Chris Wright explains why the theological journal Themelios is called Themelios (θεμέλιος) in an editorial he wrote in 1990:

Themelios means foundation, and it has been the aim of the journal from its beginning to be true to that foundation which Paul describes above, namely Christ himself, and, as he adds in Ephesians 2:20, the apostles and prophets. That is to say, we aim not to be a foundation (however much our articles may have been the basis for many an essay!) but to build on one. That is what foundations are for. Not to be preserved in concrete or in an archaeological museum. But to be the solid undergirding of constructive, imaginative, sound and attractive building. Biblical authority is not static but dynamic. It is authority for, authority to. The living God, in Christ and through the Scriptures, authorizes us to live and work and think for him. Not to shore up a façade of status or to cultivate an image. For we already have the highest status available to humans, as sons and daughters of God, and we are being fashioned by him into the image of his own Son.

—Christopher J. H. Wright, “Editorial: Foundation or Façade?” Themelios 16, no. 1 (1990): 3 (bold emphasis added).

Anyone looking to learn official, academic, consensus definitions for plagiarism can find them in a couple mouse clicks. And that's just the problem. A couple clicks can get you a lot these days. Plagiarizing papers, talks, and even sermons has never been easier. Mere definitions don't deter desperate writers and speakers who are either too lazy or so overwhelmed with life that they lift someone else's words, ideas, and outlines.

Studying journalism and history in college, I learned again and again about the evils of plagiarism. If I were caught plagiarizing, I risked expulsion from school or at least a failing grade for the course. If a boss found me plagiarizing my research, professors warned me, I would be fired on the spot. Indeed, many professionals have ruined their careers by stealing someone's political speech or academic thesis and calling it their own.

You can imagine how I responded during my first job out of college when I discovered that one well-known evangelical pastor lifted several paragraphs word-for-word from an article I wrote. The internet might make plagiarism easy to perpetrate, but it also makes plagiarism easy to discover. I assumed others would share my indignation over this theft. The audacity of this minister! He actually bragged about his academic credentials in the process of lifting several innocuous paragraphs from an inexperienced journalist.

I learned, though, that evangelicals tend to hold a different view about plagiarism. I was told that pastors live by a different set of rules from the media and the academy. Whether preaching a sermon or even writing a book, I was told, pastors shouldn't be expected to cite all their references or feel the need to rework someone else's material in their own words. Apparently this sort of thing happens all the time among pastors. In this case, it wasn't worth even writing the pastor a note to caution him against such actions in the future.

Years later, this situation still doesn't sit well with me. I know there are different rules for plagiarism in spoken contexts, compared with material that's sold for profit (as in this case). I know pastors are busy and face many temptations to take others' research and writing. And I know we Christians are not looking for new ideas about the gospel, so in one sense we're all repeating the same old, old messages from God's Word.

Still, I can't help but think of pulpit plagiarism as an integrity issue. I actually appreciate when pastors tell me who taught them while researching. In the scenario I described, the pastor could have largely avoided the problem just by quoting or at least citing me and my publication. No one would have faulted him. In the end, however, he wanted to perpetuate the illusion that he was an expert whom his church and book readers should trust. And that's why I took offense (not because I wrote anything particularly memorable or insightful, which I hadn't, as friends pointed out at the time). We don't need our pastors to be self-appointed gurus. We need them to be honest.

Given the prevalence of plagiarism in our time, and the confusion among evangelicals over when it has occurred, I asked several authorities with experience in this area to answer, "When has a preacher crossed the line into plagiarism in his sermon?" We'll see if we can reach some measure of consensus or shed at least a little light onto a dark corner of our modern existence.

Read responses from:

Don Carson

Sandy Willson

Tim Keller

Matt Perman

Glenn Lucke

This evening Roger Nicole, a widely admired theologian and man of God, died at age 95. Justin Taylor has written an obituary that recaps his significant contributions to the church. Nicole will be greatly missed.

I recall the excitement and affirmation I felt when Nicole wrote a letter commending a controversial piece I acquired for Christianity Today. I never had the privilege of meeting Nicole, but I knew of his faithful service and profound scholarship through many generations of students he influenced at Gordon-Conwell and Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. His defense of biblical inerrancy and substitutionary atonement in particular girded evangelicals against many contemporary challenges.

Don Carson and two of Nicole's students—Tim Keller and Mark Dever—have shared words of appreciation for this man who fought the good fight and has now finished the race.

Don Carson:

Born a Swiss citizen, Roger Nicole never freed himself from his charming French accent. His ability in question-and-answer sessions was legendary. Many of us hoped he would complete a major systematic theology, but it was not to be. For so long and fruitful a life, his literary remains are small. Nevertheless his stamp on generations of students was profound. A Reformed theologian, he combined a love of the biblical text (his brother in France was responsible for one of the three most popular French translations of the Bible) with a passion for devout and careful systematic theology. Who could forget his lectures on Scripture or his careful defense of definite atonement? His wide reading, reflected in his large personal library, made him aware of the dangers in C. H. Dodd's views on the atonement before most other evangelicals understood them, and his response in a 1955 essay in WTJ began to establish his reputation as a defender of the faith. His review of Clark Pinnock's The Scripture Principle, published in Christianity Today, is still worth reading. The degree to which he espoused egalitarianism ensured he was not entirely trusted in complementarian circles, but no one who talked with him about these matters thought he arrived at his conclusions by trying to skirt Scripture's authority.

Tim Keller:

Roger Nicole was my professor of theology when I was at Gordon-Conwell from 1972 to 1975. I took four lecture courses with him and one reading course on sanctification (3,000 pages!) Dr. Nicole has not been widely known because he did not write very much. Instead he put his energy into teaching, and he was superb. His lectures were things of beauty. He simply: 1) laid out every theological heading, 2) told you what all the main views were—Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Wesleyan, etc 3) then gave the strengths and weaknesses of every position, and the one (the Reformed) he thought was correct. Finally he made his biblical case for his position. This was quite literally systematic theology, and I was just blown away by it.

He was unfailingly kind and gracious to students who disagreed with him. I remember once a student in class expressed real hostility to the doctrine of predestination. “That makes God the author of sin and evil!” she exclaimed. Dr. Nicole raised his eyebrows and began by saying that, indeed, it was understandable why many people rejected the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, because in the the Arminian system God seems safely distanced from blame for any human sin and evil. He was sympathetic. “But,” he continued, “I would respectfully argue that any apparent advantages of the Arminian position are greatly outweighed by the severe disadvantages.” And he proceeded to sweetly take the Arminian position apart.

I came to Gordon-Conwell an Arminian, and left a convinced Calvinist, to a great degree because of the ministry of Dr. Nicole.

Mark Dever:

Roger Nicole was my systematic theology professor at Gordon-Conwell from 1982 to 1986. The last two years, I had the privilege of being his teaching fellow. He and his wife, Annette, were in our home, and my wife and I were in theirs. They were a loving, hospitable, remarkable couple. Roger's outgoing nature, his fairness in argument, and his encyclopedic bibliographical knowledge made him an amazing tutor in theology. His special love for the doctrines of Scripture and the atonement have certainly left their mark on me. And for that I am thankful. His kindness in reveling in being called 'brother' rather than "Dr. Dr." (he had two earned doctorates) was instructive. His delight in children was itself delightful. It was an honor to know him and be taught by him.

The summer heat continues to swelter, but schools will soon begin their fall semesters with excitement over renewing acquaintances and learning new subjects. Seminaries will brim with students called to serve God with energy and passion according to the unique gifts he has entrusted to them.

But for many new students, seminary won't be exactly what they expected. Some want more practical guidance, others struggle to grasp new theological terms. Some struggle in the confines of a classroom, others never plan to leave. Meanwhile, sending churches and supportive spouses wonder what to make of the exotic new concepts their beloved student spends so much time researching. In time, everyone develops an opinion about what our seminaries could do differently to train ministers of the gospel. So with a new school year upon us, TGC turned to veteran professors and a president to ask: What one thing you would change about seminary education? Continue

It can be helpful for us to see what isn't in the New Testament. Ray Ortlund can't find various "one anothers":

Humble one another, scrutinize one another, pressure one another, embarrass one another, corner one another, interrupt one another, defeat one another, disapprove of one another, run one another’s lives, confess one another’s sins, intensify one another’s sufferings, point out one another’s failings . . . .

In a soft environment, where we settle for a false peace with present evils, we turn on one another.  In a realistic environment, where we are suffering to advance the gospel, our thoughts turn to how we can stick up for one another.

Ray then reminds us of John 15:12-13 and the greatest "one another" given by our Lord: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.”

How does the doctrine of election differ from mere partiality? D.A. Carson offers this succinct explanation:

Never confuse election with partiality. Partiality is favoritism that is corrupted by a willingness to pervert justice for the sake of the favored few; election chooses certain people out of God’s free decision and nothing else, and even then justice is not perverted: hence the cross.

For the Love of God, June 6 entry.

Here is a great word from Michael Horton regarding the relationship between the inner life of the church and effective outreach, taken from his book A Better Way:

John Calvin’s Geneva was a model city, historians say, in part because of the effectiveness of its restored diaconate (deacon board). As refugees fled persecution from all over Europe and arrived in Geneva with nothing but the shirt on their back, the deacons in Geneva established an enormous network of service institutions. With each office performing its function well, the church in Geneva was a powerful witness in a difficult period of history, and Christian leaders came from great distances to experience and take the model back to their own countries.

Leaving the inner city has been a trend among evangelical churches. Yes, there are notable exceptions, and among these are strong churches with a faithful preaching ministry, a wise ruling ministry, and an effective diaconal ministry. Examples of the latter include services to AIDS victims, soup kitchens, thrift stores, medical clinics, schools, and other ministries of mercy. As these offices are performed according to God’s revealed will, unbelievers cannot help but see the kavod–the weightiness–of God among us, even through the weakness of the church.

A renewal of the inner life of the church–from worship to teaching and church discipline–is the most pressing need today, not only for the church’s own health but for genuine outreach to take place.

As I was reading Mike’s words, I thought of three pastors in particular who gave their lives for cities: John Stott, James Boice, and Tim Keller. All these men, at different times and in different cities, led (or, in the case of Tim, continue to lead) church’s that embody Mike’s exhortation. I’m so grateful for the faithful who have gone before us, showing us what Gospel-centered church life looks like.

Here is some wonderful instruction from Ralph Erskine about how to preach the gospel to ourselves whatever our faith-struggle may be:

Go to God and say, O “do as thou hast said.” Consider what he hath said, and take him at his word, and put him to it, that he would do to you accordingly. Whatever your care be, surely there is some word relative to it.

Some may be thinking, alas! God hath said nothing to me, that I may put him to his word. Why, man, if the gospel, that is in this Bible, be preached to you, and if there be any word of grace therein suitable to your case, then put not away the word from you, but take it, and plead upon it, that God would do as he hath said. If you can see any word of promise suited to your case and to your need, then put to your hand by faith, and lay hold upon his word.

O, say you, is there any word from God about my case, who am a poor needy creature, like to starve for want of a spiritual meal and a hearty draught of the living waters that go out from Jerusalem? What hath God said, or hath he said anything concerning me? Yea, he hath said, Isa. xli. 17, 18, “When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I, the Lord, will hear them; I, the God of Israel, will not forsake them. I will open rivers in dry places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys. I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry lands springs of water.” Hath he said so? Then take him at his word, and put him to it, saying, Lord, “do as thou hast said” (Ralph Erskine, “Faith’s Plea Upon God’s Word,” The Works of Ralph Erskine, vol. 2).

Tim Keller from his book The Prodigal God on the need to repent, not simply of our unrighteousness, but our righteousness also:

What must we do, then, to be saved? To find God we must repent of the things we have done wrong, but if that is all you do, you may remain just an elder brother. To truly become a Christian we must also repent of the reasons we ever did anything right. Pharisees only repent of their sins, but Christians repent for the very roots of their righteousness, too. We must learn how to repent of the sin under all our other sins and under all our righteousness – the sin of seeking to be our own Savior and Lord. We must admit that we’ve put our ultimate hope in both our wrongdoing and right doing we have been seeking to get around God or get control of God in order to get hold of those things.

It is only when you see the desire to be your own Savior and Lord—lying beneath both your sins and your moral goodness—that you are on the verge of becoming a Christian indeed. When you realize that the antidote to being bad is not just being good, you are on the brink. If you follow through, it will change everything—how you relate to God, self, others, the world, your work, you sins, your virtue. It’s called the new birth because its so radical”

In one of the most powerful and poetic paragraphs I’ve ever read on human yearning and the hope of the gospel, Cornelius Plantinga (President of Calvin Theological Seminary) writes:

The truth is that nothing in this earth can finally satisfy us. Much can make us content for a time but nothing can fill us to the brim. The reason is that our final joy lies “beyond the walls of this world,” as J.R.R Tolkien put it. Ultimate beauty comes not from a lover or a landscape or a home, but only through them. These earthly things are solid goods, and we naturally relish them. But they are not our final good. They point to what is higher up and further back…Even if we fall deeply in love and marry another human being, we discover that our spiritual and sexual oneness isn’t final. It’s wonderful, but not final. It might even be as good as human oneness can be, but something in us keeps saying “not this” or “still beyond”…What Augustine knew is that human beings want God…God has made us for himself. Our sense of God runs in us like a stream, even though, because of sin, we divert it toward other objects. We human beings want God even when we think that what we really want is a green valley, or a good time from our past, or a loved one. Of course we do want these things and persons, but we also want what’s behind them. Our inconsolable secret, says C.S. Lewis, is that we are full of yearnings, sometimes shy and sometimes passionate, that point us beyond the things of earth to the ultimate reality of God.