Mark Driscoll Reacts to Janet Mefferd’s Questions About Plagiarism and Strange Fire

"I have a degree in communications from one of the top programs in the United States. So does my wife, Grace. We are used to reporters with agendas and selective editing of long interviews."  Mark Driscoll link

vojak-s-kopimlink

Mark Driscoll continues to live down to TWW's expectations. One would think that, as he ages, he would mellow, get a bit more in-touch with the Spirit and develop a bit of class. Alas, such a change does not appear to be on the horizon and he is getting older. In fairly short order, there was Driscoll's tasteless invasion of the Strange Fire conference here. Now, it appears that Mark is unable to stand up under the direct questioning of Janet Mefferd, a Christian radio talk show host even though he is a communications "expert".

The Justin Brierly interview dustup in which Driscoll insults British Christianity and then blames it on Brierly.

Before we begin, we would like to remind our audience that Driscoll had an infamous interview with Justin Brierly in 2012. The similarities to the Meffferd interview are eerie. Here are some comments he made back then. Funny thing, it sounds like the same old, same old, Driscoll mediocrity is in play. You see, it was all about pushing *his* book back then and that is what it is all about once again link. In this interview he is upset that the interviewer, a man, had exercised "authority" over him. Some things never change!

I have a degree in communications from one of the top programs in the United States. So does my wife, Grace. We are used to reporters with agendas and selective editing of long interviews.”  (If Driscoll is an example of the top programs graduates of this communications program,  I would suggest looking elsewhere for college).

Then he plugs his book and is upset that the interviewer did not ask more about it. Perhaps he was hoping for some free advertisement? 

“With the release of our book, Real Marriage, we have now done literally dozens of interviews with Christians and non-Christians. The interview in question had nearly nothing to do with the book or its subject matter, which in my understanding was supposed to be the point of the interview.”

“But the one that culminated in the forthcoming article was, in my opinion, the most disrespectful, adversarial, and subjective The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic.

This one takes the cake. He is mad that the reporter “exercised his authority" over him. Read that one again!!!

“It felt like a personally offended critic had finally gotten his chance to exercise some authority over me.”
(Poor Mark, he was finally on the receiving end of “authority” and didn’t like it.)

The Janet Mefferd Show 11/21/13

It is our understanding that Driscoll's PR people offered Mefferd the considerable "opportunity" to interview Driscoll link about his new book A Call to Resurgence: Will Christianity Have a Funeral or a Future? As you will see, it did not go so well. Driscoll implied that he did Mefferd a favor by appearing on her show and that he was stunned that she might bring up a question about potential plagiarism in his book. Driscoll loses it and lays into Mefferd, eventually hanging up on her after implying that she is the problem, not him. This is typical spiritual abuse codswallop which is served up on a regular basis by Driscoll.

As you listen to this interview, it is important to understand that Mefferd considers Peter Jones one of the most godly men that she knows, and she is intimately acquainted with his writings, which include One or Two and The God of Sex. That is why she was able to spot the 14 pages in question. At one point, Driscoll admitted that he might have made a "mistake". Fourteen pages is a mere blooper? 


 

Interview low lights

Deb compiled a few comments from the broadcast. We believe in giving credit where credit is due, and here is a sampling of Mark Driscoll’s remarks during his interview with Janet Mefferd link

  • “What I would say, you’re being accusatory and unkind…” (11:48)
  • “Man, I thought we’d have a better interview than this.  It seems like you’re having sort of a grumpy day. “ (12:05)
  • “Maybe I made a mistake…  To be honest with you, I’m sitting here with a head cold and the flu trying to do you a favor…  I thought we were gonna talk about the decline of Christianity and the need for the gospel, and I think you’re illustrating the big need for the book that tribes tend to fight over secondary issues miss primary issues and the result is infighting instead of evangelizing… “   (13:03)
  • You’re not an intellectual property attorney or an intellectual property judge.  You’re rendering a verdict and then you’re trying to enforce a sentence…”  (16:22) 
  • “Well, you’re giving me orders in front of an audience…  (16:43) 
  • “I don’t; I don’t (think it’s a fair question).  I think it’s rude, and I think the intent behind it is not very Christ like, but I’ll receive it, and I’ll try to receive it graciously and humbly, but I wouldn’t allow you to pretend to take a generous gracious moral gospel high ground.   I would not just give you a pass on that out of love for you cause I want you to grow as well, and I think it’s a good opportunity for you to grow as well…   (17:11)
     

Strange Fire Conference and an even stranger Driscoll retort.

For those of you who do not remember, Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald invaded John MacArthur's Strange Fire Conference, attempting to "educate" the attendees as to their objections with MacArthur's theology while distributing free copies of Driscoll's books (It is always about the books, isn't it? They build mansions, don't they?) Mefferd asked Driscoll about this incident. He accused her of succumbing to tribe mentality since she appeared to be supportive of MacArthur. Good night! Pot, meet kettle.

She pressed him further, asking him if he had considered alerting MacArthur as to his intentions. Driscoll responds by stating that he had used "social media." He claims to have in excess of 700,000 followers on Twitter and believed that they would have conveyed the message to Strange Fire. Hundreds of thousands of followers are simply waiting to carry Driscoll's water? 

Driscoll claimed he had a head cold and the flu.

I am a nurse and I have seen sick patients act with far more class and kindness than this man. Driscoll's history of such remarks does not give him a pass for a head cold. He has done worse in good shape. Besides, I thought he was a big, strong, manly leader who can punch out opponents. Surely he could overcome a little cold.

How does Mark Driscoll's tribe view plagiarism?

Mark Driscoll is a fan of D.A. Carson link. So I decided to see what D.A. Carson has to say about plagiarism link. He thinks it is "wicked" and believes a pastor should be fired or should resign if he is caught in plagiarizing a sermon.

Taking over another sermon and preaching it as if it were yours is always and unequivocally wrong, and if you do it you should resign or be fired immediately.

The wickedness is along at least three axes: (1) You are stealing. (2) You are deceiving the people to whom you are preaching.

 If preaching is God’s truth through human personality (so Phillips Brooks), then serving as nothing more than a kind of organic recording device in playback mode does not qualify. 

Mars Hill takes intellectual property  seriously, having threatened to sue a church in California that had a similar trademark logo link

Officials from the Ballard, Washington, multi site church say a member called attention to the Sacramento church's website, asking if the churches were connected. When elders saw a logo similar to their own, which has been in use since 1996, they sent a cease-and-desist letter to Sacramento's Mars Hill Community Church, which has three locations if its own. Mars Hill Seattle filed an application to trademark its name and logo in August. 

Here is a statement from the recipient of the "cease and desist" letter. 

Our concern stemmed from a letter we received from Stokes & Lawrence asking that we cease all use of our name, domain names and all artwork. The letter stated we had a two-week window for compliance. It was very unsettling knowing that, if enforced by a court (which it appears it could), it would cost our ministry and our two satellite plants thousands of dollars to rebrand, redesign, reprint and re-educate our regions of the changes."

Mark hid behind his lawyers and threatened to sue another church. Why? Is it because California is ripe for Mark Driscoll satellites?

The legal team (they need lots of lawyers, I guess) for Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll will sue your sorry dupa if you infringe on their copyright link.

I enjoyed reading this thorough page on their rules. It is obvious that this crowd is not going to cut anyone any slack. Here is a "Fair Use" excerpt from their website. We must be very careful. Note to legal team: We want to give Mark Driscoll and associates full intellectual property rights on this one.

Unless otherwise provided on the Site, all sermons, lectures or other teachings, in any format, and all articles and blogs contained on the Site are copyright protected material owned by the author of such material and made available on the Site through a license granted by the author to Mars Hill.

If you have any questions concerning the usage or licensing of material or other Content contained on the Site, please submit your questions in writing to our Legal Team at legal@marshill.com.

Grace Driscoll has also been accused of playing fast and loose with intellectual property link

Wenatchee the Hatchet:(ed. note: Wenatchee is an expert on all things Mars Hill)
What I find troublesome about Grace Driscoll's appropriation of Dan Allender's terms and concepts is not simply that she never gives him any credit, it's that during 2011 when the Driscoll book was in its run-up for promotional touring Mars Hill Graduate School changed its name to remove "Mars Hill". 2011 was also the same year that cease and desist letter got sent out. It cumulatively raises the question of whether or not Mars Hill leadership isn't a bit more cavalier about the intellectual property of other people than it wishes to be about its own content. I find the Mars Hill double standard about the sadness of others copying Mars Hill material while not acknowledging Grace Driscoll's clearly testified debt to the work of Dan Allender puzzling. All it would have taken was a single footnote or endnote, after all.

Here is an assessment from Thou Art the Man in a post called Gospel Centered Plagiarism link

I was very happy to hear Janet Mefferd ask Mark Driscoll some tough questions during her interview.  I was even happier to hear her stay the course as Mark Driscoll attempted to use a tactic common to narcissistic, authoritative men in positions of church leadership.  The tactic is to attempt to turn the conversation from the question at hand to one of questioning the questioner’s spiritual condition.  In this case when Mefferd was pressing Driscoll on the plagiarism issue he attempted to change the subject matter by stating “You’re being accusatory and unkind.” And then he implies that all is not lost for the weak Christian sister because she can turn this into an opportunity to grow.  Undoubtedly this technique has worked for Driscoll 98% of the time, but it didn’t work with Janet Mefferd.  Unaccustomed to having someone stand their ground Driscoll did what most narcissistic bullies do, terminated the conversation by hanging up his phone!

Once again, Driscoll causes an uproar. TWW believes that Driscoll is in desperate need of accountability. This guy lurches from crisis to crisis and all of his buddies and leaders turn a blind eye. John Piper said that he loves Mark Driscoll's theology. However, I believe that one's true beliefs come to the surface when one is challenged. 

Norman Vincent Peale said

The trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism.

A pastor who lashes out at his critics, hides behind lawyers and sycophants, or becomes angry at those who ask him honest questions is a weak man who has not understood how to apply the Gospel to his life. This Gospel should bring out humility and love instead of defensive and "manly" bombastic posturing. 

Update 7:55 PM 11/22 From Jonathan Merritt's blog here

I contacted the publicity department at Tyndale House Publishers and requested a comment on the matter. Todd Starowitz of Tyndale provided the following statement:

Tyndale House Publishers was provided a recording of the show by representatives of Pastor Driscoll. A number of people at Tyndale reviewed the tape and were stunned, not only by the accusations, but by the belligerent tone of Ms. Mefferd’s questioning. When Ms. Mefferd asked Pastor Driscoll her first question to accuse him of plagiarism, she did not invoke Peter Jones’s name. The first person that Pastor Driscoll credited in his response was Mr. Jones. Pastor Driscoll also credits Mr. Jones in the section that Janet refers to in Mark’s book, A Call to Resurgence.

Tyndale has taken immediate steps as in the process of reviewing the section of Pastor Driscoll’s book that has been called into question. Pastor Driscoll has also reached out to Mr. Jones and we expect to be able to release some information on his reaction to the interview very soon.

He went on to say that though Mefferd accused Driscoll of hanging up on her at the end of the interview, in the raw audio provided by representatives of Driscoll, he is clearly heard saying, “I’m still here.” 

Dee comments on 11/23: The best thing that could happen to Driscoll is to have his microphone turned off. He is his own worst enemy.

Lydia's Corner: Isaiah 3:1-5:30 2 Corinthians 11:1-15 Psalm 53:1-6 Proverbs 22:28-29

Comments

Mark Driscoll Reacts to Janet Mefferd’s Questions About Plagiarism and Strange Fire — 260 Comments

  1. Driscoll’s fanbois are not going to care about a little plagiarism. It’s going to take something like former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards’ famous statement about being found with a dead girl or live boy before Driscoll’s fan club is shaken up. (I was trying to figure out a way to work in the 1991 bumper sticker “Vote for the crook, it’s important,” but I give up.)

    Seriously, though, plagiarism used to be a kiss of death for a career in journalism, although less so in politics. As for preachers, it’s kind of hard to have ethics about plagiarism considering that preachers package up their successful sermon series and sell them to other churches. Driscoll probably thought he was bestowing a beatific favor on Peter Jones. Or something.

    I have enough problems with Driscoll that this interview doesn’t shift my already abysmal opinion of him. *shrug* Middle-aged, educated, heathen, gainfully-employed, taxpaying women are not his audience, obviously.

  2. Mark Driscoll didn’t hang up-

    audio provided by Tyndale.

    http://audiour.com/playlist/3lewj0or

    I would think Tyndale monitors authors interviews, or the clip was provided by Mefferd.

    As a former broadcaster, if someone requested an interview, they did not get to dictate to me or anyone else in the newsroom what it was going to be about.
    Driscoll comes across as a very difficult person to talk to, he wants to talk at…
    If you are in the biz, you have to interview difficult, people, people you don’t like. It is draining, and it takes a lot of concentration not to get defensive.

    Regardless of what any of us think about the players, isn’t this interview a win-win in the pr department for Mefferd and Driscoll?
    Controversy draws audience.

    Seems to me Tyndale and Peter Jones could clear this up quickly.

  3. Let’s see…if Mark Driscoll put his hand over the mouth piece and kept talking…wouldn’t the recording on his side pick up his voice, and the recording on Janet Mefferd’s end fail to pick it up? I’m a non-techy fossil but this one seems obvious. Also, I’m appalled at Tyndale Houses’s rep’s statement. Belligerent indeed. CYA…yet another attribute of the fearless leaders in ministry and industry.

  4. Bene D wrote:

    Regardless of what any of us think about the players, isn’t this interview a win-win in the pr department for Mefferd and Driscoll? Controversy draws audience.

    I don't see this as a win-win at all. Mefferd asked reasonable questions, and Driscoll demonstrated the bullying tactics he has likely been using throughout his ministry. Now we know why there are so many bodies under the Mars Hill bus.

  5. I’ve taught journalism, worked as a communications manager, and done plenty of PR in the process. A couple of the cardinal rules of credible PR are to always tell your story truthfully, and to be the first to admit it when you’ve done something wrong. This puts you ahead of the story and builds credibility.

    And you don’t dictate the questions to a journalist. Ever.

    It does not appear that Driscoll is aware of even these basics of good communications.

    As for Tyndale, they have a significant financial stake in the book publishing, so I’d not be surprised if their story is affected by that. I’d be a lot more interested in the recording from Mefferd’s side.

    Driscoll’s approach just guarantees that any time he and his people encounter a real journalist with tough questions and follow-ups, they will just fall apart or run. The Mefferd interview may have been one of the first times, but it almost surely won’t be the last.

  6. John wrote:

    I’ve taught journalism, worked as a communications manager, and done plenty of PR in the process. A couple of the cardinal rules of credible PR are to always tell your story truthfully, and to be the first to admit it when you’ve done something wrong. This puts you ahead of the story and builds credibility.
    And you don’t dictate the questions to a journalist. Ever.
    It does not appear that Driscoll is aware of even these basics of good communications.
    As for Tyndale, they have a significant financial stake in the book publishing, so I’d not be surprised if their story is affected by that. I’d be a lot more interested in the recording from Mefferd’s side.
    Driscoll’s approach just guarantees that any time he and his people encounter a real journalist with tough questions and follow-ups, they will just fall apart or run. The Mefferd interview may have been one of the first times, but it almost surely won’t be the last.

