I think we need to think carefully about what we characterize as plagiarizing. And, for the most part, we need to give these pastors the benefit of the doubt. Delivering a sermon or teaching message is not the same as submitting a research paper or thesis at seminary. We recently had an article in our Kentucky Baptist newspaper on this subject, and the worlds of the pastorate and seminary were so intertwined that a lay-reader would become confused. I was confused!

I personally don't know of any pastors who have taken verbatim sermons and passed them off as their own. I never have. Indeed, I have come across very few sermons that I would actually claim as my own. But I have come across many helpful ideas, illustrations, and (especially) outlines. Sermoncentral.com, and other sites of a similar nature, should not be condemned as hotbeds of plagiarism, feeding the sinful, lazy urges of pastors ... they are places where hard-working pastors can share ideas. Very few of us have the luxury of 25-40 hours a week to invest solely in teaching preparation. Very few of us have multiple staff members, secretaries, or "research interns" to find us clever ideas and illustrations for use in our sermons. Is using the information that a staffer found for you "plagiarism?" Was it not someone else's idea?

So, we small-church pastors have banded together to help one another. I do not think it is any breach of literary ethics. I believe, instead, that it is good, common-sense stewardship.

Let's face it, nobody wants to hear an academic sermon with footnotes, annotations, and constant citations of sources. People want (and need) to hear the Word comminicated effectively. Originality is not the key. Effective and faithful communication of the Scriptures is the key. God owns all of the originality we need ... He wrote the Book ... the Word! My way to communicate any source help is simple. If I use another pastor's outline, I simply note it in my church's Sunday Worship Guide. And nobody really cares. I have never had a single question or comment about it.

The multi-site church thing? Now that is another subject altogether. I recently blogged on the subject and had some interesting responses at http://missionmpossible.blogspot.com/2006/07/multi-site-churches-good-economy-or.html . I would like to see you guys develop a more in-depth post and analysis of this subject. I am truly worried about the "franchising trend."

Many sites on the web encourage pastors to reuse the sermons - would that be consider plagerism?

Not only are these people broadcast all over but they are selling their sermon manuscripts for you to plagiarize for 8.95 a sermon. How crooked is that? To me there is no bigger crook than a guy writing a sermon and then selling it for profit to desperately pathetic pastors who can't think of anything themselves to say. Talk about preying on the weak. Truly pathetic. That's embarassing.

Interesting topic. There is more here than just the pastor has self-esteem problems. That really is a euphemism for a host of issues that leaders face. It is a lonely position. It is a responsible position. It is a position with tremendous demands. Add that most churches can't tell you what their impact beyond some vague notion of numbers in the pews and whatever "changed lives" means. The problem isn't the pastor. The problem is how the church conceives its mission, how it is organized to achieve the impact that mission predicts, and most importantly the quality of the social/spiritual life that exists. The church has to define what its impact is. It isn't sufficient to say, "Serve God" or " change lives." While true, as statements of impact they lack a clear sense of what changes. And if you can't state what changes, you haven't thought clearly enough. Think clearly enough about the impact of your mission, then all of sudden, and it happens in a snap, clarity of purpose gets joined with clarity of direction for the program, and then the emphasis shifts from the celebrity of the pastor to the shared impact of God's people in ministry. The pastor's self-esteem problem is not about him. It is a symptom of a deeper problem with the church.

Well articulated Skye...I have found a simple question to help get to the root of what tempts us or why we fall into certain sins -

"What are the fears or lies that I am entertaining?"

Truthfully answering the above question can lead to a humility that allows for the Holy Spirit to challenge and direct our hearts and minds toward a life of righteousness.

A quotation by Henri Nouwen from The Wounded Healer comes to mind:

"[We must] enter ourselves first of all into the center of our existence and become familiar with the complexities of our inner lives. As soon as we feel at home in our own house, discover the dark corners as well as the light spots, the closed doors as well as the drafty rooms, our confusion will evaporate, our anxiety will diminish, and we will become capable of creative work. The key word here is articulation. Those who can articulate the movements of their inner life, who can give names to their varied experiences, need no longer be victims of themselves, but are able slowly and consistently to remove the obstacles that prevent the spirit from entering. They are able to create space for Him whose heart is greater than theirs, whose eyes see more than theirs, and whose hands can heal more than theirs. This articulation, I believe, is the basis for spiritual leadership of the future, because only they who are able to articulate their own experiences can offer themselves to others as a source of clarification."

Those who fill the pews expect miraculous words flowing from the pastor's mouth each week ... while spoken and unspoken demands expect him to be a miracle worker who walks on water and meets every need in the congregation the other 6 days. "He only works 20 minutes a week, anyway ..."

And then we argue over how much $ we should allot to resources such as books and conferences ... and don't permit solid study time because we demand instant access and problem solving 24/7.

Endless meetings, politicing, and putting out fires started by disgruntled parishioners add to the burden.

And then we wonder why we burn these men and women out?

What are we thinking? No wonder self-esteem is so low ... we wear these chosen servants of God out with our excessive, unrealistic, petty demands and give little in return to bless their lives and families ... and then wonder why they don't have the time to hear the gentle voice of the Spirit of God leading them in the deep study of His Word.

"Encourage one another daily ..."

As someone who preaches on a regular basis, I've struggled to know where the line is in this issue. My own preaching has certainly benefited from listening to others. Is it considered plagerism to hear one preacher make a fantastic insight in his message and then make the same insight in my message? It seems to me that in this day and age of the super-star pastor actually selling his sermon transcripts (under the guise of "saving the ordinary pastor time") we should figure out just what does constitute plagerism.

Thanks for the post. After reading it and knowing the tone of some of the regular posters here I have a request. If you want to rant against pastors keep it to yourself. If you want to comment about plagiarism go for it. There are very few jobs I know that are more difficult than being a lead pastor in a church. The average work week for me is over 50 hours and the work is never done. Don’t get me wrong, it is not all sorrow and strife; it is just a really hard job to do well. On a regular basis I am asked, “What is your real job? I mean you make a speech every week but how hard can that be. What do you really do?”

