Mark Driscoll accused of plagiarism by radio host

If this is an ‘error’ and an ‘ambush’ or ‘attack’, then how do you (or Driscoll) account for roughly three word for word exact matches between his “Witnesses” book and the New American Commentary volume that Janet Mefferd documents?

Wow. This is just…unbelievable. Driscoll’s gotten himself into a huge disaster of a mess, and I think he knows it. Question is, will his fanboyz see it too?

Jay: “Question is, will his fanboyz see it too?”

I think the too much focus on the “gotcha/ambush…” perception we’re seeing by so many is less to do with Driscoll’s “fans” and more that people (fans or not fans) are just plain turned off by the way she went about the interview. It’s just how different people process things differently and not really an issue (so much).

So to each their own on that account, no need to keep those embers stoking..(not saying you were, Jay, just making a broader, hopefully helpful point in the conversation at large :)

Jay, I think Driscoll is a mess on fire. Suzanne is correct about at least my perception of Mefferd’s tactics. Is this how most plagiarists are dealt with? Write the publishing company. Write an article for Christianity Today or Patheos or whomever. Write the elders at Mars Hill (I know, might as well buy a lottery ticket).

Believe me, I can see how it would be tempting when the guy whose plagiarism you recognize calls you for book plug opportunity to bring him in and just sandbag him. I’d say go ahead, do the interview, even bring up the possibility of plagiarism. But do it in the context of the interview he was probably led to believe he would have.

The ‘gotcha’ interview has too much the odor of a weapon of carnal warfare.

I am not saying he didn’t plagiarize. Plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional. If intentional, then sin. If unintentional, then not sin. Love would assume unintentional, and approach the problem privately and kindly. Love would back off when the errant brother agreed to investigate the issue and correct any errors.

The interview was not conducted in love. It was conducted in “gotcha”.

if you look at the screen shots that Janet Mefferd posted on her blog (http://www.janetmefferd.com/blog/) you can see what happened in this case. Mark Driscoll (or likely a ghost writer filling in the gaps from notes he wrote) used the New Bible Commentary for the introductory information in that section and they simply (and presumably accidently) left out the reference to the NBC. It is published by Mars Hill Press, so that could happen easier than in a traditional publishing house. In the rush to get the book out a mistake happened…

Was it sloppy? Yes. Was it wrong? Technically. Was it theft? Not intentionally. I’m willing to give a pass on this and I hope he and his organization use this a learning opportunity to tighten up their operation.

A brother and friend PM‘d me this morning to object to the use of the term ‘fanboyz’ in my earlier post. I’m thinking about what he wrote and may ask the mods to edit it at some point in the future because I can see where some would consider it incendiary and or detrimental. I just wanted to note that here in case it does get changed.

In the course of thinking about that, I was looking around today on Driscoll, and ended up at Challies’ review of Real Marriage. One section in particular jumped out at me today although I hadn’t given it much thought when I originally read the review. I felt like it had bearing on this topic, so I wanted to quote it now:

What Book Is It?

Before I look at the book’s content, I feel that I need to speak briefly about the book as a book. What quickly becomes clear is that Real Marriage suffers from a lack of clear identity, a problem that may stem from what appears to be rushed or otherwise ineffective editing. I point these things out not to be petty but because they effect the final product.

In the first place, there is a kind of sloppiness and inconsistency to the book. One example of this is the way the chapters vary so much in style, some being very personal with others being abstract and coldly statistical; even the inline subheadings can vary from chapter-to-chapter (e.g. italics in one chapter, all caps in the next). There are also factual errors, like when the Driscolls state that Solomon was the child born of David and Bathsheba’s adultery (when, in fact, that child died and Solomon was born later); there are errors in footnoting, like when a footnote contains no reference to what they have stated; there are errors in punctuation where a statement ends with a question mark, and errors in flow where a chapter references things to come that do not actually come.

Added to the editorial sloppiness is the fact that there is little internal cohesion to the book. Real Marriage reads more like a series of seminars than a cohesive introduction-to-conclusion look at a subject.

That kind of says a lot about the book doesn’t it? Especially with these allegations?

Am I accusing Driscoll of plagarizing in Real Marriage? No. But comments made about the editing and structure - and the voice and tone - carry new weight now.

Ironic that Driscoll, who ambushed MacArthur’s conference, is ambushed himself.

What goes around … .

Worth a listen, I think, especially if you believe Janet was wrong in her estimation of and subsequent conduct with Driscoll:
http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2013/11/26/janet-mefferd-radio-show-…

There’s much more to this than “honest mistakes” and such.

Jay, well noted. I’d forgotten about that part of Challies’ review..interesting juxtaposition.

