Plagiarism is a pastoral issue. In more than one way: sermons, writings, podcasts, etc. People listening think what you have to say is yours unless you tell them otherwise. Of course, they know you learn from commentaries and scholars, and the honest pastor lets the congregation in on where X and Y and Z came from, though a sermon is not footnoted. I consider it the preacher’s judgment when it is right to “cite” and when to “use.”
Oh my. This is obviously a sensitive issue. At the core of it is integrity, which may be the most important thing people want from their pastor. And responsiveness to the issues which are forefront in the minds of the congregation in front of them.
Many years ago I was involved in a situation I have never forgotten. I was on a hiring committee, and one of the candidates came with references that all commended him highly for his preaching. The only problem was that I had heard him preach a couple of times just previously. Both sermons were taken word-for-word from a book by Eugene Peterson. My ears pricked up when he started explaining something from the Hebrew, because I knew he didn't know Hebrew.
The problem got worse on the hiring committee. When I mentioned this, the pastors on the committee jumped to his defense, saying I didn't understand how busy they were.
But I do know how busy they are, and how many interruptions they have to deal with. And I have no problem with them using someone else's sermon if they have to. Just tell the congregation what a busy week it has been, and say that you're sharing the words of so-and-so because they are meaningful to you. And please cut out personal references and claims to things you couldn't possibly know. People will understand.
But faking it and claiming something stolen as your own destroys your credibility. In the academic world people get fired for this.
I’ll add another reason- the pastor is wounded. It’s difficult to write a sermon when one has experienced a betrayal or other pain inflicted on them. These wounds take time to process and care for, and often disrupt sermon writing. So we need to finish the sermon to give our mental attention to our wounds, but struggle to finish the sermon until some of the wound is dealt with. This is when the temptation is highest for me. Sometimes in the last couple years I’ve had to go with a “half-baked” sermon, because I had to do internal work that interrupted the sermon prep. But I’ve seen the Lord’s faithfulness at these times, when He multiplies my fish and loaves to meet the needs of the church. I think these times have been crucial for my own growth in Christoformity. They remind me that God can use an “injured” pastor, and the weight I often take on really isn’t mine to carry.
One idea that has popped into my head since this topic has become popular is whether a pastor should have a blog where they list out their "footnotes" for a sermon. Whether that is another sermon, a book, an article, a podcast, or whatever source that helped contribute to the sermon.
It not only would help with transparency, but it could also help interested congregants engage in new books or podcasts to grow in their knowledge and faith.
First, I think Dave George Moore has hit the nail on its head, the problem of spiritual apathy. and behind that I see something Scot dealt with in yesterday's Tov post - the "need" to be the expert , the "pure didastics" pastor, rather than the "fellow learner." But even as I write that, I realize that expectations differ with the size of a congregation, the nature of the denomination behind a particular church, and where the pew-warmers are in their own understanding of the Christian life. So there's no "one size fits all situations" in sermon prep and delivery. BUT a plagiarizing pastor is probably not REALLY listening to congregants and then finding the essential touch-point between Scripture and the spiritual needs of people in the pew. It becomes "all about the speaker,' not about the pastor's knowledge of the needs of his/her congregants. Sad.
I'm convinced that the number one culprit by far is spiritual apathy.
One of my favorite Puritans, and a very busy pastor (!), Richard Baxter said, "Take heed, therefore, to yourselves first. See to it that you be the worshiper which you persuade your hearers to be. Make sure first that you believe what you persuade others daily to believe."
I will probably regret what I'm thinking about today, Scot, in response to your invitation to reflect on sermon sources. And I probably should use the delete key today, rather than the Post-it key. Your question prompted me to reflect on the kinds of preachings I've listened to over the years. In my youth the pastor liked to do series, but not in a single extended biblical text, but stand-along sermons on each of Jesus' parables, etc.. Later in college I heard fiery sermons taking off from a flimsy minor text for 30 minutes of vitriol. And years later I discovered preachers who could spend a year, Sunday after Sunday, in an exposition of a single chapter in one of Paul's letters. etc; etc; All of this to say that I've heard a LOT of preaching over the years and have learned to discern my own "message" from the hodge-podge. I would like to think that my experience is more or less unique, that most people attending church every week would feel differently about most preaching. Once in a while, of course, something in a sermon was used by God to grip my soul and force contrition and change. But I'm wondering how many other Christians have had to hunt for rare jewels among the so-so sermons and have had to be satisfied with them, relying on God's Spirit for a strong word from Scripture. I'm not a picky listener, but I've been listening long enough to have developed a discerning ear - and a willingness to sit with an open Bible on my lap, letting Scripture speak truth directly to my soul, regardless of the "sermon."
