Plagiarism while preaching?

[jjraby]

How do I, As a a student in seminary, who has never preached before, avoid plagiarism while still leaning upon those who are older and wiser than me when it comes to deliver a message? There are tons of sermons that i have heard that there subtopic title are exactly the wording I want to use. an example would be Romans 12:2 and speaking of the Gospel's Implications in our lives. A favorite Preacher of Mine says that these Implications, 'Over rule lesser courts, Destroy breadcrumb trails, and rewrites our biography."

Now, After hearing that sermon i find no better way to illustrate this than how he does it. If i were to use those points, I know i need to give props to him and say I am taking from him in some way. Should i try to get permission to use it? or should attempt to come up with a substandard way just to be original?

How often do you guys who break pretty much borrow a whole sermon from others? Again, I'm new, so i don't have to experience or knowledge to craft a sermon as well has those who have come before me.

Thoughts?

 

[nicnap]

Begin, before you say anything, by making quote marks with your fingers; close using the other and making quote marks. And, there you have it.

 

[N. Eshelman]

I would never preach "a whole sermon" that is someone else's. One time I used the main points in the outline of Thomas Boston for a sermon, but I referenced the work and told my people that they should read his work on that text at some point. You can, for sure, use quotes in a sermon, but I would limit it to 2-3 REALLY GOOD quotes.

Basically, if you quote someone for a point, say "A preacher once said" or something like that. The congregation does not really care who said what- if its someone like Calvin or Piper or Eshelman then you may want to say who it is because the people will know the name. But basically if people want the reference to a quote they will ask- but you should let them know that there's a quote in there. You don't want to use a flowery sentence like the one in the OP and then later have someone in your congregation hear that so-and-so actually said it. That does not do much for your credibility.

Just be honest...

in one sense, your congregation will expect you to be leaning on the giants of the faith; but at the same time, they expect that the Spirit is speaking through you enough not to steal from some other prophet's mouth.

 

[Curt]

When I quote Eshelman, I always make sure that the congregation knows it.

 

[KMK]

Quoting Eshelman is like quoting Yogi Berra. Everyone just knows where the quote came from without having to tell them.

 

[lgfreire]

Make sure you acknowledge the sources you quote and make sure you don't rely too much on one author / commentator.

Interestingly, a strict interpretation of offices in the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms, as well as an explicit statement in the Thirty Nine Articles meant historically for some church federations that only ordained ministers would preach in solemn worship on the Lord's Day. To date, some reformed denominations adopt "sermon reading" by an elder when there is no minister avaliable. The sermon must be written by an ordained minister. The whole point is that people actually KNOW that it was written by an ordanained minister. The Church of England had a "Book of Homilies" in the past that was supposed to be read periodically. I think most of the churches (e.g Reformed Churches in Brazil) with "sermon reading" today acknowledge the source in one form or another. Seminary students btw are in an intermediate position: their sermon must be fully written down and approved by the minister/consistory before being read. And they're allowed to give "a word" in other settings as well (e.g PRCA).

 

[Pergamum]

Preachers that read extended quotes and quote their sources at length seem to interrupt the flow of preaching. Any way that acknowledging sources is done, it needs to be done seamlessly and not detract from the flow of the message.

 

[N. Eshelman]

Preachers that read extended quotes and quote their sources at length seem to interrupt the flow of preaching. Any way that acknowledging sources is done, it needs to be done seamlessly and not detract from the flow of the message.

Yep. Agreed.

 

[EricP]

Though I'm not an ordained kind of guy (deacon, yes; teaching elder, no--the "slow moving" is for real), a bit of advice from the secular world as applied to the sacred: if you find a classic preacher's sermon on something you plan to preach on, don't read anything from it until after you've prepared your sermon. As smart as they were/are, YOU are smarter for your congregation and your time; you will be able to apply the topic and Scripture to your people infinitely better than anyone from bygone times. Reading another's first tends to "lock" your thinking processes into his, and like the theme to the Andy Griffith television show, you won't be able to get it out of your head!

 

[KMK]

You can let people know you are quoting without interrupting the flow with an exact citation. After 2000 years of Gospel preaching, I think everyone pretty much assumes that what a preacher says has already been said before.

It is dangerous to quote word for word without mentioning it because everything is so easily 'googleable'. I have caught preachers surreptitiously preaching sermons that were lifted word for word from someone else.

 

[TomVols]

Always cite sources. Always. It's called being honest. A good rule of thumb? What if the person who wrote/said what you're about to quote were sitting in your congregation? How could you cite the quote without embarassing yourself? Do it seamlessly as said before. You don't have to give Turabian citation, but a simple "As one Puritan said" or "one commentator put it this way...." is probably enough. Besides, why not cite the quotes from Calvin, Bunyan, Owen, etc.? I've heard preachers cite folks that made me want to go read more of the person. Wouldn't this be a good thing if folks in the congregation wanted to do likewise? If their writings impacted you, maybe they'll affect them.

Don't ever...EVER...try to intentionally pass off someone else's thoughts/sermons as your own. Tell them where it's coming from. Someone will catch you. People do care about honesty and integrity. Enough ministers are liars. Let's not add to the number.

 

[goodnews]

Preachers that read extended quotes and quote their sources at length seem to interrupt the flow of preaching. Any way that acknowledging sources is done, it needs to be done seamlessly and not detract from the flow of the message.

Absolutely. I love Reformed preaching, but too often, in my experience, we feel as if we haven't preached unless we quote our favorite Reformers and our favorite Puritan preachers (my favorite preachers) at least a half dozen times. SOmetimes I wonder which "John" (the Apostle or Calvin) is actually considered the Word of God. If we are faithfully considering our principles of the Word and preaching we're really preaching at the behest of the Holy Spirit, and so are all other faithful preachers. It's all God's property. Certainly, we are being unfaithful if we don't commit ourselves to the study of God's Word and prepare sermons with our congregations in mind. I am not the preacher that Lloyd-Jones was, but he isn't called to preach at my church, I am. That's why I don't preach his sermons in my church. However, some of his conclusions are very useful for othe preachers. And often, it interrupts the flow of the sermon to stop and cite him everytime I remotely use something he said.

 

[Notthemama1984]

What if the person who wrote/said what you're about to quote were sitting in your congregation? How could you cite the quote without embarassing yourself?

If someone quoted me, I would take it as a compliment and drive on. I wouldn't be upset or anything. I also wouldn't care if they referenced me or not. My ultimate goal behind the pulpit is to preach the Word and watch the Holy Spirit grow the church. It isn't about fame or intellectual property rights.

Now writing articles is a different story.

I do admit though that it is easy to say this when nobody is going to quote me. LOL

 

[goodnews]

I also wonder if we are to reference all the published commentaries we use?

 

[Pergamum]

I hope that none of us really truly have any original thoughts in the pulpit. We are transmitting such a long history of doctrine that citing all sources would take us all the way back to the patristics on every sermon....a needless obstacle to the momentum of a sermon. Our sourses are always innumerable and are impossible to cite completely. Just avoid long extended quotes altogether or state, "one theologian says..." If one preaches extemporanously then extended quotes will be all but an impossibility anyway.

 

[Notthemama1984]

The one exception that I have is when it comes to the confessions. I tend to reference them. The reason is because this is my way of introducing the confessions to the church.

 

[jwithnell]

As a pew dweller, I like some context for a quote, unless it's someone totally unknown. Doing so can even further support whatever point is being made in the sermon. And if its truly salient to that part of the sermon, it shouldn't be a distraction, unless it is overly long or heavily dependent on theological jargon -- in which case a short paraphrase would be best. I definitely want to know the exact reference for something coming out of the confessions. And please give the chapter and verse for any scripture referenced. "Paul would later write ... " drives me totally batty if I don't already know the reference. I want to know how the sermon text is interpreted by other specific places in the Bible.

 

[KMK]

Preachers that read extended quotes and quote their sources at length seem to interrupt the flow of preaching. Any way that acknowledging sources is done, it needs to be done seamlessly and not detract from the flow of the message.

Agreed. See my signature...

 

[travstar]

I think you copied this post from someone else.

 

[TomVols]

If someone quoted me, I would take it as a compliment and drive on. I wouldn't be upset or anything. I also wouldn't care if they referenced me or not. My ultimate goal behind the pulpit is to preach the Word and watch the Holy Spirit grow the church. It isn't about fame or intellectual property rights.

