Sermons & Plagiarism
Over the past few weeks there has been an ongoing news story of the alleged plagiarism of Barack Obama. For those who haven't seen the story, Hillary Clinton's campaign has accused of Obama of stealing words from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.
While that story is interesting, it caused me to think about the role of citing sources when delivering a sermon. I remember arguing about this with Larry White, who served as our homiletics instructor at Winebrenner Seminary. He believed that "sermons were different" and were not held to the same standards as traditional public speaking; meaning if you felt that a source was more effective uncited, then it was okay to use it.
What do you think? Do pastors have an obligation to give credit to outside sources? Is preaching different?
There are major questions underlying the whole debate: Who "owns" language? Are there any original ideas? If not, do we have to cite everything? What role do outside sources play in a speaker's credibility with the audience? Is the role of the sermon changing? If so, does this question even matter?
Anyway, I can share my own opinion if this topic is of interest, but at this point I am more curious about what you all think.
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 1:23 PM
27 Comments:
Brent,
I don't know if this is right, but here's how I handle the situation. I footnote all of my sources on the manuscript. (it's so easy to do these days with a word processor). But when I preach, I don't generally mention the sources orally. I don't want to take sermon time to mention all of those names, book titles, and other items that may put people to sleep. I figure that if I have the sources duly noted on the manuscript, that's probably good enough. I don't know if this is correct according to the MLA and other "bearers of the standard" in these matters, but it's what I do. Let us know if you find out what the standard actually is!
I hate to be dominating the comments lately, and I know nothing about the Obama/Clinton thing; however, in the interest of discussion, I guess my opinion on this depends on the situation.
I think it depends mostly on whether or not it adds to the credibility of what you're saying. I mean, if I'm quoting George Washington I might be more inclined to say so, as opposed to simply saying, "I heard this story the other day," if it's from someone that my audience isn't going to be familiar with anyway.
I am also more inclined to say, "I heard a couple of pastors discussing this," or "One of my seminary prof's always said," again, because my audience doesn't really care. But if, say, I'm quoting Lance Finley or someone my congregation does know, then it's different (to me anyhow).
However, I realize all audiences are different. To some it might matter more. I don't think most of the audiences I speak to are really listening anyway. :)
So what's your opinion, Brent?
Brent, you asked a good question (although I may not have a great answer). I have always been concerned about the creative borrowing of which many pastors, and public speakers, are guilty. I.e. telling a story as though it really happened to them when you know it didn't. Is that plagarism or lying?
Anyway, I try to give credit where credit is due. If I am quoting I give the source, even reading from the book if appropriate, or acknowledging the source in a way like Dan suggested "I heard this the other day...." I have even quoted myself on occasion. I would be interested in hearing how others handle this important issue.
Brent/Brian,
Sorry guys, the first post is mine. I forgot to sign my name.
-George C. Jensen
Enola, PA
I'm not the authority on the issue, I just found it interesting for discussion. But I do have a few thoughts.
George - One concern about footnoting in the manuscript is that the majority of your audience/congregation will never see this. They'll simply assume that anything you share is original to you.
Dan - I agree, credibility is central. I think it enhances both our own credibility and the importance of the topic when we can anchor the ideas in something beyond our own opinion.
Lew - I completely agree. I've always been extremely bothered by those who "borrow" sermons from Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, or some other pastor. Just because something is available online doesn't mean it's okay to use it. I know many pastors who lift sermons from others word for word.
I think pastors do a major disservice to the congregation if the ideas are not original to him/her.
"I think pastors do a major disservice to the congregation if the ideas are not original to him/her."
Why? Why is "originality" so important?
I think there is great truth in the Ecclesiastes statement that there is nothing new under the sun. I am not seeking originality for the sake of originality. What I am seeking is a pastor who lets ideas emerge (I use this word intentionally) from the localized ministry context.
I guess what I am suggesting is not so much a move towards originality as it is a move away from an implementation model of leadership. I’ve witnessed many pastors who have read a book, attended a conference, or talked to a pastor who had a creative approach to ministry and said “Wow! I have to find a place to make that work here!” The focus then becomes on trying to implement an idea that was successful in a different time and a different place.
Unfortunately, many church boards define a leader as the person with the answers. I was pastor of a church that wanted someone who could give them a formula or idea that would solve all of the problems. I don’t operate that way. Nor do I think it is the best approach to take if our effort is to truly minister to the local community.
I have no problem with a pastor using the ideas of Saddleback or Willow Creek. But often what happens is that the fabric of the church is ripped apart in an effort to make the church look like something else that it was never intended to become.
I struggle with who holds responsibility for this. Is it Bill Hybels’ fault that many pastors tore churches apart trying to implement the “Willow Creek Model” of ministry? Is it Rick Warren’s fault that many attended a Saddleback conference one week and changed everything the next at their own church? Perhaps.
I use these two examples intentionally. Churches that are functioning according to a modern mindset - in which they truly believe a formula can solve the problems - are more likely to buy into the idea that these successful ministry ideas can be implemented in another, completely foreign, context.
This is why I’ve had some problems with our denominational leadership’s “trend of the year” – whether it has come through a new book that is suggested or the latest trend of ministry.
I know I am not alone in my frustrations. But the internet makes so much information available that we often fail to think through how we should make use of materials and ideas. Many are only interested in the “what?” and fail to think through the “why?”
So...originality is not what I am saying is most important. But since every community is unique, doesn't that suggest that every church will be different as well?
I think I would agree with Larry White ("Wonnnnn-der-fullllll" Can you hear him say that?) I just preached 8 weeks out of Genesis and heavily relied on Brueggemann. It would have confused my church had I made a point of them understanding, "I was heavily influenced by Brueggemann in these sermons." I think I did at least once briefly quote him.
There is a place to "report" this. With my leaders for one. Here for another. And if anybody said to me, "You really do a good job opening up the Bible," I would respond, "With the help of a lot of commentators."
There have been reports of people telling stories as if they happened to them. Whenever I do this, I tell them what I'm doing. "This didn't happen to me, but it is better as a first person story." The best one is when I do the leper who comes to Jesus. I don't think anybody gets confused as to whether I had leprosy or met Jesus in Biblical times. And I took that idea from Lucado.
The goal of preaching is to move hearts toward God.
If I preached a Rick Warren sermon every week, as a friend of mine does, I would tell the people, but I wouldn't tell them every week.
What I have suggested is missing from the "Trend of the Year" is discussion (no more than discussion, a mulling over by the leadership of an individual church.)
Take a book like "The Present Future." Many pastors read it and didn't know what to do with it. I would have loved to have had a six week session on it, bringing in pastors and their elders (they couldn't come without their elders). And go through each of the elements of the book, then have each church leadership group discuss it among themselves and how they might implement it.
After six weeks, look and see if they have a comprehensive plan to make their church more healthy.
We do tend to look at books and/or speakers and try to harvest the one idea and implement it at our church, rather than to set a foundation for all that should be done in our specific context.
This article is from November 2006, but it still is worth reading (if you are interested in the topic).
That Sermon You Heard on Sunday May Be From the Web
I once worked with pastor not known for his preaching (but he was a great mechanic)who once preached a sermon I though was pretty good. However when I was cleaning up after the service I discovered he had preached from a magazine article. I don't know if I would have felt better if he had mentioned that at the beginning. That being said, it is almost impossible to be completely original especially if we read a lot. We absorb a lot of what we read and at some point the line between originality and borrowing becomes blurred.
Maybe we need another thread to discuss the issues Brian raised. I agree that we too often try to take something from one context and use it in ours and it doesn't work. As I heard Bob Logan say "We are up Willow Creek without a Hybel".
I would certainly love to get into a discussion on "The Present Future". I thought the book was great but it was a major factor in an elder taking a small group from here to start his own church. I have been trying to see if I can claim that on my annual report.
There is a video study on it that I would like to see--maybe the conference will buy it for borrowing?
Hello, I'm new here and hope it's okay to weigh in on the conversation.
It seems like there are two different although quite related issues. One is completely using another person's sermons (from a magazine, internet, etc.)
The other involves referencing research from commentaries, quotes, etc. Does this seem fair?
Welcome Dan. We look forward to your participation.
Dan,
Welcome to the conversation.
Yes, I think your right about the way the conversation is moving. What do you think about either (or both) of the topics?
Brent
well, I think the situation of using a complete sermon is a bit easier to tackle. We could also alter the conversation by asking whether or not credit is given. A pastor could preach someone else's sermon and acknowledge it as such I suppose. Rick Warren actually encourages pastors to use his sermons!
There is certainly an issue with integrity and whose sermon is it. Assuming that the church does not know that it's someone else's sermon - for me the deepest concern is that the preacher is not putting in the time to encounter God in study. He or she is not struggling through the text, asking the Holy Spirit for enlightenment, doing research etc. Ultimatly, it's the reflection on the spiritual life of the pastor that concerns me most. Is that fair?
Another article -
Rick Warren’s Strategy for Church Growth Splits Congregants
[Just a note: I finally figured out how to add links today, that is why I've posted a few articles - I'm just trying out my new knowledge.]
Isn't the whole point of a sermon to use someone else's material, i.e. scripture, and contextualize it to your own community's circumstances? Maybe this is too "postmodern" of me, but when it comes to original vs. borrowed, shouldn't it be a both/and?
Mike, your point was well made. If we are completely original we may have moved from the foundation. However, in my message I give credit to Peter or Paul, etc..
And I agree that it must be contextualized. That is one reason why we can't just preach someone else's message. Rick Warren certainly preaches to a different crowd than I do.
Absolutely. I agree that we should know our context well enough to make use of the appropriate ideas - whether original to us or someone else. I don't know if anyone is going to dispute that idea.
But that does return us to the earlier conversation about how and when to give credit to someone else's ideas.
From my vantage point, if we make use of someone else's ideas, we need to give them credit. If we preach someone else's sermon (which is still problematic) we need to tell the people what we're doing.
I don't think it confuses an audience/congregation when we tell them where we gained our ideas. I think we often underestimate their intelligence. It builds our own credibility and it gives them some additional resources to turn toward.
on a seperate but related note, I'd love to have a conversation sometime about the role of preaching as this is one of the areas being discussed in the 'emerging conversation.' Perhaps you've already gone there.
Since the conversation is slowing down, perhaps this will be one final thought about the plagiarism discussion -
I am not sure that Rick Warren's encouragement to other pastors to use his ideas is really relevant to the conversation.
Consider:
Jack Kevorkian was given permission by patients to end their lives. Yet, he was still accountable to the standards of the law governing life and death issues.
A pastor who is given permission by Rick Warren to use his sermons is not released from the standards of plagiarism.
While there is a MAJOR difference between doctor assisted suicide and the use of someone else's words, I think the analogy makes a valid point.
Which returns us to the question:
What are the standards of plagiarism that should be followed by pastors?
bringing in Rick Warren is not to justify any position. Just to say that someone who is very influencial in the Christian community has weighed in, whether he intended to or not.
My perspective is that I want poeple to know if I'm using another indvidual's ideas, but not necessarily common research knowledge. If the same basic info is in 3 Bible dictionaries, I'm not going to quote the author of that particular entry. However, if one commentator or author says something unique to them, I don't want my congregation to think that I had the idea...
I have never understood how a pastor could preach word for word someone elses sermon. Even when I have repeated a sermon of my own to a different congregation it has to be altered to fit the situation and the people. I do not acknowlede every commentary and article as it does bog down the message. I found this out many years ago as I tried to acknowledge every source and scripture I used. The congregation just lost interest which means I had failed to give them the message God had for them. Some times it is easier to hold up the book or copy of an article and read from it.
I do not feel that a sermon is mine to own. It comes through study and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The time of study and meditation on the word helps to make the message a part of me so that I can understand how to rightly deliver it.
If a sermon isn't the work of the Holy Spirit it is just a dead speech with a religious box.
If a sermon is printed or taped or videoed for publication credited should be given to those who deserve it. To claim as your own the work of others is to be a liar.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I just read this from Bob Roberts this morning and I think it touches on the issue of plagarism: "To mimic means not only that you copy the good, but often unitentionally the bad as well. That's dnagerous."
Mike wrote (under another thread):
"I will just throw one question out there there: what if postmodernism is right? In other words, what if - if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself that is - you don't get to choose whether or not to accept that our knowledge is linguistically constructed within communities of discourse?"
I'm posting this here because I think it raises some additional questions that relate to this discussion.
If our communities of faith are linguistically constructed, shouldn't we be more aware of whose language we're using? If we are using Rick Warren's sermons (or anyone else's), don't we have an ethical responsibility to inform people that the community we are creating isn't organic to this particular community but originated in southern California (or whatever location they emerged from within)?
If language is so central, don't we have a responsibility to recognize those voices we are repeating?
[I agree with Mike that absolute truth exists, but that we have limited - if any - access to it. So I am not raising these questions to antogonize but to sort through the implications of his statement.]
That's an excellent point Brent.
Post a Comment
<< Home