Let me start by saying that I think * I agree with the overall point of this C?N post — publicly using others’ material without acknowledging the source is a Bad Thing ™.
But two things about this article give me pause — one serious and one kinda funny.
—- Seriously (in the literal sense) —-
The title of the post is “Sermon Copying: When The World Has More Integrity Than The Church”.
Now, it’s ridiculous to compare a Christian with an unsaved person to show when the Christian is better than the unsaved person. Even comparing Christians with each other is silly. The only relevant measuring rod for the Christian is Jesus Himself. We all fall short, but (thankfully) the Christian has Christ’s righteousness attributed to him.
So why isn’t it just as ridiculous to compare a Christian with an unsaved person to show when the Christian is worse than the unsaved person? Again, the only relevant measuring rod for the Christian is Jesus Himself. Whether the Christian is better or worse than another person is beyond irrelevant.
A less charitable person would note that a lot of the ADM posts seem to have a subtext of “Luke 18:11" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:11;&version=50;" target="_blank">at least I’m not that bad“.
—- Seriously? (in the facetious sense) —-
In support of this (fallacious) comparative point, the author asks three rhetorical questions early in the post. In order to coincide with this point, the answer to the questions must be “no”. Let’s look at the first two and the implications of assuming that the answer is ‘no’:
… 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?
I would like to welcome the author to America. This is the only explanation that I can fathom. Who else but a person new to this country wouldn’t know that 99% of what congresspersons claim as their own, isn’t really?
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?
This question makes me happy for the author. It’s quite clear that he has not spent one day in corporate America. Spending time in corporate America is not something that I’d wish on my worst enemy, so I’m glad that he hasn’t had to endure this grotesque, soul-sucking torture.
* I say “I think” because I (admittedly) didn’t read every one of the 2653 (!) words of that post.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
30 Comments(+Add)
The politics comparison was silly. But I am disgusted at the way some pastors exclusively use other’s material, including telling personal narratives of others as if it was their own. I believe that was the core of the article.
Yeah, and like I said, I agree with the main point. But the title wasn’t really in line with the main point and was also theologically moot.
Then there were the funny rhetorical questions….
How can you tell what the “core” of the
novelarticle was?Yeah, evens Charles Dickens would complain about the wordiness of the linked article. Seriously I refuse to read past the fourth paragraph of any article if the writer hasn’t written something that resembles a point by then.
Guys,
Hi there. I am the author of the article you are discussing here. Thanks for taking the time to read it, and I am glad you agree with my overall point.
I do however think you are being a little nit-picky with my rhetorical questions. Certainly you must understand that eventually all analogies will fall apart, taken far enough? To survive that type of criticism wasn’t the goal of using them, but rather to make the overall point of integrity comparison between the world and the church.
Specifically: That this behavior, which the secular world rejects, many in the Christian world seem to accept; which is sad.
I’m glad you got my point, sorry my rhetorical questions weren’t up to your standards. I am not sure if you followed the links I provided; probably not if you didn’t read the whole article. I think the links provided further evidence of my point, even if the rhetorical questions didn’t convince you.
I do understand your point of the Christian having Christ’s righteousness where the world doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean the comparison I made shouldn’t take place. In fact, I think that point doesn’t refute my premise, but emphasizes it further. How sad it is when the secular world, those without Christ’s righteousness, have more integrity on this issue, than those who supposedly do have His righteousness! That was the core Chris L.
(If you watch 3 minutes of the first two video links, it should be apparent to you why I wrote it that way).
For the record, I’ve lived in America all my life and follow politics closely. I also work in the corporate world.
Thanks guys, it is good to have some common ground with you!
Thanks,
Tony Rose
I’m with Tony on this one… the comparison to non-Christians is biblical and commonsensical. Christians hold themselves out to a higher standard, and there is nothing more disturbing than when they fail to adhere to basic standards adopted by the world.
I’m unsure, though, how collaboration with sermons really constitutes “plagiarism.” I think the level of collaboration present in the political and business worlds undermines Tony’s point instead of confirms it.
I do know, though, when you make unsubstantiated factual claims, refuse to make changes when corrected, and engage in reprehensible ad hominens under the guise of “journalism”… well, then you’ve got integrity problems.
MG,
Do you think I have made unsubstantiated factual claims and ad homs, or are you talking about the examples in my article being these? If you are talking about my claims and examples, please be specific to which ones, so I can correct.
