Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda...

Those of you who have been following us on Facebook and Twitter probably could have seen this coming, as you've recently been fed a steady diet of links to some of our older posts reprising topics like Pietism, Sectarian Worship, Lay Ministry, along with a few links featuring the advice of orthodox Lutherans from previous eras regarding genuine Lutheran practice that also does the job of confessing our separation from sectarians.

But they are just a bunch of old dead dudes, and who really cares about ancient history anyway. Yeah, they said stuff. So what. We say stuff, too, and what we say is what matters today.

Meanwhile, an email rather circuitously made its way to our inbox yesterday. It was initially sent to the pastors of an entire circuit in the WELS SEW District, and included a passel of attachments for their review ahead of their meeting of this Friday. They will be discussing the opening of an INTERDISTRICT MULTI-SITE CONGREGATION. The congregation, Hope Lutheran in Oconomowoc, WI (Western Wisconsin District), had been planning a multi-site effort since 2010, and, with the encouragement of their District President, had been communicating their plans with WW DMB throughout this time. In July of 2012, a conversation with Wisconsin Lutheran College (WLC) President Dan Johnson resulted in his offer to use the facilities of WLC as a "cradle to launch the second location of Hope" – in the Southeastern Wisconsin District (SEW).

Click here for the documentation.

Multi-site Congregations? Whence comest thou?
In a previous exposé on the teaching of Craig Groeschel, entitled Pietism and Ministry in the WELS: A brief review of Craig Groeschel, we critiqued the thirteen points of his Vision and Values document. Point one, along with our response to it, reads

"1. Since Christ is for us and with us, we are a fearless, risk taking, exponential thinking church. We refuse to insult God with timid thinking or selfish living.

"Interpretation: We like to tempt God.

"There is nothing laudable in casting Christian Stewardship aside, to openly take 'bet-the-farm' risks with resources God has given to us, which he expects us to wisely invest. 'Betting the Farm' is not wisdom, but foolishness."

Compare this, the FIRST POINT of Groeschel's Vision and Values statement, with THE FIRST POINT listed in the Mission Vision Values statement of Hope Lutheran, from the documentation packet linked above:

"Since Christ is for us and with us, we are a fearless, risk taking, exponential thinking church. We refuse to insult God with timid thinking or selfish living."

Already we see, Craig Groeschel is their guide – they have adopted his Vision for Ministry and made it their own, quoting from it verbatim. But it doesn't end there. Here are points four and seven from Craig Groeschel's Vision and Values document:

"4. We give up things we love for things we love even more. It's an honor to sacrifice for Christ and His church.

"7. We will lead the way with irrational generosity. We truly believe it is more blessed to give than to receive."

You can read our 2010 exposé on Craig Groeschel to see our responses to these points. But compare these points to POINT SIX listed in Hope Lutheran's Mission Vision Values statement, again from the packet linked above:

"We love to give up things we love for the things that God loves."

We did a post or two on plagiarism, did we not? Yes, I think we did. Here is the series we posted in 2010 on the sin of plagiarism. Craig Groeschel makes an appearance in this series, as well – commenting on those who do not give credit to their sources:

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part I
A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part II
A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point
A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point (cont'd)

Re-read these old posts, and read the rest of our 2010 exposé on Craig Groeschel and his connection to the WELS. What we said then still applies today, and that application is most assuredly expanding.


Recently, Craig Groeschel wrote an editorial for FoxNews.com, which was titled, Christians, here's why we're losing our religion. Aptly titled, his objective is, in fact, to lose religion. He writes:

"You see, religion alone can only take a person so far. Religion can make us nice, but only Christ can make us new. Religion focuses on outward behavior. Relationship is an inward transformation. Religion focuses on what I do, while relationship centers on what Jesus did. Religion is about me. Relationship is about Jesus... religion is about rules, but being a Christian is about relationship."

Compare Groeschel's statement, above, to POINT SEVEN in the document Mission Vision Values, again, in the packet linked above. It reads:

"We will not let our behavior or church culture create a barrier between Jesus and a person he died for."

The relationship between statements like this and Evangelical leadership emanating from the likes of Craig Groeshel is obvious. Yet, such leadership is Scripturally incompetent – a clear example of allowing an enemy of the Christian AND the Church (i.e., the World) to dictate our terms. In reality, those who separate religion from Christianity, as Groeschel suggests, have no idea what either religion or Christianity is. Sure, Christianity is a relationship between the individual and Jesus, but Scripture's testimony on the matter is clear and abundant: for as much as it is a relationship between the individual and Jesus, it is also a relationship of confessional unity between fellow Christians AND a relationship between the congregation and Christ. Christianity is NOT strictly a matter between the individual and God, in its visible manifestation, it is principally corporate in nature! One cannot separate the idea of "religion" from Christianity! To even suggest it is nonsense.


Craig Groeschel continues in his editorial:

"But in order to reach the current generation and generations to come, we must change the way we do things. That's why we like to say, 'To reach people no one is reaching, we have to do things no one is doing.'"

He is repeating, here, the sixth point of his Vision and Values statement – which we commented on in our previous exposé. Hope Lutheran echoes this thought in POINT FIVE of their Mission Vision Values statement, contained in the documentation packet linked above:

"We are committed to reaching people that churches are not reaching."

But is Hope Lutheran, or anyone else who copies Craig Groeschel, really living out this vision statement? Hardly. Following the model of those 'who are doing what no one else is doing', those so doing such only succeed in doing what everyone else is doing. It's called a bandwagon. The fact is, it is on the basis of his multi-site church model that Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv was recently named the most innovative church. Those who copy him aren't at all "doing what no one else is doing to reach those no one else is reaching," but are simply doing what everyone else is doing, as they climb on board the bandwagon to do what has apparently been "successful" for Craig Groeschel. Everyone without a shred of creativity of their own, that is. Professor John Schaller has better advice for Lutherans. Read what Schaller writes, to see what he says about doing what everyone else is doing, instead of what Lutherans, alone, can uniquely do.