We are in a strange and exciting time. 25+ years ago when I started in ministry pastors did not even share their ideas. The studied, prepared a message and delivered it all by themselves. This was the “Way” we were taught in Bible college and seminary. “Sermons must come from your own study of the word and your own relationship with Christ,” my preaching prof. told me.

Today I see pastors borrow all the time. I am connected with a group of about 7 senior pastors, all amazing communicators and we share sermons and ideas every week. We sometimes preach the same series too. We have written series together, honed it together and then preached it in our respective churches at the same time. I am better for it, as a pastor, as a communicator, as a person and as a part of God’s Kingdom work. Do we all have relationships with Christ? Yes. Do we all study? Yes. Do we preach verbatim the same messages? No. We do however make each other better preachers by adding our gifts, study and insight into a message.

To plagiarize a sermon, not good at all. To take from other people’s experiences, messages, wisdom and giftedness is wise and I for one am glad to be able to get the help. When I take from a message, or a title from a message I footnote. I might say, you know Ed young has a great way of saying this when he… Or I might say I owe much to the thinking on this message to Ray Johnston. I have put a footnote on my sermon notes too. Pastors, lets be humble, lets be honest and let’s keep doing what we were called to do.

Final thoughts: Don’t confuse Video Venues with plagiarism. Skye is not but we must not either. One is wrong and the other is preference. Plagiarism in this case is to take the message and then the credit without pointing back to the originator. Many pastors today also tell others, take my message, use it word for word if you want and do what you will with it. I don’t care, if it helps, use it. In fact here is my outline, my title and a CD. I know that is how I feel about any message that comes from my mouth.

George Whitefield's sermons were printed and widely read. So, I really do not see much difference in the DNA of American culture as far as religious personalities being dominant than what we have seen in history.

What has changed is simply the technology. Pastor's have always copied and now it is just more likely that they can get caught.

O wow. I went to seminary in Washington D.C. and several of Dr. Jackson's members were my classmates. I can tell you that our classes were hopping with controversy as we discussed whether "borrowing" from someone else's sermons were acceptable. I had fellow ministers and pastors actually saying that plagiarizing is fine since we preachers "plagiarize the Word" everytime we preach.

Um, no.

There is a machine driving some pastors to rush out for sermons they think will catch their listeners' attention. Maybe that's one of the reasons why some plagiarize. But honestly, I think laziness and a lack of intimacy with the Almighty are the bigger issues.

As a chick who has her fair share of sermon podacasts from various pastors, the thought has not crossed my mind to literally preach their sermons as my own.

I believe it is the responsibility of every pastor to wrestle with the text herself/himself and allow the Holy Spirit to settle the Word that is to be delivered to the people.

There are as many "fat babies" in pulpits todays as their are the pews. May God help us rekindle and guard the precious fire of intimacy with Him and a passion for His Word.

Reading this opinion makes me think of Pauls' words to Timothy in II Timothy 4: "Preach the word . . . for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths".

Several years ago I had a discussion with a very 'beat-up' pastor. A well-meaning member of the congregation gave him a tape of a very well known speaker and while handing it to him said "This is what we want you to preach like." Yes this can sincerely do damage to one's self-esteem. Perhaps Timothy's timidity was a result of similar handling. The core issue, however, is not the self-esteem of the pastor. The issue is that we are so stuck on selling (buying) our methods, strategies, and leadership (speaking) styles; we've become so overly enamoured with ourselves (and our idols)that we fail to hear (and therefore speak) what the Spirit is saying to the Churches. We want our Pauls to be Appolloses. We want everything packaged up neatly according to our liking whether it be a three point exegesis, or whatever the homiletical flavour-of-the-week happens to be.

I sense that many pastors plagiarize because they no longer have anything worthwhile (i.e. Prophetically, Doctrinally, Spiritually relevant) to say. Understanding this, they give their congregations exactly what they want to hear.

Of course the dirty little secret is that if you do not have the gift of speaking, you more than likly will not attact many people to your church. the pressure is on, especially for church planters to get into the spotlight. the one created by magazines like christianty today, after all when was the last time this magazine ran a feature story on a church that was less than 200 people?

This is a great topic and very relavent to today. Thanks for posting this one Skye. While I see both sides of the issue and I understand where many are coming from, I wanted to offer up two things to consider.

The first one has to do with courtesy and respect. Some have hit on this but I think that it hits the nail on the head. If you wrote a message and spent a lot of time and effort on it and it is a reflection of your relationship with the Lord and you heard it in a church two weeks later and the pastor acted as if it was his, many would hate that. But more imporantly its about giving respect to our fellow believers. If brother so-and-so wrote a great piece on lets say "justification" and I plagarize his work and pass it off as my own, than I am saying to that person that I dont value him as a pastor or teacher. By using something he wrote and giving credit to him, I in fact am creating unity in the body of Christ by edifying him and creating a bond.

The second point I wanted to bring up was that the issue of plagarizing really goes deeper. If we are willing to "steal", that what plagarizing is, a message or sermon, what else will we steal? By plagarizing we are showing a deeper root problem in that it shows that we are willing to do whatever it takes to get by or to make it easier on ourselves. If I am willing to steal from my fellow brother, whom I am supposed to love, who else will I steal from. Can I use things that people say or put out? By all means, but give credit where credit is due and limit the amount.

I think by plagarizing it just shows the shallowness of your walk with God. If you have to resort to stealing than you are not willing to spend time with the Father to learn and to grow. I would much rather hear a lousy sermon from a guy who spent 10 hours with God in preperation than a high-energy sermon that was stolen and only required 30 minutes of web-searching to accomplish.

Just a few thoughts on this issue. Anyone else have a thought on it?

Blessings,

What else is leading pastors to plagiarize?

