Plagiarism and the pulpit

One thing great preachers enjoy about traveling is that they can hear other people preach. But the American orator A.J. Gordon received a shock during an 1876 visit to England. Sitting anonymously in a church, he realized that the sermon sounded extremely familiar – because he wrote it.

"The man in the pulpit was reading it verbatim without saying a word about the source. After the service, Gordon introduced himself and we can just imagine the pastor's reaction," said the Rev. Scott Gibson, director of the Center for Preaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary outside Boston.

Perhaps the pastor read one of Gordon's books or found the sermon in a journal. He might have lifted it from a major newspaper, because it was common in those days for sermons to be published in Monday editions.

But the preacher never thought the author would cross the Atlantic and land in one of his own pews, said Gibson, who is studying the history of plagiarism in preaching. It has always been hard for an offender to believe that a church member has read the telltale source or that a visitor with an excellent memory happened to be sitting in the right place at the wrong time.

"This is not a new problem," said Gibson. "Some people think the World Wide Web came along and suddenly you had thousands of pastors copying other people's sermons with a few clicks of a mouse. But there has always been a lot of laziness out there.

"Preachers get busy and they run out of time and then they just plain steal."

The temptations are timeless, but the Internet has raised waves of new ethical questions.

In his study, Gibson defines "plagiarism" as preaching someone else's sermon research or content without giving public credit for it. But is it plagiarism to use an outline or text the pastor has legally obtained – even purchased – from one of the thousands of preaching sites that have sprung up online? Is it acceptable to use a respected site such as SermonNotes.com without telling the congregation? What about quoting from the anonymous inspirational stories that arrive daily in everypastor's email? Is it wrong if a megachurch pastor has support staff members who do "ghost" work as researchers and writers? Does a preacher have to reveal each and every source of inspiration?

"It's hard to footnote sermons," said the Rev. Haddon Robinson, an internationally known teacher of preaching in Dallas and Denver before arriving at Gordon-Conwell. "There's no way to make people in the pews understand all of the sources you are using, especially if they're highly academic sources. I don't think anyone expects preachers to stand up there and quote all of their reference books and commentaries by name."

But all preachers read and hear stories and insights that they want to share with their flocks. It makes a sermon more colorful to feature a quotation by an author " who simply says something better than you can," said Robinson. Attributing direct quotes also adds authority, especially when quoting figures such as Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis or Billy Graham.

This is safe territory.

The danger is when pastors appropriate entire outlines or sermon texts and claim them as their own. Perhaps the strongest temptation is to personalize anecdotes that happened to other people. But it only takes seconds, noted Gibson, for a preacher to cite the source of a story or to say something like, "I heard a great sermon on this biblical text by pastor so and so and I want to share some of his insights with you." Some pastors add additional references in the Sunday bulletin or in study pages on the church website.

It's easy for preachers to play it straight, said Gibson. The question is whether many congregations have become so mesmerized that they will overlook plagiarism.

"Some people get so caught up in the experience of hearing that great preacher," he said. "It's not so much the content. It's his persona. It may not matter to them that he is using someone else's sermons. What you hear people say is, 'He's our preacher and it doesn't matter what he's doing. Let's move on.' "Some churches today just don't care."

J.K. Rowling, Inkling?

Harry Potter froze in terror as the hellish Dementors rushed to suck out his godfather's soul. But he was not powerless, because he had learned the Patronus Charm for use against the evil ones. So the boy wizard focused on a joyful memory and shouted, "Expecto Patronum!"

Salvation arrived in the form of a dazzling silver animal that defeated the ghouls and then cantered across the surface of a lake to Harry. It was as "bright as a unicorn," but on second glance was not a unicorn. It was a majestic stag that bowed its antlered head in salute and then vanished.

If C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien had written this scene in "The Prisoner of Azkaban," literary critics and Christian apologists would know how to break the code, according to John Granger, author of "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter." They would parse the Latin charm and study author J.K. Rowling's delicate use of medieval symbolism.

"The key is that stag, which is often a Christ symbol. But she is not content to make it a stag. It's a stag that looks like a unicorn," said Granger, who teaches Latin and Greek in Port Hadlock, Wash.

"She's saying to the reader, 'A stag may be a reach for you. So I'll have it be a stag that looks like a unicorn, since that has been a universally recognized Christ symbol for ages.' It's almost, 'Let me make this clear for you.' "

But these symbols have eluded most readers who have bought 192 million copies of these novels in 55 languages. (Rowling requested Latin.)

