Mark Driscoll accused of plagiarism by radio host
[Jay] to call him a ‘universalist’ is not correct
That’s a relief. I’m no real fan of MacDonald either (although I attended a session of his at a conference once and thought it was pretty good), but I would have hated to think he was wrong on something like that.
What seemed to me to be quite telling is how you can see from the screenshots that the paragraphs from New Bible Commentary had two parenthetical citations for Tertullian and Eusebius. In the Driscoll book, citations were made via footnotes, not parenthetical notes, and so the references from Tertiullian and Eusebius were converted from parenthetical to footnote references. How does one NOT know they are plagiarizing if they take the time to convert the citation format?
And now new accusations are made regarding the Driscoll book on marriage:
This is clearly a problem. While I might not immediately fail a student who turned in such work, I would have a conference to determine what happened. I can imagine how a student might inadvertently leave out the source or reference. Some beginning students don’t know that quotes are to be set off in some manner to signal that the material is being lifted directly from the source. I like to measure twice and cut once, so I would check out the situation. However, in academic work, this is a serious problem and should be treated as such.
Given his many books, it seems unlikely that Driscoll is unaware of the rules regarding citations so the burden is on him to offer an explanation for how this passage (and others – see Mefferd’s sources) from the New Bible Commentary appears in his book without citation. It seems clear that he or someone interacted with the material since a few words have been changed. Perhaps he used a ghostwriter or research assistant and simply left that person’s work in the book as his own. Even if this is true, he is still responsible for the work and appropriate acknowledgement and repairs should be made.
After reviewing the material, I don’t think the concerns being raised can be accurately represented as a witch hunt. Efforts to characterize those who raise inconvenient facts as engaging in a smear campaign or witch hunt are misplaced and unhelpful (I have some experience with this). At the same time, if Driscoll addresses the legitimate concerns and questions properly, then the situation can probably be repaired in a manner that honors his Christian faith.
From Patheos
I’m wondering when Driscoll’s going to comment on this. At least an “I screwed up and didn’t cite it properly” would be appropriate at a minimum, but to not say anything at all - even if Mefferd did ambush him on the podcast, which I think is a fair accusation in his defense now that I’ve listened to it - just gives the illustration that he doesn’t care.
I’ll bet his publishers aren’t very happy about this.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Before we go to break, I just want to say something really, really quickly to you. A few weeks ago, as many people know, I conducted an interview with pastor Mark Driscoll. And I received lots of feedback on that interview, both positive and negative, but I feel now that in retrospect, I should have conducted myself in a better way. I now realize the interview should not have occurred at all. I should have contacted Tyndale House directly to alert them to the plagiarism issue. And I never should have brought it to the attention of listeners publicly. So I would like to apologize to all of you and to Mark Driscoll for how I behaved. I am sorry.
Unfortunately, I didn’t anticipate that the story would go viral online the way it did and creating such dissension with the Christian community was never my aim. And so in an effort to right things as best as I can, I have now removed all of the materials related to the interview off my website, and also off my social media.
Janet Mefferd has apologized for handling this the way she did and has removed all her posts and links on the subject from her various media outlets. There’s more detail at Patheos.com.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
The part time producer of Janet Mefferd’s radio show (Ingrid Schlueter) has resigned over this:
I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex…
…I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand.More at Storify.Carl Truman’s article, BTW, is WELL worth the read, if for not other section than this:
Over at First Thoughts, Collin Garbarino offers some very perceptive comments on the Driscoll plagiarism affair. He makes the point that such activity receives a failing grade at his university. I would only add that at Westminster it also involves automatic suspension from the degree program followed by discussion with the powers that be about whether Christian ministry is really an option for the perpetrator.Can I just state how utterly disgraceful and unbecoming this is? If the producer was forced out because Mefferd called Driscoll on his theft (which is what it is), then Driscoll ought to be embarrassed and the people who forced Ingrid out ought to be forced out themselves. Disgusting. Sad. And unfortunately, completely predictable.
One sentence in particular stands out: ‘Ghostwriting is lying, and plagiarism is stealing, and there seems to be a lot of it going around.’ No further comment is necessary, for that says it all.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion