This is a continuation of a brief analysis of a World Magazine article which indirectly implies preachers are up to no good ... an implication with which I took strong umbrage. And if you are a preacher you should to!
There is no question in my mind some preachers have taken sermons, written by another, and preached them verbatim as their own ... without qualification or acknowledgement. This is clearly wrong. But on their worst day, the vast majority of pastors would never imagine preaching a borrowed message to their own sheep verbatim. The original message was prepared for a different flock; his sheep are, in so many ways, different sheep.
What some are calling theft, or more graciously "borrowing," I call reworked boilerplate; that is, sermons of others which are massaged, bent, twisted, tweaked, nudged, polished, and otherwise modified to meet the needs of a man's sheep. Assuming the preacher is an authentic Christian, this work would ostensibly be done under the superintendence of the indwelling Spirit of God ... though not inerrant or infallible it is inspired.
Consider the following ...
Most of the material mentioned above is offered gratis by its originator or, at the most, the price of a collected volume of sermons. Very few of these latter pastors ever imagined the book's copywrite would be used to prevent other preachers from using their messages as boilerplate. In fact, I am convinced the author intended his messages be used in exactly that way. And regarding the Internet ... why else would a pastor publish his messages on the Internet except that he intended them to be borrowed.
One of the finest compliments a Pastors Pastor subscriber could give me was an email saying how a message the Lord had given me was used by him with awesome results. Wow! Why would I be offended by such a result? My messages posted at The SHEEP'S CRIB- Sermons are categorically intended to be borrowed ... any visitor has my absolute and unqualified premission to take them all!
To be offended would indicate I consider the message my property! I envision pastors who "own" their messages in the same way I see the seagulls in Disney's Finding Nemo - "mine, mine, mine"!
Veith indirectly acknowledges the potential for hidden blessings in the preaching of another's sermon when he writes ...
And then there is this ...
Think for a moment what is actually being said by those accusing a pastor of malfeasance or fiduciary failure? Is truth which has been organized and presented by one man of God any less truth when it is reorganized and represented by another of God's men?
Where is this performance standard recorded? Is it in Scripture? No! Is it written on some tablet from antiquity? No! Is it even written into the covenants or confessions of the historic faith? No! Is it in the denominational constitutions or by-laws? No, again! Then what about the governing polity of the local church? If it is, it shouldn't be; and those who worship there should have it expunged or leave! Consider the worldly logic used to justify its inclusion.
The Scriptures warn those who would go after the servants of Christ,
If using another's message is wrong ... carry this wrongness to its logical conclusion and we should not use commentaries, lexicons, or bible dictionaries in the preparation of our messages ... we'd have to do all our study from scratch. Where do you stop with this illogical hogwash?
One thing which really got my shorts in a knot in this particular article is the author's apparent use of only one active preacher in his research; and this one is from a mainline denomination, which raises some serious questions to begin with. The rest of the interviews were with publishing executives and academic types ... HELLO?
If you intend to do a story on a zoo don't go to the concessionaires for your research, go in the cages and talk to those who feed the animals, go to the resident vet and speak to her, or go to the animal handlers ... but not the concessionaires!
There is no question in my mind some preachers have taken sermons, written by another, and preached them verbatim as their own ... without qualification or acknowledgement. This is clearly wrong. But on their worst day, the vast majority of pastors would never imagine preaching a borrowed message to their own sheep verbatim. The original message was prepared for a different flock; his sheep are, in so many ways, different sheep.
What some are calling theft, or more graciously "borrowing," I call reworked boilerplate; that is, sermons of others which are massaged, bent, twisted, tweaked, nudged, polished, and otherwise modified to meet the needs of a man's sheep. Assuming the preacher is an authentic Christian, this work would ostensibly be done under the superintendence of the indwelling Spirit of God ... though not inerrant or infallible it is inspired.
Consider the following ...
