Mark Driscoll accused of plagiarism by radio host

Merritt’s article was great; fair, balanced, thorough.
More worthy reads (if I may):

Mark Driscoll and Janet Mefferd: Plagiarism, Tribalism and Paganism (Wade Burleson)

The Mark Driscoll Experience (Frank Turk’s recap of what went down outside the SF Conference)

and finally the best of the bunch:
If the Top Men take over, who will ask the hard questions? (Carl Trueman)

Peter Lumpkins also has an article and discussion on this:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/11/mark-driscoll-g…

David R. Brumbelow

I am surprised Driscoll didn’t “see” this one coming … !

Ha! Hilarious, Tyler.

PyroManiacs weighed in again on this yesterday, and they raise some very interesting questions about the alleged audio ending that Driscoll put out there.

What’s unusual about this clip, I think, is that it turns out that it was allegedly recorded by the fellows at Mars Hill. I had no idea that was ever done when one does an interview, but everyone lives the way they live. It’s obviously different than the end of the interview which went out live, and it bears another strange artifact: the voice of Mark’s producer during the end of the interview.

That artifact is strange for one reason only: plainly, Mark’s voice is over the phone; his assistant (I am told it is the voice of Justin Dean) is plainly not on the phone — his voice doesn’t sound like it’s coming over the phone line but from another (better quality) mic. If they were doing a remote or some sort of studio-to-studio broadcast, that makes sense, but a phone interview? Obviously they do it differently than many.

It seems to me we have to clear this one up, too. By “we,” I don’t mean tiny, unable-to-hiatus me and then DJP. I mean “we” the people tossing out accusations who are public people. And I think there’s an easy way to do this.

The version published to YouTube by the Janet Mefferd Show and Salem Radio has the breaks cut out, as podcasted radio often does. That audio is an air check, recorded from the output of the board in Janet’s studio. It is recorded on the Dallas end of the line. While Ms. Mefferd’s people have been adamant that they did not use the kill switch at any time for this interview (it’s clear this is true during the interview earlier as Janet and Mark talk over each other a couple of times), it’s possible, I guess, that someone’s finger slipped. However, it’s unlikely that any fingers slipped on the Seattle side of the phone. Since they were plainly recording the show, I say they (I think he means Mark Driscoll’s sound people who were recording -JC) come forward with the whole thing including the breaks so we can see what Pastor Driscoll was doing while the listeners were listening to commercials. I’m sure he got moral support from Mr. Dean as the interview was not conducted from a position of genuflection on the part of Ms. Mefferd, and it will speak to the authenticity of the whole “alternative ending” now provided by Mars Hill and Tyndale.

If this is true…If Driscoll not only plagarized in his book but then falsified the audio in order to ‘prove’ that he didn’t do what Janet claimed and gave it to the publisher in order to ‘clear his name’…then wow. I really can’t imagine that level of duplicity from someone who is a “Pastor”.

I listened to the interview last night…and if the tone and words of Mark Driscoll were rude and defensive and un-Christlike…then I am in big trouble.

if, like me, you had never heard of Peter Jones or Janet Mefferd until this article?

I don’t think there’s any question Driscoll’s tone and words were defensive, and I’d also characterize them as petulant.

But! I actually have some sympathy for Driscoll in one specific regard; he obviously felt ambushed and no one likes that and one is not always going to handle that very well. I don’t think Mefferd was obligated to toss him softballs, but its a bit unseemly to go after (read: badger) him as hard as she did on two pinpoint items (to which confessing on air was probably pretty far off Driscoll’s radar screen pre-interview) for 18 minutes and never really start talking about the book. I doubt Mefferd would use this tactic on a sister in Christ in her own church with whom she had offense and expect better results.

You can’t keep up with everyone, Mark, but Peter Jones is pretty well-known as an expert on neo-paganism in the modern world. He’s a prolific author and has a lengthy seminar/conference every year in San Diego that many Christian leaders attend. He’s a big fan of Mark Driscoll. In fact, he told me Driscoll called him before before Driscoll went on Nightline with Deepok Chopra, and I have to say, Driscoll took what Jones told him and pretty much flattened Chopra (metaphorically speaking, of course.) Funny – I wouldn’t feel the need to say metaphorically for any preacher but Driscoll!

