Judging by reaction to recent plagiarism cases, I don’t think plagiarism matters much to most Christians.
Of late, professor Aaron New has brought forward multiple clear examples of plagiarism involving Tim Clinton and the American Association of Christian Counseling. I have published most of them on this blog. The response has been interest from the Christian Post but other than that, a resounding yawn. The AACC’s response has been to blame interns and employees and buy software to find plagiarism before they publish it. Tim Clinton’s other organization, James Dobson’s Family Talk has removed articles with plagiarized material but without comment or apology.
Two days ago, Publisher’s Weekly first reported a settlement between Christine Caine and Carey Scott in a plagiarism case. Caine took some of Scott’s work and used it in a recent book. While Caine’s publisher settled with Scott, Caine has remained silent, without comment or apology. She hasn’t explained how Scott’s material ended up verbatim in her book and promotional material (see my post where I demonstrate Caine’s copying). Outside of a few familiar voices on social media, there is little pressure on Caine to explain herself or take responsibility for her actions. Her publisher has not responded to multiple requests for comment. Silence is the strategy.
Yesterday, World magazine’s Mindy Belz examined the tepid apology offered by author Anne Voskamp for plagiarism on Twitter. The apology for one instance of plagiarism (now deleted) was buried in a blog post in such way that it could easily be missed. She hasn’t had much else to say about it. But why should she, very few people seem to care.
And let’s not forget Mark Driscoll who was responsible for citation errors in several books. In 2013, Janet Mefferd first accused Driscoll of borrowing concepts from Peter Jones without appropriate citation. From there, I discovered additional problems in several of his books. Although Driscoll didn’t acknowledge wrongdoing, one of Driscoll’s publishers quietly corrected most of the problems over the course of a year. Today, Driscoll is back with a new book from Charisma publishing.
What is the Solution?
For her article, Belz spoke with publishing industry insiders. She reported that one answer was better plagiarism detection software. My answer is to hold authors to a high standard. They should do their own work. Fewer books would be published but given the repetitive nature of many books published by Christian publishers, that would be a good thing.
I suspect that part of the reason plagiarism is a mild sin among Christian writers and publishers is that enforcing the rules would require Christian authors to write their own material. Thus, ghostwriters and researchers would be out of work. Pretend experts and Christian celebrities would have to develop actual skills and find something novel and interesting to say without the help of paid experts and researchers.
As illustrated by the above situations, publishers aren’t regularly accountable to the public, nor do they require authors to be accountable. Scott had to go to court to get justice. She couldn’t count on Caine and her Christian publisher to do the right thing. Now that the situation is public, Caine isn’t talking. Although I don’t know what is in mind, her silence gives the appearance that she hopes her popularity will get her through this rough patch.
What has surprised me is that lack of response from Christians on social media to these cases. Only a very few members of the American Association of Christian Counselors have called for AACC leaders to be accountable. Very few evangelicals have directly appealed to Clinton, Caine, or Voskamp to take responsibility for their actions. Given the social media reaction, I suspect Christian publishers are content to ride out the few emails and calls they are getting in advance of the next book release. If many Christian consumers cared, they would go to the social media accounts of these authors and ask for answers.
As the Caine case demonstrates, plagiarism is actionable. However, in Christian circles it doesn’t appear to matter as much as it does elsewhere. Plagiarism leads to job loss or sanctions in the news room (e.g., here, here, here) and academia (e.g., here, here). When I contacted the Colson Center about Tim Clinton’s near verbatim use of a Chuck Colson op-ed in one of his articles, their response was to say nothing and let it go.
In academia, we will continue to enforce high standards of plagiarism. However, it is jarring to realize that our students will enter a world where plagiarism matters less when they work in media organizations which promote Christianity than in places which do not identify as Christian.
Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.