Craig Groeschel continues further:

"[A]s churches, we don't have the liberty to change the message, but we must change the way the message is presented. We have to discover our 'altar ego' — and become who God says we are instead of who others say we are."

Note that by "we", Groeschel is not referring to the Church anymore. By this point in his editorial, he has already separated corporate religion from the individual. The "we" he is referring to is individual Christians, and nothing more. Thus, the change he is calling for is not change in the Church, but change in the individual Christian, beginning with the separation of the individual Christian from the Church, and continuing with a change in his focus, calling the Christian to dwell on his own behaviour. Not only is this rank Sanctification oriented Pietism (which we detailed in our post, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism, and highlighted as a problem with Craig Groeschel in our 2010 exposé), it is a "change in the message." It is a manifestly duplicitous perspective on Christianity. All he is saying here is, "We must change the message to eliminate "religion" from Christianity (yes, change), we must change the message to eliminate "labels" from our identity (i.e., to eliminate a Christian's public confession from his Christianity), we must change the message to focus on what Christians do for God or what Christians do for man in the name of God instead of what the Holy Spirit does for man through His appointed Means, and we must change the message in these ways to accommodate the demands of the unregenerate who won't listen to us otherwise (who, the Scriptures tell us, are at war against God and don't want to listen to Him anyway). Moreover, we must change the message the way others say we must change the message, we must change the way they say we must change, and become who they say we must be." Who are these "others" but Craig Groeschel and similar Evangelical leaders! Separating the Christian from his religion and from his confession, they insert themselves to take over for the visible Church.


The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism
In our post, C.P. Krauth explains how orthodox Lutheran Synods descend into heterodoxy, we quoted Charles Porterfield Krauth as he identified the Course of Error in the Church, well-known since the time of St. Augustine and operating as well as it ever had in his own time:

"When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages in its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: 'You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; let us alone, we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.' Indulged in for this time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the Church. Truth and error are two coordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their repudiation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it."

Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. (pp. 195-196).

For almost three years now Intrepid Lutherans have been warning of this danger, educating our readers on the differences between heterodox sectarianism and orthodox Lutheranism, and demonstrating those differences along with giving evidence of its incursion into our Synod. Some have joined us by lending us their names; though some have been threatened for this, many remain. But these few do not account for the nearly 1500 daily page reads we see on average. Many folks read our essays and informational posts, and are confronted with the stark reality: our Synod is deteriorating right along with the visible Church everywhere, which almost unanimously now invites the World and worldly influences to abide with her in determining doctrine and practice. If they would aspire to be Dresden Lutherans of any sort, it is high-time for our readers to do more than just read. It is time for them to assert their Confession, to begin acting on their convictions in a way that will bring an end to this sort of thing.

Pietism and Ministry in the WELS: A brief review of Craig Groeschel, Part 1

On Tuesday of last week, in the closing sentence of the post, Public Ministry and the Divine Call, I promised that we would have more to say in coming days and weeks regarding the sources we see repeatedly surfacing among congregations implementing practices of the Church Growth Movement. One such source is Craig Groeschel’s LifeChurch.tv, which, based on personal observation and the observations of numerous laymen and pastors who maintain contact with IL, seems to be rapidly growing in popularity among various churches and schools in our Synod.

LifeChurch.tv is online Church, with about a dozen physical locations throughout the United States. Of key interest to WELS churches, however, is the numerous resources that are made available for free, as a way of “equipping churches” to “bring people closer to God” (Church Resources). Chief among these “resources” are the sermons of celebrity evangelical preacher, Craig Groeschel.

Without going much further, already we see problems. WELS churches that enter into usage of these materials are doing so under the banner of being equipped for ministry by the heterodox. Further, as proof of their heterodoxy, we have the stated purpose of these materials: to bring people closer to God. This statement does many things, two of which are as follows:

1. It attenuates the righteous severity of God’s Justice. If, apart from faith, apart from the benefits of Christ’s work on my behalf, I am separated from God, unable, because of my own inbred sin, to merit standing in His sight (Ro. 3:10-20), or to move myself closer to Him or to lay hold of Him (Is. 64:6-7), there is then a gulf between me and Him which cannot be traversed. I cannot get “closer to God. ” Any separation from Him is total separation from Him. Apart from the free gift of faith, there is no such thing as “closer to God” as if I can get closer and closer to enjoy the comfort of being “almost there.” Almost there merits eternal damnation in the fires of hell as surely as “nowhere near.” Everyone separated from God by unfaith stands equally as His enemy, and is equally doomed for eternity.
2. It cheapens the value of salvation. If, through faith, I am God’s own dear child, how much closer to Him can I get? Through faith, the gulf of separation has been traversed, I am no longer God’s enemy, but am considered by Him to be the brother of Christ. Is there a status of “extra special child of God” for me to attain to? Perhaps there are levels of standing before God? Perhaps by pining and tarrying after Christ, or by some other regimen of pious exercise or form of right living, I may be granted the position of ruling at the right or left hand of Christ? The original disciples thought such things, and were corrected by Jesus for their error (Lk. 9:46-48; Mt. 18:1-4; Mk. 10:35-45). The fact is, as children of God, we all stand equally as the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven – there is none greater or lesser, there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, all are one in Jesus Christ (Ga. 3:28-29). I do not attain “closer” standing with God than other believing Christians have, regardless of our relative “progress” in Sanctification. Once I have Faith, I have arrived – I am God’s own dear child, and immediately have the greatest standing in His kingdom. And to this faith I cling. For a Christian to speak of being “closer to God,” as if other Christians are somehow not as close to God, or as if one can gain greater “closeness” or “standing” in His sight is to view his relationship with God purely through worldly eyes.

