|
Sep
19
|
I recently received the following e-mail that I wanted to share with you. Names have been removed to protect the sarcasm of the sender:
Brent,
You might want to check out this article, especially since you’ve been so busy lately — it might be a great time-saver! I hate to see you wasting all that time studying.
Knowing the author of said e-mail, I thought that I had a reasonable idea of what to expect when I arrived at the article. I was wrong. In fact, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I had seen “Rick Warren’s Tool Box” before, a website with article and resources claiming to help equip pastors, but I’ve honestly never spent much time there.
In case you haven’t guessed from the illustration by David Julian, the article essentially advocates plagiarism from the pulpit. The article’s author, Steve Sjogren, introduces the article with these words (I apologize up-front for the large number of block quotes following, but I wanted to very clearly let the article speak for itself):
There has been much talk in recent years on blogs and Web sites about how much of other people’s sermons is appropriate to incorporate into your own messages. When does it get to the point of “plagiarism”?
Sjogren then discusses an interview with Dr. Cho, pastor of “the world’s largest church in Korea” (which must mean he’s doing something right!). Cho was asked how he prepares his weekly sermons because “They’re so powerful.” Sjogren records Cho as responding:
Honestly, I have never given an original message in all my years of ministry here at Yoido Church. Each week, I preach word-for-word messages from either Billy Graham or W.A. Criswell from Dallas First Baptist Church. I can’t afford to not have a home run each weekend when we gather. I don’t trust my own ability to give completely original messages.
Sjogren then notes that he “regularly read(s) the blogs of my favorite communicators from influential churches around the United States.” I find it telling that he doesn’t refer to them as “pastors,” but that’s another point entirely. Sjogren then notes that each of these “communicators” (although at this point de does refer to them as pastors):
has recently come out on their blogging sites and admitted, curiously, the same thing. They get approximately 70 percent of their messages each week from other people � word for word according to them. They fill in their own personal illustrations and stories, of course. Two of the guys that I am thinking of as I write this have churches of more than 10,000 in attendance each weekend” (which, again must mean that they are truly honoring God, right?).
In case there’s any confusion about Sjogren’s own position towards this practice, he says quite clearly:
We need to get over the idea that we have to be completely original with our messages, each and every week. In my mind there is a tremendous amount of pride (let’s call it what it is) when we insist on being completely original as communicators. In our desire to give “killer messages” we are dishing out something far less. Think about it for a second: If you really were giving a killer message each week, would your church be the size that it is right now? Maybe you need to be open to doing things a different way.
I honestly couldn’t believe that I read that. So I re-read it and re-read it and re-read it until I was clear: Sjogren just said that it is prideful to carry the notion that pastors ought to write their own sermons, because we all share a desire to “give “killer messages,” which means “wowing” the “audience” every week! He then asks a very telling question: “If you really were giving a killer message each week, would your church be the size that it is right now?” My heart sank at these words. In Sjogren’s article we have reached the epitome of not only pragmatism, but of elevating numbers to the guage of success or failure in ministry. In applying this message, Sjogren argues that leaders need to
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. Remember, Solomon wrote that “there is nothing new under the sun …”
He then outright urges that we “Borrow creatively from others in the Church world” and that we need to “forget about originality � which is often a form of pride. Let’s begin to focus on effectiveness, and pray that we will be powerful at connecting with not-yet believers.” He then closes the article by stating:
A wise mentor of mine brought great liberty to me when he was coaching me in the area of how to put messages together. He said, “There once was a man who said, �I will be original or nothing;’ in the end he became both.” Dare to step out of the box. Regardless of what you have heard or been taught � hit a homerun this weekend with the help of a message master!
The real issues here are not even about originality, but about respect for the Word and obedience to Christ’s command of making disciples (Matthew 28:18-20) as our principle ends. Sjogren has reduced effective preaching to mere pragmatics and numbers. How do you know when you are preaching “homeruns,” when you have numbers and if you don’t have numbers, then you ought to consider cutting corners and refashioning your product! This is a blatant lack of respect for the Word and the Church and in the end, God will not honor such approaches. Large numbers sometimes mean that more ears are being tickled than souls edified (2 Timothy 4:3), yet such concerns do not seem to appear on Sjogren’s radar.
The very notion that we must preach “homeruns” is in itself misguided and borrows more from marketing than Scripture. Not that we do not strive for excellence, we certainly do, but the excellence that we strive for is properly understanding, explaining and applying the Word, not “wowing” our audience. If that happens in the process, that’s fine, but once that “wow” becomes our focus, we’ve lost sight of true preaching. The question of the “communicator/preacher/pastor” as “entertainer is a crucial one. Is it possible that driving a Corvette and pulling things from the trunk while you preach on letting God deal with “your junk in the trunk” is perhaps going too far?