Because of his enormous growth in popularity it’s become more and more difficult to “successfully” call Mark to account privately (or publicly) as people have rightly called for (which actually has been done in the past-to little or no avail). I think this growth is partly due to the orthodox teaching he does put out there, and also partly due to the well respected leaders he’s been able to bring (and keep) aboard, so to speak.

Essentially, it’s been hard to pin him on anything that will stick, damage control has served him well so far-although people have been waking up, especially since his showing at the SFC. Now that plagiarism has been thrown into the mix, and handily so, there’s something a bit more “real” and tangible for those still unconvinced.

Might it be that all things considered, Janet simply wanted a straight/er answer? instead of a sort of “musta made a mistake there, I’ll check into it”. Is it not fair that when he attempted to turn the table onto his host, making her look the fool she should bring the issue back to where it belonged?

Anyway, just my thoughts as to why I found her justified in this.

~Grace & peace all~

I hopped and skipped through that audio file and didn’t hear anything about Driscoll, Suzanne. Did I miss it?

Because of his enormous growth in popularity it’s become more and more difficult to “successfully” call Mark to account privately (or publicly) as people have rightly called for (which actually has been done in the past-to little or no avail). I think this growth is partly due to the orthodox teaching he does put out there, and also partly due to the well respected leaders he’s been able to bring (and keep) aboard, so to speak.

Which actually dovetails in nicely with something I thought of a few moments ago.

There have been multiple instances where Driscoll has been called privately to address some of his earlier issues (by which I mean from years ago). I know, for example, that MacArthur reached out to him privately, esp. in regards to the disaster that was his ‘work’ on the Song of Solomon. I also know that John Piper had reached out to him as well. Multiple people tried before the Elephant Room 2 Conference that culminated with him sitting with TD Jakes (Modalist) and James MacDonald (Universalist) and acting like they were all good Christian brothers.

In every case, the exhortation offered was summarily rejected or declined, usually rudely. It wasn’t until a few years ago that the team over at PyroManiacs finally became exasperated enough to start speaking openly about it via blog. Then, of course, it escalated to the boldfaced lie - now disproven - that GCC ‘confiscated’ his books during the Strange Fire conference about a month ago. Now it’s obvious and open plagiarism in at least two of his works (Resurgence and the Peter book from Mars Hill Publishing). Janet is now also alleging that there is more instances of this kind of thing, according to Twitter this morning.

Proverbs has a lot - and I do mean a lot (Prov. 1:5, 9:9, 25:12 just for starters) - of things to say about receiving instruction, and I really believe that if Driscoll had demonstrated any kind of sincere, honest, and heartfelt response to receiving those kinds of admonitions from years ago, he would not be in this mess. It is because he repeatedly blew off wisdom and instruction that he’s looking at making his ministry a complete and utter shipwreck (if it’s not there already). A Pastor, accused of plagiarism (which is what it is, really - not an accidental mistake)? How can he ever grace a pulpit again with these kinds of moral failings and issues? What else has to happen for people to say, “Mark, we love you and think you’ve got real gifts, but you are clearly disqualified now. Let us help you rebuild your life and church.”

In other words, what has to happen for Mark Driscoll to learn to receive instruction? And the follow up is what happens to all the people that followed him and his ministry as the Pastor / Man of God?

Because really, that’s the issue here. Was this ever a work of God, per se? Or was it just the latest in a long line of evangelical popularity cults?

I have no doubt that people have been saved under his ministry. God can use anything, even animals, for His Glory, and I’m glad He does! But will Driscoll’s crowds dissipate now because the Emperor has no clothes and they’ve been fed a lie? Or will they continue to build, like a wise man, on the Rock of God’s Word and truth in spite of Driscoll’s shenanigans (of which this is merely the very latest in a ignominious line)?

And will all of his devotees/disciples be able to pick up the pieces and continue to minister? Or will they give up on the whole shebang and fall away?

That is the sad end of all this. People will walk away from Jesus Christ because of all of this. They will (rightly) not want anything to do with Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll. They will hear ‘preacher’ and think ‘hypocrite’ (or worse). And all of this - all of it - could have been abrogated or would have never happened if one man had decided to receive the instruction that any believer ought to be able to do.

Greg: “I hopped and skipped through that audio file and didn’t hear anything about Driscoll, Suzanne. Did I miss it?”

The correct page popped up when I tried it just now:
Janet Mefferd Show-11/26/2013
November 26, 2013 by Janet Mefferd Show
Filed under Radio Show…
Hour 2- Janet discusses whether or not Mars Hill Church Pastor Mark Driscoll is guilty of plagiarism.