A number of lesser-known ministers across the country have also been caught stealing sermons. Sometimes it makes the newspapers, but other times congregations or denominations handle the matter quietly.Do you hear the presumption of guilt? It's a wonder the author didn't include "stealing" in quotes; and the use of "handle the matter" reveals the authors' unspoken and presuppositional bias against the profession.
Most of the material mentioned above is offered gratis by its originator or, at the most, the price of a collected volume of sermons. Very few of these latter pastors ever imagined the book's copywrite would be used to prevent other preachers from using their messages as boilerplate. In fact, I am convinced the author intended his messages be used in exactly that way. And regarding the Internet ... why else would a pastor publish his messages on the Internet except that he intended them to be borrowed.
One of the finest compliments a Pastors Pastor subscriber could give me was an email saying how a message the Lord had given me was used by him with awesome results. Wow! Why would I be offended by such a result? My messages posted at The SHEEP'S CRIB- Sermons are categorically intended to be borrowed ... any visitor has my absolute and unqualified premission to take them all!
To be offended would indicate I consider the message my property! I envision pastors who "own" their messages in the same way I see the seagulls in Disney's Finding Nemo - "mine, mine, mine"!
Veith indirectly acknowledges the potential for hidden blessings in the preaching of another's sermon when he writes ...
The great preacher Charles Spurgeon tells in his autobiography about how he was ministered to by his own sermon when he heard another pastor preach it.Like Spurgeon, some pastors see nothing wrong with preaching another person's sermons; other pastors disapprove ...
The question is whether this pastor is a faithful shepherd preaching and teaching the full counsel of God. Specifically, is what he is preaching true? Does it meet the spiritual need of his flock at the point at which it is preached? Is it faithful to the Word? No honest pastor will be quick to criticize a fellow pastor for being helped at times by the work and words of another.So said David Bayly, pastor of Christ the Word Presbyterian Church in America in Toledo, Ohio. But think about what he said ... what does it mean and why the suspicious tone; and notice the snobbish and superior tone implied in his comment. I hope Bayly was quoted out of context (but I doubt it).
And then there is this ...
The best sermons are those that are preached from the heart. People listening to sermons know when they are hearing a performance and when they are hearing a genuine, sincere, authentic sermon.So said Paul McCain, interim president of Concordia Publishing House. Again, I hope McCain was misquoted. Why the high-mindedness.
Think for a moment what is actually being said by those accusing a pastor of malfeasance or fiduciary failure? Is truth which has been organized and presented by one man of God any less truth when it is reorganized and represented by another of God's men?
Where is this performance standard recorded? Is it in Scripture? No! Is it written on some tablet from antiquity? No! Is it even written into the covenants or confessions of the historic faith? No! Is it in the denominational constitutions or by-laws? No, again! Then what about the governing polity of the local church? If it is, it shouldn't be; and those who worship there should have it expunged or leave! Consider the worldly logic used to justify its inclusion.
The Scriptures warn those who would go after the servants of Christ,
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.Though some boards and some people don't agree that the pastor's master is the LORD, He is and there is nothing they can do to change that relationship. God gives the pastor to the church but does not change his superior. The pastor is not the servant of the congregation or a board or committee of the church. (And don't claim that we are to be servants of all, though true. that's not the context here!)Romans 14:4
If using another's message is wrong ... carry this wrongness to its logical conclusion and we should not use commentaries, lexicons, or bible dictionaries in the preparation of our messages ... we'd have to do all our study from scratch. Where do you stop with this illogical hogwash?
One thing which really got my shorts in a knot in this particular article is the author's apparent use of only one active preacher in his research; and this one is from a mainline denomination, which raises some serious questions to begin with. The rest of the interviews were with publishing executives and academic types ... HELLO?
If you intend to do a story on a zoo don't go to the concessionaires for your research, go in the cages and talk to those who feed the animals, go to the resident vet and speak to her, or go to the animal handlers ... but not the concessionaires!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment