The recent issue of World magazine had an interesting story in the April 30th issue (20:17, p. 30-31). Entitled: "Word for Word" it carried the subtitle: "Religion: More and more pastors lift entire sermons off the Internet--but is the practice always wrong?" Authored by Gene Edward Veith, questions were raised about the increasingly common practice of acquiring sermons from the internet (and by extension elsewhere) and then preaching them as their own.
The practice of "selling sermons" on the Internet has become a rather significant business. The article lists several web sites where sermon helps, outlines, illustrations and entire messages can be obtained, for a price. One site referred to was SermonCentral.com, which as the article notes, "charges $9.95 per month and claims to be used more than 170,000 times per week." Now of course the math on this is rather simple 170,000 paying $9.95 is nearly $1.7 million per month in revenue. Christianity Today has one subscription site that charges $49.95 per year and another site that distributes whole sermons for $4.95 a pop.
The question the article asks, but never really answers directly, is whether this practice is wrong. Veith states,
But is preaching a sermon written by someone else as serious an ethical lapse as academic plagiarism? Does a sermon really have to be original or are people overreacting to a common practice in the ministry?
In my course on research that I teach at The Master's Seminary, I have an entire section on "Ethics in Research" and we cover plagiarism in all of its forms as well as the other ethical issues related to the collection of material and its presentation. In this course I cover not only the written or "academic" end of the subject, but also specifically that of preaching. In my view not only is preaching someone else's material (either verbatim or copious amounts) without attribution "as serious an ethical lapse as academic plagiarism" it is infinitely more serious. The world of the academy is vastly inferior in terms of importance to the world of God's church.
The root sin in plagiarism is theft, it is stealing the work of another and claiming it as your own. In sermons this is done indirectly, there is a lack of attribution from the preacher, not a direct claim of personal origination. But that is no defense. When a man stands to preach his congregation believes, unless the are told otherwise, that what is being preached is the fruit of the pastors own research, study and prayer. The other sin that manifests itself in this affair is hypocrisy, the preacher is pretending to be someone (the originator of the sermon) that he is not. A pastor who stands before his congregation and preaches another's sermon without informing the congregation is doing nothing more or less than lying to his people. What is perhaps more fearful and more serious than the simple act is that he is engaged in this sin, and sin it is, standing behind what the Puritans called, "The Sacred Desk." In the presence of God, in the act of leading the congregation in the most significant act of worship in the service, the hearing and exposition of God's own Word, the preacher is committing a fraud!
The problem is that this practice has a long history and, in fact, little if anything can be done to stop it. Published sermons have been preached without attribution for centuries. Warren Wiersbe tells the story of a preacher who was preaching through a book of sermons, not knowing that a member of the congregation had the same book! At the end of the service the member said to his pastor, "Good sermon, pastor." The pastor thanked him, to which the member replied, "Next weeks is good too!" Most of us who have been in ministry for some time have listened to plagiarized sermons (I have on at least three occasions that I know of) or have even had their sermons plagiarized by someone else (that's happened to me as well). In the end our typical response of resignation is, "Oh well, as long as the Word is being preached." The fact that the practice is ubiquitous and trying to stop it is not worth the time or effort, so it continues.
The practice is widespread and it would be foolish to deny it. Unfortunately as something becomes more and more widespread, it slowly also moves into the area of general acceptance. The article quotes David Baly, pastor of Christ the Word Presbyterian Church in America, who offers a purely pragmatic test of right and wrong, when he says,
The question is whether this pastor is a faithful shepherd preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God. Specifically, is what he preaching true? Does it meet the need of his flock at the point in which it preached? Is it faithful to the Word? No honest pastor will be quick to criticize a fellow pastor for being helped at times by the works and words of another."Kent Edwards, the current president of the Evangelical Homiletics Society and professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, admits that the practice of sermon plagiarism is "deception" but also seems to excuse it. The articles states that he cites
"the pressure today's preachers face to be effective communicators" as the reason some get mired in plagiarism. Many pastors simply do not have the time and lack the homiletical skills necessary to produce high-quality and culturally relevant sermons, he said. "Thy have succumbed to the expectations of their churches to be omnicompetent and omnipresent."
The pragmatic excuse is no excuse at all. The fact that a message is "true" or "meets a need" is no reason for a pastor to allow his character to be sapped away by the sin of stealing and lying. Much could be said about the idea of pastors lacking the time and "homiletical skills to produce high-quality and culturally relevant sermons."
There is no amount of "homiletical skill" that can substitute for a Holy Spirit empowered sermon where the Word of God is faithfully expounded. However, it seems that both features are needed as Stephen Olford demonstrates so clearly in his work Anointed Expository Preaching (Broadman and Holman, 1998). To get the meaning of the text and accurately present it is obviously of first importance, but the deception of plagiarism can only serve to rob the pastor of the empowering ministry of the Holy Spirit which is paramount to a sermon that blesses the congregation and whose messenger is blessed by God. In his classic work The Reformed PastorRichard Baxter warned preachers against such sins, "lest you unsay with your lives, what you say with your tongues; and be the greatest hinderers of the success of your own labors."
All of the excuses made by and for those guilty of the sin of plagiarism are simply that, excuses. All pastors are tried, all are tempted, all are concerned with cares more abundant than most men, and yet by the power of God in their lives they are faithful and do not fall into a pattern of sin. Writing about the character of a man who would preach, John MacArthur stated, "Although the ma of God may undergo severe trials, severe anguish, and severe difficulty, he neither waivers nor compromises. He continually trusts God, no matter what the circumstances" (Rediscovering Expository Preaching, p. 96). He also notes, "There is no greater privilege than to be a man of God and preach His Word. But along with that privilege comes a fearful responsibility. James warned that teachers face a stricter judgment (James 3:1)" (ibid., p. 100).