    Great points.

    I pity anyone who believes a word Mark Driscoll says.

    He claims that his degree in communications is from “one of the top programs in the United States” but, as you point out, he doesn’t appear to have learned very much about basic journalistic practices. Maybe that lack of knowledge is explained by the fact that, contrary to his claims, his alma mater (Washington State) appears nowhere on this list of the top programs for communications, http://www.america.edu/top_20_communication_programs_in_america.html.

    I think he ought to boast less about his supposed knowledge and instead take the time to actually learn how to be a Christian.

  7. I was amazed at the number of times Mark tried to excuse his omission of Peter Jones credit by repeating over and over that Peter is my friend, he had dinner at my house, he is my friend, he is my friend……

    Also amazing is his consistent effort to control the course of the interview and when that doesn’t work, resorts to name calling and character assignation. Try the bait & switch first and when all else fails….attack!!

    Defensive and arrogant.

  8. Mefferd discussed this situation further on her show today in the first five or ten minutes of this audio:

    Hour 2, Janet Mefferd Show-11/22/2013

    Mefferd said Driscoll did hang up – or he at least was not there. She said she does not want anyone to get preoccupied over whether or not he hung up or not, but that she said there was dead silence on her end of the phone after she asked a question.

    My understanding is that she seems to think maybe Driscoll did not hang up but did walk off and leave the phone sitting there, or was just sitting there silent by the phone. The point is, he was not answering her.

    She also disputes this portrayal:
    “but by the belligerent tone of Ms. Mefferd’s questioning”

    Mefferd said she does not think she was being “belligerent” but was only pressing Driscoll for an answer, because he was not being forthcoming.

    Mefferd said she has received a lot of e-mails from people criticizing her and supporting Driscoll. I’m surprised. I think Driscoll came off poorly in that exchange, not her.

  9. What gets me about Mark is that he claims when he started out that he wanted a church that appealed to men and claimed that men were not interested because the churches tended to be too feminzed and lacked a certain machismo. My dad actually believed quite the opposite about church and found preachers being too egotistical. His dad was a banker and knew how often preachers would distort things like storehouse tithe.

  10. About the original post (which is quoting Driscoll):

    The only questions asked were about any controversial thing I’ve ever said in the past 15 years with a host of questions that were adversarial and antagonistic.

    This is something I brought up yesterday on the other thread.

    Driscoll says and does very controversial things (and IMO he does so on purpose to rile people up). But then he acts angry and offended when journalists ask him about whatever controversial stunts or statements he’s made.

    How can he get so offended or hostile over a situation that he has created himself?

    If he doesn’t want the attention to go to his antics (the outrageous, rude or crude comments, the yelling at people, etc), maybe he should cut the antics.

    He only has himself to blame for journalists being distracted by his shenanigans.

    Original Post:

    It is our understanding that Driscoll’s PR people offered Mefferd the considerable “opportunity” to interview Driscoll link

    Yes, Mefferd repeated on today’s program that she was approached by Driscoll’s people, she did not invite him.

    Mefferd also mentioned on today’s show- and I agree with her characterization – that Driscoll’s comments to her were patronizing.

    Driscoll:

    “I don’t; I don’t (think it’s a fair question). I think it’s rude, and I think the intent behind it is not very Christ like, but I’ll receive it, and I’ll try to receive it graciously and humbly

    He was the total opposite of gracious and humble about it.

    The OP:

    John Piper said that he loves Mark Driscoll’s theology.

    Mefferd made a very interesting comment about Driscoll’s behavior after the Driscoll interview on her show yesterday.

    She said it’s not enough to have sound doctrine but that Christians must live out the faith.

    The OP quoting Tyndale:

    also credits Mr. Jones in the section that Janet refers to in Mark’s book, A Call to Resurgence.

    Yes, Mefferd brought that up in the first show about this, but she said it was a small note in passing on one page, the first page of the section in question, and was very generic.

    She’s upset that Driscoll apparently copied fourteen pages of content and did not attribute all 14 pages to the proper author.

  11. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, LOVE the quote from Mefferd that you included: “It’s not enough to have sound doctrine that Christians must live out the faith.” To me, that quote should be common sense to anyone who’s ever read the N.T. But from my own experiences in an A29 “Church” I’ve come to the conclusion that the boys who run these “churches” don’t believe that. Rather, they are gnostics who think that all the matters is affirming (mental ascent) the correct set of doctrinal beliefs. How you actually live your life is of little importance. What a truly sad state of affairs.

  12. @ Alan:

    I was paraphrasing her comments based on memory, so that might not be a 100% word- for- word repeat of what she said, but that was the gist of it, and I agree with it. 🙂

    Mefferd has taken a lot of flack off a lot of people around the internet over the Driscoll interview.

    Most people appear to be standing up for Driscoll! I am very surprised by that.

    I don’t think Mefferd did anything wrong or deceitful, but I’ve already seen one or two posters suggest they think Mefferd set Driscoll up, or did something underhanded on purpose, like fiddled with the audio/phone line on purpose or whatever.

    I think she has lots of integrity and Driscoll close to none. I’m shocked that so many people think he’s a paragon of virtue when it’s clear he is not.

  13. I hate to make this comparison, but it won’t leave my brain: Mark Driscoll is to Evangelicalism what Rob Ford is to the office of Mayor. Both have large numbers of critics far beyond their sphere of influence, both draw controversy wherever they go, neither can stay out of trouble for long, and both have, incomprehensibly, a gaggle of fanboys who support them no matter how odious the charges.

  14. If there is a plagiarism charge it would be pretty easy to say pages x-y in this book lift from pages a-b of that book and then show the text side by side. I haven’t listened to the interview yet (yeah, foot meet mouth) so maybe she gave specifics on this. Has this side by side comparison been shown yet?

  15. @ srs:

    Has this side by side comparison been shown yet?

    Not that I am aware, but I don’t believe plagiarism has to be strictly a word-for-word repetion, but could be taking the guy’s ideas and just rewording them a bit (and maybe there is a differing legal standard?).

    Mefferd did allude to some of the similarities, but I can’t recall the details.

    She mentioned that Driscoll copied a concept in his book that was specific to Jones, that Jones first came up with in one of his books about pagan religion, something about ‘One’ and ‘Two’ and ‘binary gender’ roles or something.

  16. I remember the Justin Brierly interview, which was well publicized in the UK. It damaged Mark Driscoll’s reputation quite considerably, particularly because he blamed Justin afterwards and appeared to have no insight into his rude and overbearing attitude. His UK profile has dipped considerably – he probably blames Justin or the Brits.

    Supporters of Driscoll in the UK did not leap to his defence but said things like ‘you decide.’ i.e. sat on the fence. All this I think was a good thing because the last thing we need in the UK is a Driscoll influence. Most people here are anyway distrustful of celebrity type authoritarian leaders after seeing where it leads.

    Justin did what he was trained to do as a journalist, shine light on what was going on and in the process Mark Driscoll exposed his own character faults for which he has little insight.

    The world is a better place for people like Justin and Janet, in my view. We need more investigative journalism in Christian churches. We shouldn’t be surprised if morally corrupt and authoritarian leaders use moral blackmail to defend themselves and the people who support them use the same tactics.

  17. The man is a bore…….me, me, me, is all I glean from him. Real manly men, as in Jesus, focus on on the well being of others, not on their miserable, little, whiny selves.

  18. Daisy wrote:

    If he doesn’t want the attention to go to his antics (the outrageous, rude or crude comments, the yelling at people, etc), maybe he should cut the antics.

    Preach it. As Bob Newhart said “Stop It!”

  19. Listened to Mefferd and Driscoll go at it earlier today. I thought Janet did harp on the plagiarism point a little, but given her career as a writer and journalist, I think I can see why.

    And she is right about one thing for sure: Correct doctrine means zero for Christians unless our lives are Christlike — lived with integrity and love. From what I’ve read and seen, Driscoll and his ilk fall far behind in that respect.

  20. Alan wrote:

    But from my own experiences in an A29 “Church” I’ve come to the conclusion that the boys who run these “churches” don’t believe that.

    We have received some fascinating information on how Acts 29 screws up church plants. There are people who plan to go on record. These guys are egotistical clods who think they know “how to do it.” This is amusing and we will prove it.

  21. Serving Kids in Japan wrote:

    I thought Janet did harp on the plagiarism point a little, but given her career as a writer and journalist, I think I can see why.

    It is a terribly important issue. People lose jobs over this in the real world. However, in certain circles in the evangelical community, they will be revered for their manly act of appropriation.

  22. Val wrote:

    both have, incomprehensibly, a gaggle of fanboys who support them no matter how odious the charges

    There are Driscoll sycophants everywhere. He is their hero-the guy who can act like a boor while swilling microbrews and pretending he is actually young and handsome. See – he is the manliest of Christians, and they believe it.

    They overlook the fact that he lives like a king, has exceedingly poor hermeneutics, is condescending to women and anyone who does not agree with him, and anyone else that might question *him.*

    His little band of followers shows up here from time to time. Currently, I am waiting for Joe who claims he doesn’t go to his church, etc. but defends everything Driscoll.

    Mark places a few phone calls and the boys show up. Plagiarism is a serious deal. If Driscoll did it, then he is in trouble, not matter how many Cuban cigars he smokes and how many microbrews he swills.

  23. Peter wrote:

    The world is a better place for people like Justin and Janet, in my view. We need more investigative journalism in Christian churches

    You should see the comments around the internet, denigrating Mefferd for exposing some honest questions.  Of course, the majority are from the boorish people who seem to surround Driscoll. I am so glad to hear that Driscoll was not well-received in England after his Brierly interview. Driscoll behaved in usual fashion and I feared his fanboys would celebrate his "technique." It sounds like the British people have a bit more class and sense.

  24. John wrote:

    I’ve taught journalism, worked as a communications manager, and done plenty of PR in the process. A couple of the cardinal rules of credible PR are to always tell your story truthfully,

    Driscoll appears to have some trouble in recalling his actions, be they be in appropriation of material or confronting people who attacked him with a “machete.”

  25. It’s quite common for writers to have friends and fellow writers review their books before they are published. I’m wondering if Driscoll had his friend Peter Jones review this book?

  26. @ Deb: Hey, think about it this way. The best thing that could happen to Driscoll is to have the microphone turned off!!!! He is his own worst enemy!!

  27. It would be worthwhile seeing a side-by-side comparison here. Three possibilities exist:

    1. Copy-and-paste wording… very bad.

    2. Extremely close paraphrase… quite bad, but that’s on a sliding scale depending on similarity.

    3. Mefferd is out to lunch.

  28. @ John:

    Do you not think that Driscoll would have some handlers who know this and could keep him out of trouble? I mean, it is pretty obvious that Driscoll cannot deal with this sort of thing. Is it usual and customary for people as inept (pick a word) as Driscoll to step into this kind of situation? Much as I am not a fan on Driscoll, I have to ask, do journalists go looking for the doofuses like this to selectively target, or do the just luck onto one from time to time?

  29. Here’s the issue for me with the way the interview ended. If Driscoll didn’t hang up and ‘wanted’ to finish the interview, or at least not end it with a disconnection and controversy, then why didn’t he “Act Like a Man” and call Janet back to clear the issue up? One thing is certain, there’s a lot more controversy and attention given to him this way.

  30. Nancy wrote:

    @ John:
    Do you not think that Driscoll would have some handlers who know this and could keep him out of trouble? I mean, it is pretty obvious that Driscoll cannot deal with this sort of thing. Is it usual and customary for people as inept (pick a word) as Driscoll to step into this kind of situation? Much as I am not a fan on Driscoll, I have to ask, do journalists go looking for the doofuses like this to selectively target, or do the just luck onto one from time to time?

    Driscoll subject to a “handler?” That would be a sight to behold!!

  31. I am not a Mark Driscoll fan, but, having listened to the interview, I think that Mefferd hung on the point longer than she needed to. I think she was right to bring the issue up, but did not need to discuss it for as long as she did on air.

    Another point worth raising is that Driscoll did not hang up on Mefferd, as evidenced by the raw audio (Google it). If Mefferd is going to subject Mefferd to scrutiny regarding truth according to facts, then she needs to undergo the same scrutiny.

  32. After reading this post yesterday, going to the links, reading more about the Strange Fire incident, and also skimming the contents of his book at Amazon, I was left with the impression that Mark does have a important message of concern on tribalism even though yes he does have an ego problem, he started church planting and ministry at a young age which explains a lot. To be honest I don't like what happened to him at the conference either. I respect Mefferd in what she does and the questions, Mark needs to chill out and respect her role. She often poses but in this "tribalism" issue does concern me.

  33. (submitted for completion) Sorry I did not complete my thought Here is the problem in most American churches though. I have a question as it is the Sabbath today and I know people can have different views on this but there is a divide in this country with conservative evangelicals and Jews when overwhelmingly Jews still identify themselves as liberals. 70% still voted for a very anti-Israel candidate in the last election. The Acts 15 council does say the Torah (Law of Moses ) was still read on every Sabbath in the assemblies and had from the start of their ministry. Why is this missed? What about not tithing on the seventh year or honoring a special budget for the widows and orphans on the third and sixth year? How bout cancelling a loan on the seventh. Something I was reading about the ministry of Jesus was part of his three year ministry was on a year of Jubilee which explains so much about what he said without implying a removal of the Torah. I read that in several different sources. We need to get some clues on this people.

  34. I am biased, here, and Mefferd is not getting any automatic benefit of the doubt from me. Mea culpa. That said, here is the story.

    Once upon a time long long ago before I was quite as “tough” as I now suppose myself to be, a “journalist” did a number on me. I had replied in writing a comment of two sentences in response to an invitation from the “journalist” for listener / Now, reader comments. Next thing I knew “they” had changed the wording of what I had said so that it said something entirely different, and had printed it in their magazine as if I were commenting about an entirely different question. That, of course, made me look like an idiot and a fool. There are too many mistakes in this incident for it to have been anything but intentional.

    So I said, “Well, Nancy, you have paid for education before in the matter of tuition, just consider that you have paid for some education again in the matter of humiliation. Pick yourself up and move on and don’t do this again.”

    The “they” in this story was Focus on the Family. Now, I don’t know Mefferd from Job’s rhinoceros. She may be god’s gift to integrity in reporting, or whatever. But I am not much about hearing some journalist telling anybody at all, not even Driscoll, that one ought to act liked a christian. Never mind the christian stuff, I will settle for just plain old truth whoever tells it. Just saying.

    And Pope Francis needs to learn to stay away from the media before they do him in. He certainly seems to be trying to act like a christian. But he may need to learn when to keep his mouth shut.

  35.  (ed. note It is my belief) that Mark Driscoll is a complete liar about his “just in the area” deception. He specifically went there to be controversial. He didn’t “meet” the pastor’s son, he was confronted by him. Of course they aren’t going to be hostile to him, but he is intentionally misleading people by saying that it was all a “friendly encounter” with the Strange Fire staff and they were “welcoming him” to the conference. What bunk!