Now writing articles is a different story.

I do admit though that it is easy to say this when nobody is going to quote me. LOL

But if someone quoted you (especially if you came in unexpectedly - that is, the preacher didn't KNOW you were going to be there), you'd know you were being quoted. And fame/property rights isn't the issue. Honesty and integrity is. (Interestingly, Rick Warren tells people he doesn't care if people copy his stuff word-for-word. I'm sure we're all relieved)

How is writing an article different, by the way? Just curious.

The one exception that I have is when it comes to the confessions. I tend to reference them. The reason is because this is my way of introducing the confessions to the church.

This goes to my point. It's not just about being above board and upright. It's a great didactic method. I remember Begg quoting from the Shorter Catechism that it spurred his congregation to order and form a LIFE group to memorize the Shorter Catechism.

I also wonder if we are to reference all the published commentaries we use?

In my humble opinion, yes. Again, I'm not saying give the publisher, and if it's a reprint. Just acknowledge that "John Owen once wrote..." and leave it alone. It's a good teaching tool. Let's get our people into good commentaries/books.

I hope that none of us really truly have any original thoughts in the pulpit.

To an extent, you're right. If a commentator has agreed with my own spade work, that's not what we're referring to. It's the new material one garners from study. That is, in reading Boice, for instance, you see the passage in an entirely different light, then to fail to give a nod to Boice is being dishonest. Where did you get your thoughts? Source it. If Boice, for example, got it from X who got it from Y who got it from Z...well, that's for another time. Give Boice his due and move on.

And please give the chapter and verse for any scripture referenced.

This is a great point.

I think you copied this post from someone else.

All my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients. (By the way, I stole that qutoe from DTS homiletician Ramesh Richard)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I in general am not big on "quoting" during Sermons.

Though an anecdotal yet interesting story about quoting people in attendance. A couple of years ago at the ARP General Synod Iain Murray spoke during the pre-Synod conference and then stayed for most of General Synod. During one of the worship services interspersed between sessions of Synod one of the men giving a sermon quoted Iain Murray and I was standing near Rev. Murray and he became quite embarrassed and was a little annoyed by it.

 

[goodnews]

If someone quoted me, I would take it as a compliment and drive on. I wouldn't be upset or anything. I also wouldn't care if they referenced me or not. My ultimate goal behind the pulpit is to preach the Word and watch the Holy Spirit grow the church. It isn't about fame or intellectual property rights.

Now writing articles is a different story.

I do admit though that it is easy to say this when nobody is going to quote me. LOL

But if someone quoted you (especially if you came in unexpectedly - that is, the preacher didn't KNOW you were going to be there), you'd know you were being quoted. And fame/property rights isn't the issue. Honesty and integrity is. (Interestingly, Rick Warren tells people he doesn't care if people copy his stuff word-for-word. I'm sure we're all relieved)

How is writing an article different, by the way? Just curious.

The one exception that I have is when it comes to the confessions. I tend to reference them. The reason is because this is my way of introducing the confessions to the church.

This goes to my point. It's not just about being above board and upright. It's a great didactic method. I remember Begg quoting from the Shorter Catechism that it spurred his congregation to order and form a LIFE group to memorize the Shorter Catechism.

I also wonder if we are to reference all the published commentaries we use?

In my humble opinion, yes. Again, I'm not saying give the publisher, and if it's a reprint. Just acknowledge that "John Owen once wrote..." and leave it alone. It's a good teaching tool. Let's get our people into good commentaries/books.

I hope that none of us really truly have any original thoughts in the pulpit.

To an extent, you're right. If a commentator has agreed with my own spade work, that's not what we're referring to. It's the new material one garners from study. That is, in reading Boice, for instance, you see the passage in an entirely different light, then to fail to give a nod to Boice is being dishonest. Where did you get your thoughts? Source it. If Boice, for example, got it from X who got it from Y who got it from Z...well, that's for another time. Give Boice his due and move on.

And please give the chapter and verse for any scripture referenced.

This is a great point.

I think you copied this post from someone else.

