a matter of integrity and taken seriously by those who esteem the Word of God. Pastor Lenny Stringer speaks of the views of Jim Donahue, president of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California and a specialist in ethics,
“the use of sermons without attribution is fundamentally a credibility issue of the preacher. “The congregation has an implicit set of expectations about the minister, that there’s going to be trust, authenticity. If a preacher is not attributing his words, then a violation of that credibility occurs,” says Donahue. While Donahue agrees the message is more important than the messenger, he says any lack of credibility on the part of the preacher will “erode the quality of the interaction between the preacher and his congregation.”"
Another point that is commonly missed with this practice, is exactly who is getting robbed! Debates can go on and on about who’s copying whom, whether permission is being obtained or not, and regarding giving credit where it is due, but what about the congregation that is getting cheated? In this article by Doug Smith, Who’s Robbing Whom? Some Thoughts on Pulpit Plagiarism, he writes,
“And the interesting thing is that the people who suffer the most are not the people whose material is being used, but the people who are stealing it and the people who are having it fed to them.“
He goes on to list (and expound upon) five ways in which pulpit plagiarism robs pastors and congregations:
1. Pulpit plagiarism robs pastors and congregations of spiritual nourishment they can get only from someone who lives among them and labors in the text of Scripture.
2. Pulpit plagiarism robs pastors and congregations by discouraging consecutive exposition.
3. Pulpit plagiarism robs pastors and congregations by encouraging laziness.
4. Pulpit plagiarism robs pastors and congregations of a safeguard against false teaching.
5. Pulpit plagiarism robs pastors and congregations by rendering thieving preachers obsolete.
As I read through Mr. Smith’s article I was humored by his quoting Warren Wiersbe’s warning from page 226 of his book, Walking with the Giants,
“One young preacher was so taken with the sermons in a certain book that he decided to preach them as a series. What he did not know was that one of his members owned the same book and had read it. As the member left the service one Sunday, he said to his pastor, “That was a fine sermon this morning!” Then he added with a smile, “Next week’s is good, too!” The problem, of course, lies not with the character of the printed sermon but with the character of the preacher reading it.” (or citing it from memory)
What saddened me about this story was that the church member didn’t seem to mind, what humored me about it was that I’d had a very similar experience while discussing this issue with a member of Tadd Grandstaff’s congregation.
When I explained to the congregant that Tadd’s sermon “All In Life: What Are You Going All In For?,“ appeared to be taken from a study called Chase The Lion by Mark Batterson, which is based on his book, In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day, he claimed that he not only knew it, but had previously read the book himself, and recognized it when Tadd was preaching it as his own (ironically, this same sermon was preached a week before Tadd by Gary Lamb in “All In Living,”). Maybe I’m old school, but it is sad to me that this lack of integrity doesn’t bother some people any longer.
Fortunately, some churches and people still have enough concern over this issue that they regard it as a reason for a pastor to resign, as Calvary Church’s Glenn Wagnor did, after a congregant accidently stumbled upon his similar behavior.
In conclusion, there is obviously room for disagreement within the church over exactly how a pastor prepares a sermon. I personally believe a pastor should be spending time in God’s Word, praying over the text, and preparing what the Holy Spirit has to say to the church. There are others with whom I would disagree who believe a steady diet of shared, purchased, and downloaded outlines and Scripture texts is sufficient. We can have that disagreement and probably always will. However, the question I ask the reader in this article is: Have we sunk so far that we can no longer spend enough time in God’s Word to prepare original messages of God’s truth, relevant for today, without compromising the integrity of the pulpit? Does the gospel of Jesus Christ need this type of preaching in order to reach lost souls? As you ponder these questions, I leave you with a few links from previous articles I’ve written, and a video which to consider:
Read More:
- Grandstaff-ing and Lamb-asting! – “Pastors” Who Threaten Their Flock?
- Pine Ridge Church-In-A-Box Uses A Lot Of Billboard White-Out!
- More ‘Shock & Awe’ Heresy (Bringing Sexy Back?)
- Shock Jock Preaching
- Plagiarism In The Pulpit
- To prepare a sermon or copy a sermon… what’s your authority?
- Knowing AND (not “or”) Doing… the Christian Life.
- 2008’s Worst Christmas Sermon Award
- One of the worst ‘Christmas’ Sermons We’ve Ever Heard (Postcast analyzing of Christmas Sermon)
- Apprising Ministries Archive Of Coverage
- Christian Research Network Coverage
- The Critics
- WSJ Gets Religion (Again)
- Stolen Goods
Filed under: Apologetics, Church Life, Emergent Church, Purpose Driven Madness, Seeker Sensitive
Excellent work. Even if the person gives you permission to use something you should still give credit. The most egregious part is to take someone else’s personal story and make it your own. That isn’t just passing along ideas, that is lying.
This post is so good I’m going to copy and paste it on my own blog, and not give you credit
.