But let’s examine Craig Groeschel and LifeChurch.tv a bit more closely. One interesting thing about Craig Groeschel is that he is not some fly-by-night, one-man-church-body with a theological perspective so unique that no one else agrees with him. He is not the non-denominational corner-church religious quack that has been so popular over the past two decades or so. He, and his online ministry, have religious affiliation with a bona fide church body, that has been in existence in the United States since 1885. He has gravitas.

The Evangelical Covenant Church
Craig Groeschel and LifeChurch.tv are affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church – a church body with roots in Scandinavian Lutheran Pietism:

LifeChurch.tv is part of the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) - a rapidly growing multi-ethnic denomination in the United States and Canada with ministries on five continents of the world. Founded in 1885 by Swedish immigrants, the ECC values the Bible as the Word of God, the gift of God's grace and ever-deepening spiritual life that comes through faith in Jesus Christ, the importance of extending God's love and compassion to a hurting world, and the strength that comes from unity within diversity (Beliefs).

So what does the ECC believe? Surely, given their Lutheran roots, there is much with which a WELS Lutheran might find resonance! Let’s briefly examine their claims.

From the Preamble to the ECC Constitution and Bylaws

The Evangelical Covenant Church is a communion of congregations gathered by God, united in Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit to obey the great commandment and the great commission. It affirms its companionship in faith with other church bodies and all those who fear God and keep God's commandments.

There are two problems here: the emphasis is on "obey," rather than "believe," – Law over Gospel. Also, their concept of "fellowship" is very broad and ecumenical, assuming such with all who “fear God and keep His commandments” – which is subjective and ultimately legalistic. This concept is, therefore, unscriptural and not at all compatible with the Lutheran Confession.

The Evangelical Covenant Church adheres to the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation regarding the Bible. It confesses that the Holy Scripture, the Old and the New Testament, is the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct. It affirms the historic confessions of the Christian Church, particularly the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, while emphasizing the sovereignty of the Word of God over all creedal interpretations.

This sounds reasonable - at first. However, "emphasizing the sovereignty of the Word of God over all creedal interpretations" is an open invitation to any and all weak, false, and dangerous theology. It is an expression of a quatenus subscription to the Creeds, holding them up to qualification on the basis of personal interpretation of Scripture. Lutherans require an unqualified quia subscription to the Creeds as well as the Lutheran Confessions.

In continuity with the renewal movements of historic Pietism, the Evangelical Covenant Church especially cherishes the dual emphasis on new birth and new life in Christ, believing that personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is the foundation for our mission of evangelism and Christian nurture. Our common experience of God’s grace and love in Jesus Christ continues to sustain the Evangelical Covenant Church as an interdependent body of believers that recognizes but transcends our theological differences.

Here the ECC clearly and unabashedly embraces the false theology of Pietism. Thus, the obvious emphasis is on sanctification rather than justification, again Law instead of Gospel. In addition, the "experience" of Christ becomes the standard of measurement among them, and allows their members to hold different theological beliefs and yet remain in fellowship. Once again, the Biblical doctrine of fellowship is disregarded.

The Evangelical Covenant Church celebrates two divinely ordained sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Recognizing the reality of freedom in Christ, and in conscious dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit, we practice both the baptism of infants and believer baptism. The Evangelical Covenant Church embraces this freedom in Christ as a gift that preserves personal conviction, yet guards against an individualism that disregards the centrality of the Word of God and the mutual responsibilities and disciplines of the spiritual community.

Once again personal theological interpretation and rationalism, along with a fair dose of Calvinism, runs rampant in this ECC statement. Both infant baptism, but also the so-called "believer-baptism" is employed in the same church body. It wouldn't be surprising to find both used on a single individual at different points in his life! Consistency with “believer-baptism” would require it!

The Evangelical Covenant Church has its roots in historical Christianity, the Protestant Reformation, the biblical instruction of the Lutheran Church of Sweden, and the great spiritual awakenings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These influences, together with more recent North American renewal movements, continue to shape its development and distinctive spirit. The Evangelical Covenant Church is committed to reaching across boundaries of race, ethnicity, culture, gender, age, and status in the cultivation of communities of life and service.

By acknowledging and even exulting in the "great spiritual awakenings" of the past, the ECC clearly lays out its theological parentage. This church body was not and is not a confessional Lutheran church body, pure and simple. The ECC is thoroughly ecumenical in the worst sense of the word, and thus degrades and denigrates both its tenuous connection with its Lutheran past, and its supposed devotion to Christ and His Word. Simply put, this is a heretical church body, with which WELS churches and Pastors should have nothing whatsoever to do!

Craig Groeshel and LifeChurch.tv: The Beliefs they Pass Along to their Users

In Non-Essential Beliefs, we have liberty. Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls... So then each of us will give an account of himself to God... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

What makes the Covenant unique from other denominations is the fact that while it strongly affirms the clear teaching of the Word of God, it allows believers the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture (Beliefs).

Prior to becoming Confessional Lutherans many years ago, my wife and I visited an ECC Church. Upon leaving, after a conversation with the Pastor and his wife, we were handed a pamphlet describing the teachings of the ECC. The glaring error it contained, which prompted our rejection of this church body's claim to orthodoxy and guaranteed that we would never return, was the distinction of Scriptural teachings it emphasized (and I quote from memory): We divide the teaching of Scripture into two categories – negotiable and non-negotiable. My good wife scoffed: “Precisely what teachings of Scripture are ‘negotiable’?” In the reference above we receive the answer: negotiable teachings are the teachings that are “non-essential” to Salvation, i.e., the “non-fundamental” teachings of Scripture. Of these, one is advised to keep his mouth shut and his “opinions” to himself. And so we see that association with Craig Groeschel will include the teaching (whether subtly or overtly) that non-fundamental doctrines are merely matters of opinion, or adiaphora. This is the heart of doctrinal indifferentism, a hallmark of Pietism as described in our post two weeks ago, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism. But let’s examine the perspectives of Craig Groeschel and LifeChurch.tv a little more closely, from their Vision and Values document:

1. We are faith-filled, big thinking, bet-the-farm risk takers. We'll never insult God with small thinking and safe living.
   