    (ed. note- I believe that) he lied about about the above, he lied about plagiarizing. Why do people think that having a friend and having them over for dinner gives them the right to plagiarize?

    Mark Driscoll plays fast and loose with Christian morals. He preaches one thing, but he will absolutely sue your butt off, will even cause you great pain in your personal life. Question him? Hold HIM to the fire? He expects a free pass. Good for Mefferd for not backing down!

  36. Mark

    I made a few changes to your comment in order to protect you. If you disagree, please let me know.

  37. Participant Observer wrote:

    I think that Mefferd hung on the point longer than she needed to. I think she was right to bring the issue up, but did not need to discuss it for as long as she did on air.

    So, how long is too long? For example, Richard Land lost his job for plagiarizing far less than 14 pages? Is there are sliding scale time limit for commentary? I found the subject fascinating and thought it could have gone on.

    Participant Observer wrote:

    If Mefferd is going to subject Mefferd to scrutiny regarding truth according to facts, then she needs to undergo the same scrutiny.

    If you read to the end of the post, you will see that I did an update on the “hang up.” And she is subject to scrutiny. The recordings have been made public so she is quite open to being critiqued. In fact, it seems like she is more open to such critique than a certain bombastic pastor.

  38. Casey wrote:

    Mark does have a important message of concern on tribalism

    I believe that Driscoll is the head of his own tribe and he is nasty to anyone who disagrees with his obviously superior take on church life.

  39. Merritt said –

    " . . . He went on to say that though Mefferd accused Driscoll of hanging up on her at the end of the interview, in the raw audio provided by representatives of Driscoll, he is clearly heard saying, “I’m still here.”

    It is also "possible" that representatives of Driscoll continued to record Driscoll after the phone had been disconnected and then they posted that audio. There are all kinds of possibilities for the disconnect . . . just sayin.

  40. dee wrote:

    Serving Kids in Japan wrote:
    I thought Janet did harp on the plagiarism point a little, but given her career as a writer and journalist, I think I can see why.
    It is a terribly important issue. People lose jobs over this in the real world. However, in certain circles in the evangelical community, they will be revered for their manly act of appropriation.

    In the academic and journalism world, the sure way to unemployment is to plagiarize a piece….and never find a job in that world again…

  41. Thanks Dee, I completely agree. It certainly is just my opinion, not a “fact”. Thanks for helping me clarify my opinion. What seems obvious to one isn’t always what is obvious to someone else.

  42. Nancy wrote:

    Error: Mefferd, not Medford. That was an oversight, not an intentional slight. I apologize.

    I corrected the spelling in your comment.

  43. @ Nancy:

    Don’t know if Driscoll has handlers, but suspect if he does he is calling the shots and not them. It seems to be his MO. Journalists are interested in a story, direct from the source if at all possible. If the source is a high profile individual whose actions raise some serious questions, that’s going to be part of the story for sure. There is attack journalism and sensationalism, but from what I have read the Mefferd interview was nowhere near that. She sounds like a pro. Pushing for a straight answer is not an attack. It’s what journalists do. Just my 2 cents.

  44. @ Nancy:
    Sorry to hear that Nancy,

    I do note that it was Focus on the Family, not real journalism (say the Times magazine). More and more has come out about that organization, and none of it good, so, sadly, it doesn’t surprise me.

    Pope Francis has plenty of handlers in Rome. If the American press turns, it won’t change his image much, as most of this fan base is Latin American and European. Americans are often overlooked of interviews, etc. I doubt they put much stock in the US’ opinion of him.

  45. My daughter’s SAT scores were high enough to get her into Mark’s alma mater. I don’t want to ‘dis’ WSU too much since I have friends and family from there as well but it still hold’s the best rep for those who want to party their way through college in our state. My daughter was an athletic recruit to UMBC but she needed to raise her SAT score to be accepted. She majored in communications because it was considered to be the easiest degree offered by this honors university. These courses saved her from the brainwashing of SGM and Mars Hill Seattle types as they taught her about rhetoric and double speak, which even though she does not care to use her major for a career, that education was perfect for her IMO.

  46. @ Nancy:

    I used to listen to and read a lot of James Dobson. While he has a much more loving or ‘chickified’ * sound to his rhetoric, I was always left with the same icky feeling that I feel after listening to Mark Driscoll sermons or other staunch authoritarians. Of course back then I was always repenting to God of the ‘issue I had with authority’ that they all told me was my problem. “Why oh why” I would cry out to God and ask him for that peace that other women claimed to have about this submission stuff. Since then I have learned that I don’t have trouble and never really did with true authority.

    *credit to Mark Driscoll

  47. dee wrote:

    If he doesn’t want the attention to go to his antics (the outrageous, rude or crude comments, the yelling at people, etc), maybe he should cut the antics.

    Preach it. As Bob Newhart said “Stop It!”

    I should have put the roll eye emoticon after my comments there, as in 🙄

    There are a few women pop stars who operated like this before Driscoll, the same modus operandi: they use their sexuality or other controversy to get attention, but when the media understandably questions them about their outrageous stunts (the crotch- grabbing in videos, wearing cone bras on stage, etc), they get flustered, offended, and complain,
    “Why do journalists only ask about my body and controversies? It should be about the music! How come nobody takes me seriously as an artist??”

    Yes, well, if you want people to focus on the music, then make it about the music, stop flashing your ta-ta’s in every video and magazine spread.

    With Driscoll, I have the same advice:
    if you want it all to be about Jesus, then make it about Jesus already!

    Stop making calculated, inflammatory, or bizarre comments about men you perceive to be effeminate, or claims about having porn-O-visions, and so on.

  48. dee wrote:

    However, in certain circles in the evangelical community, they will be revered for their manly act of appropriation.

    I’ve read (by former IFBs) that this is somewhat common of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist preachers.

    IFB preachers preach against worldly stuff (they tell people not to listen to “worldly” music, do not watch television), but they will sometimes use Non Christian photos, music, and other material in their books, without asking permission first, and without giving credit.

    When this practice is questioned, they will rationalize it by quoting Bible verses about how God will reward the plunder of unbelievers to believers, how God owes it all, or it’s because used in a Christian book or church service, so that makes it okay.

  49. dee wrote:

    His little band of followers shows up here from time to time. Currently, I am waiting for Joe who claims he doesn’t go to his church, etc. but defends everything Driscoll.

    I am apt to believe the people who say they do not attend Preacher X’s church.

    I think that might be true that they don’t attend the guy’s church, but on some level, they admire or relate to Preacher X, or, they think Preacher X holds and defends the same theology and lifestyle they do.

    Therefore, they are probably viewing criticisms of ‘Preacher X’ (or criticisms of anything he says or does) as being a criticism of them, their world view, proper theology, or on the Gospel itself.

  50. E.G. wrote:

    Three possibilities exist:
    1. Copy-and-paste wording… very bad.
    2. Extremely close paraphrase… quite bad, but that’s on a sliding scale depending on similarity.
    3. Mefferd is out to lunch.

    I don’t believe in 3. Mefferd strikes me as being a genuine, humble person. I’ve listened to her show on a regular basis for a year or more.

    Driscoll, though, has a history of being hyper- defensive, rude, condescending. Driscoll’s character I question based on his track record, hers, not so much.

    There’s another possibility…

    As I said above, even if Driscoll’s book was not a word for word copy, or not even a real close paraphrase, he could have lifted ideas and concepts that were unique to the first author.

    That was one charge I do remember Mefferd bringing up in the show, that Driscoll “borrowed” Jones’ concept of “one” and “two” in discussing the pagan tendency to idolize sexuality.

  51. Nancy wrote:

    But I am not much about hearing some journalist telling anybody at all, not even Driscoll, that one ought to act liked a christian.

    Why not? Driscoll needs to hear it from someone, because he does not act like a Christian, and the people in his inner circle may be “thrown under the bus” if they dare confront him or correct him or hint he may not be acting like a Christian.

    This is the attitude and character of the man we are discussing:
    Mark Driscoll – There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus

    I’m not surprised that Mefferd though Driscoll hung up on her, because by the time his line went silent, he was acting pretty snotty, things had gotten heated, so it did seem like he hung up on her. That was the impression I got when I was listening to the show.

    Driscoll also behaved in an identical fashion with Christian radio host Justin Brierly a couple of years ago, and Brierly did not act rude or unfair towards Driscoll.

    Driscoll has a huge ego, carries a chip on his shoulder, and goes Looking For and Expecting to be attacked in interviews.

  52. @ Patti:

    I am sorry to hear that, and glad you worked your way to “a better place” like they say. Some of Dobson’s stuff was way off the path, IMO.

    I used to catch his program by accident sometimes while I was driving. I am not good at driving and also working the audio in the car, so I just left it alone. Dobson was not a favorite, but sometimes a program would be on a topic of interest. I should have been more careful. Now I know.

    I never did pay any attention to that “submission” or “quit your job” bit. But I go way back before more folks time. Back then the whole nation was more into “the ship is going down, all hands on deck, all passengers to the life boats.” The “s” word was not submit but rather survive.

    Mostly Dobson was talking about child rearing. I did not agree with him much about child rearing either. What? Little girls and little boys can’t figure out which kind they are unless they are carefully dressed in pink or blue from age 3 hours on? And what, if some child got confused about it that is because the parents used an incorrect shade of pink or blue? Some little girl played with her brother’s toy wrecker when she was young, and now she is pastor of some methodist church, and it is all to the blame of that afternoon with the toy wrecker because obviously now she thinks she is a boy. That is just so ridiculous in so many ways. IMO he did not need to be talking about either children or women. I should never drive with the radio on.

    But at least he did not threaten to beat people up, like some folks we know.

  53. @ dee:

    Thanks Dee. You touched on an important point regarding A29 “churches”: the idea that “they know how to do it.” Of all the things that bother me about these types, the one thing that makes me absolutely sick is the over the top arrogance. These clowns act like they invented church. No church was ever worth a darn until they came along. They are the generation that the world has been waiting for with baited breath. At the one I attended, none of the “pastors” could ever be on stage without telling us how great one of the other “pastors” is. The ultimate mutual admiration society, and those of us in the pews…..er….folding chairs…. are the luckiest people in the world to merely be allowed to be in their presence.

  54. @ dee:

    And other than being subjected to a few critical editorials about her interview with Driscoll by professional online Christian magazines, she also appears to be getting a heck of a lot of blow back from average joe Christians on Twitter, Facebook, and in blog comment sections.

    Mefferd has already been under a ton of scrutiny for this. She addressed some of the critical comments from ‘average joe’s’ personally on her Twitter page, too.

    Driscoll, though, is getting away with it all, nothing sticks, like he is coated with Teflon.

  55. Casey wrote:

    After reading this post yesterday, going to the links, reading more about the Strange Fire incident, and also skimming the contents of his book at Amazon, I was left with the impression that Mark does have a important message of concern on tribalism even though yes he does have an ego problem, he started church planting and ministry at a young age which explains a lot. To be honest I don’t like what happened to him at the conference either. I respect Mefferd in what she does and the questions, Mark needs to chill out and respect her role. She often poses but in this “tribalism” issue does concern me.

    Casey, you wrote: “I don’t like what happened to him at the conference either.” Wow! Are you refering to his antics at the Strange Fire conf?? If so, how can you write…”What happened to him”??? Sorry Casey, but he caused all of that!! He’s not some victim. Sheesh……

  56. @ dee:

    I agree. I think Mark Driscoll is about Mark Driscoll, not about Jesus. I don’t care how often he says in interviews he wants to “talk about Jesus.” I think the truth is that he uses Jesus Christ as an excuse to get some time in the spot light.

    The interesting thing about Driscoll is that he’s in it for the fame, IMO.

    Whereas most other preachers (such as the word of faith ones) are in ministry for the money ($$$) and big houses, I think Driscoll is mostly in it for the fame and attention.

    Christians are supposed to emulate Jesus.

    If Jesus Christ had looked, acted, thought, or treated people even remotely the way Driscoll behaves, I would never have accept Jesus as Savior when I was a kid.

  57. I read a book about domestic violence about a week ago, by a man who has treated abusive men for over 15 years.

    (This is pertinent to the Driscoll-Mefferd dust up.)

    The author has a chapter discussing the variety of abusive men he has encountered.

    He says one of the trickiest types are the ones who come across as sensitive, and/or calm-voiced ones.

    He says it’s common for women married/dating such men to be thrown for a loop. They suspect they are being abused but can’t put their finger on it for a long time.

    He says the reason is, such men mask their abusive behavior and hateful words under a calm, logical- sounding demeanor, so when they say hateful things to their wife, they do not raise their voice and scream.

    They quietly, calmly, tell the wife why she is a piece of trash.

    They don’t usually hit, punch, or beat the wife, but they gently, quietly say horrible things to her on a regular basis.

    To anyone else, the guy comes across as a nice, non- abusive man.

    When the wife has had enough of the unrelenting put downs and snaps back (and usually raises her voice), then the quietly abusive guy says, “See there, I’m the reasonable one, you just raised your voice. You are the abuser, not me.”

    I bring that all up to say, I think that is exactly what Driscoll was doing to Mefferd during the interview.

    He sat there oh so quietly, calmly, telling her “Mark Driscoll loves Jesus, Mark Driscll loves you, you are my sister in Christ, I will accept what you say with a humble attitude.”

    Never- the- less, no matter the calm tone and pretty words, it seemed to me that the man’s every word was dripping with arrogance and contempt. I found his tone and attitude creepy.

  58. In other news, this is the first time I’ve ever seen the comments linked directly from the TWW page all point to the same post. Clearly a hot topic.

  59. @ Alan:
    Oh wow!
    My former church was acting like that, the young women (who could all work for the church, but couldn’t be pastors or elders) would get up and gush on and on about the pastor. He could only work with people under 25, everyone else on staff either quit or got severance (only one who left, left for reasons they would share with the church, everyone else got vague resignation mentions, after they were gone).

    The young’uns all loved Mark Driscoll, I now fear they are looking towards an Acts 29 (when the church bulked at Mark Driscoll being used for material, smooth as silk the pastor started quoting from Chandler and CJ Mahaney – no one has a clue how interconnected these guys all are).

  60. (off topic)

    Atheists Sue IRS Over Preferential Treatment to Churches in Granting 501(c)(3) Status
    (from taxprof.typepad.com)

    Atheists Take On The IRS

    IRS policies on church tax exemptions aren’t just potentially making America poorer – they also illegally discriminate against atheists, a lawsuit alleges.

  61. dee wrote:

    The recordings have been made public so she is quite open to being critiqued. In fact, it seems like she is more open to such critique than a certain bombastic pastor.

    Having listened to the YouTube and the separate audio of the Mefferd interview, and the Brierly interview and follow up brou-ha-ha, there is very little between the two that is comparable. In the Brierly interview, Brierly was polite to a “T” and you do not get the sense that he was prepared to “go for the jugular.” Driscoll ripped into him and was boorish to the extreme. And immediately after the interview (before it would go viral) Driscoll tried to premtively smear Brierly with a mean-spirited online post that was full of falsehoods.