I agree with the thesis of this blog. Clearly, the pastor who was using someone else’s life experience has crossed over the line.
That said, a sermon is not a book or a school project or a research paper. A pastor may carefully read 4 or 5 commentaries, read a sermon by a favorite preacher of his it see how he handled the text, consult lexicons , grammars that site the specific text or a similar one. A pastor may spend time consulting reformational creeds, confessions and catechisms to check his doctrinal understanding of the text. All of these lines of information effect how he reads the passage. The all inform his understanding. In the end, how much of the sermon is really original? How much of the sermon do you want to be original? Doesn’t that open the door for pastors to be a law unto themselves?
I agree with the sentiments of post. I agree that our work should be our own. I agree that just to copy someone else’s work so we don’t have to do any work is wrong. I also agree that to copy someone else’s work to give the perception that we have done our work when we have not is wrong.
I don’t agree that taking other person’s ideas and working with them to shape our own is wrong even if there is not citation. I see a big difference between a book, thesis, or a research paper and a sermon.
Spurgeon is reportedly to have said “All creativity and no plagiarism leads to a very boring sermon.”
I appreciated the statement Loraine Boettner makes at the beginning of his works on theology. He writes, “Any one is at liberty to use material from this book with or without credit. In preparing this book the writer has received help from many sources, some acknowledged, and many unacknowledged. He believes the material herein contained to be a true statement of Scripture truth, and his desire is to further, not restrict, its use.”
Inside cover page of “Studies in Theology” Loraine Boettner, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 19665
Thanks Neil, you have my permission!
Good word Doug. I agree. I think integrity of its use is the key.
Habitually speaking, pastors should be wrestling with the text of God’s word themselves, using these resources you speak of as guides and helps; not as copy and paste sources.
tr
Did you see I referenced my quote from Boettner?
This reminds of my former church home, which was seeker sensitive and purpose driven. When I began to see Warren’s teachings in myriad documents, without being attributed to him, I asked why this was and was told that a.) Warren didn’t mind and b.) it was too much work to document the source of the material that being lifted from someone else.
As more and more scales fell from eyes, I prayerfully confronted the pastors on a few issues and, after a few years of that, left.
My wife and I joined a very Biblical reformed church. A most excellent way
I did see your reference Doug and almost commented on it!
Thanks for sharing here.
tr
And Doug, thanks for preaching the Word! -tr
sbrogden,
It is my prayer that this post will be falling scales for someone as well. Thanks for your testimony and I am glad you are in a good church now.
tr
This is an absolute disgrace…
I agree with Psalm 27…this is a disgrace. Thanks for exposing the truth.
Not only does this lack of preparation demonstrate a lack of integrity, but it evidences such things as a lack of compassion & love for the flock, and laziness for studying the Word. We are exhorted to be diligent handling the text – being a parrot does not accomplish this task.
Grace to you,
mark
Spot on. I was talking about this with my husband just the other day. If the pastor attributes the sermon, then we know who is influencing him as we look it up. If they don’t attribute, then they are plagarising…but if they do it’s easier for their congregation to check on them.
Amen! God’s man must be held to a higher accountability. Could it be that those who plagiarize like this are only seeking to manipulate their congregations rather than relying on the work of the Holy Spirit to do God’s work in their hearts?
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Here is an blog written by a lady after reading this post. This is a great testimony, and good example of what happens to the flock when this takes place.
Plagiarism from the Pulpit
http://christianlady.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/plagiarism-from-the-pulpit/
When I was a seminary student, the pastor of the church I attended preached a “borrowed” sermon and did not give credit. Unfortunately for him it was a sermon one of the students who attended his church was familiar with. The student found the sermon and brought it to the attention of several of the other students and faculty. The pastor was embarassed and disgraced. His integrity was questioned and a year later had to leave. TODAY, in our culture of fraud and dishonesty pastors like this steal boldly and see nothing wrong with it and lay people could care less. Coolness and hip has replaced integrity, righteousness and hardwork in the ministry today.
Thank you for this article. I ‘d been noticing how these emergent guys are parroting each other. Maybe if they got off the celebrity circuit, they’d have time to actually read and learn what the Bible teaches, so they could preach a real sermon, based on Truth and not lies. Bu then, the people who attend these churches apparently don’t want Truth, they want another self-help, pep talk on how to get all they want from God.
Dear Sir,
I have to say I am totally in agreement with you. Being behind the pulpit should be a place of fresh, Holy Spirit led, proclaimation of God’s Word. It must be for that particular flock as God directs…not rewound and replayed for every church. We should never pretent to be the Holy Spirit.
With all that said I do think we have to be careful not to let all of our time and concentration hinge on things that will tear away from the Body of Christ rather than build up. Blogging is a way to express our thoughts and convictions and though we base them from God’s Word we know a blog is certainly not the inerrant Word. Whether you are of Paul or Apollos shouldn’t we praise God that His word is preached? If doctrine is the issue….we’ve got major problems! If methods are the issue ….fine…but don’t let it be the motivating factor that pulls us from the main thing…..The Great Commission! Pastors will give a greater account for the way they led HIS flock….whether that was 5 or 50,000.
In His Service, David
Interesting. Our church is currently most of the way through a sermon series on prayer that appears to be “storebought”. In the first sermon I thought the graphics looked pretty polished, so I did a Inet search on the key phrase when I got home. Up it came: http://mainstay.stores.yahoo.net/prayer1.html .
I’m not sure who-all else is aware of this, how to think about it and what, if anything to do.
I’m interested in the distinction between collaborated and borrowed sermon material and collaborated and borrowed worship songs, etc. The vast majority of our worship music is not an original composition by the church worship leader or choir yet we don’t see this as a problem. Should we?
Brian,
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. My church has a CCLI license which allows us to use other’s music. You can click on the link below to see the details behind the license.
http://www.ccli.com/licenseholder/LicenseManual.aspx
But it’s not a matter of singing someone else’s music or using someone else’s sermon but purporting it as your own. That is the issue here. If your worship leader gets up and talks about writing the song just sang but yet he had nothing to do with the creation of the song or music, we call that lying. If a pastor stands up and leads you to believe he spent time writing the sermon and never admits differently then you wouldn’t expect to find that entire sermon, sometimes word-for-word, on the internet, would you?
As Christians we should be held to higher expectations and standards than the world expects. If the world disagrees with plagarism shouldn’t we as well?
A choir or a choir director is not even biblically mandated, and neither is a church worship leader (although, there is biblical support in the Old Testament for those who “skillfully” lead music.), which is why churches that follow the regulative principle don’t even have them.
Secondly, for most of those churches that do have them, choir directors and worship leaders are not composers or songwriters, nor are they expected to be from the congregation. People know when they’re singing a song that it was written by someone else (unless the worship leaders lies to them about it). The hymnal or copyright info tells them this information. I guess if the Bible spelled out these positions and what they should be doing, then maybe it would be an issue.
This is clearly not even the same situation as a pastor copying a sermon and acting as if it is his own. That is lying. Whether or not it’s okay for a pastor to copy other’s sermons and give them credit is a relevant, but different discussion and is not the main point of Tony’s post, as he pointed out.
Gary Lamb blatantly plagiarizes.
As a preaching pastor, I have found much of what is being written interesting. Some things written are encouraging, some disturbing.
We obviously all agree that out right plagiarism is wrong. Yet, much of what I read makes me fear that pietism and enlightenment, two dangers much more destructive to the soul then simply plagiarizing a sermon, has infected many writers on this blog.
Remember Paul’s sermon concern in Philippians 1 was not the preachers’ motives and preparation but their doctrine. Their motives were wrong – I suspect some of you might have them fired from their pulpits. However, Paul was more concerned was Christ being preached then he was their sermon preparations and their motives.
I believe I see the danger of pietism in the writings of those who seem to think that pastor is some sort of ATM preaching machine. Stick in a verse and out pops and new, fresh insight never heard before in the kingdom of God. This expectation is dangerous because it often leads to seeking the novel while belittling the common and ordinary. It is also a subtle denial of the sufficiency of Scripture
I see enlightenment in the posts that want the pastor to be sighting all his sources as if a sermon and a theological lecture are the same thing. In the sermons of Jonathan Edwards or John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or Charles Spurgeon (haven’t read much of Spurgeon) I don’t remember ever seeing them state they were quoting another author or commentary. Yet, in Edwards’ books such as “Religious Affections” he has many quotes and footnotes. The same is true of Calvin’s books.
Why the lack of references to who they were reading or quoting?
I think it interesting that in the Westminster Directory of Public Worship (written by the same authors of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and as important to reformed worship as the doctrinal standards) their advice to pastors in sermons is the following, The sermon is to be preached…
“Plainly, that the meanest may understand; delivering the truth not in the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; abstaining also from an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases, and cadences of sounds and words; sparingly citing sentences of ecclesiastical or other human writers, ancient or modern, be they never so elegant.”
Notice the last few phrases – “Sparingly citing…”
To me the head waters of the problem is not the lack of preparation and/or outright plagiarizing but the lack of rigorous training for the ministry and the relatively easy ordination process. It was clear to me that many of my friends in seminary, though wonderful Christians, should never have been there or be in the ministry. But since we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings we have our spiritualized version of the “Peter Principle” in business.
Too many men are permitted to preach, pastor, and write books that should be sitting in the pew and not standing in the pulpit.
I would rather hear a fully plagiarized sermons of Jonathan Edwards then some pietistic sermon void of sound doctrine by a man who is a law unto himself thinking that with enough prayer and meditation and no hard study can give me a fresh word from God.
The problem is that we have so marginalized the church and and turned Christianity into a religion of life rather than truth that we are content with preaching that gives me some new insight into living, some fresh practical application so I can live my best life now.