   Interpretation: We like to tempt God.
   
   There is nothing laudable in casting Christian Stewardship aside, to openly take “bet-the-farm” risks with resources God has given to us, which he expects us to wisely invest. “Betting the Farm” is not wisdom, but foolishness.


2. We are all about the "capital C" Church! The local church is the hope of the world and we know we can accomplish infinitely more together than apart.
   
   Interpretation: We're NOT all about the "Big C" Christ. We ARE all about ourselves!
   
   This is pure anthropocentrism – man “accomplishing” for God what He as defined as purely the Holy Spirit’s work. Moreover, this is expression of deep doctrinal error concerning the “Church” itself: the local congregation is not “capital C” church, it is visible Church, composed of hypocrites and believers together. We believe that the Church Militant is among the visible Church, but the local congregation is not, properly speaking, the Church Militant or the One True Church.


3. We are spiritual contributors not spiritual consumers. The church does not exist for us. We are the church and we exist for the world.
   
   Interpretation: We don't need God to tell us or give us anything. We're the most important thing in the world!
   
   More doctrinal error resulting from a vacuous doctrine of The Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. It exists for Him, and it serves Him. It does not exist “for the World.” The principle task of the Church Militant is to contend for the Faith – to hold on to the Truth – and, having it, to thus proclaim it before all Creation.


4. We give up things we love for things we love even more. It's an honor to sacrifice for Christ and His church.
   
   Interpretation: We're very proud of our giving – boy howdy – and how!
   
   Here we have further obvious elements of Pietism emerging. Recall the quote from Professor Brenner contained in a previous blog post, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism:
   
   
   1. Pietism’s emphasis on Sanctification over Justification resulted in Legalism, by shifting the emphasis in the use of Law from the Second Use (as a mirror) to the Third Use (as a guide) and by prescribing laws of behavior in areas of Christian freedom, leading further to Perfectionism; and
      
   2. Pietism’s elevation of religious subjectivism ...also “separated God’s Word from the working of the Holy Spirit” (breaking down the Biblical teaching of the Means of Grace), “changed the Marks of the Church from ‘the gospel rightly proclaimed and the sacrament rightly administered’ to ‘where people are living correctly,’” and “divided the church into groups according to subjective standards of outward behavior.”
   
   Sacrifice is a virtue at LifeChurch.tv. It is also a measure of individuals.


5. We wholeheartedly reject the label mega-church. We are a micro-church with a megavision.
   
   Interpretation: We are super-concerned about how people see US.
   
   The ECC is a church body, and LifeChurch.tv is a church within that church. Recall, again, from our blog post Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism the phrase, Ecclesiolae in ecclesia – “little churches within the church.” LifeChurch.tv may be a “micro-church,” but it also a mega-conventicle. How much of this idea of “little churches within the church” is being passed on to WELS congregations who use Groeschel’s material?


6. We will do anything short of sin to reach people who don't know Christ. To reach people no one is reaching, we'll have to do things no one is doing.
   
   Interpretation: We have a very, very broad definition of "sin," so just about anything we can think of, we can do!
   
   Do these phrases sound familiar? Do any of our WELS pastors make nearly verbatim use of the phrase, “To reach people no one is reaching, we'll have to do things no one is doing” and not only apply it to themselves but use it as the basis of their local ministry? Do any of our WELS pastors hail as a badge of honor, almost verbatim, that they “will do anything short of sin to reach people who don't know Christ?” If so, from where might they be absorbing these ideas? Is making such prominent and verbatim use of notoriously heterodox ministry fundamentals not tantamount to pan-unionism?


7. We will lead the way with irrational generosity. We truly believe it is more blessed to give than to receive.
   
   Interpretation: Two points so far on our great giving! Have we mentioned that we're really, really great big givers, and the best and most givingest givers there ever were!?! WOW, are we good!
   
   Again with the Pietism. The Marks of the Church in these types of references are clearly “where people are living correctly” and division within the Church is established on the basis of outward behavior – in this case, outward displays of generosity.


8. We will laugh hard, loud and often. Nothing is more fun than serving God with people you love!
   
   Interpretation: We totally reject what Jesus said about serving Him in His Kingdom having anything whatsoever to do with any kind of "cross," pain, trial, or hardship!
   


9. We will be known for what we are for, not what we're against. There are already enough jerks in the world.
   
   Interpretation: Anyone and everyone who wants to talk to us about anything resembling "doctrine," or "theology," is a fat-head and a creep – not to mention, jerk!
   
   Consistent with Pietistic doctrinal indifferentism, discussion of doctrinal matters, or holding to a Confession extending beyond the so-called “fundamentals” of the Christian faith earns nothing but a pejorative reference. Indifferentism is by no means a source of peace, but a catalyst for conflict. It is the true seat of division within the Church.


10. We always bring our best. Excellence honors God and inspires people.
    
    Interpretation: We forget, have we told you how good and great and wonderful we are yet? If not, we sure are – and then some!
    
    Again with the Pietism – of comparing one’s Sanctification with others, and using that as a defining characteristic. They “bring their best” in distinction to those who don’t, or who don’t on their terms.


11. The only constant in our ministry is change. God is always doing a new thing. Why we do what we do never changes. How we do it must change.
    
    Interpretation: We think that guy in the Bible who said there wasn't ever anything new under the sun is an idiot (Ec. 1). Also, we think the way the Apostles and 2,000 years of Christianity has worshiped is dumb, boring, and stupid, and besides which – we like to have fun, remember!?
    


12. We don't recruit volunteers; we release leaders. Volunteers do good things but leaders change the world.
    
    Interpretation: It is not Jesus and His work, but our goodness and greatness that will save the world!
    
    There is no Cross in this. There is only a Theology of Glory.