    Mefferd is no Brierly. She did seem overly anxious to tear into Driscoll. Who can blame her? And Driscoll apparently was caught off guard “with his pants down” so to speak. His comeback regarding crashing McArthur’s gig did not ring true – whether he was telling the truth, we will never know. But his explanation that he was “in the area” is difficult to swallow. His comeback regarding the alleged plagiarism, however, was actually pretty good, although his constant name-dropping in the past made his referral to Dr. Jones as his “friend” sound phony – ala the little boy who cried “Wolf!”

    Driscoll’s credibility at this point is down to almost zero, and it is becoming more and more difficult for him to convince his congregation, as well as outsiders, that he is not the emperor who has no clothes.

  62. @ Nick Bulbeck: It happens fairly often, I think, though yes, this *is* a hot topic. (Rightfully so.)

    Plagiarism can and does ruin careers, and for someone to think they’re exempt or above it is despicable.

  63. Daisy wrote:

    He says one of the trickiest types are the ones who come across as sensitive, and/or calm-voiced ones.

    I grew up with a brother like that. The Sweet Little Angel(TM), oh-so-calm, oh-so-sensitive, oh-so-POLITE, the poor poor pity-me victim.

  64. When the wife has had enough of the unrelenting put downs and snaps back (and usually raises her voice), then the quietly abusive guy says, “See there, I’m the reasonable one, you just raised your voice. You are the abuser, not me.”

    ?

    BINGO!!!!!

    Daisy, be sure to mention how the sensitive, calm-voiced sociopath abuser is a master of targeting his needles and provocations at a single victim, every word chosen for a plausibly-deniable, wide-eyed-butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth Innocent fallback meaning. Riding and goading his victim until the victim explodes and becomes The Crazy One, The Big Meanie, The Bad One and the sociopath abuser becomes the Poor Poor Pitiful Victim. “Look what he (the Poor Poor Pitiful Victim) has to put up with” (pat pat pat on the head).

    Sixteen years. Constantly. To this day I wish I was also a Sociopath. I want to be a Sociopath so bad. Because Sociopaths are WINNERS.

  65. @ TedS.:

    I disagree. Mefferd was polite to Driscoll. I’m afraid a lot of folks are unfairly or inaccurately equating dogged persistence and trying to get at the truth to being rude, when it is not.

  66. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    My older brother was a little like that (making hateful, mean spirited, and abusive comments, but usually in a gentle, quiet, un emotional manner), but my brother is a garden variety egotist and arrogant person, (like Mark Driscoll), not a sociopath.

  67. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I also read a book about sociopaths (The Sociopath Next Door), before reading the one about abusive men.

    Sociopaths do seem to coast by in life to a degree, but in the end, they pay steep penalties (from lost jobs, to no friends, low funds, other problems).

    The author drives the point home that it may seem pretty cool to live life with no conscience, but at the end of the day, it works out better to have one and to feel remorse.

    From the way the book describes it, sociopaths get temporary benefits, they win a lot of battles, but sociopaths lose the war.

    I had a boss at one job who used similar tactics as the “quiet, gentle” abuser type.

    I don’t know if she was technically a sociopath, but she would harass you and push you only within certain limitations, but it was daily or weekly.

    Also, her harassment was never so blatant, or so far out there, that she would technically be considered to have broken most workplace rules that were in the workplace code of rule book we had.

    Another terrible thing is that only certain classes are protected in American workplaces (only discrimination based on gender, age, skin color are against the law), while general bullying is legally permitted. It allows jerks to drive many good people out of the workplace.

  68. I’d pay to see a cage match between Driscoll and Nadia Bolz-Weber. My money would be on The Rev. Bolz-Weber.

  69. From experience of observing a work colleague, one of the reasons why experienced authors plagiarize is that they get over confident and careless. They might be quite busy and then start cutting corners and they think they can get away with it. They know the rules but they loose sight of the fact that what they have written will be sit there like a time bomb until somebody notices. The experienced author knows acutely when they are transgressing because the writing process involves continuous and extensive judgement of how to present material which is sourced elsewhere and distinguish it from one’s own material.

    In one sense plagiarism might not necessarily be intentional in that the writer might not set out with the intention to claim they are the originator of the ideas; it is more that they cannot be bothered to acknowledge the originator. But that is no excuse and writers have been punished for such plagiarism, including a recent case in the UK of a popular medical writer who was suspended from his clinical practice by his professional body.

    If Mark Driscoll did plagiarize, as alleged by Janet Mefferd, he will have to provide a transparent account of why he did it – spin will not help in this case. Otherwise he will lose respect and credibility in the eyes of other Christian authors, who are particularly sensitive concerning this issue and will not have the wool pulled over their eyes.

  70. @ TedS.:

    I think it is because of her business and experience as a reporter and writer. Think if you are her with her background…. sitting there reading a guys book prepping for an interview with him and are astonished to find you reading the ideas/words of another author whose book you read and you know him as a scholar and gentleman. Yep, my guess is she was right ready for Driscoll.

    He deserved more.

  71. Steve Griffin wrote:

    I’ve no idea whether or not Driscoll is guilty of that which Mefford accuses him. Either way, this comes across as a calculated “hit piece.”

    And apparently, Driscoll did NOT hang up on her.

    The Driscoll defenders are out in full force today, especially over at Merritt’s blog.

  72. Clay Crouch wrote:

    I’d pay to see a cage match between Driscoll and Nadia Bolz-Weber. My money would be on The Rev. Bolz-Weber.

    And I would like to buy the popcorn for that match. I hate cage fighting, generally, but I am so up for this. Nadia would win, no doubt at all. I am sitting here laughing at the very thought…she is kind of everything he’d like to be. Funny huh?

  73. http://marshill.com/creativecommons
    See the above guidelines from Driscoll’s OWN Mars Hill Website under FAQ’s

    “IF I USE MATERIAL FROM ONE OF PASTOR MARK’S SERMON’S DO I NEED TO CITE HIM AS THE SOURCE OF THAT MATERIAL?
    Yes. If you don’t cite him, you are plagiarizing. If you use content from one of Pastor Mark’s sermons or from one of his books, you need to attribute the content (whether it is a quote or paraphrase) to Pastor Mark. Also, even though we make transcripts available of our sermons, this does not mean you can take the transcript and deliver the sermon as though it is your own. This too is plagiarism.

    The same answer applies to your use of sermon content from any other pastors and any of our blog posts.”

  74. Mark wrote:

    Thanks Dee, I completely agree. It certainly is just my opinion, not a “fact”. Thanks for helping me clarify my opinion. What seems obvious to one isn’t always what is obvious to someone else.

    Bravo to Dee – – keeping herself, Deb, and commenters safe from bully pastors who sue for defamation 🙂
    It’s not all that fun to be sued. You rock, Dee.

  75. When Driscoll was on Justin Brierley’s show, the interview was intended to be about Driscoll’s then-current book Real Marriage. The book was very controversial for Driscoll’s advocacy of certain sexual acts. When Brierley asked Driscoll about that aspect of the book, Driscoll replied that he “didn’t appreciate” being asked about that. This is quite similar to his responses on the Janet Mefferd Show.

    Driscoll’s behavior seems to defeat the purpose of doing such interviews. He’d be better off not doing so if he can’t deal with serious questions.

  76. Anon wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    He deserved more.

    What do you mean?

    @ Anon:

    Perhaps on her next show read passages from Jones 2 books that are similar in Driscoll 14 pages. :o)

  77. @ Daisy:
    Haha! That reminds me of not so long ago during an argument with my husband who never raises his voice. He calmly and condescendingly told me that he can’t hear me when I’m yelling. I screamed even louder back at him “Well your FACE is yelling at ME!”
    Too bad we couldn’t see Mr. Driscoll’s facial expressions.

  78. Daisy wrote:

    For the person asking on this thread or the previous one if there is a side by side comparison of the Driscoll book to the Jones one, the closest I’ve come to finding anything about that is at Wade’s blog:
    Mark Driscoll and Janet Mefferd: Plagiarism, Tribalism and Paganism
    He mentions he bought/read all the books in question and they are very, very, veeerrrry similar.

    Indeed, that is a great article. Thanks for linking it, and thanks to Wade for writing it.

  79. Random question: Does anyone know who owns the rights the the two books Dr. Jones wrote that Mark allegedly plagiarized? Does he own them all or the publicist? (I’m not very knowledgeable in the world of authors)

    I only ask because whether or not Dr. Jones is okay with Mark using his material, the publicist may not be so fine with it. Lawsuits happen all the time within the art world. A band may have no problem giving their music away for free, but the record label sure as heck does and has no problem issuing lawsuits despite the creators wishes.

    So in the end, no matter how much of friends they may be, I doubt the owner of the material is as happy about the possible plagiarized material. Not saying this is likely.

  80. Dee wrote:

    And you are a rock, JA. I’m in DC with Bill. Ate dinner with Eagle and will see him baptized tomorrow.

    Wonderful!!! Please pass along hugs from this West Coast blogger. Eagle is such an inspiration to me. Wow.

  81. I’m appalled by this piece and at how many people here are blindly supporting Janet Mefford in the way others are so often accused of blindly supporting Driscoll. There were countless times in the interview where Driscoll had graciously and calmly answered her question about plagiarism and she could have moved on, but didn’t. Even towards the end he did a decent job of maintaining his composure. I get that people here don’t like Driscoll, I don’t like Driscoll, but I can’t in good conscience side with Mefford on this interview. Yes, he seemed a bit riled at towards the end, yes he started turning the accusations on her a bit, but this was after answering the accusation multiple times as satisfactorily as could be done in the circumstances. She then decided to push it further. What was she even wanting him to say?

  82. Dee wrote:

    @ Julie Anne: And you are a rock, JA. I’m in DC with Bill. Ate dinner with Eagle and will see him baptized tomorrow.

    I so wish I could have come with you. My hubby and I are attending an event with our younger daughter this morning that is important to her.

  83. JAS, Dee, Deb..and those in the community. I want to say thank you for putting up about my rants about how Christianity is a cancer, etc… If you would have told me that today would have happened I would have said you’re smoking something. Sometimes I told myself and others that I would do something like this even when I didn’t believe it would eventually happen? Why? Because I was holding on to straws amidst an incredible faith crisis, and dealing with past fundagelical experiences.

    Dee, Deb, JAS…you guys really do inspire me. JAS standing up to a John MacArthur clone and fighting back against a lawsuit amazes me. Why is it that so many women have more balls than the Mark Driscolls, Mark Dever’s CJ Mahaneys or Chuck O’Neals?

    For those of you who are limping and hurting and crushed due to your evangelical experience…i deeply empathize. There is a lot of bad stuff there and I navigated through a lot of it these past few months. So for those of you who have been crushed by Harvest Bible Chapel, Sovereign Grace, Acts 29, Calvary Chapel, certain Pentecostal sects I want to say that I am sorry. If I could I’d give each of you a hug and we’d weep together for the pain that was caused by a totalitarian organization. A faith system that operates like a North Korean labor camp is horrific.

    And for those of you who stood up to authorterian regimes in HBC, SGM, Acts 29, Calvary Chapel or the “Graceless to You” movement I want to say thanks for what you do. I would say that you are acting what Jesus wanted and you inspire me. Christians who ignore abuse, criminal activity, fraud, etc… are only exacerbating the problem.
    On another level those of you who stood up to organizations that cover up child sexual abuse…I have to thank you. You guys taught me how to deal with the Problem of Evil. And how one should react to the Problem of Evil. So for the Happymom’s, Noel’s, Amy Smith, etc… I want to say thank you.

    I want to leave you guys with this song. I’m not much into praise and worship. But every so often I stumble across this something that moves me. And this one from Hillsong stunned me when I listened to it. I think it captures the last year well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgMV3_Md8MU

  84. @ ian:
    14 pages of alleged plagiarism an d you think that should be downplayed? If that many pages are found to be lifted, this is a scandal of major proportions. Look at what happened to RIchard Land for much less. The real issue is that a woman dared to question a guy who bills himself as a real man. He demonstrated, once again, that he is a wuss who can’t show respect an d love when he is on the hot seat.

  85. @ dee:
    As Driscoll said about Brierly. ” He exercised authority over me.” Any woman who attempts to ask Driscoll hard questions will get taken down. Justin Taylor wants a boycott Well they show their true stripes. Women shut up an d never, ever question us about the truth. It’s is not allowed

  86. @ Deb:
    Have you seen Justin Taylor’s tweet? He is calling for a boycott of Meffords show. Truth doesn’t matter, only gender and authority. Who gives a hoot about plagiarism? If they do it, it is just OK

  87. @ Deb:
    Tomorrow we must talk about this. In my mind this is related to the gender wars. Not fully, but somewhat. They must stop women from becoming too uppity. After all, they do not have permission to assess real men leaders. And we know what a pitiful job manly men have done in evaluating their own.

  88. Just listened to the interview. Shocking how quickly Driscoll gets upset and accusatory to her. It’s his response to her that seems to cause her continue the accusation. I can imagine that he’s none too happy being “subordinate” to a woman this prepared for an interview.

  89. @Eagle – congratulations! And best wishes on your new journey of faith. @Dee – hope you enjoy being in our lovely (and congested) area of the country. It’s pretty cold, so stay warm.

  90. dee wrote:

    Have you seen Justin Taylor’s tweet? He is calling for a boycott of Meffords show.

    Here is a guy who has “hit the big time” so to speak among the neo-reformist superstars – and yet he has continued to remain silent and not call out the woleves. Now he wants to aim his gunsights on a WOMAN who had the guts to try, albeit in an imperfect way, to call a bully to account. These abusive he-men will never be called to account by their own “tribe”. And Justin Taylor is proof.

  91. @ dee:

    The really good thing about boycotts is they are great for business. But the irony is how “tribal” it is. Which of course, Mark should admit.

    See, I think Mark wrote that book to try to regain a certain place back in the YRR tribe after the elephant room fiasco and then the whole debacle with losing Acts 29 face. He became an embarassment. So, who from that tribe can really disagree with the premise of the book?

    I* think Mark is one of the most grand manipu;lators of all time. One strength of such a person can be their boldness. It does provide them cover with many admirers. HIs game at strange fire was “divisive” claiming he was being the opposite. The man is something and people pay him to be this thug because he mentions Jesus now and then.

  92. dee wrote:

    @ Deb:
    Tomorrow we must talk about this. In my mind this is related to the gender wars. Not fully, but somewhat. They must stop women from becoming too uppity. After all, they do not have permission to assess real men leaders. And we know what a pitiful job manly men have done in evaluating their own.

    I’m thinking that Piper wouldn’t be pleased with the demeanor of this comp, female, journalist as she interviewed a man 🙂

  93. Dee: Have you seen Justin Taylor’s tweet? He is calling for a boycott of Mefferds show.

    This should increase their audience, so thanks Justin,

  94. Peter wrote:

    Dee: Have you seen Justin Taylor’s tweet? He is calling for a boycott of Mefferds show. This should increase their audience, so thanks Justin,

    This speaks VOLUMES about The Gospel Coalition crowd:

    BetweenTwoWorlds

    ‏ I wouldn't recommend authors go on @JanetMefferd's show after she pulled this during an interview with @PastorMark http://is.gd/ucjuog

  95. Did anyone else notice the difference of the ‘audio quality’ of the youtube version, and the extra 2 minutes section that was placed online for all to hear about how he didn’t hang up?