For me a big part of this conversation comes down to the question of: what is a good sermon, anyway? Surely a good sermon is the sermon God wants the preacher to preach that week -- a faithful sermon. In my (growing) understanding, a faithful sermon proclaims a prayerful word to a particular people at a particular time and place. And faithful sermons are utterly dependent on the preacher listening to the word God has to speak to the preacher him/herself that week. Most of the time, even when I've preached a text before, I end up not using or drastically altering old sermons because they don't seem to speak to the new context (people are not the same even three years apart!). As with so many other things in faith, it seems like we need to get clear on what "success" looks like in preaching (and what it doesn't).
Hey Scot... you mentioned this: “It would be another post to discuss responsible reading pattern.” I’d really love to learn about this. Would you be willing to make a post about this?
There are very rare times, when you come across a sermon that is so good and right for the season that your church is in that it just makes sense to pass it on to your congregation with full acknowledgement of the source and your reason for doing it. You will still make it your own but not using it when it feels so right would feel like not giving your congregation the best that you can. Not acknowledging it would be a betrayal of both your source and the church. When I say rare, I think that this has happened less than five times in twenty six years in one church.
Every Tuesday afternoon our pastor meets with a small group of us where we “winnow” the text for the coming Sunday. We spend an hour and a half. Our main purpose is to reflect on the passage for our time,place, and congregation. Our pastor takes copious notes. He sometimes tells us where he thinks the sermon is going but usually he doesn’t. He participates in the discussion but doesn’t make it go in any specific direction. When he goes up to the pulpit he takes those notes with him. When we have another preacher they come to winnowers if they can. Our pastor says he’s explained this process to many groups of pastors but as far as he knows no one has followed suit.
Personally, I write/deliver sermons based on PowerPoint slides, not written/typed notes. Here are some of the things I do in the process:
1. Any passage of scripture I use on-screen, I obviously include the reference (and usually the translation abbreviation.)
2. Any quotes I use, I put a picture of the author/source on screen, w/their name, to specifically attribute the quote to them - this also helps the congregation see the diversity of scholarship I'm trying to draw from, and holds me accountable to not always drawing on straight white guys for every thought I'm sharing :-)
3. If I'm going to read someone else's sermon, it's only because I know they've already said it better than I ever could, and/or I know/sense I simply have nothing worthwhile to say that week...and I make it absolutely clear - up front - exactly who wrote the sermon, where they delivered it, and make editorial comments along the way if/when necessary to make it fully relevant to our context (NOTE: this is very rare, but does happen. Just a few weeks ago, when the RCL had the Transfiguration on deck twice in a three week period, I did my own message on the subject the first time, then read one from another pastor/author the second time, giving full attribution as mentioned here.)
4. Thankfully, I'm part of a church culture that encourages me to share the pulpit, so even though we're a small staff (2 full time, one part time), we can share the preaching load, as well as draw on other qualified teachers in the congregation (being in a college town admittedly helps here, as we have some fantastic preachers who also happen to teach for a living.) Having a break from preaching EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. has been invaluable to my mental health.
Our congregation always likes a printed out copy of the sermon, so footnotes are appropriate there. It also means that anyone really interested in a particular idea knows where to go to follow it.
I think of preaching as a community garden. Work the soil of God's word long enough (not just during the week but for years), feeding yourself and others, and you'll have plenty to say. It also helps me to think of preaching as dialogue not monologue. A monologue brings too much pressure. Reminding myself that I'm simply adding to an ongoing conversation helps me take responsibility for what I say. My words (hopefully inspired by the Spirit) may not be much, but they are my words that come from working in the garden.
Apart from the spiritual apathy aspect, how much of this is their struggle to balance responsibilities? Is too much emphasis put on the sermon (in regards to length) in the services? How do they balance that responsibility and their other pastoral duties? Are expectations of the laity too unrealistic?
I think pastors / preachers assume that those reading / listening to them are interested in the information they have, about the text, context, culture, or history of interpretation. This is demonstrably false. People can google any of these things and digest them at their own pace.
What people are interested in is a pastor's synthesis, insight, and application of the information they have. We are way more vulnerable to plagiarism when we're trying to look smart and show off our information than we are when we're actually synthesizing that information in meaningful ways.
As a coach, I love helping preachers stop repeating what x, y, z, preacher / public theologian said and start honestly, curiously, and humbly exploring their own insights, (citing x, y, z preacher when necessary.).
Oh my. This is obviously a sensitive issue. At the core of it is integrity, which may be the most important thing people want from their pastor. And responsiveness to the issues which are forefront in the minds of the congregation in front of them.
Many years ago I was involved in a situation I have never forgotten. I was on a hiring committee, and one of the candidates came with references that all commended him highly for his preaching. The only problem was that I had heard him preach a couple of times just previously. Both sermons were taken word-for-word from a book by Eugene Peterson. My ears pricked up when he started explaining something from the Hebrew, because I knew he didn't know Hebrew.
The problem got worse on the hiring committee. When I mentioned this, the pastors on the committee jumped to his defense, saying I didn't understand how busy they were.
But I do know how busy they are, and how many interruptions they have to deal with. And I have no problem with them using someone else's sermon if they have to. Just tell the congregation what a busy week it has been, and say that you're sharing the words of so-and-so because they are meaningful to you. And please cut out personal references and claims to things you couldn't possibly know. People will understand.
But faking it and claiming something stolen as your own destroys your credibility. In the academic world people get fired for this.
And some preachers chat about sermons with their husbands.
I’ll add another reason- the pastor is wounded. It’s difficult to write a sermon when one has experienced a betrayal or other pain inflicted on them. These wounds take time to process and care for, and often disrupt sermon writing. So we need to finish the sermon to give our mental attention to our wounds, but struggle to finish the sermon until some of the wound is dealt with. This is when the temptation is highest for me. Sometimes in the last couple years I’ve had to go with a “half-baked” sermon, because I had to do internal work that interrupted the sermon prep. But I’ve seen the Lord’s faithfulness at these times, when He multiplies my fish and loaves to meet the needs of the church. I think these times have been crucial for my own growth in Christoformity. They remind me that God can use an “injured” pastor, and the weight I often take on really isn’t mine to carry.
One idea that has popped into my head since this topic has become popular is whether a pastor should have a blog where they list out their "footnotes" for a sermon. Whether that is another sermon, a book, an article, a podcast, or whatever source that helped contribute to the sermon.
It not only would help with transparency, but it could also help interested congregants engage in new books or podcasts to grow in their knowledge and faith.
First, I think Dave George Moore has hit the nail on its head, the problem of spiritual apathy. and behind that I see something Scot dealt with in yesterday's Tov post - the "need" to be the expert , the "pure didastics" pastor, rather than the "fellow learner." But even as I write that, I realize that expectations differ with the size of a congregation, the nature of the denomination behind a particular church, and where the pew-warmers are in their own understanding of the Christian life. So there's no "one size fits all situations" in sermon prep and delivery. BUT a plagiarizing pastor is probably not REALLY listening to congregants and then finding the essential touch-point between Scripture and the spiritual needs of people in the pew. It becomes "all about the speaker,' not about the pastor's knowledge of the needs of his/her congregants. Sad.
I'm convinced that the number one culprit by far is spiritual apathy.
One of my favorite Puritans, and a very busy pastor (!), Richard Baxter said, "Take heed, therefore, to yourselves first. See to it that you be the worshiper which you persuade your hearers to be. Make sure first that you believe what you persuade others daily to believe."
I will probably regret what I'm thinking about today, Scot, in response to your invitation to reflect on sermon sources. And I probably should use the delete key today, rather than the Post-it key. Your question prompted me to reflect on the kinds of preachings I've listened to over the years. In my youth the pastor liked to do series, but not in a single extended biblical text, but stand-along sermons on each of Jesus' parables, etc.. Later in college I heard fiery sermons taking off from a flimsy minor text for 30 minutes of vitriol. And years later I discovered preachers who could spend a year, Sunday after Sunday, in an exposition of a single chapter in one of Paul's letters. etc; etc; All of this to say that I've heard a LOT of preaching over the years and have learned to discern my own "message" from the hodge-podge. I would like to think that my experience is more or less unique, that most people attending church every week would feel differently about most preaching. Once in a while, of course, something in a sermon was used by God to grip my soul and force contrition and change. But I'm wondering how many other Christians have had to hunt for rare jewels among the so-so sermons and have had to be satisfied with them, relying on God's Spirit for a strong word from Scripture. I'm not a picky listener, but I've been listening long enough to have developed a discerning ear - and a willingness to sit with an open Bible on my lap, letting Scripture speak truth directly to my soul, regardless of the "sermon."
For me a big part of this conversation comes down to the question of: what is a good sermon, anyway? Surely a good sermon is the sermon God wants the preacher to preach that week -- a faithful sermon. In my (growing) understanding, a faithful sermon proclaims a prayerful word to a particular people at a particular time and place. And faithful sermons are utterly dependent on the preacher listening to the word God has to speak to the preacher him/herself that week. Most of the time, even when I've preached a text before, I end up not using or drastically altering old sermons because they don't seem to speak to the new context (people are not the same even three years apart!). As with so many other things in faith, it seems like we need to get clear on what "success" looks like in preaching (and what it doesn't).
Hey Scot... you mentioned this: “It would be another post to discuss responsible reading pattern.” I’d really love to learn about this. Would you be willing to make a post about this?
Thanks.
There are very rare times, when you come across a sermon that is so good and right for the season that your church is in that it just makes sense to pass it on to your congregation with full acknowledgement of the source and your reason for doing it. You will still make it your own but not using it when it feels so right would feel like not giving your congregation the best that you can. Not acknowledging it would be a betrayal of both your source and the church. When I say rare, I think that this has happened less than five times in twenty six years in one church.
Every Tuesday afternoon our pastor meets with a small group of us where we “winnow” the text for the coming Sunday. We spend an hour and a half. Our main purpose is to reflect on the passage for our time,place, and congregation. Our pastor takes copious notes. He sometimes tells us where he thinks the sermon is going but usually he doesn’t. He participates in the discussion but doesn’t make it go in any specific direction. When he goes up to the pulpit he takes those notes with him. When we have another preacher they come to winnowers if they can. Our pastor says he’s explained this process to many groups of pastors but as far as he knows no one has followed suit.
Personally, I write/deliver sermons based on PowerPoint slides, not written/typed notes. Here are some of the things I do in the process:
1. Any passage of scripture I use on-screen, I obviously include the reference (and usually the translation abbreviation.)
2. Any quotes I use, I put a picture of the author/source on screen, w/their name, to specifically attribute the quote to them - this also helps the congregation see the diversity of scholarship I'm trying to draw from, and holds me accountable to not always drawing on straight white guys for every thought I'm sharing :-)
3. If I'm going to read someone else's sermon, it's only because I know they've already said it better than I ever could, and/or I know/sense I simply have nothing worthwhile to say that week...and I make it absolutely clear - up front - exactly who wrote the sermon, where they delivered it, and make editorial comments along the way if/when necessary to make it fully relevant to our context (NOTE: this is very rare, but does happen. Just a few weeks ago, when the RCL had the Transfiguration on deck twice in a three week period, I did my own message on the subject the first time, then read one from another pastor/author the second time, giving full attribution as mentioned here.)
4. Thankfully, I'm part of a church culture that encourages me to share the pulpit, so even though we're a small staff (2 full time, one part time), we can share the preaching load, as well as draw on other qualified teachers in the congregation (being in a college town admittedly helps here, as we have some fantastic preachers who also happen to teach for a living.) Having a break from preaching EVERY. SINGLE. WEEK. has been invaluable to my mental health.
Our congregation always likes a printed out copy of the sermon, so footnotes are appropriate there. It also means that anyone really interested in a particular idea knows where to go to follow it.
I think of preaching as a community garden. Work the soil of God's word long enough (not just during the week but for years), feeding yourself and others, and you'll have plenty to say. It also helps me to think of preaching as dialogue not monologue. A monologue brings too much pressure. Reminding myself that I'm simply adding to an ongoing conversation helps me take responsibility for what I say. My words (hopefully inspired by the Spirit) may not be much, but they are my words that come from working in the garden.
Apart from the spiritual apathy aspect, how much of this is their struggle to balance responsibilities? Is too much emphasis put on the sermon (in regards to length) in the services? How do they balance that responsibility and their other pastoral duties? Are expectations of the laity too unrealistic?
I think pastors / preachers assume that those reading / listening to them are interested in the information they have, about the text, context, culture, or history of interpretation. This is demonstrably false. People can google any of these things and digest them at their own pace.
What people are interested in is a pastor's synthesis, insight, and application of the information they have. We are way more vulnerable to plagiarism when we're trying to look smart and show off our information than we are when we're actually synthesizing that information in meaningful ways.
As a coach, I love helping preachers stop repeating what x, y, z, preacher / public theologian said and start honestly, curiously, and humbly exploring their own insights, (citing x, y, z preacher when necessary.).