All my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients. (By the way, I stole that qutoe from DTS homiletician Ramesh Richard)

I suppose it all comes down to personal conscience and style. I appreciate all your insights on this. But for someone like myself, who incorporates both an exegetical, loose Puritan Plain style of preaching, with an inductive style, meant to present the text in a way that speaks to mostly newer Christians in a way they can understand, I find continual quoting confuses and distracts them. I do like Chaplain's habit of quoting the confessions and will make an effort to do the same. Yet, some weeks I struggle with the text in a way that doesn't require as much help from other resources. But, some weeks I rely heavily on commentaries, and other works (sermons, theological books, etc.), and would pretty much spend the entire half hour referencing these works if I was as strict as what you seem to be espousing.

Having said all the above, anything that I publish, and/or make money off of, would certainly be cited to a greater degree.

 

[Notthemama1984]

But if someone quoted you (especially if you came in unexpectedly - that is, the preacher didn't KNOW you were going to be there), you'd know you were being quoted. And fame/property rights isn't the issue. Honesty and integrity is. (Interestingly, Rick Warren tells people he doesn't care if people copy his stuff word-for-word. I'm sure we're all relieved)

How is writing an article different, by the way? Just curious.

Articles are designed to show one's research ability. Sermons are designed as a means of grace. The focus on the former is the collection of information from sources. The focus on the latter is on the cross. To quote other men can elevate men into the spotlight where Christ should be while we preach. Many here would agree that having choirs and special would detract from God. How would continually quoting other preachers be any different?

Just my feeble thoughts.

 

[Wannabee]

Most quotes I use are one liners to make a point. If it's longer then it's usually illustrative, such as a personal story I read in a commentary or other book I'm reading. For the points of my sermon I rob and pillage in some sense; not word for word though. If the passage easily breaks into three headings I might change one or two to adapt them to the emphasis I wish to focus on, the application I perceive is most needed or simply the different times and vocabulary, depending on what author I get the ideas from. Usually I'll use synonyms or similar thoughts instead though.

For instance, in the OP we see:

Over rule lesser courts, Destroy breadcrumb trails, and rewrites our biography

I might say "Resist conformation, pursue transformation, realizing God's glorification," if the author's notes struck me as the best approach. But the best outlines are the ones you don't have to explain. There are a hundred ways you could reword this to fit your current vernacular and context. And their may be illustrations that lend themselves to a play of words on these points as well. Use the ideas of others. Gain from their knowledge. Learn from great minds. But embrace the truth as your own so that the well is full to overflowing when you reach the pulpit.

For giving credit to others I put footnotes in my sermon outline in case someone asks where I got information or a particular quote I might have used. Every now and there there will be a quote I consider too good to mess with and will bring the book with me to the pulpit and read from it. I've only done that a couple of times. But I think it can work if done right, helps familiarize the listeners with certain authors and helps them identify whether they want more or want to avoid that person (I have read from the book of Mormon in the pulpit before - only one person knew the source, a couple others recognized it wasn't Scripture - the rest were caught). I once saw a pastor read from a popular contemporary "Christian" author during a sermon. The material he read flew in the face of Scripture. He said we need to throw such trash out and threw the book to the floor. It was a very effective illustration and it's likely that many remember the author's name. I don't, but I do remember quite well the point he was making regarding discernment.

 

[Kevin]

Make sure you acknowledge the sources you quote and make sure you don't rely too much on one author / commentator.

Interestingly, a strict interpretation of offices in the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms, as well as an explicit statement in the Thirty Nine Articles meant historically for some church federations that only ordained ministers would preach in solemn worship on the Lord's Day. To date, some reformed denominations adopt "sermon reading" by an elder when there is no minister avaliable. The sermon must be written by an ordained minister. The whole point is that people actually KNOW that it was written by an ordanained minister. The Church of England had a "Book of Homilies" in the past that was supposed to be read periodically. I think most of the churches (e.g Reformed Churches in Brazil) with "sermon reading" today acknowledge the source in one form or another. Seminary students btw are in an intermediate position: their sermon must be fully written down and approved by the minister/consistory before being read. And they're allowed to give "a word" in other settings as well (e.g PRCA).

Uhm, you're wrong.

Unless by the use of the qualifying "some" you mean to communicate one-or-two-hyper-sectarian-split-"P"-internet-based-"denominations". Otherwise, no. You completely misread the confession, the various bco/fog documents, and the practice of nearly every mainstream reformed & presbyterian denomination.

 

[TomVols]

goodnews, you and I are in substantial agreement as to style and philosophy. However, I do not advocate susbtantial quoting. I just think a minimal citation/nod in order to be upright isn't distracting or too much to ask. "Boice put it best when he said..." takes about three seconds. I don't think that's asking much

Articles are designed to show one's research ability. Sermons are designed as a means of grace. The focus on the former is the collection of information from sources. The focus on the latter is on the cross. To quote other men can elevate men into the spotlight where Christ should be while we preach. Many here would agree that having choirs and special would detract from God. How would continually quoting other preachers be any different?

Somehow this issue has gotten conflated. I'm not advocating quotations. I'm saying we should cite our quotations. Quote someone else or not, but if you do, In my humble opinion, failing to cite it is sin.

And while I agree that the pulpit is exalted in relation to the importance to the article/book, surely we cannot have a lower standard for the sermon. The written work can be a means of grace, too. I believe even a casual reading of Murray, Horton, etc., or the Puritans would show their writings took on an importance in this way.

But I'm not saying turn our sermons into long lectures of nothing but quotations. We should just be above board when using someone else's material. Just my two cents (after inflation)

 

[Notthemama1984]

The one problem I see with saying, "Boice put it best when he says...." is that alot of people have no clue who Boice is. In my congregation I would be surprised if anybody in the congregation knew any Reformed theologian except for Calvin and Luther and the knowledge of those two is limited to what they have heard in movies and folklore. So you have to add a qualifier to who Boice is. Because this is the case, I tend to just say, "One pastor put it this way...." or something along those lines.

As I sit here I think we are on the same page. I was having a different concept of quoting in my mind that what you just advocated. I was lumping quotes and references together. For example, although I may have gleaned insight from Durham on the 2nd commandment for my sermon tonight, I am not directly quoting him and thus will not mention his name. If I was writing a paper though, I would reference him at several points because the information I am presenting was gleaned from Durham. My apologies for the confusion.

I do like your point of the pulpit being elevated and thus not have a lower standard. Great point.

 

[TomVols]

The one problem I see with saying, "Boice put it best when he says...." is that alot of people have no clue who Boice is. In my congregation I would be surprised if anybody in the congregation knew any Reformed theologian except for Calvin and Luther and the knowledge of those two is limited to what they have heard in movies and folklore. So you have to add a qualifier to who Boice is. Because this is the case, I tend to just say, "One pastor put it this way...." or something along those lines.

That's a good point, and one I would've included had time allowed this AM. I do try to introduce the great divines of the past, so taking a few seconds to say "the great British pastor Martyn Lloyd-Jones said it this way....." if I want to be full. But as I said a few posts back, I think "One commentator wrote..." is sufficient. Again, no need to flash Chicago style on the Power Point As you well noted, in a paper, it might be required to note if it's a third revised edition, but my hearers don't need to know, and if they want to know more details, they can ask. They often do. It's a really good feeling to see people jotting down the name of a book I've cited. Mark Dever actually was the first to turn me onto the idea of citing as a didactic method.

As I sit here I think we are on the same page.

Agreed. Two people divided by a common language? (Mark Twain, btw)

 

[Bradwardine]

Remember a sermon is not an academic paper. In the academic world a study should be replete with quotes and comparing / contrasting views. A sermon is preaching God' Word - explaining and applying it to those present.

A couple of notes:

1) consider why you are using a quote - is it because the author said something in a particularly memorable / incisive way that is worthwhile communicating or are we simply nailing our theological colours to the mast ('as Calvin said..') and/or trying to show off our wide reading.

2) if we must quote keep it brief - a sentence or two and give context (if you quote Augustine when / where did he live and what was he !). A paragraph (or more!) from a written work doesn't usually come across well.

 

[jwithnell]

Oh my word, do you guys really think that the people in your congregation are so totally, theologically illiterate? If they have been taught so poorly, no wonder so many people out there thing Joel Olsteen and company are profound. An educated laity is essential, and is very much a part of the reformed tradition. No, I'm not saying a sermon should sound like a dissertation, but as I stated before, having some knowledge of a source gives context to what is being said.