Can any of you state the difference between a sermon and a theological lecture? We know how they should be the same, but how are they different?
First, I’m shocked but should have figured this would be happening. I’ve said for years that “the ministry” in many ways looks to be “just another career path” in many cases, one in which many savvy seminary students are likely daydreaming right now: seeing themselves standing on a stage in front of thousands, getting 6-figure book deals, and appearing on national television.
So Doug and I agree that there are even “Peter unPrincipled’s” in the pulpit. But do they have to be so-o-o brazen? Did you notice ‘Tadd’ [way to close-up all the time] even had the same cutout-people background graphics on ’stage’ as he meandered back and forth? [Unfaithful in 'little things' like the sermon, I guess unfaithful in the big things like Set Decoration...or vice versa]
I couldn’t help but notice as well Tadd’s uncanny fidelity to the original speaker’s ’script.’ Do seminaries teach Drama along with Stage & Prop Design now? Contemporary, bluejean ‘pastoring’ seems to be concerned more & more with just such details.
I wonder why so much about religion is assumed. Or as the scripture says- ‘preserve me O Lord from presumpious sins’. Maybe it is a problem of managing faith based issues financially?
If truth is applicable to one person under stricly understood circumstances, is it not equally applicable to others in strictly identical circumstances? Yes, & here is the rub- the circumstances are not exactly identical, are they!
If it is plagiarism to claim authorship of something which does not belong to you, what is it called when you claim to be joint heirs with those to whom God made promises directly? What right of ownership really is yours? Have you been deceived into accepting definitions contrived by those who have a conflict of interest- monitarily?
A popular teacher finds an indispensible truth- say “baptism”, & immediately coops it to presumptively apply it to those that follow him. Jesus promised I will be with you…l But did He say it to such Teachers? No, for he was not there.
None of you who rely on the printed word as authorization were ever given the Great Commision nor power to baptize, yet you “ran” forth to serve with devote sincerety?
You have accepted tradition of your fathers that God has changed- For Noah did not get his authorization from the words spoken to Enoch, neither did Abraham get it from the words spoken to Noah; Neither did Moses obtain his promises & instructions from the records of revelations to Joseph who was sold into Egypt; Neither did Peter, James, or John get there authority from the written word of God in the Old Testament; yet you think that because God has inspired you to be concerned with spiritual things, you somehow are authorized to teach & baptize. Even Paul did not take that honor upon himself- Paul whom you trust above all other sources (Christ included?) said that he obtained his spiritual knowledge from God- neither did any man teach it to him! Admit the truth that you know nothing ONLY WHAT YOU READ in the bible about the the power to “seal on earth & it shall be sealed in heaven” & you will begin to see that you have been using His Holy name in vain- not having the authority to do so when it comes to saving souls. In all honesty you cannot deny this.
Is it not time repent & then grow in grace by acknowleding God’s promise to be no respecter of persons & that “all who work righteousness [with an eye singal to His glory alone] are accepted of Him”. Remember the example of the first family that Peter was commanded to take the ordinances of salvation to. Seek the sealing ordinances & Christ will make them known to you. In the presence of the Lord you will not be able to justify any other course for your life.
Sincerely a brother- John Thulin
Doug,
Facinating perspective and food for thought on the difference between a sermon and a theological lecture. I personally do not prefer “new knowledge” or a “fresh perspective” because when I have heard someone tout this, it seems they may be off of what scripture actually says (examples would be the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses that have come to my door and state that the information came to their leader in some sort of vision or whatever). I do not think pastors should have to spit our original information, or should lean to heavily on men’s works. Just dig into the scriptures, that’s what I want my pastors to do. I am hungry to learn from the Bible and often find that something I was taught a long time ago is forgotten by life’s distractions. A good sermon will convict me and convince me of my sin or renew my understanding as to how much I need my Savior. I do also think that sermons can be quite educational or informative, but at some point the conviction from the Holy Spirit must come so that we are aware of our lowly position and the constant grace and mercy of our Lord. Don’t know if this helps or not, or even if I am right. No theology student, no pastor here. Just an ordinary housewife with many children. I just think of what I want my children to see in a pastor. Someone who shepherds the flock God has given him, feeding them the real food of God’s word and showing them salvation through the gospel.
We probably would do well to take Jeremiah 23:30 to heart. Blessings, Chuck
good post tony. bob felts did the same thing way back and folks there could have cared less. it’s not unusual and neither is the fact that most church members don’t want to be bothered by it.
your earlier poster’s reframing of the issue to music was lame…
I agree Vince. Some people are grasping at straws to defend the indefensible.
tr
[...] http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/sermon-copying-when-the-world-has-more-integrity-than... Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)A couple of interesting developments [...]
Hi again Doug, and thanks for your sharing your insights. They are helpful to the discussion.