People explicitly encouraging them to do so. Read this article at Rick Warren's Ministry Toolbox on pastors.com

Don’t be original – be effective!
by Steve Sjogren

Sjogren, pastor of the 6000 attendance Cincinatti Vineyard church, essentially argues that "everyone's doing it and it is practical!" Here is a quote:

First of all, stop all of this nonsense of spending 25 or 30 hours a week preparing to speak on the weekend. The guys I draw encouragement from – the best communicators in the United States – confess they spend a total of about 15 hours preparing for their message. As I have already said, they get 70 percent of their material from someone else . . . Regardless of what you have heard or been taught – hit a homerun this weekend with the help of a message master!

Of course it is appropriate to borrow sermon ideas, quotes, and even outlines from others. It is part of research. We may also draw a quote, idea or outline from a commentary. But I think we must ask ourselves these questions when we borrow.
1. Do I feel complete integrity in this content? Am I repeating traditional American Christian cliches or is this material solidly rooted in Scripture? Am I seeking to live this material?
2. Is there an appropriate way for me to document where I have received my material? Do I put a note in the bulletin that gives credit to the original preacher? For example: "The messsage material today is based on the sermon series by Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan entitled 'Where else is the cross true?'" Or do you say somewhere in your introduction "Today I'm drawing material from a sermon preached earlier this year by John Ortberg of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in California entitled "'The Church on Monday Morning?'"
3. As the person set aside for study in this congregation and looked to as an example of integrity, am I putting aside an appropriate amount of time for preparation for building up my community in God's word? How can I regularly inform the elders of my church about my study habits so that they can protect, encourage me and hold me accountable? "Elders, I just wanted to give you an update on this next sermon series. I'm planning on drawing 70% of what I say directly from Ed Young's recent sermon series. I will probably be spending only 7 hours a week on sermon prep during that series instead of my usual 15. Let's talk about it after the series again and see if you have any concerns about whether I did not spend enough time in preparation or if I should more explicitly indicate the sources of my sermon material."

This whole thing drives me nuts. When I hear great insight from another pastor and want to relate it to the congregation, I'll just say: "In a recent sermon, Erwin McManus claimed that ..." or "GK Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy said..." How difficult is that? It makes you sound well read, and it lets the congregation know that you are learning and growing yourself by reading and listening to other pastors.

I've personally worked with a Senior Pastor who asked for me to fill in for him on a Sunday in the middle of a series. He told me that he had already written a message for that day and said that I was welcome to preach it. When I looked at the text, I could tell that he had taken a downloaded sermon and used the "replace" feature in Word to change the pastor's name to his own. I figured it out when I looked at one of the illustrations, and the name of the kids were not his kids. I went and googled the sermon topic and then the series and found three other pastors who preached messages with the same content that were posted on their sites. I kept following links and found that the sermon was a Rick Warren sermon.

Less than a month later, we were hanging out with some staff people at a church in another city who were trying to hire my wife as their children's pastor. When I told them the story of my SP, they clammed up and told me that it was a common and helpful thing and their pastor does it as well.

I think that this is a huge problem that is only getting bigger and just reinforcing the sad perceptions of hypocrisy and lack of authenticity in our churches.

As a bi-vocational church-planter,(talk about a work week), two thoughts come to mind: First, there is a large difference between the amount of time I would like to study and the time I have to study. In fact, at my secular job my friends jokingly call me anti-social at times because I must steal time whenever I can to study for my Sunday message. So is using someone else's ideas necessarily wrong? Not to me, as long as I am not going word-for-word. Second, when my mentor was called Home to be with our Lord, I inherited his library, within which was the complete set of "Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching." As one studies the styles and delivery techniques of the "masters", one cannot help but catch a unique understanding of a passage not otherwise found. Should we feel compelled to identify five or six of them in a single message? After all, when we use other resources such as commentaries, etc. are we not still using someone else's ideas, whether they be sermons or classroom lectures put into book form?

Is is an accident that Tim Keller's is the only picture missing from the profiles of "celebrity pastors"? Go to the church's website and you'll be hard pressed to find a head shot. This may be my bias because I'm a fan of his (!) but I think it's a reflection of their attempt to keep the focus on the Lord and the church and not on a celebrity leader.

1) In defense of magazines like Christianity Today doing features on churches of less than 200...they did. In the fall 2005 issue of Leadership, they profiled my church among many others and we have 150 members.

2) I don't believe it is our "people" who are driving pastors to plagiarize, it is our own pride and desire for worldly success. This is the fallacy behind much of the church growth movement, that somehow getting people in the pews each week means we are fulfilling our mandate. If we pastors are honest, the megachurch has become our Holy Grail. Who wouldn't love the chance to be heard and respected by thousands of adoring people? So we go to conferences with names like "Become a billion-soul harvestor" or "Help save Christianity from extinction by reaching the next generation" and we utilize every marketing tool imaginable to try and get the numbers. So why is it so surprising that blatant plagiarism has become commonplace? Those who do it probably see it as yet another "tool in the toolbox" for bringing in the folks.

Look...when we talk about what makes a ministry "successful", clearly numbers are not absent from that discussion. Numerical growth is a part of the blessing God bestows on His people when they are faithful to Him. However, we must never forget that the work of making disciples is not easy, nor is building real and authentic Christian community. The principalities and powers present in our world put up a fight for every inch of ground we gain. So we must be faithful. We must get on our knees in prayer. We must confess our sins of pride and arrogance. We must repent and pray that the Lord will use even us imperfect vessels to proclaim the glories of His Word.

I think those of us in liturgical churches would say that part of what drives this is the incredible emphasis placed on the sermon in evangelical churches, and the expectation that it will be original/"fresh"/deep/life-changing every week. It was a great relief to me to discover an Anglican church where the homily is brief, to the point, and only one aspect of the teaching offered that day (the rest is embedded in the liturgy and readings). It is the same type of homily preached everywhere else in the world that Sunday, because the gospel reading is the same. I can only imagine it's a relief for the priest, too.

Perhaps our Hollywood/entertainment culture is partly to blame as well. We go to the cinemas on Saturday night and expect to be utterly dazzled; and then we go to church on Sunday morning and expect to be dazzled by the pastor as well.

But this is all a very far cry from the way Paul understands preaching (I Cor. 1): it is neither "power" nor "wisdom", but rather "foolishness" -- the foolishness of the cross.

The Bible is all about plagiarizing from generation to generation and speaker to speaker.

Traditional cultures are always about transmitting the wisdom of the elders and the dead to future generations. Or imposing that wisdom, depending on your take.

I appreciate your blog.

But I think in this post you're imposing a secular and scientific standard on the Bible and on current evangelical leaders and pretending it represents biblical Christianity.

It doesn't.

The whole idea of plagiarism arose in a historical reaction against fundamentalist Christianity. Plagiarism only makes sense when a culture exhalts creativity and individualism over transmitting millenial and unchangeable truths.

I think you've got to figure out who's side your on.

I think Tom Pratt hit the nail on the head. First of all, Skye seems to be using a sloppy definition of plagiarizing. Plagiarism is pretending that an idea is original with you. (Should I note here that I looked up the word on answers.com? Is not noting that a form of plagiarism?) That is always wrong, and several responses have appropriately noted some of those situations.

However, to use unoriginal, unattributed ideas is not automatically plagiarism. The idea of originality itself is a product of western arrogance and should be labeled as sin. So the sin is not in the borrowing or not attributing, the sin is pretending that any idea is original with us. I do a lot of study and read widely. As a result of how my brain and spirit works, I don't remember where 90% of the stuff I say comes from. I can try to document but I still forget half the time. This is not laziness or lack of self-esteem, it is how the real world works. The ivory towers are not the real world!

The Truth of God is an open source project, not an idea owned by a scholar or entrepreneur. Those who claim otherwise are rejecting God. All things come from God, and Jesus is the beginning and the end. I regularly let my congregation know that I borrow all the time. If I happen to remember a source, I'll usually mention it. If a sermon spurs thinking that results in several iterations of thought that cause me to forget the original, I don't worry about sourcing it. If I'm deliberately quoting from a source that is copied into my notes, I'll name the source. Too many good people are having their names slung through the mud because of the arrogance of the ivory towers. Three cheers for the arrival of open source preaching!

perhaps we, again, are centering and excluding in a damaging way. the reason this is a big deal is that we have made the sermon the center piece, the headliner, the main course of the worship gathering.

how many of you have gone online to find worship orders/scripts for Ash Wednesday, etc.? Do you note to the congregation where you got that model, even if you don't use it word for word? The order itself is intellectual property of the creator, who we can assume is not us but someone else.

what about communion meditations (for our Restoration Movement bros)? are they totally original or do you use resources, etc. to develop those? what about photos used from Google Images? on and on, ad nauseum.

Is it not equal to word for word reproduction of sermons to "word for word" other parts of the weekly worship gathering? our Reformation/Evangelical perspective makes the sermon the highest point in the gathering, so we must tie the bell around our waist before going into the holy of holies lest we die in the pulpit. Is that, in all its sarcastic glory, really a stance of parity for other worship elements that could be just as informative, encouraging, and edifying?

peace

Kudos to Tom Pratt and John T.

John T, YOU hit the nail on the head. The claims of originality and the cries of plagiarism arise out of a western academic arrogance and pride. I still maintain that the Word of God belongs to God. We are not writing papers and theses, we are trying to teach people, as effectively as possible, the life-changing truths of the Word of God.

All of this talk of plagiarism automatically removes the emphasis from the message (the Word) and places it upon the messenger.

What a hot topic. It really could cause one to loose faith in their pastor to know that he is just using another mans sermon. It is true that scripture teaches that there is nothing new under the sun. Does that give us the green light to accept as our own the work of others? I think it is an encouragement to each of us who desires to teach and preach that we too can discover the biblical truth in a passage if we study. The truth will not change, it is as immutable as God himself! It is there in the scriptures, it can be discovered by us! We don't need someone to discover it for us. The ramifications of doing so are beyond reason. Our walk weakens, our personal commitment weakens, and our integrity weakens.

In I Timothy Pauls calls all who would be overseers to be above reproach! (vs. 2 NASB)

Webesters dictionary, a trusted name in definitions says this:
plagiarize- to steal and pass off (the ideas and words of another) as one's own: use (anothers production) without crediting the source: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

The Scripture is not filled with plagiarizing from one generation to another. It is the word of God, given to men, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The text is the truth of God. It tells us everything we know about God. IT cannont be placed into the same category as last sunday's mega church sermon. It is the source of mans study, not the product!

I leave you with one last example from Acts 19:11-17. This passage is about authentic power from the Holy Spirit. Paul was in Ephesus, he was performing miracles, and the seven sons of Sceva wanted in on the action. They tried to cast out a demon in the name of the Jesus whom Paul preached. It was not the Jesus they knew, but the Jesus whom Paul knew. What happened? The evil spirit said that he knew Jesus and Paul. Then he asked the most pressing question in ministry, "who are you?" Then the man with the evil spirit leaped on them (all seven) and beat them up, stripped them naked, and ran them off.

Who are you? Are you the one who stays on his knees and in his study until the truth is wrestled with and alive? or are you known as the one who uses anothers name, and tries to claim their fame, and their work for your own?

Let us all labor to be "workmen who need not be ashamed." II Timothy 2:15

We had a pastor who plagiarized Adrian Rogers word for word. He even developed the southern accent to go along with it. Then we had a pastor who borrowed ideas, etc., from Rick Warren and acknowledged Rick Warren while doing so. Big, big difference.

John Tait says it best: "The Truth of God is an open source project." Being concerned about original material is missing the point of the sermon. Sermons, to me anyway, are to elucidate the Truth, not to demonstrate the skills of the speaker. It does not bother me that songs performed in church are not original. It does not bother me that scripture is quoted without reference. Why would it bother me that the sermon was not original?

Years ago a visiting missionary presented the morning message. He said, "Sometimes it's good just to let the bible speak," and he read from Romans. At the time I thought, hey, he was too lazy to prepare; later I learned what he read was his own translation. Guess he wasn't too lazy after all!