Janet Mefferd is a Christian radio talk-show personality. She’s bright and does a thorough job researching before interviews. She doesn’t put up with nonsense. She stands up for the sheep if the shepherds get out of line.

I think she pushed a little hard in the interview…I should say, too long on that one issue. But it was Mark who called her “rude” and “unkind” and “UnChrist-like” and challenged her for giving him “orders.” He told her she needed to “grow” and said he was “trying to do her a favor” although his people asked for him to come on the show to plug his book. He also claimed he was sick, which I don’t think was her fault. His tone was gentle, but his words did not reflect true humility in my opinion. He was actually very defensive.

The reactions to this interview in the ensuing comments around the blogos and beyond have been an interesting study..

First-I didn’t see anything terribly wrong with the way Janet handled the interview, though I’m sure I listened with a bias towards her. Could have she let up on the whole footnote thing? Sure, but neither did I think that should have taken anything away from the real issue.

(To be taken with half grain of sand): I haven’t a clue about what’s considered professionally ethical or “normal” for this or any type of radio interviewing format; (an “issue” brought up by some of her jeerers) I only know this much: Between what I’ve observed of Driscoll’s integrity and character and what I’ve seen of Janet’s…she is clearly the rose.

Here’s what I wanted to address re: the fallout:
Not all are totally convinced of the many problems with Driscoll, but even those who’d agree we are dealing here with a ‘proven problematic’ (at best) leader/pastor/teacher in Christiandom, rather point to Janet and cry “Foul”. I’ve found this disconcerting and hard to step around (though probably just a personal problem:).

But all the more disappointing have been the sort of finger-pointing-gloating and unnecessarily disparaging comments made by those who well understand the Driscoll machine for what it is. We know, we get it!

Christians, myself included, too easily forget not only about who we are in Christ when things get heated up on the interwebs, but about the believers and un-believers who are quietly paying attention to our conversations. All to say we need more grace shown in the department of discrepancy and decorum.

Anyway..

I used to like Driscoll back around ‘06-‘08 until became glaringly evident to me that he was, well, problematic. I’ve since observed his “rise” (decline) with a fair amount of sadness and frustration (particularly in my own fellowship sphere) for those who give him any level of credence.

So, I am very thankful for this interview on a few levels-not the least being that it was a woman who furthered the pulling-back of the curtain still obstructing the view of some. One can hardly not mention the rich irony in that :) I’ll say it again..keep on talking, Mark..just keep talking.

As far as the interview, it’s hard to feel sympathy for Driscoll on this, and he clearly was passive-agressive in response, but I agree that Mefferd overdid it.

I really don’t understand the audio thing. Doesn’t Driscoll’s recording prove he didn’t “hang up?” Mefferd might have thought he dead due to the silence, but he obviously didn’t, correct?

I didn’t get it either - I listened to both endings provided and surmised it was likely an honest mistake (if only a bit careless on Janet’s end). Not sure I’d get all excited that Driscoll/Dean recorded the episode either.

She apparently has some kind of an “update” coming up on todays show.
(source)

/or listen live

I guess I missed that. I actually thought he was remarkably restrained. You are on a show to promote a book. Instead, you get “ambushed” about plagiarism. He said he would look into it and she should have dropped it and moved on. Let’s say he is flat out guilty. Was he going to flat out admit it right there? Why continue and move into theft?

By the way, I have no bone to pick either way as I didn’t know the host or neo-paganism expert until hearing about this interview.

Janet Mefferd must have had this other example in the wings all along. Apparently, Mark (or some editor/ nameless co-author) directly lifted word-for-word three paragraphs from The New Bible Commentary without attribution. This looks quite serious, actually.

http://www.janetmefferd.com/blog/

Sad, just sad. Clearly, Ms. Mefferd’s intention was to ambush and press home an attack based on an error, not necessarily a sin. This should have been private and kind, not open and mean.