I don’t think the comments here are at odds with what you are saying as much as you may be perceiving. The thrust of my article is not a rebuttal of the things you are discussing here, and I find myself in agreement with your enumeration of the points. I think most of the comments are reflecting the reader’s view of the practices displayed specifically in the examples given, and they are not swinging the pendulum so far as you may conclude, to the level of pietism and enlightenment.
Certainly the expectations of what you demonstrate in your comment is acceptable. And I don’t believe we are criticizing what you are describing: pastors who are focused on sound doctrine, and in that attempt, may not end up with completely original material. What is happening in the examples above, is that sound doctrine was thrown out long before, and the plagiarizing has risen out of a desire for life-enhancement sermons, not in refutation of them.
Moreover, I think the integrity issue comes mostly into play with my original premise. It is one thing to use other people’s material because you like it and want to share it with your flock, doing your best to share it with integrity, and focusing on sound doctrine as the outcome. It is a completely different thing to antagonize sound doctrine, preach against systematic theology and expository preaching, seek life-enhancement sermons because you think this draws bigger crowds, and try to hood-wink your flock into thinking you are doing it all with material that is your own. As you can see, these extremes are far apart, and in criticizing the latter, the one you describe is not in the target area at all.
I think this point could be better understood by listening to the examples I provided via links in the original post. Start with the “I Hate Christians” sermon, and you will see, not only is the material appearing to be mostly lifted without acknowledgment, but it is hardly a pastor focused on getting sound doctrine right. If you listen to other sermons from these guys, you will see that you are not getting plagiarized sermons of the quality of Jonathan Edwards with a focus on rich doctrine, you are getting plagiarized sermons that are of the pragmatic, life-enhancement sorts; and done so on purpose.
That is a lot of words to say, that the ones usually doing the plagiarism of this sort, aren’t the ones concerned with “sound doctrine and being against “life-enhancement” pragmatic “sermons.”
So I don’t find myself or my commenters disagreeing with what you are saying, and I think watching the video examples and listening to the audio examples will demonstrate this point.
Thanks again for your insights. Have a great Lord’s day, and Preach the Word, as I know you will!
tr
P.S. For those who would like to hear Doug’s sermons, they can be heard on SermonAudio and he is an excellent Bible teacher and preacher of God’s Word!
Tony,
As always, thanks for your very kind comments. And yes, I think you and I are on the same page. And yes, I agree that your original concern is totally legit and sad. And yes, I do think my comments are pushing the subject off your original point.
I get defensive – maybe protective – of criticisms of preachers. The Lord knows that we preachers need admonishing, some more than others. But as someone who is preaching 104 sermons a year on the Lord’s Day not counting Sunday school, or funerals, or special services like Good Friday or Christmas, plus Bible studies. I know the pressure of producing “fresh” material weekly. I make it even harder in that I do not save my notes. I always force myself to preach the text from fresh study regardless of how many times I have preached the text before.
My wife can tell you that I start feeling the pressure for Sunday’s message on the Monday before. Most every Sunday night I think to myself, “What am I going to teach them next week, I just told them everything I know.”
I am not defending the men who did the examples in your videos. Obviously there is a problem. But the pressure on pastors, I think especially in smaller churches, is great and like much of life, it is hard to fully grasp the difficulty of the situation until you have lived it.
Tony, sorry if I have taken away from the vitally important point you were making. Your point is spot on as usual.
The most important thing is to pray for your pastor. I once had a family leave a church I was pastoring. They told me they weren’t getting anything out of my sermons. I asked the “How much to you pray for me?” They said “Once per week.” I said, No, not how often, how much are you praying?” They said “About 10 seconds.” I said, “Maybe your getting out of it what you have prayed for.”
Please pray, but not just for the pastor but for your congregations in the hearing of the word as well. Pray for the pastor all week. Then on the Lord’s Day for the blessed preaching and hearing of the word of God.
Certainly no need to apologize Doug, your comments have added needed clarification to this discussion, and I appreciate your honesty with sharing the struggles of how hard this can be. My current pastor has shared with me before his seminary experience where he had a professor who reminded him often,”Men, preaching is hard.” I think the very reasons you mention, is why so many these days are doing these things above instead of preparing as you and other pastors still do.
And I want to say to you, and to other pastors who preparing and preaching from God’s Word, THANK YOU! And I know my readers who have pastors that prepare properly also are very grateful for the blessing of hearing God’s Word proclaimed. And I will add that that is not necessarily because it is “fresh,” but because it is God’s Word being explained and proclaimed rather than the opinions of men and life enhancement theories.
You bring up another point Doug that hasn’t been raised here, and that is prayer, and praying for our pastors. And that is so important. I keep a list of pastors I pray for. Not just my own pastor, but former pastors, pastors of acquaintance, and leaders of ministries. I pray for them often because I know the pressures they face are beyond even my ability to comprehend. And for the readers who may think otherwise due to my recent blog posts, I pray for Tadd very often as well.