Is it pride for a minister to strive to adequately understand and apply the Word? Is it pride to think that a pastor ought to actually write the words he presents as his own? Is it pride to let our “yes be yes” and our “no be no” (James 5:12)? We cannot tolerate views such as this one that lowers the church from being the “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) to nothing more than a marketing model and business approach. We would do well to remind Sjogren that “we who teach will be judged with greater strictness,” (James 3:1-2) and that God’s business is never truly accomplished using man’s methods. What works for the world does not work for the church. Oh that we would be a generation that takes the preaching of the Word seriously rather than simply as a pragmatic means to an end…
- Read Steve Sjogren’s article “Don’t Be Original - Be Effective!”
I’ve been to Steve’s church in Cincinnati and it’s interesting to read this post and then refer back to the sermon I heard when I visited there.
There were a lot of people and they were mostly seekers from what I could gather. The message was more motivational than gospel centered and it left me feeling like the service was a missed opportunity. I see this same type of thing all the time out in California. I’m getting away from myself….
Anyways, this all reminds me of a book by Os Guinness that I am about to read called “Prophetic Untimeliness”. It’s a challenge to the idol of relevance.
I read your blog every morning….thanks for the great posts Brent….
peace,
jeremy
This article breaks my heart! When did Christianity become about the numbers? We should concern ourselves with furthering the kingdom, not putting warm bodies in seats. And on what planet is stealing someone else’s words justifiable? Especially by someone who professes Christ as Lord of their life?
I do not know about anyone else, but when I speak to the body of Christ it comes from the heart because God is actively shaping my life. I admit that for youth talks I have taken outlines from curriculum, and have always found it bland and wanting because there is no passion behind the teaching.
The essential nature of plagarism in the pulpit is not that it is unorginal… it is that it is uninspired. If you are not actively learning from the word of God then you should find a new vocation… because that is all it has become.
I find that when I am learning, richly, from the word of God that communication comes naturally and that it ends up being much more effective than any other outline that could be used. Simply, because it would be the message that God had put on my mouth to proclaim from my changed heart.
Not that I agree with Sjogren�s underlying philosophy, but the idea of preaching other people’s sermons has a very long history within the Reformed tradition (see Augustine).
Michael, I am glad that you brought that up. You’re right, but I think what really bothered me about Sjogren’s approach is the underlying philosophy/theology behind it.
I had a professor who used to say “Plagiarize, plagiarize, that’s why God made your eyes!” He was joking of course.
Plagiarism, per se, is disengenuous at best, but on the other hand, is there really such thing as an “original thought”. How much of what we think and develop into speech or writing actually comes from outside sources–our hearing and study over the years, our education and cultural instruction? We observe. We learn. We assimilate. And we think and express our thoughts, most of which have been framed by our life experiences and our mentors.
Then there is the Word of God, which we assimilate and practice (hopefully), and by which we are being changed and through which we are able to bring revelation to others. We can not come up with an original thought about God on our own. If He doesn’t reveal Himself (and He does), then preaching/teaching is in vain. I believe that if we hear truth in a message, assimilate it, and teach it in our own style, allowing God to use our individual personalities, then He is willing to re-use someone else’s message. If it was any good, it came from Him anyway.
If we are re-using another’s words because we don’t have ears to hear what Christ is saying, then we are plagiarizing.
Solomon says there is nothing new under the sun and that may well pertain to sermons. I have heard and read some of the best of men in the pulpit and benefited from their study, preparation and presentation. I might also say I have not heard some of the better men in pulpits. I do not believe that the best communicators of the Gospel are only those who have big churches and radio/tv ministries with big bugets and producing books. Many of the greatest orators none of us have heard for they serve in unknown places across this world. God is not glorified in big name boys alone.
I have been the benefactor of other men’s sermons and have borrowed an outline, thought, illustration and quote. Is that plagiarizing? No. Plagiarism is when you take credit for someone elses work as your own.
Are my sermons “original” … no … sense I read commentaries, read authors, read internet sermons. Each of these avenues plant thoughts and give ideas for my own preaching. I do think it can become a vain and prideful thought to think we pulpiteers are of have to be original. Pride should never be a part of our sermon prep.
I believe the message we take into the pulpit should be fleshed out in prayer and spending much time in the Scriptures themselves before presenation. May God receive the glory in our preaching.
I think John Tindoris and Bob are right on the mark. To death with the pride of us having any orginal thougths and to God all of the glory for any righteous thoughts.
The comment made by Michael has peaked my curiousity. It seems on some level that there may be a very legitimate reason to quote at great length another pastor or theologian, but quoting and plagiarizing are two extraordinarily different things. If Augustine, or Anslem, or any reformer “borrowed” the work of others it may be anachronistic to call them plagiarists (I do not know if this is the case or not), but certainly in today’s world it is considered stealing to take someone’s thought and communicate it as if it it were one’s own. We cannot shy away from identifying this stealing as anything short of sin.