[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]
Image: Warren Throckmorton
I apologize for a late comment to an apparent inactive thread, yet I thought I’d add a few thoughts. First, I was involved as an active layperson in a small Baptist church where they ‘called’ a preacher who was pretty slick. He occupied our parsonage and claimed to have his ‘house on the market’ in a major metro center 4 hrs away, but months passed and it never sold. I think his wife joined him for worship maybe 4-5 times in the 18 months he occupied the pulpit. The pastor began making frequent public appeals to pray for his house to sell. I found out the address, got on Zillow and other sites, and began detecting….and then confirming…..that the house was not ‘on the market’ all that often. I started to smell something foul. I’m not sure what set off my sensors (I’m in academia, so perhaps I’m tuned in.) but he gave a sermon one Sunday morning that contained anecdotes I thought were a little too ‘canned.’ I began typing phrases of his sermons into Google search engine, and began getting hits. At first, just soft hits. No smoking gun. But eventually, I began discovering he was recycling sermons…..from Rick Warren, OS Hawkins, Chuck Swindoll. He’d get into a series, develop a rhythm, I’d find the series, and I began printing the original author’s text and taking it with me to church. Before continuing, please note that not even the POTUS gives a speech orally exactly as it is written in the TOTUS. But, this preacher was essentially reading these sermons 98% word for word. I’d pass the script down to my wife; we both just shook our heads. We got a trusted deacon involved. We eventually made an approach to the key staff members and chair of deacons who took the allegation to the preacher. He denied, they believed him, and we made an exit. We were then begged to return by several that were ‘out of the loop’ but sensed we were not being forthright as to our reasons for leaving (we were trying to knock the mud off our shoes). So, we came back. The pattern continued….Sunday morning….Sunday night….some reading this might be waving the Matthew 18 flag. So be it. You’re right, we didn’t really follow the Matthew 18 concepts, but please know this church wouldn’t have known about Matthew 18 to begin with…..this church followed the “Thou shalt not touch the Lord’s anointed” concepts, and we knew it. After 8 weeks of return and still no change, we left again. This time for good. We eventually got the senior associate minister to believe us (months after his wife believed us). Eventually, about half the church left and two other key deacons finally quietly moved this guy out…..plush severance package, no accountability, etc. Eventually, he became a chaplain or something somewhere. I was struck by the fact that with incontrovertible, repetitive instances of evidence, the word of the anointed would trump the facts of the butts in the pews. I just now realized my ‘first’ thought took a lot of space. My second thought was about how Christian musicians will hijack old hymns and call the lyrics and the melody their own as long as they tweak a half note to a dotted half or add an extra ‘the’ or ‘holy’ in the lyrics. More on that if I get any interaction on this other deal.
It’s a big one for me as I was dragged into a plagiarism scandal within the HWA; the players who were vocal about the plagiarist turned around enabling my work to be plagiarized even further. I invite those who are writers to do an anthology who are Christians who minimal quote — the King James Only Movement plagiarized like they f**ked their mothers.
I had a blog post of mine stolen almost verbatim by a Nashville “Christian” author named Holly something who wrote the concert chat for the Christian band Point of Grace. When I expressed my dismay to Holly, she sent ME a cease & desist.
Happens all the time.
I believe that focusing on the “Christian” community and their problems with plagiarism among the tiny group (compared to the whole) is in itself a prejudiced and bigoted approach to a huge academic and societal problem. Why not focus on the massive problem in this society with telling the truth, and with theft in general? Liars and thieves abound. Why not focus on other communities among us, and their plagiarism? Of course you’d never post an article on any problems within the Muslim community with plagiarism. Why not focus on the plagiarism problem within academia itself? Far greater problem, isn’t it? The fact that competition for status and money among academicians is at an all time high, and that plagiarism is a huge problem there is being ignored by you, in favor of blasting the Christian community you identify, because you believe Christians are ignoring the sins of their erstwhile leaders who are making money in the Christian bookstores? Kind of hypocritical, don’t you think? Oh, but that’s right, in my experience with higher education, and I have quite a bit, I’ve noticed that academics are experts at judging others, and not themselves….just a final note for you to think about. And by the way, loving others and bringing the world to a knowledge of Christ does not preclude us from fighting for the truth, or covering it up. Hence this comment.