13. We're living in the "good old days." We're thankful for God's blessings today and expect even more tomorrow.
    
    Interpretation: We don't believe in "tribulation," or persecution, or Judgment Day. We're getting better and better and greater and greater day by day until we reach heaven all by ourselves! Are we really something, or else?!

Use of Craig Groeschel’s material in WELS congregations and schools is a serious matter. Sure, it may be tempting to use material from a church body having roots in Lutheranism somewhere in the distant past, especially if the materials are essentially Public Domain. But it is a severe and disqualifying lapse of ministerial judgment to seek ministerial “equipping” from heterodox sources, to allow oneself to become openly associated with heterodox teachers, and, further, to willingly endanger the souls under one’s care by making verbatim use of such materials and thus expose Christians to faith killing error.

We will have more to say regarding the sermons of Craig Groeschel, and implications of their use in WELS churches, in coming days.

Mr. Douglas Lindee
Rev. Steven Spencer

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point (cont'd)

The following is our response to the pastors and elders of the congregation mentioned in our previous post:

Brothers at [name of church removed],

First, let me express to you how encouraged and relieved we were to read the public apology on your website (“Pastor’s blog,” formerly “Pastor’s message”). Our interest in writing to you in the first place was loving concern: concern for the one who posted the plagiarized material, concern for our brothers and sisters at [your church] who may have been harmed by it, concern for the poor example it gave to other pastors in our synod, and concern for anyone in the world who might have noticed the plagiarism and stumbled in their faith because of it.

We give thanks to God that those responsible for the public act of deception have been led to see their error and confess it in the same public forum in which it occurred. Be assured that you have our forgiveness and our prayers for your work in the Gospel.

Although nothing was mentioned on the “Pastor’s blog” of the use of the material from sectarian preacher Craig Groeschel, we trust that this has been or will be addressed at the local level. Again, our concern is for the one who uses this material without attribution, for those who may be influenced by Groeschel’s false doctrines, and for other pastors who may be emboldened by this example to turn to Groeschel as a resource.

Although we had been planning on posting an article using the “Pastor’s message” from [your church] as a warning to all who might be tempted to plagiarize in a similar way, we have been moved by the public apology offered on your website not to mention [your church] by name on our blog at this time. We hope you will take this as a sign that we are not “out to get” anyone, but truly concerned for our brothers and sisters in the faith. This is why we wrote to you first.

Now, allow me to clear up some potential misunderstandings. One of the concerned readers of our blog alerted us to the use of Groeschel’s materials at [your church]. (We found the plagiarism of Swindoll on our own, since the “Pastor’s message” sounded so un-Lutheran that it caused us to investigate its possible sectarian origins.) We knew that this concerned reader had written to one of your pastors, and were glad to hear that he was phoned with a personal apology following our letter to you on Friday.

From that phone conversation, our reader got the impression that you had considered our Friday letter to be written “anonymously.” That was never our intention. Please forgive us for not making it clear who we were. We thought that by signing, “Intrepid Lutherans” and giving you the URL of our blog - www.intrepidlutherans.com, you would easily identify us by the five names visible on the right of the screen. The five of us were responsible for that letter, and also for this one.

As our reader recalled his phone conversation with the pastor, he seemed to remember hearing something about the perception on your part that our letter to you was “unloving” and “failed to follow the steps of Matthew 18.” Be assured, we acted only out of love (for all those mentioned above). Surely you must agree that warning a brother of a public sin in accord with Scripture (especially 1 Timothy 5:20) is the only loving thing to do, since this has God’s own command, and “This is love for God: to obey his commands” (1 John 5:3).

As for Matthew 18, it certainly must be followed according to the steps Jesus outlines there when the sin is secret or private between one brother and another. In that case, the one who knows about the sin has the responsibility to approach his brother in private first. But we’re sure you’ll agree that there is nothing private about the “world wide web” and the information posted there, just as there is nothing private about a sermon series advertised and preached at a public worship service.

We invite you to follow our articles on Intrepid Lutherans as we continue to work for true confessional Lutheran unity in our beloved Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Among other things, we have run a series on worship entitled, “Let’s call it what it is: Sectarian worship”, and have now begun a new series on plagiarism.

In Christ,

Intrepid Lutherans:

Mr. Brian G. Heyer
Rev. Paul Lidtke
Mr. Douglas L. Lindee
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki
Rev. Steven Spencer

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of blog posts, we discussed two important issues directly connected with the tragedy of pastoral plagiarism:

1. the fraudulent nature of plagiarism itself, and the meaning of this fraud within the context of the Office of Representational or Public Ministry,and
2. the added offense of plagiarizing sectarian sources.

We concluded both that:

A plagiarist is one who knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source. The result of this theft is misrepresentation and fraud: that is, the plagiarist’s audience concludes that he is the author or creator of the quoted or used material (misrepresentation) and uses this conclusion as a basis for trust in the plagiarist (fraud). He takes on an identity that is not his – that of the original author – and uses that identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work.

and,

When a pastor knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source, the result is misrepresentation and fraud – a case of clear infidelity to his Call. ...When he commits misrepresentation using sectarian sources, he not only passes off sectarian teaching as his own, but... passes off sectarian content as pure Scripture teaching. The fraud associated with this misrepresentation is no longer merely that others trust his teaching on the basis of his misrepresentation, but that they trust sectarian teaching as orthodox on the basis of his misrepresentation. In stealing and applying to himself the identity of the sectarian author, he disgraces his Call, which requires that he “[hold] fast the faithful Word as he has been taught.” Using borrowed sectarian identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work is tantamount to false teaching.

In this third installment we provide an illustration of plagiarism in the WELS using an example from one of a growing number of congregations which we have either observed directly, or which have come to our attention through concerned laymen and pastors of our Synod.