This weekend bookstores are serving up the first 8.5 million copies of the 768-page fifth volume, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." The usual suspects will immediately say the usual things. Many Christians will quote Bible verses condemning magic. Academics will call the book a childish confection and analyze it as media myth and pop psychology. Librarians will give thanks that children are reading – anything.

Granger believes they are missing the obvious: Rowling has baptized her work in medieval Christian symbols and themes that shape and define her tales of good versus evil. Potter's creator, he noted, received a superior education – with studies in French and classical languages at the University of Exeter – and has a working knowledge of ancient and medieval literature. She has made no effort to hide her admiration of great writers, especially Jane Austen and Lewis.

Granger has focused on her language and symbolism, in large part because of his similar studies in "Great Books" and ancient languages. He has also attempted to predict how these themes will play out in Rowling's future Potter novels.

"I started reading the Potter books as an Orthodox Christian father who had to explain to his oldest daughter why we don't read such trash," he said. "But once I started turning the pages the University of Chicago side of me kicked in."

Take that climactic scene in "The Prisoner of Azkaban," he said. The Latin "expecto," as used in the Apostles' Creed, is best translated "to look out for" or "to long for expectantly." And "patronus" means guardian, but can also mean "deliverer" or "savior." So Potter cries "I look for a savior" and a stag appears, one that looks mysteriously like a unicorn.

In the Middle Ages, noted Granger, stags were Christ symbols, in part because of the regeneration of their antlers as "living trees." A cross was often pictured in the prongs. Lewis uses a white stag in this manner in "The Chronicles of Narnia." Unicorns were also popular Christ symbols, portraying purity and strength.

Rowling repeatedly links Potter with creatures – a phoenix, griffins, centaurs, hippogriffs, red lions – used by centuries of Christian artists.

Her use of alchemy symbolism taps into medieval images of spiritual purification, illumination and perfection.

None of this is accidental, he said. Anyone who cares about Potter-mania must take Rowling more seriously.

"What we are seeing is a religious phenomenon taking place in a profoundly secular, profane culture," said Granger. "J.K. Rowling is pouring living water into a desert. ... She is mounting a head-on attack on a materialistic world that denies the existence of the supernatural and, so far, she is getting away with it."

Glad tidings for secularists

WASHINGTON – Pollsters who pry into matters of faith know they have to phrase their questions carefully. One big question goes something like this: "What is your religion?" As a rule, few dare to answer "none." But researchers at the City University of New York made a subtle change in 2001 when updating their portrait of U.S. religious identities. They asked: "What religion do you identify with, if any?"

A stunning 14 percent said, "no religion" – nearly 30 million Americans. Another question asked if respondents were religious or secular and 16 percent chose "secular."

"Those two words – 'if any' – made a big difference," said Fred Edwords, editorial director of the American Humanist Association. "Those two little words signaled that it was acceptable for people to say that they didn't believe in God or at least didn't practice any particular religion."

Other recent surveys have brought secularists similar glad tidings.

According to the National Election Studies, the percentage of Americans who say they attend weekly religious services fell from 38 to 25 percent between 1972 and 2000. Meanwhile, those that never attend services rose from 11 to 33 percent.

Ordinarily these kinds of numbers would inspire chatter in Washington. A rising number of openly secular voters would have a major political impact – especially for Democrats.

"We are in touch with lots of people who are certainly to the left of theism and it's no surprise they are on the political left and, thus, Democrats," said Tony Hileman, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "Also, it's no surprise that all the religious extremists – the names John Ashcroft and George W. Bush come to mind– are on the political right and, thus, they are Republicans.

"This is one of the biggest divisions in American life today and we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it."

This chasm is often seen in the fine details of daily politics.

In the 2000 White House race, Voter News Service found that 14 percent of the voters said they attended religious services more than once a week and 14 percent said they never attended. The former backed Bush by a 27-percent margin and the latter Al Gore by a 29-percent margin.

Some of President Bill Clinton's advisors spotted a similar trend in

1996, while seeking to learn which poll questions would most accurately predict a voter's choice. These five worked best: Is homosexuality morally wrong? Do you every look at pornography? Would you look down on a married person who had an affair? Is sex before marriage morally wrong? Is religion very important in your life?

If voters chose "liberal" answers on three out of five, reported

Atlantic Monthly, the odds where 2-1 they would pick Clinton. The odds soared if they leaned left on four out of five. Those giving "conservative" answers went Republican, by precisely the same odds.