That fact that web sites like DesperatePreacher.com exist is no more a reason for a pastor to use such a site than it is for him to visit Playboy.com because it exists. The article quotes Craig Larson, the editor of Preaching Resources and PreachingToday.com that he is concerned that their material could be "abused" but they keep selling subscriptions, but with a warning label that, "credit for the sermons should always be given." The exact parallel I can think of in this regard is someone who is hooked on drugs, perhaps prescription or "over the counter" drugs, it may have started for a seemingly good reason, but quickly gets out of control. Frankly, my experience in seeing plagiarism in the classroom and pulpit is that done once, it is increasingly easier to do it again and again. Like all sin, this one takes root, develops rationalizations and destroys character.
Certainly there is helpful material on the Internet that the serious pastor can make use of for his personal benefit and the benefit of the congregation. The Internet, books, tapes, CD's, DVD's, conferences and all such resources are simply that, resources. They are to be used like the tools they are and they are to be used properly. I have books of sermons in my personal library and we have hundreds of them in the seminary library, but they are tools and cannot be allowed to become the end product.
Church members should expect that their pastor is one who "labors in the Word and prayer" and presents an exposition of Scripture each Lord's Day that is God's word to them as the centerpiece of worship. If other things are distracting he must declare as the apostles did, "we must give ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word." Church members should expect the elders and deacons of their church to guard the pastor and his time so that central ministry remains sacred and unsullied by plagiarism.
I have to preface this entry with the note that I am a lifelong Dodger fan, the earliest picture of me that exists shows me wearing a T-Shirt in 1958 that says "Welcome to Los Angeles, Dodgers." There are lots of things to be excited about when it comes to the Dodgers lately. First of all the McCourts bought the team and now a family is running the operations again, instead of the team being just another cog in Rupert Murdoch's corporate structure. The Dodgers got into the playoffs and won a game for the first time since Ronald Reagan was president and the team, according to a recent poll, has at least six of the top 100 minor league prospects in thier system. The stadium, although built in 1962 and one of the oldest now in the National League, has been remodeled and looks better than ever.
I spent that last few months listening and reading all the "experts" decrying the fact that the Dodger owner has no money so they couldn't sign the free agents they need and had to let other players go and that the young GM Paul DePodesta is making bad decisions. OK, Adrian Beltre was allowed to go to Seattle after finally having a breakout year. My opinion is, fine. He's a good player who now has had one great year, but honestly I think he should have taken a little less money and shown some loyalty to a team that put up with his chronic underachieving for a few years; and I think he would have made up for less money with a lot more endorsements in Los Angeles than in Seattle. BTW as of this writing Beltre is hitting .281 with 1 home run and 8 RBI's. HIs replacement in Los Angeles, Jose Valentin is hitting .408 with 2 home runs a 8 RBI's. The Dodgers also traded Shaun Greene, a great player and nice guy, who has been declining steadily for the last 3 seasons in all offensive categories. The replacement, J. D. Drew, is certainly not a downgrade in right field over Greene. Alex Cora was let go. Cora a great defensive second baseman who hits about .280 and last year actualy hit 10 home runs (and is not even starting for Cleveland) is replaced by Jeff Kent who undoubtedly will be in the Hall of Fame and, though he may not cover as much ground as Cora, will hit about 20-30 more home runs and has always been a "money player" in the RBI department. BTW, he's hitting .419 2 home runs and 11 RBI's as of today.
The Dodgers are off to one of the best starts in baseball and have won all three series this year, including going 4-1 against the Giants. This leads me to wonder if the "experts" who picked the Giants to win the division were looking at a rooster from 5 ot 10 years ago? The Giants are an old, old team. Bonds and Alou are on the DL and may not play until May. Outside of Jason Schmidt they have questionable starting pitching and their bullpen (which supposedly they upgraded this off-season) has picked up whre they left off last year with the worst ERA in the majors. The Giants are a third or fourth place team in the NL West this year.
The Dodgers are now 6-2 and remember they have done that without Brad Penny (who looks to be about ready to come back in a week or so) without Wilson Alvarez (who will solidify the middle relief) without Eric Gagne, the best closer in baseball, and without Jason Wuerth, who looks to me to be a rising star in baseball with great power a great arm and great running speed. They picked up a good catcher in Jason Philips (contract about $350k) and traded the unreliable Kaz Ishsi (contract $2.6 million) to the hapless Mets.
Will the Dodgers go all the way and win the World Series, I'd like to think so, but I am realistic. They have some clear cut issues. Will Hee Sop Choi being able to hit (he is a good defensive first baseman) and will Philips hold up all year as a front line catcher? Also, has Milton Bradley really gotten himself and his temper under control? I like Bradley and deep down he seems to be a good guy, so I hope he has straightened himself out. Their defense took a slight downgrade in the infield and the stadium redesign with the baseline seats and near black outfield wall I think have made Dodger Stadium into more of a hitter's park, which could work for or against them this season.
I think they will win the Western Division and not exhaust themselves in the process as they did last year. Their starting pitching is stronger than last year and their bullpen, when Gagne returns, is probably the nest in the NL. The offense I think is much more balanced this year than last (when Beltre was about 40% of the production). Their biggest challenge I think will come from San Diego with Arizona probably a good third place team. I pick the Giants to be a .500 team and Colorado will again dwell in the cellar. I would not be surprised to see San Diego come as the Wild Card in the Play Offs.