Maybe try this:
http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2013/11/26/janet-mefferd-radio-show-…

*wonders if “preview post” could be implemented in new version of SI* .. ;D

[Jay]

Because of his enormous growth in popularity it’s become more and more difficult to “successfully” call Mark to account privately (or publicly) as people have rightly called for (which actually has been done in the past-to little or no avail). I think this growth is partly due to the orthodox teaching he does put out there, and also partly due to the well respected leaders he’s been able to bring (and keep) aboard, so to speak.

Which actually dovetails in nicely with something I thought of a few moments ago.

There have been multiple instances where Driscoll has been called privately to address some of his earlier issues (by which I mean from years ago). I know, for example, that MacArthur reached out to him privately, esp. in regards to the disaster that was his ‘work’ on the Song of Solomon. I also know that John Piper had reached out to him as well. Multiple people tried before the Elephant Room 2 Conference that culminated with him sitting with TD Jakes (Modalist) and James MacDonald (Universalist) and acting like they were all good Christian brothers.

In every case, the exhortation offered was summarily rejected or declined, usually rudely. It wasn’t until a few years ago that the team over at PyroManiacs finally became exasperated enough to start speaking openly about it via blog. Then, of course, it escalated to the boldfaced lie - now disproven - that GCC ‘confiscated’ his books during the Strange Fire conference about a month ago. Now it’s obvious and open plagiarism in at least two of his works (Resurgence and the Peter book from Mars Hill Publishing). Janet is now also alleging that there is more instances of this kind of thing, according to Twitter this morning.

Proverbs has a lot - and I do mean a lot (Prov. 1:5, 9:9, 25:12 just for starters) - of things to say about receiving instruction, and I really believe that if Driscoll had demonstrated any kind of sincere, honest, and heartfelt response to receiving those kinds of admonitions from years ago, he would not be in this mess. It is because he repeatedly blew off wisdom and instruction that he’s looking at making his ministry a complete and utter shipwreck (if it’s not there already). A Pastor, accused of plagiarism (which is what it is, really - not an accidental mistake)? How can he ever grace a pulpit again with these kinds of moral failings and issues? What else has to happen for people to say, “Mark, we love you and think you’ve got real gifts, but you are clearly disqualified now. Let us help you rebuild your life and church.”

In other words, what has to happen for Mark Driscoll to learn to receive instruction? And the follow up is what happens to all the people that followed him and his ministry as the Pastor / Man of God?

Because really, that’s the issue here. Was this ever a work of God, per se? Or was it just the latest in a long line of evangelical popularity cults?

I have no doubt that people have been saved under his ministry. God can use anything, even animals, for His Glory, and I’m glad He does! But will Driscoll’s crowds dissipate now because the Emperor has no clothes and they’ve been fed a lie? Or will they continue to build, like a wise man, on the Rock of God’s Word and truth in spite of Driscoll’s shenanigans (of which this is merely the very latest in a ignominious line)?

And will all of his devotees/disciples be able to pick up the pieces and continue to minister? Or will they give up on the whole shebang and fall away?

That is the sad end of all this. People will walk away from Jesus Christ because of all of this. They will (rightly) not want anything to do with Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll. They will hear ‘preacher’ and think ‘hypocrite’ (or worse). And all of this - all of it - could have been abrogated or would have never happened if one man had decided to receive the instruction that any believer ought to be able to do.

Amen, Jay..a hearty amen to all of that.

[Jay] James MacDonald (Universalist)

This isn’t correct, is it?

[DavidO]

[Jay] James MacDonald (Universalist)

This isn’t correct, is it?

Actually, according to his explicit doctrinal statement, it is not. Good catch, DavidO.

MacDonald writes:

Salvation

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, as the substitutionary atonement in our place, and that salvation is found in none other than Jesus Christ. Before Creation, God chose those who would be saved and granted this unearned grace solely based on His sovereign good pleasure. Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was the sole and complete payment for sins, fully satisfying God’s righteous wrath, for each person that turns from sin in repentance and places their faith in Christ alone by grace alone. At salvation each person is made a new creation by the Holy Spirit, declared righteous before God, and secured as an adopted child of God forever. Genuine faith continues in obedience and love for Jesus Christ with a life eager to glorify God and persevere to the end (Romans 8:37-39; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

MacDonald does, however, seem to have myriad other theological issues, including his appearance and acceptance of Jakes at ER2, a definite tendency towards Charismaticism as in his teachings, and other theological baggage including the undealt with accusations of ‘racism’ at his detractors.

So to call him a ‘universalist’ is not correct, and for that I apologize.

the responsibility of Peter Jones and his publisher to let Mark Driscoll and Tyndale know of any copyright issues? Is it really Janet Mefferd’s business?

OR…. is this really an extension of the anti-charismatic attack that Strange Fire launched against Driscoll and others like him? Maybe attack is too strong but they certainly took it to a new level at TMS to directly oppose evangelicals who are not cessationists.