To God’s glory, thanks Doug,
tr
dude do you have anything better to do than find pointless little things to nag on about tadd grandstaff? im personally not a fan of him either but find something more useful to do with your blog and get on with your life…
Michael,
Do you have anything better to do than to find pointless little things to nag about on my blog? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your comment?
It is interesting that you dislike me pointing out this problem, and choose to criticize that rather than the actual problem of plagiarizing.
We have a Biblical mandate to speak the truth in love, test all things against Scripture, and to contend for the faith when it is undermined. It is sad that some don’t see there is value in spending time obeying the Scriptures in this manner.
tr
i have read 3 or 4 of your blog posts and they all just bash Tadd. If you dont like what he’s doing, how about GOING AND TALKING TO HIM. all this blog does is 1. stir up people with the opposite position or 2. provide an in-bred sort of community of people all with the same thoughts as you congratulating each other on how “awesome” you all are for doing something good and “testing everything against scripture.” if you think his theology is jacked, go tell him in love that you feel he is leading people astray. otherwise shutup.
Michael,
No one is bashing Tadd. Why is it that you are upset at me for pointing these things out, but not upset with Tadd for actually doing them? Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Your exhortation to speak to Tadd is a good one and a Biblical suggestion. Unfortunately, you are late to the game. I did that, and would still love to speak to Tadd rather than expose him online. Perhaps you can speak to Tadd and ask him why he refuses to talk to anyone that doesn’t endorse all that he does? I am free if you can set that up for me.
Unfortunately, instead of responding Biblically to someone asking a simple question, this is how Tadd responds:
“Stupid people never cease to amaze me…”
I have further elaborated this on this blog, where Tadd showed up, until I confronted him:
The Critics
Moreover Michael, when a brother doesn’t respond to a private talk, we are Biblically told to seek a few. I did that as well, and have spoken to three people close to Tadd and at PRC. One was apathetic, one called me a “hater,” and the other threatened me.
Furthermore, when someone ignores this approach as well, the Bible tells us to “tell it to the church.” I have now done that, as well as have warned the public to what is deceptively going on there. People have a right to know. They can decide for themselves after analyzing the evidence.
Additionally Michael, when people teach error publicly, we are permitted to respond and answer them publicly, using Scripture as our plumb line. Especially when they are unapproachable. Paul did it, Jesus did it, and John did it.
Everything I have written has been documented. If you think anything I’ve said is in error I would appreciate you pointing it out and I am open to correction. If your only argument is that you just don’t like these points being made, you don’t have an argument that will stand.
tr
Wow another great post. This is so awesome that you take all your time to bash other churches! WOW I know that Christ is proud of you!
“Quitting pastor”,
Do you wish to discuss the merits of the post, or just bash me for posting it? If the former, I’ll permit your posts to stay, if the latter, they’ll be removed.
Of which point that has been made do you disagree?
tr
Those Jesus actually calls as pastors could never quit ministry. So it’s be best for this hireling because he obviously wouldn’t care for the flock if he’s a quitter.
As I have often told people, the underserved privilege I have to serve His sheep as pastor isn’t a job to me, it’s who I am in Christ.
Brian,
I’m curious, do you agree with those specific examples above Tony used of Tadd “borrowing” aka plagiarizing?
Is this kind of intellectual dishonesty something someone should leave a church over?
I mean, if your pastor did this kind of thing on a regular basis wouldn’t you go and find another church?
Tadd addressed part of this topic today during his sermon and told the church, “I was wrong” “I’m sorry” and “I need your forgiveness.” It’s posted at http://www.pineridgechurch.tv. I appreciate Tadd’s actions today, and I’ll let his words speak for themselves. He made a mistake and stood up and owned it, and I’ve got a lot of respect for that.
Brian,
Are you talking about when Tadd said he told a story without citing Craig as his source? How he didn’t mean to do it? How he’s usually very good about citing his sources? How maybe his notes weren’t properly prepared?
Is this suppose to refer to the example Tony gave where Tadd not just shared a story, but he remembered “like it was yesterday” how it happened to him?
Brian,
First of all, before I respond to your comment, I want to clarify what I will say by saying that I am glad Tadd acknowledged that this was wrong. I am glad he did not defend this behavior as he did before, which shows that he perhaps has grown some since then. I also am going to be looking at his actual words, not his heart and if he is truly repentant, I do not want to minimize that fact, nor the importance of recognizing it as substantial.
However, with that said, I must look at Tadd’s actual words from yesterday, and how you conveniently quoted the short segments of: “I was wrong” “I’m sorry” and “I need your forgiveness.” And how you left out the context and surrounding way these words were stated. Does his words actually speak up for themselves, or have you misstated them by quoting out of context to make your desired point?
