Moral Implications of Christian Authors Using Ghostwriters

[Soyeong]

I actually put my name in the hat for "most humblest human ever". I should be a shoe-in!

Your name is in the hat, not the shoe.

[The Remonstrant]

The devolution of a thread in progress.

[Sparko]

Wasn't the whole bible (holy)ghostwritten?

[Manw� S�limo]

Not really. Human beings still wrote in their own style to specific instances and audiences often in their own name. They had a great source, but the source didn't write the documents Himself.

[RBerman]

Does anyone have any sort of feelings on Christian authors / pastors using 'ghostwriters', and then claiming authorship?

I don't have feelings; I have opinions. I'm a man.

Anyway... the longstanding convention in publishing has been to make the credit for the ghostwriter as non-obvious as possible. That can be problematic, as in the recent case of Mark Driscoll who was happy to claim credit as the author of some books, but then when his ghostwriter was found to have omitted relevant citations from other authors used, Driscoll blamed the ghostwriter rather than taking responsibility as the man whose name was on the cover. That sort of thing could be avoided from the get-go with an explicit co-author credit, which strikes me as the more honest way to go.

This comes up in the music industry too. Elvis' manager "Colonel" Tom Parker forced songwriters to give Elvis a co-author credit, and thus a cut of the royalties, on the rationale that the song would become much more valuable once recorded by Elvis. If you look over the album credits of today's autotuned popstar mannequins, co-author credits are still mighty common; sometimes the list of authorial names who had a hand in the song is longer than the lyric sheet for the song!

[princesa]

[QUOTE=RBerman;11052]I don't have feelings; I have opinions. I'm a man.

Anyway...QUOTE]

Thank you for the laugh! :)

[phat8594]

Anyway... the longstanding convention in publishing has been to make the credit for the ghostwriter as non-obvious as possible. That can be problematic, as in the recent case of Mark Driscoll who was happy to claim credit as the author of some books, but then when his ghostwriter was found to have omitted relevant citations from other authors used, Driscoll blamed the ghostwriter rather than taking responsibility as the man whose name was on the cover. That sort of thing could be avoided from the get-go with an explicit co-author credit, which strikes me as the more honest way to go.

Yeah, I guess my question really revolves less around longstanding convention, and more around the moral implications of a Christian author / pastor essentially claiming authorship to something he didn't actually write. I understand that those books might 'sell better', but it seems to me that as a Christian (this is the big part for me) this is not a good enough reason to use a ghostwriter without making it explicitly clear that it was written by someone else (at which point the ghostwriter no longer becomes a ghostwriter). This is especially concerning, because our cultural understanding is that the author is the actual writer (unless there is the 'Author' with 'co-author' mention. After all, even secular books will call out the co-author. It seems to me that as much as people might call out the 'cult of personality'.

I am less concerned with the co-author situation, as an explicit mention of the other writer(s) is included as part of the authorship. How they divvy up the material / writing is really up to them, I guess.

[Jedidiah]

Cow Poke is the humblest, most lovable person in Texas. And his dog Jake too.

That title is already taken. He could be second.

[Sparko]

That title is already taken. He could be second.

I said in Texas. Not Alaska, Jed.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I was just thinking about this the other day....

Does anyone have any sort of feelings on Christian authors / pastors using 'ghostwriters', and then claiming authorship?

For a book, no big feelings one way or another.

Big problem when the pastor is passing off someone else's sermon as his own work during service. I would much rather the pastor say "I am grateful to insert name for the insights I am sharing today." There is more of connection in a sermon than when reading a book and it think that's makes it a lot less acceptable to me.

[Thoughtful Monk]

It's what some of the early apostles did.

I think your mistaking dication with ghost writing.

[Jedidiah]

I said in Texas. Not Alaska, Jed.

Not Texas or Alaska. I am talking TWeb. But you are indeed correct. Thank you.

[seanD]

I think your mistaking dication with ghost writing.

It's possible that the writers sat with the apostles at all times during the actual writing process, and it's also possible at times the writer used the gist of what he had heard from the apostle with the apostle's blessing, which might explain at times the different styles we see in the letters. OBP said it best on the first page.

[Sparko]

The gospels (other than maybe Luke) never state an author's name, so "ghostwriting" would be a misnomer for them.

[Rushing Jaws]

It is well-nigh undisputed that Paul used an amenuensis to write at least some of his letters. Depending on their working relationship, the scribe could more or less be trusted to put into writing the words Paul was speaking without verbatim taking down what he said.

Right. Your dissertation is not just graded on your research, but how well you are able to communicate your findings.

## ...which creates interesting questions for a doctrine of inspiration.