If you believe that the primary role of a pastor is to write originally and cogently and to speak compellingly, then I understand why you would find plagerism to be an issue.

If, on the other hand, you believe the primary role of a pastor is to encourage and coach for the purpose of furthering discipleship, then why would you care who originated the sermon?

Sure, Richard Baxter did both. But if I have to choose, I'll go with the pastor who disciples every time.

It seems that pastor's today are looking to man instead of looking to God for what is powerful and what would be considered a good sermon. We measure ourselves by additions or decisions instead of what would please God.If we try to please man, we will see what pleases others. If we try to please God then we will preach His message and not ours. I do believe that we can find help from others just as we find help from the sermons of Peter and Paul and the sermons of Jesus Christ Himself(what better help could we find!). But to read word for word another mans sermons seems pretty lazy. I think Adrian Rogers had it right when he said this about pastors who borrow from his sermons, and I quote (ha, ha)" If what I preach fits your gun, then shoot it. But use your own powder."

This “plagiarizing” thing is a red herring for the real problems. The whole traditional-institutionalized version of "preaching" is so warped and perverted from what the N.T. describes. Where does the N.T. say preaching/teaching is lecture, one-way communication? Where does it say it's a 30-45 minute lecture? Does “preach the Word” equal lecture the Word? Where does it say it should never be “one another” oriented?

The scripture used to justify this one-way communication ordeal is warped to fit men’s traditions that nullify commands God has given.

This system ASSUMES Jack and Jill believer won’t grow up in their faith without a weekly Bible lecture. This is bogus from what the Word says will build them up. The very scripture that says believers should not “forsake meeting together” specifies “spurring one another on to love and good works” and “encouraging one another”. This is a loooong ways from lecture. Participation oriented preaching and teaching produces far more learning than information dumping in lecture orientation. God’s grace is BIG. It allows a tragic tradition to accomplish much of His purposes. But this not a valid reason to continue it. God wants us to get His commands right. He’s waiting for us. The rush to hyper-expertise oriented lecture is only one of many red flags to help us see the system needs to be realigned with truth. Let’s allow truth to trump tradition instead of the opposite.

If I remember rightly, the thing that sparked this article was a N.Y. Times story of a preacher who used another person's sermons whole cloth, even including the names of friends, without attributing his source. Had he used the sermon and given due credit to its author, there would have been no plagiarism.

I agree with some others here that undue importance has been placed on the weekly sermon. The model used for church in western society may be the problem. Measuring success by numbers, revenues and conversions (mostly from other church brands), is of the World, not of God's Kingdom. Requiring pastors to be popular, influential and celebrated, is again a Worldly measure. Committees, boards and ownership are things which wear pastors down and take the church out of God's hands. Rather than feed the poor, we support missions. Rather than comfort the bereft, we deny them the right to express pain.

Our model is not make disciples, but to have audiences. Pastors no longer "equip the saints (congregation) for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ", because they are expected to build up the body themselves.

We have to remember not to put pastors and teachers up on pedestals, or expect them to carry out the work that is the job of the membership. We should also remember that they, like us, need loving support, have weaknesses, grow weary and stumble.

Not sure if anyone has said it here, but you probably know the phrase: copy from one person thats plagiarism, copy from 5 and that's research!. More seriously I wonder about one aspect of this issue. I don;t want my sermons to sound like heavily footnoted articles, so rather than always saying the name of the book or author or website I found an idea on, will try to at least say "I was reading" or "as someone said." I want to make clear that the idea may not be my original one, but don't want to bog listeners down in the minutae of referencing. It can be hard also when you have what you think is an original insight or idea, only to find others have had the same... Cheers!

There is no copyright on truth, and neither can you plagiarize what you own, see Deut 29:29. If preachers are preaching word for word someone else's sermon, then that's sad (and probably ineffective), but if they are getting revelation and sharing it with God's people - that's good news!

My first question on this is: What is a pastor? Don't confuse the role of pastor (called to pastor a congregation?) with the role of teacher or preacher. The goal of the pastor is to lead the flock in the Way. Preaching is only one aspect of it. Not everyone is a gifted communicator - this is not the expectation I have of the pastors in my churches over 40yrs. The Sunday sermon is only one aspect.

Secondly, God calls us to work together and share our gifts (Eph 4:11 etc) for His work. I see that borrowing sermons is like borrowing a hammer. A sermon is only a tool.

Thirdly, God's wisdom is for all of us. Sermons are not an academic or commercial product to be owned, but the revelation of the Spirit to the Body of Christ. And how that revelation gets out there is not proprietary like a software product or book. It just has to get out their.

I am not a pastor, but I find illustrations on the internet to use in preparing Sunday school lessons. I like to find a good sermon on the scripture that I can use as the backbone of my lesson.

On one occasion I had copied several sermons from SermonCentral on the scripture and began to read them to see if I could find helpful material. I was astounded to find two sermons that were 99% the same -- I mean word for word.

In one instance, the sermon cited a happening between the original writer and his wife and the pastor that used the sermon simply changed the name of the wife and told the story as something that happened between him and his wife. Frankly, I thought that crossed the line.

I'm a little amazed at the number of people who post in response to this blog without ever once asking what scripture might say about pastors plagiarizing. Perhaps Jeremiah's words are on point here: "I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who steal my words every one from his neighbor (Jer 23:30)."

Seems like there were prophets who rather than standing in the counsel of God (v. 22) found it easier to just take the words God had given others. God is not pleased with this.

I think at least part of what God is conveying here through Jeremiah is that he expects those who speak to his people to spend time with him, hearing and learning how they should appropriate and apply scripture within the immediate lives and culture of those to whom they minister.

Pastors/teachers who make a habit of taking the words of others and delivering them as if they were their own are doing their people and themselves (not to mention God!) a disservice.