The mistake everyone is making here in this thread is assuming that the people who lead massive movements in religious Christianity are actually in Christ. Please be aware that true followers of Christ care about and love all those around them. And they don’t steal from other writers without attribution. There is a whole world of religion out there, all religions included, that allow people to think they are good people because they follow a prescribed list of rules, traditions, or have intellectually assented to what they consider the truth. However, that is not what Christ asks of us. He simply calls us to follow Him and have His Spirit within us. Hard to imagine that life of love allowing us to rape, pillage, or even plagiarize, right? The only laws a true believer and follower of Christ will break are the ones not allowing us to share the Good News. Love to all, and thanks for posting this good article.
Hi Gary~
I agree with you that people who are truly in Christ ought not to do these things (seems self-evident, right?), but,the concern that I have is that none of us are perfect this side of heaven. Even the most dedicated servants (even Paul) admit that he still does the wrong that he does not want to do….so I’m concerned that this sets up a standard that is not attainable, or even can be 100% supported by Scripture.
The other concern I have is that this kind of thinking might set up a system whereby Christians assume that they can discern whether another professing Christian is truly saved. I’ve seem this in denominations such as Nazarene and other Holiness groups….The true and pure intention generally devolves into making a ‘list’ or ‘standard’ upon which to judge others. We truly can only see the outside of a persons heart and only God can discern the true state of it and also only God can know who is indeed “In Christ”.
Unfortunately this does set up a system whereby many non-believers can worm their way into the Church which is in the world….Which is why we are warned to “be wise as serpents & harmless as doves.”
Maybe the “harmless as doves” can be a good early warning system for us when evaluating other’s actions and motivations. If their actions harm either people or the church then maybe we should do as many are doing and raise red flags and withdraw our support?
KDH, thanks for the comment. I agree with you, that we can’t judge others. I’m enough of a handful in myself, and Christ is working in me to bring me into His full Life of love and holiness. But that’s why the denominations and movements have led so many people astray, with their man-made interpretations and rules and regulations. That’s why we need to follow Christ, and not men. We need to be part of the Body of Christ, but not fall under the spell of those in our celebrity-focused, self-focused, big-ministry-focused societies. My blog is https://narrowgatepub.blogspot.com/ Hope you’ll visit and get more of my thoughts.
Okay, but if these “true followers” are so few or so invisible that there is no holding the leaders to account, then isn’t that a major issue in itself? After all, if they care about all those around them, isn’t it their duty to be out there making sure that the millions of fans of these false leaders aren’t being led astray?
I also think you are the one who is mistaken. The comment thread isn’t about the leaders — most people know there are plenty of dishonest leaders in the evangelical movement. The issue under debate is why more Christians, especially the Christian media, don’t hold them to account for their transgressions. That’s not a problem with a few thought leaders, it’s a problem with a sizable portion of the body of the Christian church who support these leaders.
So the question remains — where are the “true followers” you mention in all this, and why aren’t they doing anything about it?
Okay, but if these “true followers” are so few or so invisible that there is no holding the leaders to account, then isn’t that a major issue in itself? After all, if they care about all those around them, isn’t it their duty to be out there making sure that the millions of fans of these false leaders aren’t being led astray?
I also think you are the one who is mistaken. The comment thread isn’t about the leaders — most people know there are plenty of dishonest leaders in the evangelical movement. The issue under debate is why more Christians, especially the Christian media, don’t hold them to account for their transgressions. That’s not a problem with a few thought leaders, it’s a problem with a sizable portion of the body of the Christian church who support these leaders.
So the question remains — where are the “true followers” you mention in all this, and why aren’t they doing anything about it?
Thanks for caring enough to reply. My comment was made to expose the fact the these are not my leaders. I’m not part of any evangelical movement, as that’s a man-created thing. I’m well aware of the duplicity of many in the churches, and the fact that though they claim Christ, they don’t follow Him if their actions are indicators, which they are. I’m not judging them, because I leave that to God. But there are many whom Christ has called, and there are thousands who follow Him faithfully, who do call out these leaders on a regular basis. I have a blog where I submit what I hear from Christ and His Word, and many others do, too. But to expect that these man-made institutions, be they called churches, or ministries of various kinds, represent Christ is to expect too much. The minute you step into the realm of creating an organization, and a corporation, then you overstep. You mention Paul. He and the other apostles spoke only of the Church, which was a tightly-knit Body for Christ is this world. They warned that the minute men get hold of it, and make it a physical, structural entity, it begins to usurp the Head, who is Christ, and build it’s own religious conceptions of the church. You can hear more of this at https://narrowgatepub.blogspot.com/ And again, thanks for hearing me out.
