Megachurch Pastor Accused of Repeated Plagiarism

Josh Whitlow is the pastor of Heights Church, a megachurch located in Glen Allen, Virginia.

Over the past month, he has faced widespread allegations of plagiarism in his sermons. This included an investigative report in the local newspaper, the Times-Dispatch, and a YouTube channel entitled “Stealing Sunday” that has published over 30 examples of Whitlow’s sermons being similar to earlier works.

In addition to local media, the story has also been picked up by critical publications, includingThe Roys Report and The Friendly Atheist. According to the YouTube compilations, the alleged plagiarism goes back to 2015, shortly after the opening of the church.

While it is easy to dismiss this as simply another case of religious leaders borrowing each other’s work, the case has an interesting wrinkle due to both who was copied and what was copied.

As such, it’s worth taking a deeper dive into this case.

The Story So Far

Founded in 2015, The Heights Church has grown into a megachurch centered around Josh Whitlow, the church’s pastor.

However, according to an unidentified member who left the church, at least 100 of Whitlow’s sermons were plagiarized, in part or in whole, from other sources.

The most common source, according to the Stealing Sundays YouTube channel, the majority of these allegations involve fellow pastor Chris Hodges. Whitlow has repeatedly described Hodges as a mentor and, when asked about the copying, a representative for Hodges said that he “has encouraged him and many others to use his content when it is helpful.”

(Note: Since both are anonymous, it is unclear if the channel is operated by the same member who made the original allegations.)

However, many noted that the issue went beyond copied ideas or beliefs. Rather, many examples were personal stories presented as tales that had happened to him directly. This included stories about being a “C” student, receiving corporal punishment in school and more. 

However, not all of the sermons came from Hodges. Several came from other pastors, including Andy Stanley and Robert Morris. The most ironic was content copied from Mark Driscoll, who himself faced allegations of plagiarism in 2013.

Driscoll famously lost a publishing contract and resigned from the Mars Hill Church following the scandal. 

Another example was a joke that Whitlow made in 2022 that mirrored one made by comedian Jim Gaffigan in 2020. 

Whitlow, for his part, read a prepared statement as part of one of his sermons about the allegations. As part of it, he said, “While my intention was never to misrepresent myself, I also recognize that this has also caused confusion and for that I take full responsibility and ask you to please forgive me. Moving forward, I will be more clear and intentional when using others’ illustrations and stories.”

This drew strong support from the crowd and at least one commenter in the live chat expressed support for Whitlow.

While it seems that he is moving on from the scandal, the story raises a difficult question: What happens when a religious leader copies more than theology?

The Complicated Problem

As we discussed yesterday, there is no single standard of plagiarism. Different types of work, different fields and even different cultures have different standards of citation and attribution.

To give a simple example, creativity and originality is demanded of the novelist, but is often considered borderline malpractice in the legal field. It comes down to audience expectation of the work being presented. There is no “one size fits all” solution.

Pastoral plagiarism adds another dimension to that issue. Different religions, different denominations and even different churches all have different standards of what is acceptable from their leaders.

In some organizations, even using self-written notes to aid in preaching is an affront to the church. Others, however, tolerate reusing sermons wholesale, whether originally from the same orator or someone else.

To make matters worse, churches often don’t consider or discuss these issues until after something like this happens. Without a clear standard, these issues can often become incredibly divisive within the church itself.

While much of Whitlow’s alleged plagiarism can be filed under accepted theological reuse, we run into issues with several of the provided examples. They are stories and jokes that are meant to be personal and relatable. 

But they weren’t his.

Not His Story

Just as politicians often repeat talking points, religious leaders in the same denomination will repeat theological points to keep a consistent message. While that can and does result in some extremely similar sermons, depending on the audience, it’s often a broadly accepted practice.

But Whitlow’s story runs into issues with the fact many of the copied elements were personal anecdotes, told as if they had happened to him. He claimed that he was the “C” student, that he was the one who was spanked. 

But those stories weren’t his. They both belonged to Hodges. It’s unclear if anything even similar to those stories actually happened to Whitlow or not. 

While these stories are meant to have a religious or moral meaning, Whitlow told them as if they happened to him, rather than presenting them as Hodges’ or to a vague third party. The goal was to get his audience to identify and sympathize with him, even though telling them this way meant doing so under a false pretense.

There were simple ways to share these stories without attributing them to himself. He didn’t do that. He could have gotten his point across just as effectively without taking ownership of the stories. He opted not to.

I do hope that he will be more clear and direct in the future. While I certainly support learning and growth, I openly acknowledge the complexities in this space, this feels like something he should have understood from the beginning.

Saying something happened to you when it didn’t is a lie and, in this case, a wholly unnecessary one. That is what I find so disheartening in this story.

Bottom Line 

In the end, the church seems to have moved on from this. Even as I write this, the story is in Whitlow’s rear view mirror. While I suspect he will make changes moving forward, we won’t get an accurate accounting of why he made the decisions he did.

Instead, I cover this story for a simple reason, to remind churches and other religious institutions to consider these issues BEFORE an incident like this happens. Yes, it’s unpleasant, but setting expectations for pastors and other leaders in advance can prevent problems like this.

Simply put, religious leaders are, at least in part, meant to lead by example. It’s important for the church to agree on what that example should look like. This includes issues of attribution and citation.

Taking the time to set expectations now can prevent future controversies. If something does happen, it’s easier to address it if you have a written and agreed upon policy in hand.

It’s a situation where an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. That’s something that everyone should be able to support.