If you watch the video and audio examples in my article, you’ll see these are not examples of “collaboration,” but are clearly plagiarism by standards of the world or the church, and my points of integrity are very clear.
If not, I’d like to understand why you think otherwise. I would appreciate it if those criticizing my article would do me the favor of actually reading it and watching the videos. In so doing, I think it speaks for itself.
With all due respect, some of the critical comments here sound as if you’ve not read it, but are commenting off what others have said instead. It also sounds as if you’ve not watched my examples, which I think you’ll clearly see my points if you do.
Thanks,
tr
Rehearsing a personal narrative about someone else and presenting it as your own is stealing, lying, and deception. And what would be the reason for not “footnoting” such illustrations? Either you do not like the source or you wish to elevate yourself, or both.
TR – I believe MG’s last paragraph was in general and not specific to your post. I will say that there are some blogs that would agree wholeheartedly with your post but who practice an array of other unchristian literary devices that are not plagiarized but are brought forth from their own hearts.
And to your “core”, “how sad it is when the secular world, those without Christ’s righteousness, have more grace, forgiveness, charity, and integrity than those who supposedly do have His righteousness”.:)
Tony,
I’m sorry. I was not clear at all. My final comment was a larger point about a general problem I see with many Christian bloggers. Your post, however, exhibited none of those characteristics.
My point is this: there is a definite spectrum of collaboration in written and spoken work, such that the charge of plagiarism in one setting does not strike me as necessarily appropriate in the other.
It is commonly known that speeches, op-ed articles, business presentations, and legal writing are all genres where there will be a team of individuals responsible for a product ultimately delivered by one person. The content, moreover, is not subject to any ownership claims, and such ownership is not something that a person’s livelihood depends upon.
On the other end of the spectrum, you have peer-reviewed academic literature. In that instance, you have a piece of original scholarship, with a definite owner, and a work that someone’s very livelihood depends upon. The owner, of course, has not given permission for anyone to use the work without proper citation. Thus, to do so is nothing more than stealing.
In my opinion, the use of sermon illustrations strikes me *more like* the first example and *less like* the second example. Therefore, I do not think to call the use of publicly available material “plagiarism” is the most honest use of the word.
I do agree, however, that pastors are often being lazy by using such work.
P.S. I read your post. Overall, I think there is a point to be made. And like I said, it is thoroughly biblical to compare the Christian community with the broader world.
I think that there is a small danger here that Pastors can all relate too.
While we spend (or should spend) many hours in prayer, study, and preparation seeking a fresh perspective on the passage that we are exegeting, there is a small danger that we might say or repeat or come up with the same meaning someone else did years before. Thats not plagerism, and it is really not what he addresses here.
Even going to Sermon Central is not plagerism, if you cite the fact that you did.
Even the many pastors who use sermon in the box are not plagerizing. I completely disagree that it is pastoring; indeed, it is not really ministering the Word out of a heart of study.
We should strive to not be as the world; but in this case the author is right. The world has a higher standard than us unfortunately. And the result? Weak, dying churches and sin filled pastors.
Tony,
To support your ancillary point (re: comparison), you cited 3 rhetorical questions, all of which needed a “no” answer to jive with the point, but the actual answer to 2 of those questions was a resounding “YES”.
It’s not an issue of “taking the analogy far enough” and it falls apart. To beat that metaphor into the ground, I start to get up from my chair to take the analogy somewhere, and those questions come along like a 2-year-old and smash it to the ground before I even stand up all the way.
MG (#6):
Ugh — you make my point entirely too well.
Brendt,
I’m not sure I understand your aversion to Christians holding themselves to a higher standard than the unsaved… is this not the point?
Perhaps I did not word it well.
But can it really be denied that Christians “profess a Savior who calls them to a higher standard?”
Non-Christians know this, so if Christians try and be cute in denying it, we will just look like we’re mangling words.
Going to Sermon Central and massaging (adding or subtracting things) the message to fit into your own teaching style is fine. Reciting someone else’s personal story as if it was your own is unacceptable.
That sort of thing morphs pretty quickly into “we’re better than you”, and then into deciding who’s in and who’s out of the kingdom based on works, as we see with ADMs on a daily basis.
It does have an upside though. It leads to a lot of hilarity as ADMs continually insist they are saved by grace while applying works based theology to everyone around them. Of course that’s very dark humor, and not to everyone’s taste.