    Someone edited something. They clearly aren’t the same.

  96. You know why so many of Driscoll’s fanboys are so incensed?

    Markie got beat by a GIRL!!

    The guy goes on an interview show to hawk his latest book and expects every interviewer to act like suck-up Larry King – he just can’t deal with the tough questions that come from people outside his little dictatorial world where they actually believe his sex-crazed gospel of machismo that’s got more in common with a combo of Penthouse and MMA magazines than anything from what the rest of the world understands from the Bible.

    When you promote your version of a gospel, you ought to be able to defend your faith in the face of reasonable questions without going into attack mode.All that shows is your position is pretty weak as both the Brierly and Mefferd interviews showed.

    I’ve come to have a lot of respect the integrity I’ve seen from Mefferd.

    Finally, I have one question. If Mefferd asked Driscoll questions about every controversial thing he’s ever said in the past 15 years, was this an all-day interview?

  97. I think the question of ‘authority is extremely relvant here. Notice that both Mefford- female- & Brierly – egalitarian- are not among those who Driscoll et al consider worthy of having authority over them. So he starts out feeling displaced/usurped before anyone asks any questions. It’s unlikely ever to go well on those foundations due to MD’s temperament.

  98. Here is yet another way to look at it.

    If Dr. Jones and/or Tyndale House think there is plagiarism, surely they will want to sue. If their lawyers think there is a case with a chance for a win, surely there will be a lawsuit. If not, somebody will find out why not and put that information out there. I will wait and see what the court says if/when it comes to that. In the meantime, both plagiarism and false accusation are wrong, and somebody in this incident is wrong. This is why there are courts and laws, as in copyright laws.

    In the meantime both JM and MD have a lot of publicity, and they have both been damaged by it. It was a short, sometimes inept verbal contest in a public arena. If MD can’t do better than this he needs to quit with the interviews. If Mefferd cries foul when somebody is ugly to her, maybe she is in the wrong line of work.

    Hey, I’ve got grandchildren. I see this sort of behavior every day.

  99. Deb wrote:

    Peter wrote:
    Dee: Have you seen Justin Taylor’s tweet? He is calling for a boycott of Mefferds show. This should increase their audience, so thanks Justin,
    This speaks VOLUMES about The Gospel Coalition crowd:
    BetweenTwoWorlds
    ‏ I wouldn’t recommend authors go on @JanetMefferd’s show after she pulled this during an interview with @PastorMark http://is.gd/ucjuog

    Justin Taylor wins the trifecta. He has been in the Confederacy of Dunces ever since his eager promotion of Doug Wilson, then solidified his standing as a dunce when he viciously attacked both C. J. Mahaney’s critics and the victims of SGM’s abuse. But with this “tribal” defense of his fellow tribesman he makes himself even plainer.

  100. Deb wrote:

    I wouldn’t recommend authors go on @JanetMefferd’s show after she pulled this during an interview with @PastorMark http://is.gd/ucjuog

    Well, not if they aren’t really authors but have copied someone else’s material. If your deeds are evil, stick to the darkness.

  101. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    To clarify: the tweet was cited by Deb, not written by Deb. (Citation – in which one publicises another author and his/her work – is the opposite of plagiarism, in which one publicises oneself using another author’s work.)

  102. I listened to the interview again, heard the "raw audio", and heard Mefferd's response to the criticism.

    The bottom line, IMO, is that Driscoll got schooled by a woman. How can he face the boys (elders) at the church now?

  103. Bridget wrote:

    I’m thinking that Piper wouldn’t be pleased with the demeanor of this comp, female, journalist as she interviewed a man

    I’m pretty sure you are right on this one.
    There may be lines drawn within Compland over this.

  104. Dee,

    I have coined a new term: meffer (a verb meaning to be challenged by a female).

    e.g.  Mark Driscoll was meffered by a syndicated Christian talk show host…

  105. From the above Carl Trueman post:

    “The Mefferd-Driscoll controversy points to another aspect of celebrity culture: celebrities are routinely allowed to behave in ways which would not be tolerated in ordinary mortals….

    “Driscoll is a classic case in point. For example, he has claimed that God gives him explicit images of the sexual sins of other people. He has embraced prosperity teacher and denier of the Trinity, T. D. Jakes, as a brother. He has written an explicit book on sex. Most recently, he engaged in a cringe-inducing publicity stunt unworthy of a spoiled teenager. For most of us, any one of these things would have ended in church discipline and (in the Jakes’ case) removal from office. Yet in all of this, the fan base and those with a vested interest in capitalizing on his success grant him free pass after free pass.”

  106. @ Invalid_Nate: Authors of books own the copyrights to their works, unlike the situation with composers and lyricists. That doesn’t mean that an author would necessarily stand in the way of his publisher’s going for a lawsuit, though – very few authors earn enough from their work to be able to afford the legal fees involved in suits of that kind.

  107. @ numo: “Work for hire” – writing for a magazine, newspaper, or scholarly journal – is a whole different ballgame. the publisher normally owns all rights in these cases, and authors have to sign forms stating that.

  108. Nancy wrote:

    I will wait and see what the court says if/when it comes to that. In the meantime, both plagiarism and false accusation are wrong, and somebody in this incident is wrong. This is why there are courts and laws…

    Well, when it comes to plagiarism, most of it never ends up in court. Usually (if it is a professor or say, a doctoral candidate, their careers might be ruined, or they will be discredited among their peers and lose their credibility. Courts and laws are not necessary to determine whether or not there was plagiarism – any reader can make that determination. Just read the texts and compare. That’s it. Either there was or there was not. Apparently, Ms. Mefferd read the texts and based her inquiries on what she read. Perhaps you should do the same before lecturing us or boasting about your “holier than thou” position.

  109. @ JeffT:

    Yes, I still have a problem with the part Carl Trueman played in getting C.J. Mahaney off the hook. Then he had the gall to go and speak at the T4G conference.

  110. I find the entire debacle sickening. It really shows how much parts of Christianity are nothing but a celebrity culture. And all that is being done…is a fundagelical playing into the hands of atheists in the long run, because they validate what skeptics claim. Do you think a cadet at the Naval, Air Force Academy or West Point could plagiarize? Do you think a grad student at University of Washington, Harvard, Yale, UCLA, American, Minnesota, etc… would not have problems staying in the program?

  111. @ numo:

    Thank you very much. I knew about magazines, wasn’t sure about books though. Well if Dr. Jones is as good of friends as Driscoll claims, maybe he won’t do anything.

    I do wish people like this would be held accountable for their actions for once. I’ve seen people lose careers over smaller allegations, yet when these guys do it their actions are defended by the masses. Sickening.

  112. @ pcapastor:

    also from the Carl Trueman blog post:

    “In so doing, they ironically demonstrate why shows such as Janet Mefferd’s can be so very important: if the conservative evangelical world continues to be increasingly dominated by one or two huge media-style organizations, the conversation will be corralled and controlled, the hard questions will not be asked, and the leaders of such organizations and those over whom they choose to extend their patronage will not be held to account.

    If, in your quest to promote yourself, you ask to appear on a particular show, you should be tough enough to take whatever that show throws at you with equanimity. The intricate and risky dance between celebrities and media is part of the game you have chosen to play, indeed a large factor in what has made you famous and influential. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. In such circumstances, you should also accept that Janet Mefferd’s job is not to make you look good or to keep her comments within the accepted bounds of evangelical correctness as defined by you or by any other Top Man. Her job as a radio journalist is to ask the hard questions and hold you, me or whomever she is addressing, to account.”

    C Trueblood. (2013, November 24). If the Top Men take over, who will ask the hard questions? [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/11/if-the-top-men-take-over-who-w.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  113. Well, people at the University of Washington didn’t have much problem stealing artifacts from American Indian burial grounds … so … while plagiarism is frowned upon in academia there are some other problematic things that get overlooked for too long. And the college textbook racket sounds even uglier now than when I was in college twenty years ago. 🙁

    Still, points noted Eagle.

  114. regarding all this, in my own words: I’m shaking my head in bewilderment. This is what it means to Act Like Men?? more like 12 year olds with feathered hair, shiny shirts with big collars, angels flight pants with the seam down the front in powder blue, strutting together saying “we bad….we bad”.

  115. @ Eagle:

    I know you asked HUG. But who knows when he’ll check back in.
    So I thought I’d share this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0EjdAppY40

    I’m pretty sure this is what he is talking about. (not this particular compilation clip set to music, but the movie the scenes are taken from.)
    If this isn’t what he’s talking about, then he can educate us both.
    I’m all about learning more concerning symbols in our culture.

  116. @ elastigirl:

    The book ends of Truemen’s article:

    “If the Top Men take over, who will ask the hard questions?

    . . . . .

    But you can still sleep easy at night knowing this important truth: blessed are the celebrities, for they will be rigorously held to a much lower standard of behaviour than the rest of us.”

  117. Nicholas wrote:

    The Driscoll defenders are out in full force today, especially over at Merritt’s blog.

    A God Can Do No Wrong.

  118. @ dee: Yes, that sounds like a serious issue, and she was right to bring it up. But as others have pointed out, it’s not clear as yet how similar it was. He gave a good and gracious answer given the circumstances, but she just continued bringing it up. The fact that Driscoll even mentioned Peter Jones’ influence on the chapter before the plagiarism allegations came up shows that he hasn’t don’t anything intentionally wrong, even if he has from a scholarly/professional point of view. He acknowledged that there may have been a mistake made and said he would look into it. What else could he have said in a radio interview? The impression I get is she just wanting to rile him up enough to get a reaction which would go viral. This is only compounded given the false claim that he hung up.

    I appreciate this site and its tireless exposing of abusive authority in churches, but it’s not right to be blind to wrongs from people in your “camp” just because they got one up on someone you don’t like. Take the higher road.

  119. ian wrote:

    I appreciate this site and its tireless exposing of abusive authority in churches, but it’s not right to be blind to wrongs from people in your “camp” just because they got one up on someone you don’t like. Take the higher road.

    While I appreciate Mefferd's work, she has graciously interviewed some Neo-Cals and Calvinists that we have spoken out against here at TWW. I wasn't aware of the fact that we are in the 'same camp'.

    We just appreciate that she challenged the bully in the pulpit.

    http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/?s=tim+challies

    http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/?s=rc+sproul

    http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/?s=john+macarthur

  120. @ TedS.:

    What “any reader” cannot do, however, is know what may or may not have gone on between the original author and the subsequent author. Or between the original author and the reporter. It sticks in my mind that the reporter claims personal knowledge of the original author, and yet the original author had apparently not done anything about the situation. If she knew something that would matter to him, did she discuss it with him and see what might have been in his best interest to do? Who knows. Driscoll also claims personal knowledge of the original author. So where the blip is the original author in all this? If he is the person whose work was, in fact, stolen, why is he so quiet right now? I just don’t see that the picture is all that clear. Maybe, maybe not. I am not an authority on copyright law and what does or does not constitute adequate acknowledgement. The initial response from the publisher also seems to be cautious. We will see eventually, but I don’t “see” right now how it all ties together.

  121. Nancy,

    One can be confident that Janet Mefferd had communication with Dr. Jones prior to the interview. I could tell this just from listening to the interview – but sought out confirmation of that fact and received it. What Dr. Jones said to Janet will need to be made public by him, but you can rest assured Janet Mefferd was not going out on the long limb she is on without confidence of support.

  122. @Ian He gave a good and gracious answer given the circumstances, but she just continued bringing it up.

    Whilst your comments appear reasonable, I don’t think he gave a good and gracious answer. It was quite clear he was using moral blackmail to deflect from addressing the issue properly and this ramped up the interview as Janet tried to counter this tactic, which is her job as an investigative journalist. Any objective outsider can see this.

    He did a similar thing with Justin Brierly of the UK Premier radio, an interview which caused huge offense in the UK and put people off inviting him here.

    Driscoll supporters (Ian I am not assuming you are one) wake up and smell the coffee – this is not appropriate Christian leadership but an embarrassment.

    Also I think you are underestimating seriousness of the allegation – Mark Driscoll is an experienced writer with a degree in Communication. He will know the score and labeling it a ‘mistake’ is misleading in this context. If he did plagiarize, it is not a ‘mistake’ but a transgression, given his knowledge of plagiarism rules which he would have acquired at university and also through being an author. He must know it cannot be labelled as a ‘mistake’ and spinning it like this does not fool people.

    (by the way, if you are a college student and are accused of doing such a thing in your essay or thesis, my strong advice is not to follow Mark Driscoll’s example and call it just a mistake and try to rubbish your college for raising the issue).

    What could he have said?

    He could have said ‘If I did appear to copy the ideas of another author for 14 pages in my book, as as you say without proper referencing, then I agree this looks like plagiarism, but before I comment on this I would like to check the facts and the material. I could perhaps then get back to and I am happy to talk on your program again when I have done this. You can understand I was not expecting to come on the radio and talk about this topic.’

    Then he could have checked it (by the way he could have responded by now if it was straightforward – why the silence?) and sent out a statement either pointing out that he was not plagiarizing (if he didn’t) or admitting to his transgression saying what he was going to do about it (if he hadn’t fully formulated a plan he could have said he was working with the publishers to rectify the situation).

    Instead he went down the moral blackmail route, with ‘spiritual’ language used as a tool for denigrating Janet Mefferd.

  123. @ Nancy:
    Perhaps Dr. Jones is taking the appropriate steps to privately contact Driscoll so that the matter can be properly sorted out. However, plagiarism (if that is indeed what happened) is both a private and public offense and the correctives should be as well.

  124. You have all missed the essential background to this, which is that we are rapidly approaching the pantomime season …

  125. ian wrote:

    He gave a good and gracious answer given the circumstances, but she just continued bringing it up.

    In whose eyes? Yours? Mine? I look it it very differently and see the old Driscoll pulling the “you’re the problem” card.
    ian wrote:

    This is only compounded given the false claim that he hung up.

    I am so glad you brought this up. If he didn’t hang up, that is a mistake. So what? She has released the raw footage,.
    14 pages, on the other hand, is not a mistake. It is a serious breach of writing ethics. If a student did that at my son’s college, they would be thrown out.To equate plagiarism to mistakenly thinking someone hung up is out of line. ian wrote:

    He acknowledged that there may have been a mistake made and said he would look into i

    14 pages is not a mistake. This is typical Driscoll-shoot quick from the hip and say it is genius. I still remember him bragging how he wrote one sermon in 2 hours while watching a Seahawks game. Now I think I know how he does it. So many authors, so many books…

  126. ian wrote:

    He gave a good and gracious answer given the circumstances, but she just continued bringing it up.

    Ian, If that was your standard for good and gracious, we are probably not going to agree on much.

    If you did not pick up on the cognitive dissonance in Driscoll alternating between nice words/mean words in the same sentence (ok which ones do you mean?) and declaring love then insulting/accusing of unChristlike behavior….well, guess that is a new normal I do not wish to accept.