I find it confusing to know where the line should be between "borrowing" and plagiarism. The discussion makes me think more carefully about what I do with material. My most vivid encounter with plagiarism came at an Urbana Convention in the 1970's when a highly respected pastor delivered a series of Bible studies to missionaries on 2 Corinthians. I taped the series. Later in preparation for my own sermons, I gathered some books and began to take notes. Right away I noticed that some ideas in a book by Alan Redpath sounded familiar. When I played the tapes, they were Redpath's chapters, word for word. His use of material was exactly the way Rev. Jackson operated. Sadly, when CT reported the Urbana preacher's death a few years ago, all I could recall about him was his flagrant plagiarism (which to my knowledge was never exposed).

Thank you Phil! Finally, a scripture reference. To those who are confused about what is plagiarizing and what is research, and what needs to be cited vs. what doesn't need to be cited, how about asking a high school english teacher? I was taught that any concept or idea found in three or more places is "common knowledge" and thus does not need to be cited. Anything less obvious should be traced back to wherever it was found.
To the preachers who think it's perfectly alright to plagiarize entire sermons, do you all get up before your congregation and let them know that 95% of your sermon came from another preacher? If not, why? If you don't because doing so would make you feel some shame, guilt, or embarrassment, then maybe it's time to listen to your conscience. That just might be the Holy Spirit speaking and telling you that plagiarism is not the right way to go.
To all the preachers, whether pastors or Sunday school teachers or otherwise, who give original sermons and talks--thank you so much for being an example of integrity to your congregations! We don't know all the pressures you face in ministry, but we know that there are many and that it would be easy to simply copy and paste.....thank you for resisting that temptation and teaching us from your personal study time with God! It's a privilege to hear.

Phil, I'd be wary of equating prophets (Jer 23:30) with preachers. I am not sure they are same calling or gifting we read in Eph 4. Some prophets may be preachers and vice-versa, but not all have the gift of the other. I find that many prophets can't preach and many preachers don't have the gift of prophecy.

I agree though that God wants prophets to be delivering first hand revelation, if they aren't they are not operating in the gift.

On the other hand, preachers are transmitters of Word, and maybe transmitting the Word in the form of insights of others is just what God wants and this generation needs.

But I don't disagree with your point - let's understand what God wants. Perhaps it is right that I retransmit your insight to an audience that hasn't heard it before. Regardless of the "source" of the sermon, the preacher needs to seek God on the content.

One further point, is all preachers are on the same team, not in competition so they should be helping each other in the task to preach the good news!

What amazes me, from Rhyne's comment, is that the second pastor posted his borrowed sermon on the internet!

But the whole concept of selling sermons to other pastors who are dry and out of ideas is really, really sad.

It's tempting to rely on technology to do our work for us. But video preachers aren't the ones living, working, and suffering with members of the congregation. Churches are not centers to consume presentations. They're where sinners commune with God and one another. A video can't do that.

In Defense of Local Preaching
http://transformingsermons.blogspot.com/2006/08/in-defense-of-local-preaching.html

The original question was, "What drives pastors to plagiarize?" Perhaps in the context of iconic and celebrity pastors, the answer lies in the hope of seeing God replicate results, as if by formula. Which begs the question, "Does God work generically by formula, or in each life and church unique to time, place, circumstance, community landscape and ministry opportunities?"

If one considers, in the millions of years that He has been creating new babies, that no two human beings have ever been exactly alike, one must consider that God's concept of originality far exceeds our own. Consider the abbreviated life of Dolly the sheep, man's calculated attempt to replicate God's work by formula.

What if the post said: People who never borrow sermons avoid borrowing because they are prideful and seek to be original? People who never borrow sermons avoid borrowing because they seek power and control over their pulpit? When they get up and preach a clunker, they are dry, out of touch with God? They are jealous of the big church preachers and that jealousy makes them un-teachable? Their refusal to borrow is because of insecurity and fear that if someone found out they might think less of them as a preacher? People who do not borrow sermons would rather preach a poorly constructed message and bore people than to preach a dynamic message that would draw someone to Christ because they are to lazy to find out what God is doing in other preachers. OKAY, get the point. Enough with trashing pastors as lazy, dry, insecure, dishonest. Then next thing you know you will be saying they are actually human.

Here are some positive assumptions about borrowing sermons. (I am not speaking about lock stock and barrel borrowing) Sometimes a pastor comes across a series that says very well what God has placed upon their heart to give to their church. Sometimes the Holy Spirit actually leads a pastor to use someone else’s sermon. For example, Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” has been read by many pastors in the past 265 years or so since it was first spoken. Even borrowed messages take hours of preparation. Let’s not assume that originality is divine and the only way God’s Spirit works. Let’s not attach fear, jealousy, envy, laziness and dryness to someone who more than likely worked over 55 hours, was called out late at night to a hospital, already feels bad about the sacrifice their family is making because of ministry.

BTW PJ God has only been creating babies for about 6000 years and God’s ability to create from nothing is far different than preparing a sermon or cloning a sheep. Anna, originality is not the measurement for integrity. Cutting and pasting is not what happens when a pastor uses another sermon. It still requires hours of study to ascertain scriptural correctness, hours of personal preparation to stand before God and His people. Phil, Jeremiah doe not address this subject at all, look at the context. Tim, you actually don’t cite any commands God has given, but you try to correct something that there is patterns for going back to the first century. Do not assume that because a message does not involve a dialog during the message that there is no dialog happening. Your argument against what the church does is the red herring. GW I know thousands of pastors, very few look to men instead of God. Be careful what you assume.

Finally, Skye, what I believe is a more common cause of pastoral lack of self esteem is not the success of other pastors but a lack of clarity on their own calling. Pastors who know and are sure of their calling as a child of God and then as a minister of the good news about that God have in place the antidote to pastoral lack of self esteem.

Plagiarism, like all other sin, is rooted in accountability. At my church we work as a pastorl team to shape worship. That includes discussing sermons and sharing the teaching load. The less pressure there is placed on a single individual, the more freedom there is to be creative and to find your own voice as a preacher. Gina is correct as well in pointing out that this problem is very different in a liturgical setting where the sermon isn't elevated to the highest place of value in a worship service. Liturgy is very helpful in adding more than one voice to the proclamation of God's Word. The more we involve community in the proclamation, the less temptation there will be to plagiarize.

