Carlton Byrd Apologizes: Was it for Plagiarism or for a Mere Technical Oversight?

Pastor James Desvallons of Advent Media Connect published a video showing Dr. Carlton Byrd’s apology for plagiarizing a sermon that he delivered at Oakwood University four weeks ago. [1] Dr. Byrd’s apology certainly sounded good and appeared sincere. However, the question we want to consider is this: What exactly did he apologize for?

Was he apologizing for the act of plagiarism itself—a serious offense in both the academic and business worlds, one that carries significant consequences? Or was he apologizing merely for a technical oversight, what he called a failure to “properly cite a source”? The difference is crucial, because one acknowledges wrongdoing, while the other excuses it as an oversight.

In today’s media-driven world, genuine public apologies are rare. True confession takes full responsibility, calls the wrong by its right name, makes no excuses, and accepts the consequences. Unfortunately, today we often see public-relations-style apologies—carefully crafted statements designed to limit liability, preserve position, and manage public reaction. This type of damage-control messaging shifts attention away from the wrongdoing and offers excuses to minimize guilt.

To me, Carlton Byrd’s apology sounded as though he was apologizing for a mere oversight—what he called a “failure to give a citation.” That’s how he described it, as if he had simply forgotten to include a footnote in a research paper. But the issue here is not a clerical mistake, a missing source, or a formatting error—it’s a matter of truthfulness. This was plagiarism. He led people into believing that certain words were his when they were not. His apology minimizes the seriousness of plagiarism, reducing it to a technical oversight or moment of forgetfulness rather than an act of dishonesty.

Secondly, in Carlton Byrd’s apology, he mentions three times that the plagiarized material in his sermon was only “five minutes” of his 45-minute sermon. Brothers and sisters, that sounds like an attempt to minimize his actions. It comes across as damage control rather than genuine repentance. The issue is not about duration—five minutes—but about deception. The real problem with plagiarism lies in the act of dishonesty, not in how long it lasted. The focus should be on the fact that Dr. Byrd used someone else’s material and presented it as his own. In doing so, he misrepresented himself before God and His people.

Thirdly, in his apology statement, Carlton Byrd said that he is “only human.” This shifts the focus from accountability to sympathy. A conference president is a moral and spiritual example for the flock and for students in our institutions. If he excuses plagiarism on the basis of being human, that message undermines every moral standard that young preachers, teachers, and students are called to uphold. If a major church leader can plagiarize without consequence because he is “only human,” then what would stop Oakwood University students—or any ministerial intern—from submitting plagiarized papers under the same justification?

If a student was caught plagiarizing and tried to use those same arguments, those excuses would not stand. The student would face discipline, such as failing the assignment or failing the course. Oakwood University, like all accredited Christian institutions, treats plagiarism as a violation of both scholarly standards and biblical principles of truthfulness. If students are subject to disciplinary action for plagiarism, how much more should a conference president or church leader be held accountable?

Once wrongdoing is tolerated without any kind of consequences under the banner of human weakness, the line between truth and deception is removed. The same reasoning can justify dishonesty in academics, ministry, finances, and personal conduct. If plagiarism becomes acceptable because “we’re all human,” then integrity becomes optional. This will destroy the moral foundation of Christian education and ministry.

A sincere apology acknowledges the wrong, does not seek to minimize it, and does not focus merely on optics. It recognizes that communication—whether in a university classroom or from the pulpit—must be grounded in honesty and trust; otherwise, we undermine the credibility of our institutions and our leadership. We must never lower our standards to accommodate human weakness. Instead, we must lift up Christ’s standard so that human weakness may find redemption, grace, repentance, forgiveness, healing, and power.

Sources

[1] https://fb.watch/CRa5_J4Hcg/?