    Would you like to hear an acceptable response from what some are telling me is my “national pastor”?

    totally NON defensive. She brings up a good point because she is quite familiar with JOnes’ work. It is something to be investigated and fixed.

    Mark, blew it. He did what typical sociopaths do when confronted. He made HER the problem. Now she must go down. In fact, his reputation proceeded him. See, his deal is to make his response thought to be the Christlike response. What passes for Christianity is sick and getting more and more vile and sick. Sin is not only being redefined but turned on its head.

    It is working. You think he was “good and gracious”. And I know thousands of guys just like that. It does not bode well for our future.

  127. ian wrote:

    What else could he have said in a radio interview?

    “Janet,
    I know that plagiarism is dishonest. I know that DA Carson says it is a disqualifier for ministry. On top of it, is not a mistake, it is a sin as well as a crime. I know that. I have a team of lawyers standing buy to sue the lights out of anyone who copies my books, sermons or logo.

    Therefore, if it is proven that I did this (alternative answer-I admit that I did this), I shall step down from ministry for one year and put myself under discipline of my leadership just like I have done to so many others. May God have mercy on me.”

    Yep- that would do it and I would have given him a standing ovation.

  128. @ Clay Crouch:

    There is Tyndale house to consider. This situation most certainly does not require some sort of Christianese private meeting with Jones and Driscoll. I would certainly record it now that we know Driscoll lied about trying to make listeners believe he was doing her a favor by being on her show and not that his PR people called and asked.

    Of course such misleading statements are now the new cool christianity where character and integrity don’t matter if you are a celebrity. Perhaps we could call them Rahab lies?

  129. Nancy wrote:

    So where the blip is the original author in all this? If he is the person whose work was, in fact, stolen, why is he so quiet right now?

    Perhaps he is a gracious man who is allowing the public to sort this out. Also, now it is in the hands of the publishers and agents. Driscoll’s editor person obviously did not do their homework as well. They should have caught this.

    Tom Rich, FBC Jax Watchdog and I have an awesome relationship. He has given me blanket permission to copy anything and everything he write. I have done the same for him. But, both he and I give each other credit for what we copy. We even drop one another a quick email to let the other know that we are extensively quoting them. 14 pages of copy? Good night!

  130. Anon 1 wrote:

    There is Tyndale house to consider. This situation most certainly does not require some sort of Christianese private meeting with Jones and Driscoll. I would certainly record it now that we know Driscoll lied about trying to make listeners believe he was doing her a favor by being on her show and not that his PR people called and asked.

    Driscoll would do himself a favor by taking a leave of absence and getting his big head to shrink a size or two.

  131. Peter wrote:

    Instead he went down the moral blackmail route, with ‘spiritual’ language used as a tool for denigrating Janet Mefferd.

    Great comment.

  132. ian wrote:

    But it’s not right to be blind to wrongs from people in your “camp” just because they got one up on someone you don’t like. Take the higher road.

    News flash-in case you, or others, have not gotten the message, neither of us adhere to Reformed theology except as Roger Olson defines it in his book Against Calvinism (which is against Neo-Calvinism, BTW). However, have you notice that our E Church features a man who adheres to quite a bit of the theology surrounding the Reformed camp? Have you read our critique on Paige Patterson, Ergun Caner, etc.? Why don't you attempt to define, for Deb and me, to what camp do we belong? I would be interested in your response. This blog is dedicated to looking at a broad swath of issues and people in this post-evangelical world. From what I can tell, I think Mefferd might be Reformed in her thinking but I could be wrong. And that is important. When we choose stories to write, we do so because they interest us and highlight failings in the Christian world. We do not assess whether or not the "good guys" agree with us . Besides, there are days when I am not sure exactly to which theological camp I belong. Perhaps you could help me figure that out by telling me?

  133. @ dee:

    Isn’t this called spiritual abuse? Isn’t this what many have experienced when they tried to communicate concerns with their pastors/elders? Welcome to the club, Janet (sadly). Now a public audience is getting a front row seat as to how some leaders act (although I imagine it’s worse for the sheeple who come to their office in private). Not only that, but we are seeing who weighs in and how. Are these men and women who feel bad for Driscoll those who would have no problem doing the same thing as ‘National Pastor Driscoll?’ Is he their golden example?

  134. ian wrote:

    But it’s not right to be blind to wrongs from people in your “camp” just because they got one up on someone you don’t like. Take the higher road.

    This is one of the problems all the way around. Thinking disagreement on an issue puts you in a "camp". Or even a political group. It has gotten to the point issues/principles, etc cannot be discussed or debated but of the rush to make them personal. What next? Point out we are all sinners, too? Sheesh! That thinking only brings moral chaos. And anything goes depending on who you are.

  135. Interesting info on the Resurgence website … link

    PERFECT MATCH

    We’ve reached an agreement with Tyndale House Publishers to publish numerous titles under a new imprint called Resurgence Publishing (the last two books with the Re:Lit name will be released this spring). Tyndale will publish all of my (Pastor Mark’s) work moving forward, in addition to other Resurgence authors whom we’ll announce in the coming months. We’ll kick things off this fall with the launch of my next book.  (emphasis mine)

    Tyndale and Resurgence are about as close as you can get to a perfect match. For our part, we produce a ton of content—books, study guides, curriculums—and Tyndale offers a unique combination of theological integrity, practical knowledge, and industry experience that is rare in the world of Christian publishing. (emphasis mine)

    Funny thing, Dee and I are careful to give credit where credit is due on our blog, even with photos.

  136. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    WTH…I had not heard about UW stealing or raiding Indian burial grounds. Yikes…that’s awful. Honestly WTH I think we need to have a raw discussion on how the United States’s gvoernment has treated the Indians throughout their history. I was both shocked and saddened when I read the details about this in American history. You can’t consistently break Treaties or have events like the Trail of Tears in history and nothing to show amends for it. The US claims to be the leader of the free world and yet we need to honestly discuss how we treated the Indians.

    But I wouldn’t leave it there there are many other events that are horriffic that we need to discuss as well. For example when I worked through college I worked with an elderly American of Japanese dissent who was interned along with his family during WWII. I was amazed he wasn’t bitter due to his expereince. And while we’re at it..let’s look at how the US government has treated gays and lesbians. Yes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed. But what about the people who had their careers, finances, and lives disrupted and possibly destroyed due to being forced out of the military 3 or 4 years before DADT was repealed.

    WTH…I guess what I am saying is we need to have a lot of discussions.

  137. @ Deb:

    Aha and wow. The plot thickens. When it hits the fan it does tend to splatter. I really hope this is not what it looks like at this point. Really good work Deb.

  138. @ Invaild_Nate: No problem – if you look at any book published in the US (relatively new book – copyright does expire in time), go to the title page and then flip it over. On the next page you’ll see all the small print, which includes the author’s copyright.

  139. Wade Burleson wrote:

    One can be confident that Janet Mefferd had communication with Dr. Jones prior to the interview. I could tell this just from listening to the interview – but sought out confirmation of that fact and received it.

    Thank you Wade.

  140. dee wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    So where the blip is the original author in all this? If he is the person whose work was, in fact, stolen, why is he so quiet right now?

    He is probably in the same place as Dan Allender. Remember him? There are allegations out there that were posted by a TWW regular that Driscoll used some of Allender’s material without proper citation in Driscoll’s bestselling sex book.

  141. Mara wrote:

    Bridget wrote: I’m thinking that Piper wouldn’t be pleased with the demeanor of this comp, female, journalist as she interviewed a man I’m pretty sure you are right on this one. There may be lines drawn within Compland over this.

    I searched Mefferd's website, and it DOES NOT appear that she ever interviewed John Piper. If anyone discovers otherwise, please let us know.

  142. @ E.G.: The realities of plagiarism are pretty severe, and if MD did indeed plagiarize from Jones, I think he has to be willing to accept the potential consequences.

  143. Dee and Deb,

    I do not know for certain, but through listening and receiving a few pieces of communication, I think Mark Driscoll is currently researching his next book on the subject of – get this – neo-paganism. From what I can gather, Mark Driscoll has hired a huge research firm and is doing a great deal of “man on the street” interviews to compile statistical data for his book – which I believe he considers to be one of the more important books he’s attempted to write. Interestingly, neo-paganism is THE research area of Dr. Jones, and for those who are unfamiliar with the concept, Dr. Jones posits that the world can be broken down into just TWO belief systems – One-ism (neo-paganism) and Two-ism (orthodox Christianity). One-ism is where people worship the creation (themselves, the earth, oneness with nature, etc…) which includes Shamanism, Buddhism, Taoism, New Age, ancient Roman and Greek deities, etc… Jones believes that secular humanism is dead. The world is now very spiritual and religious, but One-ism is even more deadly than secular humanism. Dr. Jones books “One, Two” and “The God of Sex” is ground-breaking work on examining ancient religions and the revival of One-ism in today’s culture. I believe Mark Driscoll’s NEXT book is even a deeper look into the subject. The fact that Mark Driscoll did NOT credit Dr. Jones (source him, footnote him, attribute his work in his bibliography) says to me that it is possible Mark Driscoll was setting himself up to be THE expert on culture, spirituality, and one-ism with the release of his next book on neo-paganism. Honestly, I think Janet Mefferd may have saved Mark Driscoll from a future MASSIVE headache. It is almost a guarantee that in the next book Dr. Peter Jones will be exhaustively credited (as he should be) because of the current fiasco. Though Mark Driscoll may be very angry with Janet Mefferd for calling him out this time, I think Janet may have actually helped Mark in the long-run by preventing what could have been an even more egregious mistake. Again, this is mostly conjecture on my part but with some good sources behind it. In some ways, I do feel sorry for Mark Driscoll. I think his publisher, editor, and ghost-writer (if he had one) really dropped the ball. Mark gets the heat, but the industry that is behind the scenes is supposed to prevent this stuff from happening.

  144. @ Wade Burleson: I hope Jones doesn’t actually believe that Buddhism and Daoism are about the worship of self – nor is animism, come to that.

    further, not all religions that appear to be polytheistic actually are – this is a complex topic and not easily covered in a reductive way. (Buddhism isn’t even theistic – there is a lot of syncretism in some East Asian countries,though.)

  145. Wade Burleson wrote:

    One-ism is where people worship the creation (themselves, the earth, oneness with nature, etc…)

    I like this definition. Young Earth Creationism has taken early Genesis where I believe God is saying worship Me, not the things I made or the things you make and turned it into an one-ism worship of the earth

  146. Related only to the topic of the Janet Mefferd show, on a recent episode she stated that the show is “underwritten by Bob Jones University.” (It explains the ads for BJU on her site, which I submitted an e-mail complaint about before learning of this). It is obvious why BJU would want to support a popular conservative Christian talk show (and a good talk show imho). BJU gets a mention and gets to advertise that way. It makes them look like a more legitimate and prestigious Christian school.

    Many people who are not “in the know” (as I assume is the case with Janet Mefferd) may think that BJU is just another conservative Christian school. Mrs. Mefferd is clearly genuinely concerned with any kind of abuse in the Christian environment. While most of the BJU-related abuse cases have flown under the radar because they are only reported on by local newsmedia, the story about Chuck Phelps’ coverup of sexual assault in his church was nationally reported by ABC’s 20/20. Chuck Phelps was a BJU board member who only resigned when the heat was turned up by the outside. BJU didn’t force him to resign but instead stood by him and continues to do so. BJU expelled Chris Peterman solely for his “Do Right BJU” protest, not for the picayune and inane reasons they listed for doing so.

    I am doubtful that Mrs. Mefferd could be unaware of any of this, especially since many of the same online sources reporting on the SGM scandal have reported on the Chuck Phelps/BJU scandal. Additionally, on the same recent episode that Janet announced that her show is underwritten by BJU, she had a guest from BJU on the show (the second guest of the third hour, after David Horowitz): http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2013/11/21/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20131121-hr-3/ Thus it would seem that Mrs. Mefferd is well acquainted with BJU. It seems unlikely to me that she missed the news of Chuck Phelps position there, the “Do Right BJU” protest, Phelps’ resignation, and Chris Peterman’s expulsion.

    BJU has deceptively made it seem like they are concerned about sexual abuse in the church: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=11365

    However, BJU’s defense of Phelps and expulsion of Peterman reveal otherwise. I sent the links to all the info about BJU abuse and coverup scandals through the e-mail function of the Mefferd shows’ website, though who knows if she will ever see or read it.

    I understand that it is expensive to have a radio show, and that such a show needs sponsors. But certainly there are sponsors that Mrs. Mefferd would refuse to receive support from for a number of reasons, and would even give up being on the radio if there were no moral sponsors available. BJU is an immoral sponsor, and inconsistent with Janet Mefferd’s stance and outspokenness about child abuse and coverup in the church.

    I understand that Mrs. Mefferd is aware of TWW and has replied to Dee on twitter before. Perhaps Dee, Deb, or somebody could forward this information and concerns to Mrs. Mefferd. You cannot be outspoken against such scandals on moral grounds and then be silent about others that you are aware of.

    Also, I hope that my comments will not be taken as a “guilt-by-association” against Janet Mefferd. She is not guilty for anything that BJU has done. But she is clearly going to have to make a decision on how to proceed concerning BJU, a decision which will have to be made sooner and not later.

  147. Numo,

    I’m not sure what Dr. Jones would say in response to your question. I liked his two books, through Dr. Jones is an institutional Presbyterian and really into “church” authority (i.e. “elders, pastors, etc…”). I am working on a post where I will show what I believe to be excellent about his work on neo-paganism with a couple of thoughts about what I deem to be too close an adherence to institutionalism. Irony of ironies, I believe Christianity EXPLODED in the 1st and second century during a cultural climate of One-ism, so I’m not as distressed about the rise of spiritual paganism as is Dr. Jones. Frankly, the tearing down of institutional churches may be the best thing for real Christianity to blossom.

  148. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Frankly, the tearing down of institutional churches may be the best thing for real Christianity to blossom.

    Are you going to dissolve Emmanuel then? That would be the only logical and consistent course of action on your part following the above statement.

  149. Wade@ I do feel sorry for Mark Driscoll. I think his publisher, editor, and ghost-writer (if he had one) really dropped the ball.

    Fascinating comments and insight and a new twist in this story, particularly if Mark Discoll intends to move onto the same writing territory as Peter Jones.

    Having written books and had my ideas on occasions taken by other people without proper recognition I imagine the other writer would be very irritated and think he is a bit foolish, whatever the outcome.

    Obviously it is conjecture, but as mentioned in my previous comment on this post, it is hard to see how a experienced writer/ ghost writer could have done this without knowing what they were doing (14 pages etc). It seems improbable that a ghost-writer would have done it because they would always be thinking about accountability and be very careful (unless they were completely incompetent).

    A much more likely scenario is that a busy writer gets over confident and careless – they would still know what they were doing but make a misjudgement, thinking it didn’t matter and they would probably get away with it – this cannot be used as an excuse for plagiarism as any person who has lost a livelihood on this basis will tell you.