Craig Brian Larson has some good things to say about this at PreachingToday.com

"Plagiarism" is an industry specific word from academic and journalism settings. I see no problem with a pastor delivering someone else's sermon as long as they don't take credit for it.

It is an issue of honesty, not originality. If a pastor is honest about identifying good material, obtaining permission, and sharing it with the congregation, that is fine--even if the pastor preaches it word for word.

If the pastor is trying to pass off someone else's material as their own . . . then, Houston, we have a problem.

Oh dear God, please spare me the "it's the demands of the cattle in the pews that drive poor, dear Leaders to steal sermons." Admitting your sources just proves you did your job and researched your sermon topic. Lying (and that's what it is, Leaders) to make yourself look better by taking credit for what's not yours is dishonest and reflects on your character, not the demands your flock puts on you.

When I first began full-time ministry 32 years ago I was sure I would preach everything in the Bible within three years and have to go on to another church. I did promise the church that if I ever came to a Sunday morning without hearing from God, I wouldn't waste their time or mine trying to fill up the time with personal eloquence. Although there were some (very few) Sundays when we just sang a few songs, received the offering and went home, most of the time I had a revelation or illumination which resulted in a message. I resolved early on never to even read anyone else's outlines, much less borrow from anyone's sermons. If a statement in a message provoked a direction in my thinking I used the quote - attributing it to its source - and built a message around that thought.

By the way, eleven years later I was preaching a five part series once a month - Sunday through Wednesday - because there just wasn't enough time in our regular schedule of services to deliver the "wondrous things" I was beholding in His Law. (Psalm 119:18)

Was this effective? We grew from 50 to over 300 in less than 6 years. Not great from today's perspective of megachurches but several of the members of that congregation are ministering today with a real passion for the Word of God.

I cannot conceive how anyone could read and study the Word of God with an open heart and ever run out of things to preach.

I'm not so sure plagiarism is a large problem when it comes to preaching... The problem is when article's are written which plagiarize. I've never preached a sermon of my own the same way twice, much less one which came from another man's thoughts. My Dad, a fellow preacher, would often give me his sermon outlines which I used for inspiration for my own sermon's. Plagiarism? I don't think so...

Mark Twain said it best. "The only man that enjoyed the luxury of originality was Adam."

I agree that preaching a sermon that is not yours is sinful. However, i believe there is a deeper issue here. Not only is the fact that plagerism is high but so is pride. Listen I have been watching the television set and seeing some of the biggys in church life preach and little by little the church is taking a back seat to the pastor. I mean it is not Lakewood Church dot com it is Joel Osteen dot com. And more and more pastors are buying into it.

Therefore, when preachers are looking at these guys and then the big ugly head of envy comes into play. What shall we do? If the root remains in us as preachers then little by little Satan will expose the sin and shove us on a downward spiral quickly.

Let us not forget that while it is good to aspire to be like someone better than ourselves, it is a most definite sin to try and be someone we are not.

Or is our message so loudly and clearly, 'Come and taste the goodness of our Lord, the One who loves and cares for you more than any human lover possibly could. Come and embrace the arms that reach out to embrace you and let you find acceptance in his eternal love and not in the fleeting ways this world has to offer. You, people, come to be who you really and truly are - even though we stand before you behind a mask of insecurity and a lack to embrace the love we want you to embrace.'

I love preaching. It takes time, effort and resources to preach each and have something new, fresh and faithfully biblical to say. I do get ideas of where to start from the writing of others and then study, pray and prepare to make it my own. It seldom looks like the material that got me started.

it is frustrating when all of the other responsibilities of a pastor (usually good things in themelves) crowd out the study time needed to be creative and original.

I am grateful for the seminary I attended and the methods of Bible study I learned there. It assists in the preparation of original sermons.

What about the time pressures as well as the performance pressures on pastors? I also recall that Paul dealt with pastoral personality issues in I Corinthians. 'Who is Paul and who is Apollos? He went on to say, (paraphrase) 'only servants of the Lord.'
I am a contributor to sermoncentral.com and I have quoted (with verbal as well as noted acknowledgement in my internet postings)those that I have read from at that website. It is the right thing to do.
It is a problem that we need help with.

There is much need for such a discussion as this, especially in today's world of easy access to all kinds of materials. And, yes, the world is a busy place. Many things routinely interrupt us in ways that make "borrowing" the materials of others appear very tempting. However, I think an honest attempt to disclose general sources and key influences is of primary significance.

I think pride often keeps pastors from revealing their sources. Such pride flies in complete contradiction of the spirit of humility that Christian leaders need to exhibit. I think we should only present thoughts and ideas of others under one of two conditions: (1)comparison basis, to see what others have to say about a topic or Scripture passage; or (2)after we have spent sufficient time with the material in order to allow the Lord to speak to us through it.

I think the issue of plaigarism demands that we do our best as ministry leaders to avoid any appearance of evil, which dictates that in our choices we must err on the side of caution.

Low self-esteem "on the rise" ???? You gotta be kidding me! It has always and will continue to be a REAL issue for all pastors by virtue of their very position.

This is terrible and pastors must get messages from the holy ghost and not be desciple of disciples

I think the greater problem rather than plagiarizing being a sin is that the preacher/pastor oftimes promotes himself and his personal perspective rather than just simply preaching Jesus and Him crucified! Today, preachers/pastors cater more to what will keep the house full and not not what will feed and fill the sheep/lambs so that they may share the message of Jesus - that He ALONE saves and gives eternal life to whomsoever He wills! Let's just get back to the basics of pointing people to Christ and stop preaching prosperity, psychiatry, and philosophy.
Every true message comes from God! Why do writers, pastors/preachers/teachers publish (sell) their books and manuscripts for teaching purposes and expect that someone is not going to use them.
The Purpose Driven Church / Purpose Driven Life are two good examples of what Churches are doing with materials that are provided (sold) to enhance another's message. There's nothing new under the sun!

I remember years ago Vance Havner saying that he was talking to a young pastor about sermon preparation who told Dr Havner that he'd "either be original or nothing." Vance Havner then stated, "he soon found out he was both!"

I think this is more than just an issue of one person copying (or to put it more bluntly, "stealing") someone else's work. There are other factors involved in this whole dynamics. First, we must ask whether or not the pastor (and we may even include other lay leaders with teaching roles) copy another's work out of sheer laziness. If he is simply too lazy to do his own research, then he should change. However, if he fails to spend enough time to study on his own because he is expected to do everything in the church, maybe the other leaders in the church can help by removing some loads from him so that he can have more time to study so that he can preach a "freshly baked" sermon instead of feeding his people "microwaved leftover" sermons. If there is not enough leader, maybe he should think of training some, or maybe the church should think of inviting new pastors to work together with him.
If the pastor does so simply because he is (pardon me for using this term) "ungifted" to produce sermons, then maybe the church can help by sending him to trainings so he can sharpen his skills.
At the end of the day, I think we need to rethink the standards that we are setting here and the motives for doing so. For those who "copy" other man's work, we must go to the root of all these and deal with it. And for those who are so meticulous about this issue of plagiarism, we may need to ask if we do so because we want to develop man's ability to think "originally," or is it because we are only concerned about "who gets the credit," or in some cases, "am I getting the credit?" If we preach or write, do we do so because we know God has given us something valuable that we want to share it to others even if we don't get the credit for being God's messenger or being "the first to know"? Or do we do so because we want the world to know what we know? If we believe that the message God has entrusted to us is so important (and more important than our glory), why not see them as "transferrable" or "pass-on-able" (lest I be charged of plagiarism here, I think this was a term originally used by Bill Bright, but I am not sure, honestly, I forgot already).
By saying this, I am not saying that plagiarism is ok. I give my students low marks if they do not include footnotes after quoting someone else's work. But I think we must learn to show extra grace to "plagiarizing" pastors. I can only think of two unexcusable reasons for plagiarizing--laziness and desiring to impress congregation using "better" works by others.

This is absurd.

Plagiarism in preaching is a ridiculous notion. That implies that some pastor has 'intellectual property' rights over the truth of Scripture.

and if he's not preaching the truth of Scripture, and he's coming up with new and novel ideas, he isn't preaching the truth anyway. He's running philosophy class. in that case, its not preaching, so this argument is mute.

Any true pastor is only concerned about preaching Biblical truth. And he does not want credit for it, because he realizes it does not belong to him, but to God. Scriptural truth should not be credited to any man.

True preaching CANNOT be plagiarized. Scripture gets the credit. No one else deserved it.

This whole discussion has been interesting, but let me throw in another twist. In an age of copy-rights, especially with Television shows. If you were to share a "statement" made by John Madden in your sermon, or re-braodcast a small section of the local news, or even game an account of the college basketball game. Would that constitute as plagiarism>

The problem isn't self-esteem, work schedule or even difficult parishioners. The problem is that at a church (and culture) we have moved away from the idea of Christian Community, to isolated individualism.

I had met for several years with a group of 8 pastors. We would often share our sermon notes with one another and encourage one another to share them with their congregaation. After all aren't we in the business of "winning the lost to Jesus" together.

Another thought. Selling your sermon notes on the internet should be considered wrong. In reality, it paints a picture for greed for the pastor selling his material (most of which we got from other soureces without referencing them).

If it weren't for the experiences with the Word, experiences of others, and expereinces with others - we would have nothing to say. That would be an enjoyable Worship Celebration.

Let's stop worrying about whose getting the credit and start Proclaiming Christ.

I think as Christians, we believe that God made us. If He did, then He also made our brains and also our ability to think. He also agve soem people a golden tongue and a creative mind. I also believe that God did not copyright the Bible. If our brain power is God's and the bible is God's then what we interpret is also God's and what is God's is freely available for all of us to use. It may be courteous to mention about where we took the ideas from but other than that we should be allowed to copy. Copyrighting is an idea that belongs to Caeser. Let us not bring that into God's temple.

OH CRAP! I'm in trouble... I rip of Tim Lucas of Liquid Church all the time! what's worse, I've been ripping off the Bible and G-d every sunday. I guess i better come up with my own material and let Jesus keep the rights to his own stuff.

Don't get me wrong... i think the pastor should be studying himself, he should have his own type of moments of clarity during studying.

But when there's a message that is resonating with you... and someone like Tim's word-smithing craft the idea so clearly... why not pass on that information. Please understand, I don't just MEMORIZE Tim's messages and repeat them... on the other hand, i think the class would get more if i did.

besides, isn't it nice to not have the pressure of adding the various twists? As it says in Rev: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, G-d will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

I guess G-d encourages plagarism of his ideas.

I milk a lot of cows, but I churn my own butter. I think some people need to lighten up. I am grateful for all the help that is out there. Preach the Word...even if someone else said it first or better.

Um, who copied who, Peter or Jude? Did Mark use Q? Did Matthew? Luke directly states that he used previous sources without identifying who those sources were.

Whether you borrow or not, copy or not make sure YOU are preaching the truth. I am a bivocational pastor studying for a masters. I can't even begin to remember all the places I learn stuff. If I used your stuff without giving you credit I apologize. Please know that all I want is to Preach Christ Crucified, Ressurected and Glorified.

I cannot believe the discussion over plagiarism.
How can one plagiarize the word of God? We are suppose to bring people into his Kingdom by spreading the word. What motive does one have for accusing someone of using their sermon, is it pride and self seeking popularity.I would think it would be the greatest joy to bring people into his Kingdom by preaching someone else's sermon. How many different ways can thousands of preachers talk about salvation, atonement, redemption etc. Let us get real Christianity is becoming so secular that fame and money takes center stage.

Original sermon prep takes time. All else being equal, a church planter perhaps could be adding more value to the growth and health of the congregation by economizing on time in sermon prep so that more time would be available for discipling, leadership development, evangelism, and so on. This might be the greater blessing to the congregation. So long as the sermon prep help is acknowledged publicly, of course.