In the strictest sense, Christianity itself is a “man-created thing.” That aside, you are employing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
David, my sense is that you have all the answers. I pray that your eyes will be opened, even if you can always say I’m employing some fallacy or another. God cannot reach us if we are convinced we are the final authority on everything. And by the way, I agree with you. See my comment to Tacitus below. Christianity IS a man-created thing. May God show you the Truth in Christ.
Since you say you agree with me on the major premise, does that mean you have all the answers as you claim I do? You employ the No True Scotsman when you narrow the “true Christian” category by progressively excluding those with traits that you deem unflattering or unacceptable to that label. It avoids the real issue, much as your response to my comment does.
Hi David, the No True Scotsman fallacy simply prevents anyone from being sure about anything. If I give a definition from Scripture that describes what it means to be a true disciple of Christ, then you can simply make up your own definition, and if you counter mine, and I stick with mine, then I’m accused of “employing the No True Scotsman” argument. In other words, the No True Scotsman fallacy is in itself a fallacy, which makes anyone else’s argument void. But back to you and your comment, what is the “real issue”? I’m sincere in asking. I’m not at all sure what you mean by the real issue. To me the real issue is what Christ says and does, and requires of us to follow Him. To you it is something else perhaps. Thanks for replying.
Actually, you are describing the reverse of the No True Scotsman.
David, what is your real issue? I simply preach Christ. I exalt Him, not churches, not ideas. The true Church is not defined by man-created organizations. Just wondering what it is you’re trying to say. There are many in this world who hold everything away at an intellectual level, arguing and counter-arguing all day, but what are you saying about Christ?
The issue of this thread is whether plagiarism matters to Christians. Extended, it is whether increasingly severe ethical failures and bad acts are being tolerated, even rationalized away by Christians who believe the ends justify the means, e.g. political and social gain. This is happening even in these threads. It is not honest or helpful to simply claim that those who do such things are not “true Christians” (No True Scotsman fallacy), it is rather necessary to confront the issue and deal with the problem openly.
What is that if not a judgment?
Without churches, there would be no Christianity. There would never have been any Christianity. Churches are what kept Christianity alive and spread it worldwide. Without these man-made institutions, many of which were incredibly imperfect, you would not be a Christian today, since you would never have heard of Jesus.
For the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. (Matthew 15:6)
Tacitus,
My point is yours exactly. “Without churches, there would be no Christianity.” And Christ did not come to create a religion called Christianity. The whole giant apparatus, with its disparate and disputing factions, its rich and colorful and gigantically flawed sects, huge church buildings and organizational structures, its liturgy and its rules and regulations, its hierarchy and budgets and business focus, etc, is all man-made. That’s why you see the terrible sins within it being constantly displayed to the world, and the world constantly pointing to it and saying, “See, Christianity is no good”. Priest and prophet alike are apostate, and living in a religious construct that has no resemblance to the energy and vitality of Christ’s true Church, which is known by Him, and is carried on quietly throughout the earth. That is my point. And I must point out also, that your statement, “Without these man-made institutions, many of which were incredibly imperfect, you would not be a Christian today…” makes one huge, gigantic assumption. And that is that the 40 years I spent in the churches made me a “true disciple” of Christ. It made me a man who wanted Christ, but who was all about himself, and serving the churches, and being part of the organization and the activities, and doing all the right things according to the churches, but for whom Christ was a powerless yet kind figure, incapable of curing my addictions to sin or changing my life with His power. Now I know differently. I live in John 14,15,16, and see Acts 4 as the model of the true Church. And love is my drive and ambition. Love for my wife, children, grandchildren, neighbors, and my brothers and sisters everywhere. But I am not judging, just living. Thanks for listening.
