Introducing a brand new heretic and plagiarist - Josh Howerton...

::::::::

When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan. - Proverbs 29:2 (ESV)

It is always interesting to discover a new mega church heretic and start reviewing all of their greatest hits. Such is the case with someone named Josh Howerton from Lakepointe Church in where else, Texas. From all appearances, Howerton is a NAR dominionist cut from the "bad boy" Mark Driscoll mode. He is no stranger to controversy as he seems to seek it out to bolster his infamy and NAR street cred. What makes him special is he seems to like to keep digging when he finds himself in a ditch. Like when he made a crude joke about how women should just do whatever their husbands tell them to do on their honeymoon. Instead of just saying sorry and moving on, he tried to defend himself, apparently forgetting that he had made the exact same joke a few years earlier. Instead of doing separate devotionals, I will treat this as a welcome kit to understanding how false Josh Howerton is. I will cover three areas. The first is about a recent controversy where Josh preached an absurd NAR sermon forcefully bullying his sheep into voting for Donald Trump, to which he received so much push back the church seems to be distancing themselves from it. The second issue was a Howerton post where Josh tried to outline 11 bogus reasons for Christians to vote, of course for Republicans. The last issue is about a post Josh made in 2022 defending himself from plagiarism charges. I am reviewing this because it is quite telling how unchristian Josh Howerton truly is. So, let us reason again beloved as I introduce you to "Pastor" Josh Howerton. Let me start with the lowlights from his recent sermon that started the kerfuffle.

"It would be wrong for you to refuse to take part in the leadership of the nation that God has put you in," he said. "If we go back to ask the original question, 'Would Jesus vote?' Yes. Yes, He would, because He wouldn't abdicate the responsibility that God has given Him. When Christians do not vote, what they're doing is they are abdicating their leadership position in the constitutional republic that God has placed you in. And it's a form of passive rebellion against God in the exact same way that it would be wrong for a husband to refuse to lead his family, and it would be wrong for a pastor to refuse to lead his church" - Josh Howerton

It seems quite obvious that Josh is a shill for the NAR wing of the Republican Party. This ridiculous statement could have been made by Steven Strang or Mark Driscoll, who Howerton looks up to. God did not purposefully place us in a constitutional republic. We are far more enamored with our own country, politics and economic system than God ever will be. There is zero biblical support for the notion that Jesus would vote. During the time He walked the earth He could have done anything He wanted. He walked on water. He healed the blind and lame. He turned water into wine. Do you know what He did about the politics of His day? Absolutely nothing and His people were being crushed in oppression by the Roman Empire. As Jesus explained - His kingdom is not of this world. We have not been tasked with creating a theocracy or even holding a leadership position within our constitutional republic. To further state that not voting would somehow be rebellion against God is not only ludicrous but insulting on so many levels. Let me be very clear - God does not care if we vote and He does not are who we vote for - period, full stop. Any bully preacher like Howerton is just lying about God to claim otherwise. It is false teachers like Howerton that is in active rebellion against God.

"I just need you to know that concept is completely and utterly unbiblical (not being involved in politics)," he said. "You cannot read the Bible about Moses, Daniel, Esther, Nathan, Nehemiah, John the Baptist, and think that the church and pastors should avoid addressing government and governmental leaders. You just can't do it. Any Christian that's got a Bible open and their brain working ought to be looking at both of the candidates we're looking at and going, 'Man, I see some flaws in both things I got in front of me, Jesus is not on the ballot, guys. Get over it. I am not here to seek the approval of man. I am not here to seek the approval of a party. And I am not here to seek approval of a politician. I am here on behalf of the living God," - Josh Howerton