When you actually listen to Tadd in context, (it is about 15 minutes in or so in yesterday’s message), you’ll see that what he actually confesses to is sharing a story without giving Craig credit….he comes across as if it was an oversight….and that he meant to give credit. At no point does he say that not only did he share a story given by Craig, but that he really acted as if this story happened to him and by doing so he lied to his congregation.
I can’t judge Tadd’s motives, but frankly, it sounds as if what he said, was to diffuse the situation and direct people away from what I wrote. Perhaps that is why he addressed that one issue (albeit in an untruthful way) and not the habitual practice? It seems so.
You see Brian, the Bible tells us that there are two different kinds of “repentance.” There is the repentance that God requires, as David demonstrates in Psalms 51, where we come before Him and recognize that “against You and You only have I sinned.” We agree with God, that it was wrong, and we were wrong, because it was wrong. There is also another kind of “repentance” where we are simply sorry that we got caught, and the consequences of that slip up. For example, if I am counseling a woman and her husband whom she caught in adultery, if he is “sorry” because he got caught, and “confesses” to the event he got caught in, but doesn’t reveal and confess to all the other affairs he has had, he is having an inward sorriness for the consequences of his actions, not sorry for and lamenting for his “wrongness.” Contrast David’s response to God in Psalm 51 with Bill Clinton’s response to getting busted with Monica, and you’ll see the difference in the “repentances with which I am speaking.
When looking at Tadd’s words yesterday, he didn’t seem to be completely honest with his confession. Not only did he not acknowledge the first person lying, but he also made it seem like it was a single instance mistake. It would have been more honest for Tadd to confess that this was a habitual MO for him, and that he realized it was a wrong way to preach in general, and that he would no longer do it in the future. In giving him the benefit of the doubt, that this was really his heart and the way he said it just came out that way, I can see such as that, and hope that really was his heart. The future will tell if this is what he meant, or if my view of his words is accurate. I desire to be wrong in this instance. I did notice that much later in the message, he said “and I got these from Ed Young.” Perhaps this is evidence of change?
I’ll tell you Brian what concerns me at this point is where Tadd is on this matter. What I mean is, I am concerned if after this exposure of the habitual nature of this practice, does this leave him with the inability to write sermons on his own? Did is seminary fail to teach him this? If so, I truly hope that he will reach out to other pastors in the community for help. Tadd certainly has a gift for speaking and a dynamic personally that people are wiling to listen to. He obviously has the ability to draw a crowd of people, people whom myself or others in the community perhaps could never get an opportunity to preach. That is a good thing and he should be recognized for that talent. I would hate for all of a sudden for him to have a crowd, and nothing original to say to them. If this is the case, I hope he will know that many are praying for him and hoping that he will reach out for help in this matter. There is a right way to go from here, and a wrong way. There are many who are wiling to help him move forward in the right way, a changed way. I hope he’ll choose that direction, and that is my prayer for him.
Sincerely,
tr
P.S. In your response to Ken, you actually didn’t answer any of his questions. I’d personally like to see your answers to his specific questions.
[...] important piece by Tony on plagiarism in the pulpit. It is sad that many pastors mislead their congregations and don’t get feed by the word by [...]
The radio show “Fighting For The Faith” covered my article “Sermon Copying: When The World Has More Integrity Than The Church” on yesterday’s show. It can be heard in this podcast, starting around minute 51:00.
More importantly, the following segment covers a great sermon called “Two Kind of Righteousness.” This is an excellent presentation of the Biblical gospel, and I love the point at the end of how Christians never tire of hearing the “Good News,” especially presented this well. Enjoy!
tr
On the following day, again on the radio show “Fighting For The Faith,” Tadd’s “apology” was covered by Chris on the air (starting around 13:40).
In this episode you can hear:
1. A great audio that Robert Pavich put together from the videos on this post with side-by-side audio of Tadd and Craig’s same sermons.
2. Tadd talking about how important it is to be truthful and not rationalize.
3. Tadd being untruthful and rationalizing what he did, by apologizing for not citing sources, but ignoring the real need to confess that he told Craig’s story in first person as if it was his own – two completely different things.
Chris says he is sending an email to Tadd, and explaining that this apology isn’t acceptable because he didn’t confess to what he actually did.
Chris explains it much better on the air than I can here in text. Take a listen!
tr
My 12-year ministry ended when the new pastor wouldn’t stop plagiarizing and swayed the church leadership with lies. I was left with the choice to split the church or walk away, so I left it all. I painted houses for the next 4 years making less than half what I had made on church staff. The tough thing is, I labored on the weeks I had opportunity to feed the flock, while the pastor they kept just clicked “download” and “print” — and the church was happy with that.
Your blog article is spot-on, and I know. I lived it. I look forward to the day the Lord will make a place for me in a pulpit with a flock to teach but until then, as Ken Silva said, a pastor is what I am. It hurts to not have the chance to preach, but I still have a life to live. And I pray for the church and for the man who decided his paycheck was more valuable than his integrity. What will he have to say to the Lord on that day? What will the Lord have to say to him?