Plagiarism from Sectarian sources in the WELS
If only we could concern ourselves with pastors who plagiarize the sermons of Martin Luther, Johann Gerhard, C.F.W. Walther, or other giants of the Lutheran Confession! We might be inclined to just let it pass, and let homiletics professors at the seminary stew over it! Indeed, there have been many fine Lutheran pastors who have bequeathed to the church a legacy and record of exegetical and homiletical excellence, from whom many continue to borrow and repeat, and will continue to do so. Fine. Many of the ideas communicated by them are not foreign to us, but reminders of what is already common knowledge – like quoting from the Small Catechism, which every adult Lutheran is expected to have long since memorized, understood, and incorporated into his worldview. Citing original sources of common knowledge is not necessary – not even under the stringent guidelines of the APA.

But when we warn of plagiarism in our Synod, we are not talking about the pastor who’s had a rough week and finds it necessary to read a sermon from one of Martin Luther’s or Sig Becker’s postils, nor are we harping on the occasional unattributed quotation. In this discussion, we leave the fine points of situation ethics regarding plagiarism for others to debate, for the thresholds of acceptable use of unattributed sources are far, far south of the gross abuses which concern us. What we are warning of is wholesale, unattributed, nearly verbatim use of entire sectarian sermons, outlines, devotions, and other resources, the motivation for which seems to be derived from priorities of the Church Growth Movement. Indeed, by and large, it isn’t the traditional churches who have found it necessary to parrot Rick Warren, Craig Groeschel, or Mark Driscoll.

The example of one such congregation is illustrative. They had made verbatim and unattributed use of devotional material from Chuck Swindoll on their website. They had published their congregation’s “strategic plan,” suggesting influence from the Church Growth Movement. They had evidently recently preached a sermon series from Craig Groeschel’s LifeChurch.tv. Knowing we were going to treat this topic, we sent them an email last Friday, informing them that we were going to use their congregation’s website as an example of the type of plagiarism and use of sectarian sources that we observe more frequently, and, we fear, is becoming more and more accepted in our Synod. To this congregation's credit, within an hour of having sent our email, most of the offending material was removed, and by Saturday, a public apology had been posted in its place. Because of this, we have voluntarily chosen not to reveal the name of this congregation. Yet, the example of their offense remains useful, so we reproduce the details of our communication with them, which reveals the nature of the issues we observed there, and observe elsewhere:

Pastors and Elders of (name removed) Ev. Lutheran Church, (city and state removed)

Intrepid Lutherans, a blog concerned with Confessional unity in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, is currently writing an article on plagiarism and the use of sectarian resources in our Synod, and will be using your congregation's website as an example. We have discovered on your congregation's website several troubling instances where use of sectarian sources is made – instances which are quite typical of a growing number of our congregations. We are contacting you ahead of publication for your comments on the following issues.


1. Your "Pastor's Message" entry located at this URL is taken almost verbatim, without attribution, from Chuck Swindoll's devotional Day by Day with Chuck Swindoll, Copyright 2000. This very same entry from Chuck Swindoll's work was used, with attribution, on Christianity.com, here: http://www.christianity.com/devotionals/day_by_day/11623905/. Do you have permission from either Chuck Swindoll or Thomas Nelson Publishers to use his content without attribution? If you do, do you consider it dishonest toward your readers to pass off his thoughts and experiences as your own? Did you actually "[receive] a letter from a fine Christian couple, and [smile] understandingly at one line: 'Although the Lord has taken good care of my wife and me for the past thirty-eight years, He has taken control of us for the past two and a half'"? If not, do you consider it a lie to say that you did? Is lying sinful? If so, do you and Chuck Swindoll know the same fine Christian couple? Could we see a copy of that letter?


2. We noticed that Chuck Swindoll's message is entirely a message of Law – Gospel-less is the term we used when critiquing it – which is aptly demonstrated in the final line summarizing the devotion: “Don't get ‘out of control’ because you're so determined to stay ‘in control.’” Do you think that it is appropriate for Lutherans to fixate on sanctification messages such as this? Do you think it is appropriate for a Lutheran to emphasize the third use of the Law without preceding it with its second use and the Gospel? If so, how can this be considered proper application of Law and Gospel? How does Swindoll's content indicate a Gospel motivation for Christian works? Granting that you may have found a pearl of great value among Swindoll’s works, do you consider it wise to use his material without warning your readers of his many errors? If so, have you read Harold Senkbeil's Sanctification: Christ in Action, published by NPH? It is an analysis of modern Evangelicalism and it's theological fixation on sanctification over justification, using Chuck Swindoll as a case study, and offers a confessional Lutheran corrective. For that matter, have you read Robert Koester's Gospel Motivation: More than "Jesus Died for My Sins", also published by NPH? If not, we highly recommend them.


3. We noticed that you altered Chuck Swindoll's content, in the third to last paragraph, adding the following sentence: "And it is only through the Spirit's working through the Means of Grace - the gospel in Word and Sacrament - that he bends and shapes our will (our new man) to be conformed to the likeness of God's Son, our Savior."
   
   

   Click image to see documents side-by-side

   We have further noticed that adding a token reference to the Means of Grace is a common way to "Lutheranize" sectarian content among WELS congregations enamoured with non-Lutheran sources. Your one-sentence addition to Swindoll’s work is illustrative of this technique. Do you honestly believe that this one-sentence is sufficient to make Swindoll's devotion – a devotion that is entirely a message of Law and entirely centered on sanctification – something that could be considered (a) your own original work, and/or (b) a distinctly "Lutheran" devotion, centered on Justification, where Law and Gospel are balanced in favor of the Gospel? Moreover, if you have permission to use Swindoll's content without attribution, do you also have permission to alter it?


4. We have noticed, in your congregation’s "Proposed Strategic Plan," that you envision people joining your church for no other reason than that your congregation is "so welcoming." We see precious little emphasis on Word and Sacrament ministry, nor mention of the Holy Spirit's work exclusively through those Means to call, gather and enlighten His people, drawing them into fellowship with other believers and keeping them in the faith. This troubles us. We are, of course, very familiar with the errors of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and the reliance of CGM on alien means – means outside those through which the Holy Spirit is known to work – to “grow the church”.
   