Howerton all but said that while Trump is "flawed", Kamala Harris is wicked. This is the deceit the NAR constantly traffics in. We are all flawed and wicked. In terms of degree however, how you are siding with the man married three times, unfaithful three times (once with a porn star), convicted of rape, with six bankruptcies and 34 other felony convictions is beyond me. How that is the "Christian" choice is confounding to any Christian with an open bible and a functioning brain stem. That is not suggesting that Harris is a Christian choice - just do not sell me the notion that God is on your side of the vote. As for his list if biblical figures let us start with the obvious fact that they are all from the Old Testament and part of Israel. America is not Israel. The only New Testament name is John the Baptist. It is a little odd to say that because John told Herod Antipas that he was wrong for taking his sister-in-law as his second wife, that we should all be compelled to vote today for Donald Trump. It is also a little rich considering Howerton's candidate of choice is probably a lot closer to Herod Antipas than King Cyrus or Jehu, as argued by many dominionists. Despite the insane dreams of the NAR, America is not a theocracy. More importantly, none of the people listed actively engaged in politics from a citizen level. Moses did not even want the responsibilities God had for him and he certainly did not vote. Daniel worked outside of the political system of Babylon and God still had him thrive. About the only vaguely political act the prophet Nathan ever did was rebuke King David for his murderous affair. Howerton and the NAR always overlook that the very life of Jesus displays a completely apolitical stance. Make no mistake about it beloved, Josh Howerton is owned and controlled by political forces, not the living God. He is only seeking the approval of a political party and of man. This is easily supported by a recent writing from Josh where he outlines 11 ways, he thinks Christians are gaslit into staying out of politics, which you can find at this link:

11 Ways Christians Are Gaslit into Staying Out of Politics - Josh Howerton

Now most of these are tired old retread arguments that have failed so many times before. This country was never intended to be a theocracy. Many of the settlers were escaping religious persecution, so the last thing they would want to establish here was more religious persecution. For the sake of time, I will only focus on a few of these so we can move on to the last section of this introduction to Josh Howerton.

"Christians shouldn't "grasp for power" - The vibe that pursuing positions of authority is wrong comes from Critical Theory (that sees the world through an oppressed / oppressor lens), not Christian Theology (that sees the world through a sin / righteousness lens). Power is like money in the Bible. HAVING it is not moral or immoral. It's what you DO with it that is moral or immoral. If GODLY people don't lead, GODLESS people fill the void. So, Christians should seek positions of authority, as the Bible states: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2" - Josh Howerton

Howerton tries to frame this against things he politically disagrees with such as critical theory, which just asks for circumspection. That is not the insidious point here, however. So, his premise here is we must vote so that godly people lead instead of godless people. He even cites the key verse today which clearly delineates between righteous and wicked rulers. Yet the man he is advocating that Christians must vote for, is on record as saying he can grab women by their genitalia because he is famous. He has been convicted of rape. He has 34 other convictions. He was sleeping with a porn star when his third wife was home with his newborn son. Why in the world is it a "Christian" imperative to vote for such a man? How will that set up a righteous ruler? It is only because Josh Howerton and the NAR have made a Faustian bargain. They have made their deal with the devil and now they want you to make it with them.

"That's Christian Nationalism!" - 99% of the time "Christian Nationalism" is a scare label whose subtext is, "You CAN'T advocate for your beliefs in the public square, but I CAN advocate for mine." As Jon Tyson has pointed out, voting and advocating for their beliefs is what everyone in a democracy does, but Christians are increasingly the only group in society who are shamed for doing so. If someone accuses you of being a "Christian Nationalist", usually respond, "Yep. I'm a Christian. And I love my nation." - Josh Howerton

Yeah, no. Nice try. What Howerton is doing is simply breaking the term into separate words and then using the different definitions of those words. Yes, we are Christian and yes, we may love our country. It is when you put those words together however, then you get a different term, with different meanings. Christian nationalism is buoyed white supremacy. It is the belief that celebrates my right to privilege over other minority groups. It also is not 99% of the time used as a scare tactic. That is intellectually bankrupt. In Charlottesville they were chanting "Jews will not replace us" and there were not "fine people on both sides." Christian nationalists and the NAR openly advocate for forcing their beliefs on the rest of society. On January 6^th, the rioters pummeled police officers with American flags, maced them, terrorized the Capitol and defecated in the well of the Senate. Do you know what else they did in the well? They stopped to pray and give thanks to Jesus Christ for their success. THAT is Christian nationalism and Christians should want nothing to do with it.

"Jesus didn't focus on politics." There's no way to read about Daniel, Esther, Joseph, Moses, Nehemiah, and John the Baptist and think Christians should avoid politics. "But Jesus said 'my kingdom is not of this world!'" Yes, and he also prayed his kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven. "But Jesus said to give to Caesar what's Caesar's and to God what's God's!" Yes, and Caesar bears the image of God; therefore, Caesar belongs to God. Finally, as Os Guinness has pointed out, our civic context is different than Jesus': "We are not under Roman rule. We are citizens of a Republic, and every citizen is responsible for the health and vitality of the Republic."- Josh Howerton

Jesus did not only NOT focus on politics - He did NOTHING politically. We already answered the absurdity of arguing that it is because Jospeh was sold into slavery, then falsely imprisoned, then forgotten by the Cupbearer, and then was placed over all Egypt that we must vote today for Donald Trump. God did not give us the story of Joseph so that the church in 2024 could demand that Christians vote Republican. The part of the Lord's prayer that says about His kingdom coming is speaking about the eternal reign of Christ, not this bastardized Bethel Church nonsense about bringing heaven to earth. The carnal responsibility to vote includes a decision to not vote. Acting like that is somehow deficient is a very poor understanding of how a Republic works. Either way, these are carnal matters, not Christian.