    Also it is not uncommon for publishers and editors not to take sufficient interest in content/ have the knowledge to spot something like this, although I admit it looks a bit slapdash.

    In a more academic setting the publisher might have had this section of the book ‘pre-read’ by another expert who could have spotted the problem. A sophisticated author who cared about getting the content right might have sent the draft to the other person (e.g. Peter Jones) for comments and this would have been a wise action if one was writing this quantity on the topic, especially as Mark Driscoll claims he is a ‘good friend.’

    If it has been spotted by the publisher, they would have been quite shocked and be very careful when working with that particular writer in the future, for obvious reasons. The publishers will be very embarrassed whatever they say in public, and be worried about their reputation.

    It will be really interesting to find out what Peter Jones has to say about this, although he might retain a discrete silence. He will be wondering what comes next and possibly be annoyed that he is embroiled in this affair (analogy: Imagine you run a business selling fine china; you find out that a bull has got on the loose and has entered your shop).

  150. Nicholas wrote:

    Wade Burleson wrote:

    Frankly, the tearing down of institutional churches may be the best thing for real Christianity to blossom.

    Are you going to dissolve Emmanuel then? That would be the only logical and consistent course of action on your part following the above statement.

    You can’t dissolve people. 🙂 Those are whom we consider “Emmanuel.”

    But in terms of the 501C-3 non-profit called Emmanuel Enid, the answer is “No, not at this time.” However, if in the future we are called by our government to do things contrary to Emmanuel’s wishes, we will dissolve the non-profit in a second. I remind the people who contribute to the 501C-3 non-profit that they give freely and voluntarily, we are not “God’s storehouse,” I have no more “authority” than they do in the Kingdom, and if the non-profit ceases to exist the church of Jesus Christ will continue.

    Hope that answers your question. By “institutional church” I mean that non-profit that forgets they are NOT the Kingdom of God and vice-versa. I’ve written a great deal on this subject. Go to my blog and type in the Search Engine: Kingdom, non-profit, church, institutionalism, Old Covenant.

  151. Wade Burleson wrote:

    You can’t dissolve people. Those are whom we consider “Emmanuel.”
    But in terms of the 501C-3 non-profit called Emmanuel Enid, the answer is “No, not at this time.” However, if in the future we are called by our government to do things contrary to Emmanuel’s wishes, we will dissolve the non-profit in a second. I remind the people who contribute to the 501C-3 non-profit that they give freely and voluntarily, we are not “God’s storehouse,” I have no more “authority” than they do in the Kingdom, and if the non-profit ceases to exist the church of Jesus Christ will continue.

    Thanks. I certainly can agree with the above.

  152. Related only to the topic of the Janet Mefferd show, on a recent episode she stated that the show is “underwritten by Bob Jones University.” (It explains the ads for BJU on her site, which I submitted an e-mail complaint about before learning of this). It is obvious why BJU would want to support a popular conservative Christian talk show (and a good talk show imho). BJU gets a mention and gets to advertise that way. It makes them look like a more legitimate and prestigious Christian school.

    Many people who are not “in the know” (as I assume is the case with Janet Mefferd) may think that BJU is just another conservative Christian school. Mrs. Mefferd is clearly genuinely concerned with any kind of abuse in the Christian environment. While most of the BJU-related abuse cases have flown under the radar because they are only reported on by local newsmedia, the story about Chuck Phelps’ coverup of sexual crime in his church was nationally reported by ABC’s 20/20. Chuck Phelps was a BJU board member who only resigned when the heat was turned up by the outside. BJU didn’t force him to resign but instead stood by him and continues to do so. BJU expelled Chris Peterman solely for his “Do Right BJU” protest, not for the picayune and inane reasons they listed for doing so.

    I am doubtful that Mrs. Mefferd could be unaware of any of this, especially since many of the same online sources reporting on the SGM scandal have reported on the Chuck Phelps/BJU scandal. Additionally, on the same recent episode that Janet announced that her show is underwritten by BJU, she had a guest from BJU on the show (the second guest of the third hour, after David Horowitz): http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2013/11/21/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20131121-hr-3/ Thus it would seem that Mrs. Mefferd is well acquainted with BJU. It seems unlikely to me that she missed the news of Chuck Phelps position there, the “Do Right BJU” protest, Phelps’ resignation, and Chris Peterman’s expulsion.

    BJU has deceptively made it seem like they are concerned about sexual abuse in the church: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=11365

    However, BJU’s defense of Phelps and expulsion of Peterman reveal otherwise. I sent the links to all the info about BJU abuse and coverup scandals through the e-mail function of the Mefferd shows’ website, though who knows if she will ever see or read it.

    I understand that it is expensive to have a radio show, and that such a show needs sponsors. But certainly there are sponsors that Mrs. Mefferd would refuse to receive support from for a number of reasons, and would even give up being on the radio if there were no moral sponsors available. BJU is an immoral sponsor, and inconsistent with Janet Mefferd’s stance and outspokenness about child abuse and coverup in the church.

    I understand that Mrs. Mefferd is aware of TWW and has replied to Dee on twitter before. Perhaps Dee, Deb, or somebody could forward this information and concerns to Mrs. Mefferd. You cannot be outspoken against such scandals on moral grounds and then be silent about others that you are aware of.

    Also, I hope that my comments will not be taken as a “guilt-by-association” against Janet Mefferd. She is not guilty for anything that BJU has done. But she is clearly going to have to make a decision on how to proceed concerning BJU, a decision which will have to be made sooner and not later.

  153. Wade:Frankly, the tearing down of institutional churches may be the best thing for real Christianity to blossom

    A bit off topic – I suppose it depends what is meant by an ‘institutional church.’Do you mean all the denominations?

    In my part of the world, members of a new church movement that has become quite prominent were saying this but then started working with what they would call the ‘Institutional Churches’ and developing closer links.

    But in the meanwhile the ‘tearing down’ concept had caused quite a bit of distrust between people, which is taking years to overcome. So I am cautious about this idea as a general approach.

    This is my experience, but I recognise it might be different for others in the UK or in the USA.

  154. @ Wade Burleson: Hmm… neo-paganism (as defined by its current practitioners) is a pretty specific thing, or maybe *grouping of various beliefs under one heading” is a better way to put it?

    From what you’ve said, I have a feeling that his books would make me uncomfortable, but I’ll never know unless I try reading them, eh? 😉

  155. And here’s not one but two separate video examples of how Bob Jones U believes in “counseling” victims of sexual abuse (I can’t use the r-word or my comment will go into moderation):

    http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2011/03/blaming-the-victim-video-version-2-0/

    http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2013/02/evil/

    I believed that if Janet Mefferd were to view the above videos she would be as appalled as the rest of us. If Mrs. Mefferd is truly unaware of any of the things that the rest of us all know about BJU, then it at least signals a failure to do basic and necessary research.

  156. @ Nicholas:

    Mefferd interviewed a guy from BJU sometime within the last month or two, who was touting how much more awesome Christian educations are to Non-Christian ones.

    At least I think the guy was from BJU. I remember him going on about how great BJU is.

    I looked through the first three pages of her radio show but cannot find that interview.

    I also heard Mefferd in one show about a week ago praise the Duggar family having 100 kids a piece.

    Mefferd views that family having a million kids as being pro-family and prefers that to our abortion-centric society.

    I do not support abortion either, but I see dangers in the Christianized Fecundity Cultic mindset that some conservative Christians hold.

    It’s fine to be pro- life, but I wish Christians would not go the other extreme route and turn parenting into a golden calf.

    I like Mefferd, but I don’t think she’s aware of certain things…

    Like, I don’t think she’s heard of Reconstructionism or Quiverfull, or has not been to any blogs by survivors of Quivering (who forbid the use of any birth control, advocate women have a billion kids a piece) to see how dangerous it is, etc.

    Mefferd is very strong pro-family, anti- feminism – nothing wrong with being pro family, pro traditional marriage, etc, but Christian people who are married with kids (as Mefferd is) do not usually see the staggering amount of family/ kid/ marriage worship that goes on in Baptist/ evangelical churches.

    Married Christians who have children tend to have a huge blind spot in this area.

    Jesus spoke out against family worship in the Gospels. He said you are to put him and his followers (your spiritual brothers /sisters in Christ) before your flesh and blood ties, and that if you do not, you are not worthy to follow Him.

    I’m afraid that conservative Christians who are strong social conservatives are blind to the family/marriage worship that goes on.

    They are blind to it and do not see how the unmarried, childless, divorced, widows, are marginazlied in today’s church climate as a result of it.

    Or, they see it but do not care – they are willing to sweep the unmarried, divorced, childless couples, and the widowed Christians aside to go into hyper-drive defending the “traditional family” unit from perceived attacks by godless, heathen, liberal, pagan America.

    So they opine and opine on marriage and parenting forever and rant and rave against liberals, homosexual marriage, and abortion, but ignore (or bad mouth) all the adult singles (or childless married couples) in congregations.

    (Some churches or well known Christian personalities criticize people for not marrying and for not having kids, or for not marrying in their 20s.)

    Mefferd seems to automatically assume that rejecting all things resembling feminism is automatic default for defending biblical womanhood, or the Gospel itself.

    Rejecting gender complementarianism does not mean one’s only option left is to embrace radical feminism, abortion, and homosexuality, but most gender comps don’t understand this.

    I wish Mefferd would read blogs and books by conservative Christians about biblical gender egalitarianism to find out that gender comp is not biblical, and that it creates all sorts of problems among Christians.

    I also wish she would come to see that that there are other expressions of biblical Christianity that reject gender compism but do not embrace abortion, and so on.

    I think Mefferd’s heart is in the right place but that she is unaware of just how dangerous and unbiblical it is to elevate marriage and having children to the bizarro extreme that social conservatives and evangelicals tend to do.

  157. Peter,

    “Tearing down” is much too strong of a phrase. My apology. What I mean is ‘removing the structure of top/down authority that is the antithesis of true Christianity which has Christ as the sole authority of every believer.”

  158. @ Deb:

    Thanks, Deb! I still don’t see the date when I use the original link. I’m sure it’s right in front of my face somewhere 😉

  159. dee wrote:

    @ Bridget: I stole your idea on abuse on the new post!!!! It seemed rather fitting.

    Well, I can’t claim much of an intellectual mind so I’m not too worried about you ‘stealing’ an idea. If you can turn it into something worth reading – have at it!

  160. I dont know either one of them. I just stumbled onto this and I would say m as a christian mefforis not exempt by her journalism position in practicing holiness eithef.she should have asked him privately especially if she really is more concerned about the gospel and the issues he has written about…It did appear to be her only planned agenda and very personal…she crossed over and above even worldl sensationalism …leave it to the tribes. Once again. Yes its harder when your family is the one pulling the triggers in public…he did well.

  161. @ Nicholas:

    This past weekend one of our fundy FB friends deleted an entire post and its comments when it became apparent that her newly-BJU-ordained youth pastor son-in-law (who’s been a parent for 2mos) was losing an argument with my Lutheran mother (who’s been a parent for 23y) about child discipline. At least that’s what it looks from our end. 🙂 Quite funny to watch.

  162. simplyinlovewithjesus wrote:

    I would say m as a christian mefforis not exempt by her journalism position in practicing holiness eithef.she should have asked him privately especially if she really is more concerned about the gospel and the issues he has written about…

    Really? Why don’t you prove to me that she should have spoken to him privately about this first? Matthew 18 does not apply here. Think about it. He is public. His book is public. He speaks about it publicly . He speak about it to people who have never met him personally. Given those parameters, unless you have a “new” way of viewing Scripture, she did nothing wrong.

    Many Christian like the “quiet” approach when it come to public leaders because they don’t like to see their guys acting like idiots in front of the world. But, as Luther said, “Go and sin boldly.” We Christian like to go and cover it up.

  163. Hester wrote:

    became apparent that her newly-BJU-ordained youth pastor son-in-law (who’s been a parent for 2mos) was losing an argument with my Lutheran mother (who’s been a parent for 23y) about child discipline.

    It is always the new youth pastor who *knows* how to raise children.

    We knew one such guy. He was convinced that if he applied his perfect program, all kids would grow up to serve Jesus. Until his rebelled. These guys claim to understand all there is to know about the bible and overlook the fact that even Adam and Eve, who had a perfect Father, rebelled.

  164. Nicholas wrote:

    And Driscoll should not be threatening Christians with lawsuits for supposed “trademark infringement.”

    Ack… let’s try that again.

    I fully agree. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

    Again, I’m no Driscoll defender. Truthfully, there was a time that I learned a bit from him, but I was always generally more frustrated with his demeanor and attacks than I learned. Over the past years, as he’s gotten more and more “out there,” I have completely abandoned him. His good effects (and surely he has some of those) are unfortunately far outweighed by the bad.

    Again, however, as angry as some are at this man, we still need to follow certain principles. One of those is that Christians don’t sue Christians. Instead, we participate in Kingdom redemption, even if it means being wronged in the present. Justice will be served, although not necessarily on our schedule.

  165. Wade Burleson wrote:

    Peter,
    “Tearing down” is much too strong of a phrase. My apology. What I mean is ‘removing the structure of top/down authority that is the antithesis of true Christianity which has Christ as the sole authority of every believer.”

    Wade, I must say, the above quote really stunned me. Are you saying that you are not an authority figure for anyone in your church? I would not be a part of a church if I didn’t consider the pastor to be an authority figure in my life. Also, with this belief, you’re on the wrong side of church history. The early church (Pre 313) most definitely had bishops and priests.

  166. Alan wrote:

    Also, with this belief, you’re on the wrong side of church history. The early church (Pre 313) most definitely had bishops and priests.

    And slaves…
    Quoting “what happened in the early church” will inevitably lead to problems. They were serious sinners, just like us.

  167. @ ian:
    @Ian

    I’m with you. I don’t know MD except from comments on a couple sites, and I never heard of JM before now. But I honestly felt that in the interview JM came across as smarmy and holier-than-thou, while MD was polite but evasive.

    I’m startled to see everyone here cheering for JM. I’m not saying that MD isn’t just as bad as everyone here says he is, but I am saying I couldn’t have come to that conclusion by just listening to the interview.

    I wonder if I respond like that with people whose ideas I admire or loathe. For instance, I’m a rather flaming liberal politically; would I be able to loathe anything Mr. Obama said, or to admire anything Mr. Boehner said? Or is it all just tribal with me as well as with almost everyone else?

    Very sobering.

  168. H. Lee wrote:

    I’m startled to see everyone here cheering for JM.

    This is one of the few places on the web where Mefferd is being defended.

    She is being clobbered about everywhere else.

    I did not think Mefferd was “holier than thou.” What you perceive as being holier than thou is concern.

    She is concerned and upset that a man who claims to be a Christ follower, who is a preacher, is seemingly stealing content from someone else, and he is not owning up to it.

    She wanted him to admit to it, or at least say on air that he would commit to fixing future prints of the book if need be, but he didn’t go there.

    You said,
    Or is it all just tribal with me as well as with almost everyone else?

    That sounds like something out of a Driscoll sermon or book.

    BTW, Driscoll didn’t come up with that “tribal” concept, he’s only applying it to religion.

