Adequate punishment for sermon plagiarism

[Mountainmike]

How very silly.


The fault lies with those who seek to lay copyright to anything they do for our Lord! They clearly covet their own inadequate works, as if they were special. They have pride in abundance and no humility.

Whoever wrote the sermon should hang his head in shame, and stay on his knees in repentance, then formally ask all, including the pastor who resigned to use his works please!

The pastor is well rid of the congregation who should make such trivia an issue.

It reminds me of the numpties who tried to patent the human genome.
It is none of their doing and none of their credit!

An update. The pastor resigned finally. It took 2 and a half months since his plagiarism was found. In his last speech to the congregation, he didn't repent at all, but said "Forgive me if I did something wrong to you" without mentioning his wrongdoing specifically. A rumor is he will open a new church nearby with people of the congregation who support him: They say "As long as the sermon, although stolen, gives a good lesson, I am fine" and/or "We should protect the God-appointed pastor no matter what wrong he does."

 

[Paidiske]

"We should protect the God-appointed pastor no matter what wrong he does."

Well, that's just downright scary. Haven't we seen enough of where that attitude leads?

 

[Winken]

Plagiarism?

I'll notify all the Sunday School teachers, the choir director, the choral group, the soloists, along with the Pastor. We'll have to prepare a new translation of the Bible, of course. (O yes, children's choir, Christian training, summer Bible school teachers notification!).

OOPS ........ we'll have to admonish all our members to not publicly or out loud quote anything. I guess this means Christmas and Easter are doomed to silence.

We've got to guard against lawsuits, ya know!!

Now maybe we'll get a handle on this outrage!!

 

[Mountainmike]

Well, that's just downright scary. Haven't we seen enough of where that attitude leads?

Seriously paidiske. Would you try to lay claim or copyright in anything you did for our Lord? And if you disclaim copyright, and leave it as commons, how could the pastor be guilty of plagiarism?

Would you not feel honoured if someone chose your works as good enough to use for our Lord, whether or not they are given credit? Is not the credit a reward in this world?

I can only think that those who seek to be named as author , and seek that recognition for themselves our Lord would say " truly they have their reward" in this life, not the next.

 

[Paidiske]

Seriously paidiske. Would you try to lay claim or copyright in anything you did for our Lord? And if you disclaim copyright, and leave it as commons, how could the pastor be guilty of plagiarism?

Would you not feel honoured if someone chose your works as good enough to use for our Lord, whether or not they are given credit? Is not the credit a reward in this world?

I can only think that those who seek to be named as author , and seek that recognition for themselves our Lord would say " truly they have their reward" in this life, not the next.

I would not try to copyright or claim my work as uniquely my own, no. I have in the past made work freely available to others for their use.

However... that is not the issue here. Ministry requires high integrity, including compliance with the law, including copyright law, even when it seems petty. High integrity also requires that if your church requires that your sermons be original and not reproduced from elsewhere, and has communicated that requirement to you, that you comply with that requirement rather than attempt to subvert it by deception (which is, I understand, what happened here).

The pastor isn't wrong (in my view) because he used someone else's sermon; he's wrong because he did that by deception, even after it was made clear that in his role it was expected that he write original sermons.

 

[Albion]

Would you not feel honoured if someone chose your works as good enough to use for our Lord, whether or not they are given credit? Is not the credit a reward in this world?

No. Most people know that it is wrong to attribute the work of someone else to yourself. In this case, and all other considerations aside, I nevertheless doubt that there would have been the reaction from the congregants that eventually came IF it had happened only once, if the pastor had said at the start that he wanted to relay to the congregation the impressive insights of the Reverend Mr. Smith, or if he had even used a paraphrase of a small section of Smith's sermon without credit and then built his own sermon around it.

What we were told in the OP really is exceptional, however...and then the pastor sealed it by deciding to stonewall when criticism came upon him.

 

[Mountainmike]

I would not try to copyright or claim my work as uniquely my own, no. I have in the past made work freely available to others for their use.