   The ministry approach espoused in your "Proposed Strategic Plan" smacks of CGM. Are you familiar with CGM? Are you adherents of CGM practices? If not, who advised you to engage in such methods? If so, why are you so willing to flirt with sectarian errors?
   
   Are you aware that the WELS Michigan District commissioned a multi-year study of CGM, and that the resulting paper repudiated CGM, especially Lutheran involvement with CGM? The name of the paper is "The Tendrils of the Church Growth Movement," and it was enthusiastically received by the Michigan District at their 2008 Convention. We have attached a pdf of this paper for your edification.


5. Are you fans of Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv? Was your July 4 sermon, entitled “How to Commit Adultery,” and taken nearly verbatim from the identically titled 1^st part of Groeschel's five-part sermon series "Five Easy Steps...," published on his website, here: http://www.lifechurch.tv/watch/five-easy-steps/1?
   
   If this is the case, did you inform those assembled that you were parroting a sectarian sermon? Or, is Craig Groeschel a confessional Lutheran? Did you do the same with the remaining four sermons of Groeschel’s series? We understand that Craig Groeschel publishes his sermons so that others can copy him, but also that his blog states pastors ought to cite their sources, because citation "honors the pastor or church who came up with the idea," "demonstrates humility and security," "exposes a church to other great leaders and teachers," and "removes any doubt of copying" (Plagiarizing Pastors by Craig Groeschel; July 21, 2008). If you copy his sermons, we assume that you largely agree with Craig Groeschel's preaching. If Craig Groeschel isn’t a confessional Lutheran, shouldn’t we be concerned about this fact alone? Moreover, even granting that one may have permission to copy someone else’s work without attribution, when, in your opinion, does a failure to cite sources constitute fraud against one’s hearers/readers?

Gentlemen, we will be publishing our article on Monday. Please have your comments to us by Sunday afternoon in order to have them included in our article. These are matters of public offense. Having taken council together and with others, we stand firm on Scripture (Ga. 2:11-14; 1 Ti. 5:20) and the Confessions (LC:3:284ff) when we insist that discussion of these issues, and all responses, be made in public. This includes a refusal to answer or participate. If you are unable to reply by Sunday afternoon, you may publicly engage the ensuing discussion by posting to our blog following publication.

In Christ,

Intrepid Lutherans

Apart from the removal of most of the offending content and the posting of an apology on their own website, we have received no return communication from this congregation.

Nevertheless, in response to their online apology, we have written back to them. That letter (with names removed) will appear in our next post.

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part 2

A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; not a novice; holding fast the faithful Word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 1 Ti. 3:2-4,6; Titus 1:9
(From The Table of Duties: To Bishops, Pastors, and Preachers)

Pastors who Plagiarize: An act of infidelity toward the Preaching Office -- continued
In Part 1 of this series of blog posts, we discussed the first part of the first of two issues involved when considering the nature of plaigerism in the context of the pastors Office: the fraudulent nature of plagiarism itself. We concluded that

A plagiarist is one who knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source. The result of this theft is misrepresentation and fraud: that is, the plagiarist’s audience concludes that he is the author or creator of the quoted or used material (misrepresentation) and uses this conclusion as a basis for trust in the plagiarist (fraud). He takes on an identity that is not his – that of the original author – and uses that identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work. That is the seriousness of plagiarism.

With this post we continue by considering the second part of the first issue, and the second issuue in its entirety:

[(1b)] the meaning of this fraud within the context of the Office of Representational or Public Ministry, and (2) the added offense of plagiarizing sectarian sources.

The Impact of Misrepresentation and Fraud as it emanates from the Office of Representational, or Public, Ministry
In the modern church, the pressure to plagiarize has never been greater. The affluence of the West has inculcated a cultural expectation that achievement is easy, and the proliferation of Arminian thought among Christians, particularly in the American church, has made the conversion of souls into the object of the Christian’s achievement. Popular evangelical mantra has creative and “winsome” ministers leading “real, relational, and relevant” ministries in a culture that changes so swiftly that the nature of “winsomeness,” “real-ness,” “relational-ness,” “relevance,” and every other characteristic of man’s ability to positively engage others, is increasingly impossible for any one human to fulfill. No one has the breadth of life experience to appeal directly to a society whose cultural cross-section grows more complex by the day – particularly with the exponential growth of virtual sub-cultures made possible by collaboration and social-networking applications, and various other forms of internet technology, which are continually evolving. A single identity is insufficient. For a pastor to fit the mold demanded by Arminian priorities in the West, for him to be both relevant and relational, he must be several people at once. Several real people, that is, complete with varied ideas and experiences that can only be gathered from the lives of multiple individuals. It is impossible for one man to be several people at once, and the solution for an increasing number of pastors is not to gain wider perspectives through personal experience or through broad contact with quality literature, but is to resort to bald plagiarism. Indeed, that this is increasingly recognized across American evangelicalism is evidenced by the proliferation of internet services facilitating such misrepresentation and fraud, justifying and encouraging it in the name of evangelical necessity.

Lutherans, however, free from the captivity of an Arminian angst which drives them in their quest to alter the will of their fellow man in favor of a decision for Christ, are not so deluded as to think that anything about themselves will hinder or help the Holy Spirit in His work. They rely on what is completely outside them, on the message of Law and Gospel through which the Holy Spirit exclusively works to call, gather, and enlighten his people, producing and strengthening their faith, and teaching and reminding them of all that Christ taught (SC:2:5-6 – Small Catechism, Third Article of the Creed). They rely on the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, who, through Law and Gospel, works uniquely in each individual “to will and to act according to His good purpose” (Ph. 2:13; see also Ep. 2:10). They rely on God’s calling to their various Vocations in life, in and through which He providentially works as they work in the interests of their neighbor for the sake of Christ. For the Lutheran, there is no need to take the advice of the Arminian and make himself “real, relational, or relevant” for the sake of Christ and the Gospel – the Holy Spirit manages it all through Vocation and through the message of Law and Gospel in Word and Sacrament. The Lutheran, according to the doctrine he confesses, is free to be who God has prepared him to be, and does not need to resort to fraud in order to win souls.