While I do agree that not only pastors but Bible study leaders have used the words of previous Christian leaders (that’s why we have devotionals in the Christian bookstores) but the fact that he goes on talking about numbers in the church really disturbs me.
I went to a big church in California and moved to West Virginia where the congregation size went from 5,000+ to a mere 30, but while it’s only 30 people those people are fed and nourished in the word every week and they show that they are continuously growing in God.
That pastor has turned sharing God’s word into a mere popularity contest. It’s hypocritical of him to even go around promoting it and saying it’s prideful if we don’t. You can learn more than one lesson from the same passage. I guess he doesn’t know that.
[...] (HT: BT) [...]
I read both the Pastors.com article and this one. Either intentionally or unintentionally you’ve allowed your opinion about the definition of plagiarism to erase the whole point of the piece by Steve Sjogren. It was selected by the editors of “Pastors” because it reaches their audience. You’re real issue should be with the literally thousands of Christian leaders that share that perspective. You disagree. Wonderful! None of us has God all figured out and a little debate encourages everyone to look deeper at their assumptions.
You seem to take a great deal of pleasure, however in making a meal of Steve Sjogren. Implying that he is a thief (stealing other people’s ideas), lazy (doesn’t work hard enough at sermon preparation), and stating outright that he’s unconcerned with people’s spiritual health, and blatantly disrespectful of God’s Word. Contrary to you or your regular readers, I actually know the man, so I hope this passes the censors. Steve is widely regarded as one of the most original thinkers and leaders in the Church today. Steve is the author of 15 original books. He’s the pastor who created, tested and proved Servant Evangelism. SE is now being used as an evangelism tool in more than 5,000 churches around the world. He’s the source of the term and concept, “Outward-Focused” living. Literally hundreds of leaders, both Christian and mainstream, seek Steve for his creativity and inspired thinking.
Most likely, your zeal for this topic took on a life of its own. Having now traveled a few days from your original fervor I hope you’ll recognize the unnecessary personal barbs at Steve’s integrity and credibility. Steve never implies, in the slightest of degrees, that pastors should forget about understanding or correctly applying the Word. The whole idea behind the article was finding ways to be effective as a speaker without spending long hours hidden away behind the office doors. The whole idea was to inspire pastors to spend less time struggling to be original and more time connecting with people who need to be reached by their churches’ message and ministries. “Original” was the key word of the article, not “Inspired.” Inspired was implied - you have to do that in order to keep an article at a certain length. You have to make certain assumptions.
The assumptions you’ve made in the background of this article is that Steve Sjogren is over-enamoured with numbers and would rather tickle ears than faithfully discharge his call as a teacher. I say with all do respect, Sir, these assumptions are absolutely false. You would not appreciate being maligned this way based on one position you took. Let’s disagree without making such irresponsible accusations based on one 700 word internet article.
No. I don’t think there’s any misinterpretation here–there’s no question that Sjogren’s article is all about appealing to people who want to ‘hit homeruns’ with their sermons so they can be sucessful pastors (translation: get more people). And I agree w/ Brent–that leaves me feeling slimy. Someday, your personality won’t be enough to cut it anymore and you’re going to stop hitting homers. And what happens then? The cult disintegrates, to overstate things.
That said, I Sjogren DOES have a really great point. Why CAN’T preaching be more open source? I have a friend who works under a guy who does this very thing–’steals’ stuff from here and there and passes it off as his own. And my first reaction is that that’s dispicable.
Perhaps it is. If you’re using Billy Graham’s sermons as your own, purposefully to make yourself look like a brilliant pastor then I think you’re a lying cheat and ought to be kicked in the head.
On the other hand, why SHOULDN’T we taking each others ideas, even words, and using and reusing, adapting and tweaking them to make them our own? That there’s an idea of ownership of a sermon DOES seem rather egocentric to me.
Again, I think the open source software community is getting this right in a lot of ways–you can take open source code. You can use it however you want. You can modify it and pass the result off as your own work. You can even sell the thing you ‘made.’ The only requirement is that you have to let somebody else do the same. It unlocks these chains of intellectual property and individualism and ego.
Using that as a model for how we use/reuse/recycle sermon material might not be a bad idea.
[...] Read Brent’s full post. [...]
[...] been removed from pastors.com, interestingly - but found a site that quotes it quite extensively here. These quotes are from Mr. Sjogren: We need to get over the idea that we have to be completely [...]
[...] or, as Mr. Sjogren also says, ‘killer messages’. Somewhat ironic that a man who says this, “If you really were giving a killer message each week, would your church be the size that [...]