In the case of Ann Voskamp, not only was there plagarism of Cynthia Occelli’s seed story but then also retelling the story as her own experience in a public setting. I mean, that’s just plain lying! I seem to remember NBC news anchor Brian Williams back in 2015 getting into trouble and losing his job over his tall tale about his experiences, I don’t see much difference in what Voskamp has done and it’s troubling.
There is a bigger problem here. It’s not just Christians. Many academic books contain extensive evidence of clear, i.e. word for word, plagiarism. But, neither universities or publishers care if the plagiarized is well known. A colleague of mine found large sections of one of his books in another professors book published by one of the top five academic presses. He reported it and the press simply made cosmetic changes to the next edition. Then he had the choice of a major lawsuite or forgetting the whole thing so he forgot it. Money is power. See also my article at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/content/study/study.html
Christian or not, I have to say that IMO there are “real” authors and “real” books, and then there is the glut of branded products masquerading as books. Comparing the two and holding them to the same standards seems… futile. If an author I respect turns out to be less than ethical in their work, I don’t care what they or their publishers do. I move on to other books and authors. Does anyone think all of these celebrities, athletes, pastors and politicians actually have the time or the ability to write a real honest-to-goodness book?
No, but neither do I think they should be excused for letting stolen copy go out under their name.
I agree. They should address it. They should correct the errors. But I just don’t think that people who buy branded products which resemble, but really are not, true scholarly books are ever going to have the same reaction to plagiarism or errors that academics do. The “authors” and publishers should be embarrassed, but it’s just not going to make waves like people who do the real work of writing real books wish it would.
I would have to agree there.
I would have to agree there.
We can’t get Christians to condemn sexual assault by their president of choice; they’re not worried about plagiarism.
You have a very good point. I have been thinking (and despairing) about this. With a scandal a day going on in DC there isn’t much outrage left over. A little plagiarism doesn’t really move the needle.
Bill Clinton isn’t as much in the media as he used to be. You’d think people pushing Hillary would’ve seen the problem.
What, Hillary had an affair with Monica Lewinsky as well? That would be news.
Thinking back, it seems that many of those Sunday morning sermons contained stories (and I’m not referring to Biblical stories here), but they almost never cited a source for those stories. So maybe plagiarizing is just a common practice in churches. Maybe the term “plagiarism” is mainly relevant to scholarly activities.
I think sermons are a particular form of oral discourse with a different set of practices and conventions. If someone wants to publish a book, publishers have necessary guidelines they need to follow. If a would-be writer doesn’t want to observe conventional citation guidelines to avoid plagiarism in their work, then they don’t have to write a book. Let them stand on the street corner and say anything they want, with little to no consequences.
Plagiarism runs deep in the roots of Christianity. The authors of Matthew and Luke copy-pasted from Mark extensively.
Or Jesus spoke Greek which would explain the similarities in most cases.
No it doesn’t. The copying of Mark goes far beyond quoting Jesus. There’s no serious disagreement about this amongst NT scholars and it is rather trivial to see it for yourself if you look. Google ‘synoptic problem’ or ”Markan Priority’.
In fact there are serious disagreements. I will post some titles on the topic as soon as I get the chance.
Ok. First, there is no “common source document.” All we have is a lot
of
speculation. Two very good critiques are:
Farmer, W. R. (1976). The Synoptic problem ; a critical analysis. Dillsboro, N.C.,: Western North Carolina Press
and the less well known:
Palmer, H. (1968). The logic of Gospel criticism : an account of the methods and arguments used by textual, documentary, source, and form critics of the New Testament. London, Melbourne [etc.]
New York: Macmillan;
St. Martin’s P.
Palmer’s work is devastating, but has been ignored by most Biblical scholars. From a historians viewpoint Biblical criticism falls far short of its claims. Interestingly, Farmer argues for a political bias in a later article and his:
Farmer, W. R. (1994). The gospel of Jesus : the pastoral relevance of the synoptic problem (1st ed.). Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press.
His argument is that initially the idea of “Q” was rejected by German scholars, until Chancellor Otto von Bismarck started to appoint those who upheld the position. This was done as part of his attack on Roman Catholicism and had little to do with schoalrship. More recently some scholars have pointed out the racism and social construction of Biblical criticism. See:
Davies, A. T. (1988). Infected Christianity : a study of modern racism. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Kelley, S. (2002). Racializing Jesus : race, ideology, and the formation of modern biblical scholarship. London ; New York: Routledge.