How disappointing it is, then, when Lutheran pastors, seduced by Western affluence and/or the false teachings of the Arminians, find it necessary to reduce themselves to fraudulent misrepresentation in order to meet man’s expectations of appeal, supposedly for the sake of the Gospel. The pastor is Christ’s Representative. He has been called by the congregation on the basis of who the Holy Spirit has prepared, and continues to prepare, him to be. His duty is fidelity to Christ as His Messenger, His Ambassador, His Representative. One cannot represent through misrepresentation. Misrepresentation has no part of the pastor’s duty, and constitutes infidelity to his Call.

Lutheran pastors who plagiarize sectarian sources: Heaping offense upon offense
When a pastor knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source, the result is misrepresentation and fraud – a case of clear infidelity to his Call. When he quotes or uses sectarian sources, the depth of his fraud is compounded. Not only is the pastor Christ’s Representative to the congregation, he is the congregation’s Steward of pure Scripture doctrine. When he commits misrepresentation using sectarian sources, he not only passes off sectarian teaching as his own, but, on the basis of his role as steward, passes off sectarian content as pure Scripture teaching. The fraud associated with this misrepresentation is no longer merely that others trust his teaching on the basis of his misrepresentation, but that they trust sectarian teaching as orthodox on the basis of his misrepresentation. In stealing and applying to himself the identity of the sectarian author, he disgraces his Call, which requires that he “[hold] fast the faithful Word as he has been taught.” Using borrowed sectarian identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work is tantamount to false teaching. That is the seriousness of pastoral plagiarism.



Next in this Series: “Plagiarism from Sectarian sources in the WELS.”

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part I

”So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful” (1 Cor. 4:1,2).

With these verses from 1 Corinthians 4, we begin a new topic: how the practice of pastoral plagiarism defrauds the local congregation of the high calling that Christ’s minister is expected to carry out. No greater trust can be given to a man than for God to place on his shoulders the responsibility of standing in the place of Christ to serve the people of Christ with the Word of Christ and the Sacraments of Christ. The Office of the Holy Ministry is, above all, a position of trust – that God should trust a man to represent Christ faithfully to his people, and that the people of God should trust that man to represent Christ faithfully to them. In this matter of trustworthiness, more than any other, “the overseer must be above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2).

Pastors who Plagiarize: An act of infidelity toward the Preaching Office
In the discussion that follows, two separate issues will be treated: (1) the fraudulent nature of plagiarism itself, and the meaning of this fraud within the context of the Office of Representational or Public Ministry, and (2) the added offense of plagiarizing sectarian sources. Today, we discuss the first part of issue (1): the fraudulent nature of plagiarism itself.

The fraudulent nature of plagiarism
As we live in a litigious society, and as publishers and owners of original works have become more and more aggressive in their efforts to protect intellectual property, the issue of plagiarism seems to be most frequently equated with the fear of copyright infringement, or, more accurately, the fear of the consequences of copyright infringement. Indeed, copyright infringement is taken very seriously these days, especially as the issue of illegal recordings has drawn attention to the wider issue of intellectual property. People all over the country have been caught with contraband recordings and forced to pay thousands of dollars in fines for each recording, and for each time a recording was improperly shared with others. Regular folks have been charged with felonies and imprisoned, others have been saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. But the legality of plagiarism in the secular world is really secondary to our consideration of it. Certainly, where plagiarism also constitutes copyright infringement, the issue of Christian obedience to secular authorities is part of the picture. Yet, the laws of secular authority are not our starting point. Not everything legal is moral, after all, and not everything moral is legal. The prime issues in our consideration of plagiarism are of ethical nature: the acts of misrepresentation and fraud.

To “plagiarize” is defined in Webster’s Unabridged Third New International Dictionary as follows:

vt: to steal and pass off as one’s own (the ideas and work of another): use (a created production) without crediting the source... vi: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.¹

Notice that the charge of plagiarism in an ethical context is independent of permission from a copyright holder. Theft in such a context is not necessarily stealing from the creator; it is also partially stealing the identity of a work’s creator from the plagiarist’s audience, and assigning it to himself. Thus, it also constitutes fraud. Plagiarism.org defines plagiarism accordingly:

Plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.²

Fraud, therefore, is another term that needs to be defined. Webster again:

n 1 a: an instance or an act of trickery or deceit esp. when involving misrepresentation: an act of deluding ... : as (1) fraud in fact: an intentional misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right: a false representation of a matter of fact by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by the concealment of what should have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so he shall act upon it to his legal injury – called also actual fraud (2) or fraud in equity: an act, omission to act, or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another (as an act of violation of a relationship of trust and confidence) – called also equitable fraud, legal fraud... b: a means used in trickery : a dishonest stratagem or a spurious thing passed off as genuine... 2: the quality of being deceitful : the disposition to deceive... 3: the condition of being defrauded or beguiled 4 a: a person who is not what he pretends to be... b: one who defrauds .³

A plagiarist is one who knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source. The result of this theft is misrepresentation and fraud: that is, the plagiarist’s audience concludes that he is the author or creator of the quoted or used material (misrepresentation) and uses this conclusion as a basis for trust in the plagiarist (fraud). He takes on an identity that is not his – that of the original author – and uses that identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work. That is the seriousness of plagiarism.


In our next post in this series: The Impact of Misrepresentation and Fraud as it emanates from the Office of Representational, or Public, Ministry.


--------------------

1. Babcock, P. et. al. (Ed.). (2002). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Springfield: Merriam-Webster.
2. http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html
3. See note Footnote 1.