Public debate on "lifestyle" issues of this kind is a relatively new phenomenon, noted Edwords. There was a time when Baptists, Pentecostals and other conservative Protestants tended to shun political activism altogether, in part because they believed "politics was too sinful."

Then American culture began to radically change in the 1960s and '70s and issues of faith and morality heated up on both sides of the political aisle. Today, leaders of the American Humanist Association and other openly secular groups believe the headquarters of the Religious Right is not in Virginia Beach or in Lynchburg – it's in the White House.

This has created a stronger coalition of humanists, secularists and liberal Christians and Jews that is united in opposition to what it believes is a dangerous blend of fundamentalism and government. This represents both opportunity, and risk, for the political left.

"The Republican Party wants to be the party of God," said Edwords. "But it's just as clear that Democrats don't want to stand up and say they are the godless party. They have to keep using religious language, even though that may make some of us secularists uncomfortable. What Democrats have to say is that their religion is broader and more inclusive and more tolerant. ... "We know they have to do that. It just doesn't pay to do politics while wearing atheism on your sleeve."

The modern rites of courtship

The theory behind "speed dating" is simple, even if the logistics sound complex. At many such events, young women sit in a circle surrounded by a circle of young men. For eight minutes participants ask the person in front of them some personal questions, hopefully adding new details to questionnaires they filled out beforehand.

The circles keep rotating one chair at a time, creating a series of face-to-face encounters. Organizers then round up the data and look for signs that something clicked for somebody.

"You don't waste a lot of time on one person, there is a large pool of people, they are pre-selected and they are not drunk. So there are some big advantages over the club scene," noted Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

The very existence of "speed dating" is evidence that many single adults and their parents believe something has gone terribly wrong in the world of love and courtship, she said, during a recent Emory University conference on sex, marriage, family and faith.

This raises a serious question: Would it help if religious congregations started holding "speed dating" events of their own?

Whitehead thinks it is significant that some Catholics, Evangelicals and other highly committed religious believers are already starting Internet dating services. And then there is the network called JMOMS – Jewish Mothers Organizing Matches. Sometimes a concept can be timely and timeless at the same time.

But these efforts are not the norm. Most religious institutions appear to have conceded love and romance to the secular powers that be.

"So many faith communities are totally oriented to married couples and those with children and they can't seem to catch up with the demographic realities that single people face today," said Whitehead. "Meanwhile, in the sexual free-for-all of our age, it is the conservative, the more traditional singles – especially the women –who are going to get ditched. They are in the most vulnerable position, because the whole club and bar dating scene is just not going to work for them. The last thing they need is for churches to abandon them."

This void is a modern phenomenon. For centuries, said Whitehead, the rites of courtship took place in the context of three great institutions – the extended family, the school and the church.

Religious leaders played a vital role in shaping the relationships that were later blessed at their altars.

"But today, all three institutions are increasingly remote from where people are in their adult life course when they begin to seriously look for a mate," she said. Most singles are "living independently, often far from home. They are also emotionally far from home. They are not going to pick up the phone and call mommy and daddy to talk about their dating prospects."

While writing her most recent book, "Why There Are No Good Men Left," Whitehead interviewed scores of single adults, especially young women. She also studied personal ads and shelves of bestsellers about dating.

What she found was confusion and conflicting values.

Modern singles are looking for "soul mates" and they fear divorce. But most also want mates who work out, eat right and have "some edge." What seems to matter the most, she said, is "competitive physical excellence." Love is defined in terms of chemistry, emotion and sex. The hard work of "testing the relationship" comes later.

Few seem concerned about faith. Most young singles that mention religion, she noted, want this religious affiliation to be as "diluted, mild and inoffensive as possible." They describe themselves with phrases such as "Jewish, but not very," "realistic Catholic," "Protestant, but not a Bible thumper" or "very spiritual, in a nondenominational way."

Thus, modern dating rites are defined by "The Bachelor," Maxim, "Friends," Self Magazine and other forces that focus more on perfect abdominals than moral absolutes.

If clergy and parents care, then they need to act, said Whitehead.

"What we have is an absence of places where serious, marriage-minded people can find each other," she said. "Our churches are not helping. Our colleges are not helping. The religious centers at our colleges and the alumni offices are not helping. ... It's like we have suddenly decided that young men and women are supposed to do this totally on their own."