However... that is not the issue here. Ministry requires high integrity, including compliance with the law, including copyright law, even when it seems petty. High integrity also requires that if your church requires that your sermons be original and not reproduced from elsewhere, and has communicated that requirement to you, that you comply with that requirement rather than attempt to subvert it by deception (which is, I understand, what happened here).

The pastor isn't wrong (in my view) because he used someone else's sermon; he's wrong because he did that by deception, even after it was made clear that in his role it was expected that he write original sermons.

Perhaps the rule is the problem then!
Everything ALL of us write , is a derivative work, whether we remember our sources or not.
We can't help it. We are the product of our experience, ( and hopefully a few ideas planted by our Lord!).
And that is the essence of copyright law - derivative works- the question is therefore grey, not black white.

The law is the problem! Taken in extremis you see how such as " righthaven " behaved.

 

[Albion]

Did you never write a theme in school? Did you think you'd be honoring the author of the book you got it out of by passing it off as your own work? Did the teacher/prof think that the paper ought to have had footnotes and a bibliography--or did your explanation that 'there's nothing new under the sun' suffice?

 

[Mountainmike]

That's a Wholly different context.

In the religious context:

Nobody should try to lay claim to anything they do for our Lord. They put self ahead of our Lord when they do so.
So if they relinquish claim ,there is no such thing as plagiarism.

They should feel honoured of another thinks it worthy of using, even more honoured if they use it little changed.
And they should actively conceal their authorship, not wishing for recognition in this life.

That's my view.

Context matters.
In a commercial context where investment generates IPR, plagiarism should be actionable. Indeed as someone who had a patent stolen on an arcane piece of electronics, I am only too painfully aware of the consequence.

But not here.
The pastor who cried " foul" is at fault, not the one who used it.

Did you never write a theme in school? Did you think you'd be honoring the author of the book you got it out of by passing it off as your own work? Did the teacher/prof think that the paper ought to have had footnotes and a bibliography--or did your explanation that 'there's nothing new under the sun' suffice?

 

[Peter J Barban]

I'm glad the unrepentant pastor is leaving. Seems like he made sure that he had a parachute before jumping.

However... that is not the issue here. Ministry requires high integrity, including compliance with the law, including copyright law, even when it seems petty. High integrity also requires that if your church requires that your sermons be original and not reproduced from elsewhere, and has communicated that requirement to you, that you comply with that requirement rather than attempt to subvert it by deception (which is, I understand, what happened here).

I'm with Paidiske on the integrity issue. Integrity means "wholeness": you have it or you don't and this affects every area of your life. If the pastor subverts the clear direction of the leadership on a known problem, what else has he been doing that the church does not know about? The church is going to find out in the next year or so.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Concerning Copywrite:

I knew a teacher who did not copywrite his original material that later had his teaching materials copywritten by someone else. The idea-thief then used copywrite law to prevent the founder from using his own materials. There was little that the naive teacher could do.

So, copywrite law gives you the ability to protect your original expression. That's a good thing.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not convinced you have a correct understanding of copyright. When it is made public without copyright it then becomes public domain, and anyone can use it including the author. So the thief is unlikely to prevent the author using it.


But in this case of sermons the author should have released it under Creative Commons, encouraging others to use it, retaining copyright is the unethical thing in this case - promotion of self, over our Lord, and without that there was no plagiarism.

Concerning Copywrite:

I knew a teacher who did not copywrite his original material that later had his teaching materials copywritten by someone else. The idea-thief then used copywrite law to prevent the founder from using his own materials. There was little that the naive teacher could do.

So, copywrite law gives you the ability to protect your original expression. That's a good thing.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I have reported an actual event.

I am not convinced you have a correct understanding of copyright.

Perhaps. I am not a lawyer and I have no personal interest in copyrights.

promotion of self, over our Lord

I take issue with blanket moral judgments over legal issues. Copyrighting your material is not equal to the promotion of self, over the Lord.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have reported an actual event.