"We shouldn't be "CULTURE WAR CHRISTIANS" - As Nathan Finnochio has pointed out, Europe exists because early Christians "engaged in the culture wars." Europe resisted Islamic invasion because the Medieval Church "engaged in the culture wars." The American Revolution happened because Presbyterians "engaged in the culture wars." Chattel slavery was abolished and the Civil Rights movements happened because Christians like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr "engaged in the culture wars." We should be more interested in the future of the church, but we should also provide a cultural future for our children in which they aren't surrounded by perversion, indoctrination, godlessness, opposition, and lawlessness." - Josh Howerton

Once again, the NAR struggles to misunderstand history as much as they do not understand the bible. The American Revolution was not driven by Presbyterians fighting some kind of holy war. It was economic, pure and simple. It was actually rebellion according to Romans 13. Slavery was indeed abolished and we were one of the last countries to do so, and only then after a bloody Civil War over the matter. I would remind Mr. Howerton that for every abolitionist I can point to five southern men who used the bible to justify slavery, so spare me the revisionist history. Perversion, indoctrination, godlessness, and lawlessness? That describes the NAR apostate church to a tee, that Howerton is gleefully a part of.

"Both candidates are ungodly. Of the lesser of two evils, choose neither." Because there has never been a sinless candidate or perfect party, every election is a choice between two 'evils.' A vote for someone is not condoning everything they've done. A vote is your power to pick the best available path forward. Christians are called to be the "salt of the earth" (Matt 5:13). The purpose of salt is to SLOW DECAY. When voting, a Christian shouldn't ask, "Is there a candidate that perfectly embodies my values?" A Christian should ask, "Which candidate's policies are most likely to slow societal decay?" - Josh Howerton

This is a clever sleight of hand. The bottom line is it is a choice between two evils, so why are you advocating so passionately for evil, no matter how "lesser" you have determined it to be? Voting for one carnal candidate over another is NOT what God meant by being "salt." Even if it was, how in the world is the guy with 34 felony convictions and an adjudicated rapist the one to slow moral decay? The bottom line here is these are typical NAR arguments but what they really amount to is spiritual bullying to serve their political masters. We can spend a temporal eternity discussing the political whoredom of Josh Howerton and the NAR but I found one more interesting thing when researching him. He was accused of plagiarism, which in and of itself is not unique for false teachers. What is unique is Howerton's full throated defense. Here is the link we will be reviewing, which is from Howerton's own words:

On "Sermon Plagiarism" Accusations - Josh Howerton

'Ok, let me start with a funny story that illustrates a point: Last week someone online accused me of "plagiarism" in a sermon, and their example was 4 separated sentences out of a 40 minute, 7,000-word sermon. Their first two examples were the sentences"

"Become the type of person the person you're looking for is looking for." They said I got this sentence from Andy Stanley.

Then later in the sermon I said, "Whoever you idolize, you'll eventually demonize." They said I got this sentence from Mark Driscoll.

FUNNY PART: I didn't hear either of those sentences from either of those people, but I did hear similar ones from two totally different nationally-broadcasted Bible teachers! There are phrases that are similar to phrases other preachers have said in basically every sermon you'll ever hear, because as one pastor of ~40 years recently told me, "Every sermon I preach is a collaboration of 40 years of listening and learning."' - Josh Howerton

Yeah, that is not remotely funny Josh. First of all, plagiarizing two other heretics only reveals the depths of your own depravity. The fact that you may have plagiarized other people plagiarizing Stanley and Driscoll kind of misses the point. These are not "phrases you hear in every sermon" and in fact, I had never heard them until now. Of course, I do not listen to apostate preachers. The Driscoll quote doesn't even make sense. These are the types of sound bites that false teachers like Andy Stanley live on. I do not know who this alleged preacher of forty years is but his opinion is irrelevant. Plagiarism is theft, period. Mind you, no one is saying you cannot use things that others have preached, but you have to give them credit and not make it look like you were the one saying it.

"Permission and collaboration. Because they have a heart to help, almost every pastor tells other pastors to use anything from his sermons that'll help them. "If my bullet fits in your gun, shoot it!": I've heard Adrian Rodgers, JD Greear, Craig Groeschel, Chris Hodges, Bob Russell, Rick Warren, etc all say things like this. Further, I don't think non-pastors realize how frequently pastors collaborate to help each other because of their hearts to help (see Joby Martin talk about this HERE). Personally, I've given away my notes every week for years mostly to church-planters who are leading churches without any staff help and don't have 20hrs / week for sermon prep. I'm HAPPY to do this, because of differing industry standards. A church-sermon is not an academia-dissertation or a book/journalism-publication. I freely give away my notes to other pastors, because pastors aren't preaching to make themselves look good, sound smart, or sell something proprietary." - Josh Howerton

Not sure why the analogy is a violent one. Preaching is not shooting people, although false teachers are likely to kill many of their listeners for eternity. Again, it is not about using something that might be helpful it is about giving proper credit for it. The sin of plagiarism is LYING that you have written something you have not. Stealing is not "collaboration." All the time people ask if they can use something I have written and my answer is always the same. The words are God's just give me credit for writing them. That is only asking the bare minimum. As for the giving away of his sermon notes, why do so many pastors not have time for sermon prep? Because they are not getting anything from the Holy Spirit! A pastor's sermon should be coming from God after prayer and research, not studying cliff notes of a message God may have given a different preacher for a different congregation. The point is not that it is or is not a piece of academia. The point is you are LYING and STEALING.

'"But that's stealing!" If I gave them permission to use anything from my notes that would help them, that's not stealing. It is stealing in book, journalism, and academia publications because those things are zero-sum situations whose goal is revenue. Author X says something in a book, that's the only place you can get that info, and is selling that book for income. So, if Author Y also says it, that takes away Author X's book sales and income. There's no permission. It's zero-sum. It's for-profit. Sermons are different. Pastor X using something from my sermons, A) has my permission, B) it diminishes me in no way, and C) actually serves to advance my original purpose in writing the sermon - to help AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE and grow the kingdom.' - Josh Howerton

It is as if Josh knows what he is doing is so wrong, so he is trying to address all of the correct scrutiny he will receive. Notice the shift he tries to pull off. We are not talking about him giving his work to others but rather his stealing the work from others. Did he ask Andy Stanley or Mark Driscoll if he could steal their words? Obviously not. His rationale here is morally bankrupt. It does not have to personally profit someone immediately. There is a cumulative effect. If a preacher today builds a following and a reputation by stealing work from other preachers, he can eventually cash in on that. It absolutely diminishes the person you are stealing from because they do not get any credit for their work. By the way, if you expressly give permission for someone to use your words and not give you credit, that is your right as the creator of the words. That does not mean that you then have the right to steal someone else's words just because you have some perceived common goal.

'"But that's lying! They're passing off your content as if it's their own!" I chuckle at this for two reasons: 1) It's only a lie if a preacher actually lies and specifically takes credit for something he knows he didn't create, and 2) because it is understood that TEACHERS aggregate whatever content best helps their students. Guys, stop and think for a second: Pastors are TEACHERS. In schools, 0% of people assume every sentence their teacher says is their teacher's 100% original thought and they never heard it from anyone else. Nobody hears a teacher finish teaching a lesson and says, "You need to resign IMMEDIATELY because you didn't cite the mathematician's name who discovered the equation for the circumference of a circle and saying it without attribution deceived students into thinking that was your original thought!" Nobody hears a grammar teacher say, "I before E except after C" and says, "Fire him, he didn't attribute!" No one sees a physics teacher do an experiment and calls for his dismissal because he didn't mention where he first saw that object lesson. Why? Because when teachers teach, people ASSUME they're pulling from whatever research / info sources they can to BEST HELP THE STUDENTS, which is the goal. Because "there's nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9) and we've all been preaching the same Bible for 2,000 years, it's a given that pastors draw from one another - illustrations, points, sayings, structure, etc - whatever BEST HELPS the people they're teaching.' - Josh Howerton

This is getting clumsy. Josh Howerton plagiarized other people but all he wants to keep talking about is how he gives his work to others to use freely. So, Josh, it is in fact a LIE if YOU preached something that belonged to someone else and you acted like it was yours! That is the entire point! I do not know of any teacher that would openly plagiarize! You have to be kidding me! Is it so hard to just say, so and so said, and then say the statement as opposed to lying and pretending you wrote it? Lying to your students by the way, is never helpful to them. The examples he gives are laughable. Teachers teaching content, concepts and theories do not have to cite the original source. If they use a direct quote however and pretend it was their original thought? That would be LYING and CHEATING. By the way, using Ecclesiastes to support your lying and cheating? Also, not a good look Josh.