The church has compartmentalized terms like “integrity” to mean “do not steal” and “do not lie” etc.. But in a more expansive and spiritual sense integrity must have love, forgiveness, humility, sympathy, and grace within the Biblical definition.
As a matter of fact, integrity is acting in accordance wih he Person of Jesus Christ.
How anyone could preach a sermon and tell a story as if it were from their childhood, but was not, is beyond me. I would agree – this is just lying.
It may be fine in the sense that it is ethical… I’m not sure I agree it’s fine as a regular practice I would endorse.
I suppose it’s a danger, but I don’t think it morphs that quickly that we should not expect Christians to live lives that are behaviorally, ethically, and philosophically better than non-Christians. Paul told the Philippians to “…conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.”
I understand the need to avoid the “better than you” in an ontological sense, and even a sense of deserving grace,
But the Scriptures assume that followers of Christ, those indwelt by the Spirit are going to “behave” and “think” better than those without the Spirit.
All that said (my agreeing with Rose) the video calling Hybels “man-centered” is as unnecessary as it is cliche.
Rick, (#8), I now see you are correct on MG’s words. Thanks. Also, I liked your edit of my line and the additional words grace, forgiveness, and charity. Thanks again.
MG, (#9), No problem brother. Sorry if I took your words personal if you didn’t mean them that way. I really appreciate the clarification on that, and do agree with your point. I appreciate your feedback.
Brendt, (#11), You are right that I asked 3 rhetorical questions that I presume demand a “no” answer, and I also see how you can come up with a “yes,” if you look at it as you have (which I still think is a bit nit-picky). However, please understand, to support my presumed “no” answers, I provided three secular examples which I think substantiated the “no” I presumed. One example was a president’s aide who had to resign, the other was a secular University who was embarrassed, and the third was Opera (twice) who was embarrassed. They were embarrassed and had to resign because the secular world sees the behavior as simply wrong. When those examples are contrasted with the video example I gave (as well as other audio examples I linked to), it is clear that my premise, that the secular world rejects what some in the church accept, is substantiated. I could have provided many more examples but I didn’t want to get accused of the article being too long
, and I am sure you can provide some too where surely this behavior has been overlooked in the corporate and political worlds. I was mainly pointing to a general and habitual practice. I was not arguing for absolutism in either category, and I think to get your “yes” answers you simply have to be looking for *something* to disagree with in the article. I am glad that it is *that* which you found instead of the main point of the article. I do appreciate your feedback though. It has been some healthy thoughts for me to consider in future writing projects, and I am sure my future articles will be better because of what you have said to me here. Sincerely, Thanks. -tr
Neil & Bo (discussion on higher standards), I think we can all agree that Christians should never be smug or have a “holier than thou” attitude, and I hopefully have not appeared to advocate that position with my article. But I think the point Neil was making is that:
Since Christians have the spirit, and therefore are in a sanctifying process, and thereby showing forth fruits of the spirit rather than deeds of the flesh (generally not absolutely), and …
Since those who are not Christians do not have that spirit,….
Then it is therefore not wrong to say that generally and habitually, Christians can be expected to have a “higher standard of behavior” because they are resisting sin purposefully where the world is not (not to be concluded that we are “better” than others).
My original premise is that it is said and ironic when this is reversed.
I didn’t mean to imply anything on this topic. Its a bit of a side show to the main course.
I’m just pointing out that when you get into comparing works, you’re playing with fire. At least when it comes to the church in America.
Duly noted Bo. Thanks. I’ll keep my oven mits on!
Tony,
RE #25, my point exactly.
Tony, re: rhetoricals.
We may have to agree to disagree, but while you say that you can see how I could answer “yes” to those questions, I can barely see how anyone could answer “no”. Granted, you gave some specific examples (president’s aide, etc), but they are far from the norm, especially for politicians, CEOs, and TV personalities.
One also has to wonder if any of them actually personally believe that there is an ethical problem, or if they just kowtow’d to outside pressure. Think about the last 10 times that someone apologized for something on a large scale. Weren’t 9 of the 10 simply sorry that they got caught, not that they did the deed?
Throw politicians in the mix, and that becomes 11 out of 10.
My father is lay pastor of a small church in downtown Calgary. He downloads all of his sermons from a web service. I have issues with that and I’ve told him so. He says he doesn’t feel bad about it. His gift is in public speaking and preaching, not creative thought.
I dunno… sounds suspicious to me, but maybe it’s one of those ‘food sacrificed to idols’ things.