So I remain very sceptical. If a historian tried this sort of thing in any other context they would not be taken very seriously. Imagined documents are not documents.
Ok. First, there is no “common source document.” All we have is a lot
of
speculation. Two very good critiques are:
Farmer, W. R. (1976). The Synoptic problem ; a critical analysis. Dillsboro, N.C.,: Western North Carolina Press
and the less well known:
Palmer, H. (1968). The logic of Gospel criticism : an account of the methods and arguments used by textual, documentary, source, and form critics of the New Testament. London, Melbourne [etc.]
New York: Macmillan;
St. Martin’s P.
Palmer’s work is devastating, but has been ignored by most Biblical scholars. From a historians viewpoint Biblical criticism falls far short of its claims. Interestingly, Farmer argues for a political bias in a later article and his:
Farmer, W. R. (1994). The gospel of Jesus : the pastoral relevance of the synoptic problem (1st ed.). Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press.
His argument is that initially the idea of “Q” was rejected by German scholars, until Chancellor Otto von Bismarck started to appoint those who upheld the position. This was done as part of his attack on Roman Catholicism and had little to do with schoalrship. More recently some scholars have pointed out the racism and social construction of Biblical criticism. See:
Davies, A. T. (1988). Infected Christianity : a study of modern racism. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Kelley, S. (2002). Racializing Jesus : race, ideology, and the formation of modern biblical scholarship. London ; New York: Routledge.
So I remain very sceptical. If a historian tried this sort of thing in any other context they would not be taken very seriously. Imagined documents are not documents.
At the very least there was a common source document. There is little connected with ancient scripture that is not in dispute among some, but what you suggest is a commonly argued point in seminaries and bible colleges. It is only in the pews that the Bible is so neatly packaged in perfect harmony.
One big difference that last man on earth doesn’t acknowledge is that the NT accounts, even if borrowing from one another, were not done for the purposes of turning a quick buck in an industry and enriching the authors. These people were signing their own death warrants. Completely different from the motivations of these pseudo-Christian celebs. Q is sheer speculation, and several scholars do not a correct theory make. I’ve been in the academic world for 16 years, don’t kid a kidder. Agreed, a lot of stuff is neatly packaged for the pews; my New Testament professor said “The Bible did not fall from heaven in a glad bag.” But the material neatly packaged for the consumption of the average skeptic is some of the most anti-intellectual tripe I’ve ever read and the lock step views many tend to have, coupled with the cheap gratuitous shots such as LMOE gave above, give the most knavish sort of KJV-only closed minds quite a run for their money. By the way, I am not a religious academic and have never taken a single class from a sectarian school, I teach law and fraud–I have a heightened BS meter, LMOE causes mine to smoke.
Q is a theory based on the evidence found in the Gospels. It is a way of describing what appears to have happened, and it is certainly a concept shared by more than “several scholars.” This is taught in conservative and liberal seminaries and bible colleges alike. This is not controversial in major venues. I’m uncertain as to why you would object to it so strongly.
No it doesn’t. The copying of Mark goes far beyond quoting Jesus. There’s no serious disagreement about this amongst NT scholars and it is rather trivial to see it for yourself if you look. Google ‘synoptic problem’ or ”Markan Priority’.
I think a good starting point would be googling “Q Gospel”. Or if you can find a book, “The Gospels: the Annotated Scholar’s Version” (editor Robert Miller) which shows side by side the similarities between two gospels, and why several scholars believe that there was a ‘source’ or quelle document that has since been lost.
I should get a new copy of it too. Mine is from the 90s somewhere, and it has since been updated with new Q stuff.
Maybe Christians should really check their motives for writing, too. Why do they feel they need to be writing about this topic? What do they have to say that hasn’t already been said? Sometimes I feel like writers just write to hear themselves talk or for some other wrong motive (probably myself included, which has me thinking). But I agree, maybe if they were held to a higher standard we wouldn’t have so many books on the exact same topics, in the exact same time, using the exact same lingo, and the exact same anecdotes.
