More Yahoo than Yahweh
There seems to be an outbreak of sermon plagiarism in Poland. The country's 28,000 priests have been warned that they could face imprisonment if they copy sermons from the internet. It seems that younger priests are the main culprits. Homiletic panic attacks are apparently commonplace on Saturday nights, and worshippers in Polish churches are paying the price.
It's an old story, and one I've covered more than once on Sunday Sequence. One of the difficulties is that preachers seem not to regard sermons as copyright material, and do not regard even their own work as such. Thus, it seems perfectly fine to lift illustrations, introductions, conclusions, jokes, points, and the like, then incorporate them into a new sermon. In some cases, preachers have lifted stories and anecdotes as though they were personally involved. It's as if the Eighth Commandment -- "Do not steal" -- seems not to apply when it comes to homilies. Yet a speaker's credibility is clearly undermined when it emerges that he or she has been voicing up other people's work. Increasingly, congregations are not prepared to tolerate such an abuse of the pulpit.
Now, a 150-page guide has been published for priests in Poland advising them on how not to break the rules of plagiarism.
Comment number 1.
At 22:08 26th Apr 2008, petermorrow wrote:A bit like some of the comments on this blog then Will, blatant cut and pastes from Wiki!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 06:08 27th Apr 2008, John Wright wrote:Love this story. And I love the opening line. Good stuff.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13:34 27th Apr 2008, non_plussed wrote:Didn't the writers of Matthew and Luke set something of a precedent here?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14:45 27th Apr 2008, petermorrow wrote:Ah Nonplussed, first they're too dislike, now they are too similar.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 14:45 27th Apr 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Looks like a business opportunity to me. Now all I need to do is find someone who can translate into Polish. Shouldn't be too difficult.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 14:55 27th Apr 2008, petermorrow wrote:Marcus the business opportunity has already been snapped up.
Here:
https://www.saddlebackresources.com/en-US/Pastors/SermonsandTranscripts/SermonSubscriptions/SermonSubscriptions.htm
Here:
https://www.parable.com/tbn/default.asp
and Here:
https://www.godshop.com/
As far as I can see, God comes in a plastic shrink-wrapped 3 CD box set from these people.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 15:32 27th Apr 2008, non_plussed wrote:petermorrow.
Biblical inconsistency arguments would not be incompatible with presence of shared material.
I thought it was pretty common view in discussions of the synoptic problem that the writers of the gospels shared source material which they elaborated upon - even if there is disagreement as to the sequence.
Perhaps Wikipedia could help us out.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 15:51 27th Apr 2008, petermorrow wrote:Nonplussed,
Of course there is shared material. I'm not sure this is the same thing as plagiarism, which is the stealing of information in order to bolster one's case. Plagiarism is the pretence of knowing.
If what you are suggesting, is that the sharing of sermon material is reasonable then, yes, I agree, essentially christians should be telling the same story. This is what the gospels do.
If however, certain christians see this a a business opportunity or an opportunity to avoid study then that is objectionable.
If I misread your comments, apologies.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 23:33 27th Apr 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:petermorrow
Did you have to burst my bubble so soon. There go all those millions. I was already figuring out how many zlottys I'd need for a downpayment on a speedboat. :-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18:32 28th Apr 2008, non_plussed wrote:petermorrow.
I wasn't really attempting to make any point with my original comment. I was aiming more at humour than put down.
The thrust of William's article isn't the sale of material, but incorporating the works of others into your own without attribution - this is the definition of plagiarism. To whatever extent this happened in the writing of the gospels, as many seem to acknowledge, it seemed a reasonable connection to make under the circumstances.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 23:14 30th Apr 2008, John Wright wrote:It works?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)