Perhaps. I am not a lawyer and I have no personal interest in copyrights.


I take issue with blanket moral judgments over legal issues. Copyrighting your material is not equal to the promotion of self, over the Lord.

Copyright is a way of saying " it is has worth and it is mine" - but my view it is not, because the Lord decides who he allows to help his cause, and all merit, if any , belongs to Him alone.

Anyway, I have given an opinion. My verdict is the affair demonstrates excessive overestimating of self worth by the author, who should be glad not only to donate it, but try to hide his authorship, to avoid any praise.

I realise my opiinion is not consensus here.

Anyway... I will leave it there, let others express a view.

 

[Mike Olson 77]

I would not try to copyright or claim my work as uniquely my own, no. I have in the past made work freely available to others for their use.

However... that is not the issue here. Ministry requires high integrity, including compliance with the law, including copyright law, even when it seems petty. High integrity also requires that if your church requires that your sermons be original and not reproduced from elsewhere, and has communicated that requirement to you, that you comply with that requirement rather than attempt to subvert it by deception (which is, I understand, what happened here).

The pastor isn't wrong (in my view) because he used someone else's sermon; he's wrong because he did that by deception, even after it was made clear that in his role it was expected that he write original sermons.

You've got the point on the pulpit plagiarism, which, as you well said, is not a copyright issue but an integrity issue of the pastor.

 

[Mike Olson 77]

That's a Wholly different context.

In the religious context:

Nobody should try to lay claim to anything they do for our Lord. They put self ahead of our Lord when they do so.
So if they relinquish claim ,there is no such thing as plagiarism.

You misunderstand the meaning of plagiarism, which is not violating the copyright law but pretending and lying that he prepared the sermon (or whatever content). It is not a legal issue but an ethical issue.

 

[Mountainmike]

You misunderstand the meaning of plagiarism, which is not violating the copyright law but pretending and lying that he prepared the sermon (or whatever content). It is not a legal issue but an ethical issue.

And no point do they say he denied the use of others work when challenged: they just say he did not credit it.

But that is the problem the ORIGINAL author has. Wanting to be "credited" for a work, done in furtherance of our Lord. Had the original author made it clear any could use it unattributed, and he hoped they would, there would not be a problem now. So it is wrongful behaviour by the author.

This congregation are also at fault. Demanding they are somehow special and "deserve" better - demanding "a la carte", not "table d'hote".

Had the teaching been at fault, there is a whole different issue: but then, nobody has claimed that teaching was faulty they only demand the "divine right" to have special " a la carte" works prepared for them. So my view the congregation should look hard at their own seeming arrogance!

Thankfully I do not belong in such a petty minded congregation.

In my estimation I am lucky to get good teaching,and am grateful by whatever the source by which it comes.

 

[Mike Olson 77]

In my estimation I am lucky to get good teaching,and am grateful by whatever the source by which it comes.

Your logic can be easily expanded to the thought that we don't need a pastor or priest for a sermon at all because sermons can be read from good sources of the past or today by any lay person who can act well in a good voice.

 

[turtlejoy]

I voted no, he shouldn't resign...on the first offense.
He should come clean and admit he used content from other people while not giving credit. In the future he should give credit. It only has to be a comment or two before the sermon saying that he'll be using some thoughts and illustrations from so and so.

Sermons are a great opportunity to share all kinds of thoughts and stories that relate to any particular message being preached. I think that most people don't care about who said what, they just want quality content delivered in the sermon they're investing their attention into. I have no issues with a pastor pulling together ideas and illustrations from other people.

 

[Runswithdogs]

How is it we expect non-christians to see us as a Godly example when so many of us choose to promote the view that it is OK for a "Christian" to take(steal) something that someone else has spent their time, study,effort & God given gifts to create... And pass it off as our own work?

Theft is theft, no mater who you steal from or how you try to justify it.
And passing someone else's work off as your own not only steals from them, it steals glory from God who gave them that gift to create as you falsely claim the glory for yourself.

No wonder they think were all hypocrites.