Michael,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience and testimony. I can tell the pain you’ve been through but also can see your trust in God’s sovereignty just as Joseph did through it all. When I read your words I was reminded of his statement to his brothers in Gen 50:20 – “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”
I’ve taken some heat for writing this article. However, it is because of pastors with integrity like you, and churches with integrity and concern of this issue who would call a pastor like you, that I’ve written on this subject. Many Christians who think they are hearing God’s Word are being deceived by pastors who are starving them. Jesus said, “Feed my sheep,” not entertain them.
I am going to pray for you Michael, that God will lead you to the church He has for you, and that this church will find you as well. I pray that God will see to it “that many people should be kept alive” by your ministry.
Thanks for your ministry and perseverance, and concern for truth.
God bless you,
tr
Tony, I’m sad that people gave you heat over the article. How can they defend telling a story like that in the first person and claiming it was just an oversight in not acknowledging him? Blessings to you for publicizing this. I hope that many pastors are convicted and get back to studying the word for themselves. You never know what they might find!
That is my hope Neil. Thanks. -tr
Tony & Ken, my family and I are part of Pine Ridge with no plans to leave.
[...] Last night I was preparing a new article based on some comments on my recent post entitled: Sermon Copying: When The World Has More Integrity Than The Church, when my mind was changed on a matter in which I’ve previously [...]
I submit the following to those who “criticize the criticizers” and to those who don’t understand the Biblical precedent for publicly confronting public error:
Christian Research Network posted a satire article that supposes that If Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was published in Christianity Today today, what the highly possible comments might be. It is satire and humorous, but it makes an excellent point that I believe many miss today.
Satire: If Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was published in Christianity Today today
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. ”
-1 Timothy 5:19-21
Some helpful commentaries on this verse:
Rebuking an Elder
[...] full story can be found here: Sermon Copying: When The World Has More Integrity Than The Church GalatiansC4V16 __________________ Mike London City Presbyterian Church London England "Surely, we wish to [...]
[...] Rose delves less peevishly into this topic (via Slice of Laodecia), noting that even the lost are tougher on plagiarists than [...]
thanks for all the links…great info and challenging stuff
Michael Hyatt, President & CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishing, posted a very interesting article entitled:
Ghost Blogging and Twittering
In this post he correctly draws the conclusion that ghost writers, as sometimes used in books, should not be used in blogging and twittering.
What I found interesting was his comments on those who would do this:
And also his reasons for not doing it:
And he concludes:
Here is the irony in the story: Why such harsh language against this behavior, with the new social networking, and being real and authentic and not “faking it,” but then we can find those who would defend the use of the same behavior from the pulpit?
Ironic eh?
I agree with Hyatt, but ask, why is a ghost-writing twitterer considered a “poser” but a plagiarism pastor not?
tr
I am anonymous on my blog to actually keep the church I did leave anonymous until I can see that outing that church is necessary. I have been tempted to just link and attack, so keeping myself pretty anonymous and keeping my former church anonymous keeps me from just spreading outright rumors. I blog to run my mouth and run my thoughts without also actually running over anyone in my life. Someone would really have to know it was me writing, know the church and circumstances well to know it was my specific former church. I think my experiences are happening all over the place, sadly. I could be any Christian, and so I keep it anonymous. Someone reading my blog should feel the events are actual (they are) and the person writing is real. The person could be someone they know because similar stories are out there all over.
That said, if I quote someone or write something I recall someone saying, I do not write it as my own. If I am found to have quoted someone and have not cited, I want to be called out so I can correct myself. If I have lied, I want to be called out. If I have twisted scripture, I beg to be called out. If I misrepresented facts, please, correct me. There are pastors who would not be able to say the same about themselves in honesty.
A friend of mine is doing a survey on plagiarism, and she’d like your taking 20 seconds to fill out her short survey. If you feel up to it, here is the link:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=b0OGJhErCoKv3Bvr_2b10OLQ_3d_3d
tr
We went several years with a lot of clues, such as the fact that my pastor seemed to have better grammar and vocabulary when he preached than when he spoke away from the pulpit, and times when it seemed that his theology drifted from week to week. Then we had a friend comment that they were researching the subject of his sermon one time when they found his message word-for-word. I was and elder at that time, and felt it my duty to investigate. It was heartbreaking – I figured out that he had a subscription to preachit.org where he could download sermons and handouts that he could put HIS name onto. I have written to the owner of that website 3 or 4 times and never gotten a response. He also “borrowed” from many other places that could be googled, even repeating a mistyped name exactly as it was printed. This is a SERIOUS problem in the Body-not simply from an honesty/integrity standpoint like it is in the world, but because we have men who stand and preach without prayer and study.
BTW, I took the survey mentioned above and found it to be somewhat amateurish. There are several age divisions, then it lumps everyone over 40 into one group? It also makes some presuppositions without any background information.