I feel like many Christian books are like pop songs. There is a marketable hook and a good beat but that’s about it. Authors with multi-book deals have to honor their contract with clever hooks and a marketable brand. The authors can get some talks and a tour out of it and the publisher makes money.
You make a good point. Your description of contemporary Christian books is akin to “jingles,” empty sound branding for fluffy, short TV commercials. This is what it looks like when one’s theology is reduced and commodified to a marketable hook.
It is all about the Mammon, and there is plenty of jealousy going on to behind the scenes. I know personally that the Holy Spirit is upset about the jealousy. It is one of the few things I have heard first hand.
This is a good analogy. I’ve read books that seem like someone programmed a computer with a list of Christian buzzwords and let it rip. After reading that stuff for a while, it’s no wonder so many will accept just about any garbage they are fed.
That’s a very good idea. Making a program to write Christian books. There’s probably a lot of money to be made there.
How do we know they haven’t already done it 🙂
Back in the day I worked for a place that acclimated a number of promotional Christian Books that ended up on the giveaway pile. Some were also-rans, but quite a number where from Christian celebrities of varying backgrounds.
All of that is to say: I took a half dozen books by bigger-name celebrities to Half-Price and got $1 for all of them. After the initial push, interviews, and marketing campaign dries up there’s just not much desire for these things and people have moved on — pretty much like most of pop music.
Like really talentless, plagiarized rock songs.
Are you sad because no one wants to plagiarize your writing? Concepts that are not interesting do not get plagarized. Hmmmmmm. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f4c3e527026b738f24ba684f5cd6f14fc82c8b1bf4439cdcc279782d7963e64a.jpg
Bless your heart.
If you want to comment and contribute something then do so otherwise your routine has reached the expiration date. If you have something to add that is constructive and pertinent then you can participate, otherwise no.
There is a valid point in my comment. Does “contribute” mean to pat you on the back? Your generalization from several books to organizations that identify as Christian is sloppy scholarship.
I’ll let you compare my dissertation to yours for scholarship if you like.
If you have a point to make, then make it. If you have some counter evidence, then present it. If you continue to speak in demeaning riddles, I will delete your comments.
About time, in my opinion. The fact that he can’t even admit he’s trolling is telling.
Your generalization from several books to organizations that identify as Christian is sloppy scholarship.
A serious contribution would be evidence to contradict Warren’s conclusions. Do you have a similar preponderance of examples of Christians taking plagiarism of this sort seriously by acting to expose, correct and admonish it? As it stands, your comment is hollow and disparaging, as is your habit.
I agree that you have shown trolls too much patience. Although this one has been funny at times on some posts. But when he does this he is just rudely slapping you in the face without any legitimate reason that I can see. This is not Christian behavior any more than those who are breaking the 8th commandment. We live in an age where few even recognize what sin is and is not any longer. Lying or stealing for fun and profit is fine for the Christian CEO types selling product to “Christian” consumers.
He just hasn’t figured out yet that this isn’t Facebook.
“Bless your heart,” in the true Southern use of the phrase.
This is the same community that once tried to argue that sound waves from guitar strings, when run through a distortion effect, became God’s kryptonite. Because electric guitar rock music is evil and more powerful than the Creator of the universe. Today, these same White Evangelical cultural warriors are supporters of sexual predators Roy Moore, Trump, and Kavanaugh.
If we are looking for honesty or integrity, we won’t find it in dominant, hegemonic U.S. Evangelical culture. Lies are not merely acceptable to Evangelicals; lies are their preferable behavior of choice.
Reminded me again what actionable evidence was brought to light about Kavanaugh.
I’m not sure that is the point, but it would depend on what you mean by “actionable.”
I think it’s related to the larger strains of anti-intellectualism in evangelicalism. Plagiarism is a big deal to people who value ethical journalism or top-notch academic inquiry. For those who denigrate such pursuits, plagiarism is no biggie, little more than an unfortunate nuisance.
Rick, I think that is a part of it. Another is that I am disheartened often by the lack of commitment to principle on the part of “Christian” media. I could tell a few stories that range from “frustrating” to “inexcusable”.