"Ok, I guess it's not plagiarism, but why NOT just attribute everything anyway!?" First off, I do think it's wise to mention it or at least nod to an outside source especially in situations like.

You're preaching an entire sermon that's someone else's

A larger section of a sermon is from someone else

You're quoting a section from a book word for word

but again, the difference between verbal communication and written communication lead to different needs. In books, academic papers, and journalistic publications, authors can do extensive citation without distracting readers by footnoting / end noting. The reader doesn't have to hear "I got this statistic from blah blah blah academic journal, which cited a study in 2016 called ________." They can just read the stat with a little footnote number next to it and check the source on a completely different page at the end of the book if desired without the citation interrupting the flow of the prose. The same is not possible in verbal preaching, and as noted by Bart Barber, President of the SBC, over-citation in verbal preaching can be distracting for hearers." - Josh Howerton

The fact that Josh scoured the Internet to find guys who agree that stealing and lying are not a big deal does not change the fact that it is a big deal. He is also continuing to pretend we are talking about something we are not. I am not suggesting that every single thought we should give credit for. I agree that would muddy down the preaching. I am just saying if you are stating a thought as if it is your own when you know full well it is not, you are in fact a lair. I am not saying this academically, but rather from a Christian perspective. I am glad to see there are some standards Howerton has but the compelling factor for him seems to be the length of the theft and not the theft in general. Quoting an entire book? Bad to not give credit but taking a singular independent thought that is not yours and acting like it is? No problem! By the way if it is not that big a deal, why not just use your own thought? Surely you can be creative when designing the sermon to have your own thoughts. Realize that in his sermon prep, Howerton is actually writing down the catch phrases of other people and choosing to not give them credit for it. That is theft, period full stop. Bart Barber's opinion about how we should not care as preachers about lying and stealing is also irrelevant. Again, how hard would it have been for Howerton to just say, Andy Stanley once said?

"But pastors are supposed to be getting their own word from God for their church!" They are! That happens THROUGH the research process, not apart from it. Just like in commentaries, books, lectures, and articles, sometimes I'll hear something in a sermon and think, "Yeah, that's a word for our church right now," think the Spirit wants me to deliver it, and I'll use an illustration, phrase, or way of explaining a passage. That's a "word in season" that happened through research, not individual inspiration. I'm not gonna go here, but if you REALLY want to get salty, know who didn't always cite sources? Bible writers. Gospel writers and other epistles borrow liberally from the Old Testament, sometimes citing, but often just saying without citation because in preaching what really matters is that people are helped with the truth." - Josh Howerton

Nice try. This is a perfect example. Would Josh Howerton quote a commentary and not give credit for which one he used? I hope not. No one is suggesting that research is not important but give credit when you choose to use someone else's material! Perhaps the worst offense in this entire defense of lying and stealing is to smear the New Testament writers in this manner. The reality is that Josh Howerton has NO IDEA what or how these men taught or preached. Maybe Howerton does not know because he is a hireling but the books of the New Testament were actually written down by scribes. Who knows how they shortened the words to make the book flow better. That said, I seriously doubt that the Apostle Paul would quote something from the Old Testament as if he himself wrote it. I seriously doubt that Peter would quote the prophets of old but present it as an original thought. The smear is ludicrous on its face but when you are as compromised as Josh Howerton is, why not slander the writers of the gospel to support the fact that you are a lair a thief and a cheat.

If you have stuck with this for this long, kudos to you dear reader. Josh Howerton is clearly an NAR fool, doing the bidding of his political dominionist masters. He has no clue about scriptures and apparently only uses the bible to prop up his unbiblical positions. Besides quoting heretics and not giving them credit for it, he actually thinks it is a good look to defend such indefensible activities. I have preached before. It is not very difficult to give proper credit, where credit is due. Mark and avoid Josh Howerton and this episode proves how ironically funny God is because I never thought I would be defending Mark Driscoll and Andy Stanley's right to have their own heretical thoughts be given proper credit.

Reverend Anthony Wade - October 15, 2024

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.