    I recall someone on a right wing site, about two years ago, talking about a book that talked about how humanity (not just Christians) divvy themselves up “by tribes” and how all conflict in politics, all wars, can be traced back to tribalism.

    I now wonder if Driscoll read that book too and just ripped it off for his sermons and book.

  169. Alan wrote:

    Wow….so much utter nonsense in here that I wouldn’t even know where to begin.

    What in my comments was “nonsense” specifically?

  170. @ Alan:
    Where does the Bible say that a preacher is an authority figure above a layperson? Jesus told his followers,

    Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
    Matthew Ch 20

    The Bible says all believers are priests,

    and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father–to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
    Rev 1.6

  171. One of these might be the book I was thinking of, that I saw discussed on political forums a few years ago, and I suspect where Driscoll got his idea of tribalism from:

    Us Against Them: How Tribalism Affects the Way We Think by Bruce Rozenblit (Nov 7, 2008)

    or,

    Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing Theory Back in (Theory, Culture & Society) by Paul W James (Apr 20, 2006)

    or,

    Us and Them: The Science of Identity by David Berreby (Nov 24, 2008)
    (which mentions tribalism)

  172. H. Lee wrote:

    ’m startled to see everyone here cheering for JM. I’m not saying that MD isn’t just as bad as everyone here says he is, but I am saying I couldn’t have come to that conclusion by just listening to the interview.

    Let’s see if you still feel this way after the new revelations. Secondly, everyone here, including myself, have been following Driscoll for years. Janet Meffered held her own against a man that I perceive to be a bully.

  173. E.G. wrote:

    Again, however, as angry as some are at this man, we still need to follow certain principles. One of those is that Christians don’t sue Christians.

    Therefore you also think it’s wrong for the sexually abused to go to court, such as regarding SGM?

  174. @ Victorious:
    “I was amazed at the number of times Mark tried to excuse his omission of Peter Jones credit by repeating over and over that Peter is my friend, he had dinner at my house, he is my friend, he is my friend……”

    And don’t forget his wife is really great too, she is a really smart, great gal!

  175. Daisy wrote:

    Mefferd said she has received a lot of e-mails from people criticizing her and supporting Driscoll. I’m surprised. I think Driscoll came off poorly in that exchange, not her.

    No, you forget — the golden boy can do no wrong. It MUST be Janet. O.o

  176. E.G. wrote:

    One of those is that Christians don’t sue Christians.

    Hmm, how do you handle child sexual abuse cover up in the church? I totally support Christian suing other Christians when Said Christian acts like a pagan and cheats people out of their money or participates in the ruin of a life by sexually abusing them.

  177. Sorry, Daisy, I’ll try again.

    You said my use of the word “tribal” sounds like something out of one of MD’s books. I have never read a book of his, but I picked up the word from reading the comments on this board. Should I have said “group-thinker” instead? In any case, I can see you thought that by using that word, I was taking a swipe at you and most of the others on this board, and I can also see that indeed I was doing that. So I’m sorry for giving offense.

  178. @ Dee

    You said, “everyone here, including myself, have been following Driscoll for years.”

    I’m sure if I’d been doing that, I would feel the same as you do. I was just trying to give my opinion of the interview, as the opinion of a completely-outside observer. And I stand by my opinion of the interview.

    On a completely different subject, how lovely to see Eagle back and to see him in a terrific spiritual place, as I understand you saw him literally this last Sunday!

  179. Patrice wrote:

    E.G. wrote:
    Again, however, as angry as some are at this man, we still need to follow certain principles. One of those is that Christians don’t sue Christians.
    Therefore you also think it’s wrong for the sexually abused to go to court, such as regarding SGM?

    Well, that pertains to what anyone would normally call a criminal matter (although the US strangely separates these things…), so Romans applies.

    This is a (hypothetical) lawsuit over a financial matter, which seems to be the intent of the Corinthians passage.

    In any case, Corinthians has to be navigated, not discounted, in a case like this.

  180. @ dee: btw, you and Deb are great about photo credit lines. Far too many people are casual about that, and it’s not right. It remains a problem in some print publications, and is epidemic on the web.

    But one of the ironies I’ve run into personally is this – musicians will defend their own rights re. composer and lyricist credits, yet many don’t even know the names of the people who took the photos they use in their own press kits. This can be maddening when you’re trying to get proper photo credit lines published, believe me! The musicians who *do* know and who are really good about giving proper credit are to be commended, even if/when their music isn’t that great. (imo; I used to write reviews and was/am amazed at the way in which many treat a photo as if it’s nothing and the photographer as unworthy of the same kind of recognition that musicians want for their own work.)

  181. When there’s blood in the water . . .
    I posted this to Janet Mefford’s Facebook concerning the Driscoll issue:
    “Regarding Mark Driscoll, you quoted the scripture “speaking the truth in love”. What was the condition of your heart when you had Mark Driscoll on your show? Yes, perhaps you were speaking the truth, but were you doing it in love? Honestly, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it seemed more like an ambush than an interview. You knew ahead of time that you were going to play “gotcha” when you had Mr. Driscoll on, and he was obviously entirely unprepared for this, expecting to address Christian issues that are important to the church. Yes, before you go on about honesty, we AGREE on that, but were you REALLY attempting to “nail him” because, after all, he was on one side of the Strange Fire issue, and you are apparently on the other side. I’m not defending Driscoll’s apparent plagiarism, but don’t you think, that Biblically, before you brought it before the church and the world on your show, you should have brought it up in private between yourself and Mr. Driscoll FIRST, as scripture says, and THEN brought it before the church if he was unresponsive? It seems that you skipped a step here in your eagerness to “correct” or perhaps “condemn” your brother.
    So, were you attempting to correct him or condemn him?
    I’m the author of an online book (free, I’m not selling anything), http://www.thedarwinpapers.com, with hundreds of footnotes, and I know how easy it might have been to have made that kind of mistake. Don’t you at least think you should have had a three way conference before hand between yourself, Mr. Driscoll and the third party whom you both apparently know, before pulling this kind of gotcha stunt on your program?
    Sorry, but you were so right that you were wrong,”
    Scripture says ” All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2Tim 3:16-17 “doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”; I don’t see the word condemn anywhere.
    “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” Galatians 5:15
    James Foard

  182. @ E.G.: It’s theft of intellectual property, *especially* when that theft goes on for 14 entire pages!

    Want to take something to the bank? Try this: MD counted on not being found out, and if found out, on not being sued.

    I think he might well rue the day he ever decided to “appropriate” material in this way, even if it was written by someone he claims is his friend.

    Believe me, there are a lot of people out here who are totally non-religious and/or of other faiths who would NEVER dream of doing what he’s done. And given the way his “church” is run, nobody will touch him. (Well, either that, or he’s just sown the seeds of his own downfall.)

  183. James Foard wrote:

    Yes, perhaps you were speaking the truth, but were you doing it in love?

    Thank you for commenting. I was waiting for this sort of comment. You are now making it about the one who asked the question. And as you probably know by now, Driscoll has been caught again.

    You are the one judging the motives here. you *know* what is going on in someone’s heart. In fact, your motives are in question as well. My pastor often says “Even on my best days my motives are mixed.” That means yours, mine and everyone else.

    This technique is often used in abusive churches. A person brings up an issue. The pastors gets miffed off and accuses the person brining the complaint as “divisive,” “prideful,” “unloving,” etc.

    if I were you, I would stop attempting to judge motives and look at the facts. I gave up the motive thing years ago. I leave that in the hands of our Father who knows it all.

  184. numo wrote:

    Believe me, there are a lot of people out here who are totally non-religious and/or of other faiths who would NEVER dream of doing what he’s done. And given the way his “church” is run, nobody will touch him.

    I am hoping you might be wrong on not being able to be touched. With further revelations of plagiarism, he is in hot water. Let’s see how the Big Dogs handle this one. They backed Mahaney on the SGM child sex abuse allegations. If they back Driscoll on plagiarism which is against the law, then they will demonstrate the utter depravity of the leadership in this movement.

  185. dee wrote:

    With further revelations of plagiarism, he is in hot water. Let’s see how the Big Dogs handle this one.

    “These five Kings said one to another,
    ‘KING UNTO KING O’ER THE WORLD IS BROTHER’…”
    — G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon

  186. @ James Foard:

    You said,

    ” . . . and he was obviously entirely unprepared for this, expecting to address Christian issues that are important to the church.”

    Isn’t Mark’s honesty and integrity as a pastor and writer, all under the name of ‘Christian,’ the issues here? Your entire comment is about Janet Mefferd. Why isn’t it about Mark Driscoll? Have you listened much to the way he talks to people?

  187. @ James Foard:
    How is asking a preacher who lifted 14 pages of content from one book without proper citation “playing gotcha?”

    She also said in one program that she told Driscoll’s team before the show that there would be tough questions, so there was “no ambush.”

    But I don’t see what the big deal if there was one. Nobody else holds Driscoll accountable.

    Did he not fire all the elders at his church so he would not have to answer anyone?

  188. Pingback: Mark Driscoll: There He Goes Again | Christian Reconstructionist UNITED STATES

  189. @ andrew Kenny:
    Point is, His people asked for the interview and got him on, then found a way to get him off!!! He wanted the interview to be about his new book. And it was about his book. And about his sin of stealing intellectual property without citation to give credit to the source, aka plagiarism. Which it now appears is a bad habit of his that he, and Mars Hill, know all about, according to the MH web site. So Pastor Mark deserves all of the credit (or blame) for the character of the interview, especially when he started the common abuser tactic of making the other party appear evil for bringing up the topic of the big man’s sins. How dare she call him to account for his sin, after all, he is a PASTOR. Who clearly is out of his league and does not belong in any pulpit.

  190. An Attorney wrote:

    How dare she call him to account for his sin, after all, he is a PASTOR.

    Yes. Yes. She should have gone to him privately first…
    So sick of hearing that refrain.
    Oh, puh=leeeze!
    How many times did Driscoll go to those he smears from the pulpit privately?
    Besides, it was not a private offense. It was the very public act of plagiarism in a best-selling, highly publically marketed book. Isn’t that why his PR team contacted Mefferd in the first place? Is this what it means to “Man up”?

  191. @ Anon:

    “She should have gone to him privately first…
    So sick of hearing that refrain.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    such commentators remind me of my twelve-year old son and his friends. feeling some confidence and power in coming of age and the bit of knowledge and experience they have. the way they carry themselves and communicate their conclusions / convictions.

    we know it all. got the whole world all figured out. we’ll take it from here, thanks. completely oblivious as to how limited their scope of understanding really is.

  192. James Foard wrote:

    but don’t you think, that Biblically, before you brought it before the church and the world on your show, you should have brought it up in private between yourself and Mr. Driscoll FIRST

    No. Driscoll’s plagiarism was public, intentional, and needed to be addresses publicly. And a man who tells women to perform oral sex on their husbands (and even does this from the pulpit) is not a brother in Christ.

  193. Since Driscoll has said he’s worked professionally as a journalist he shouldn’t be shocked if occasionally, after more than a decade of saying some controversial things, he gets a gotcha interview once in a while.

  194. And for that matter no one who registers the copyright for so many books in his name rather than his church should be insulated from criticism about research and citation methods.

  195. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    In my first full introduction to Fiscal, we went through a series of podcasts of his along with two friends here, one of whom was a fairly new Christian and was hungry for teaching of any kind. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that it was actually listening to Fiscal “teaching” that convinced me he is no teacher – not through any single glaring error but through the mounting weight of silly inaccuracies.

    But he made this interesting point about ungodly, manipulative feminist women who want to be in leadership over men and have all the power and privilege that God has invested in the Y-chromosome. These women want to be treated like men, and to smack down men, until those same men are mean to them in return. At which point these “strong” women become all emotional and tearful because the nasty men hurt their feelings. “Treat me like a man – when it’s convenient. Treat me like a woman – when it’s convenient. Come on – dance, monkey, dance!” And that, you now understand, is why women shouldn’t lead: they can’t stand the heat, so they should stay out of the kitchen.

    Well, quite.

  196. Two thoughts:

    – Seeing a lot of Driscoll defenders attack Janet by saying that she shouldn’t rebuke a pastor on a national news show. Seriously?! The serious error in question is in an internationally distributed book! The basic biblical principle for correcting Christians is that the critique (and punishment, if deemed necessary) take place on the same social scale as the offense.

    – at every respectable seminary, plagiarism earns you a failing grade and, if intentional, dismissal. It’s a really big deal. Not sure how many Driscoll defenders realize the seriousness of the allegations.

  197. Sorry for the double post.

    Just checked out Janet’s new post with side by side evidence. In my opinion, the plagiarism accusation is a direct hit on Driscoll’s book about 1 & 2 Peter. Cut and paste word for word uncited plagiarism. It’s so bad that it looks to me like a very bad, sloppy writing and editing job. (I.e. “I’ll just paste my initial research here and re-word it later…” But then forget to go back and handle it.)

    The stuff about tribalism isn’t as word for word, IMO. Obviously direct conceptual dependence. At minimum, what is missing is a special introductory paragraph to the dependent material in which Driscoll says, “I am indebted to (authors name) for the following concepts and ideas.” And then of course footnotes or endnotes so the reader can follow how the original author developed the ideas in question. It’s all just very basic research methods and academic publishing guidelines. Makes me wonder about Driscoll’s experience doing scholarly work. Ironic that the commentary he plagiarizes is edited by DA Carson from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr Carson, so I’ve heard, is quite a stickler regarding academic integrity and will fail students from an entire class for plagiarizing on one assignment. They can also be kicked out of TEDS, at the discretion of school officials. I wonder what Carson thinks about his friend Mark’s “research methods?” Certainly Carson has to be at least as harsh to a 45 year old experienced pastor writing to millions, as he is to 22 year old kids writing for a school assignment?

  198. __

    “Who Will Morn For MerkyD?”

    hmmm…

    A powerful communications expert claiming to be a Seattle Reformed pastor appears and demands that the crew of the Janet Mefford Show disembark onto his proverbial planet MarzHil to worship him. The tables are turned however when Mefford turns and blasts his … Er…new book…

    Take dat, and dat…

    … plagiarizing ole Puddy Tat…

    “you should know bedder den dat…”

    -snicker-

    Sopy
    ___
    Comic relief: “I Taut I Taw a Plagiarizing Puddy Tat…”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38aDWDUjlOY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    Bonus: Star Trek Fun – “Broken Hearted Proverbial Pastor?” …applicable, yes?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVGK3fuD5Kw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  199. The reality is that with a very few notable exceptions journalists have a single interest – their own fame, aggrandisement, or celebrity. Newspapwers want to sell papers to increase advertising revenues, and TV and radio channels chase “ratings”. All love to set people on pedestals and later destroy them, or just destroy those who they think have a reputation worth destroying – why? Because it boosts their reputations, sales, and ratings. There used to be a saying that “no news is good news” contemporary practise is often the reverse “good news is no news”. Often truth, integrity of reporting and balance ae no consideration in ths.
    Here in the United Kingdom this has resulted in admitted illegal invasions of privacy and more allegations of the same by senior members of a large media empire currently before the criminal courts.
    Journaliste are becoming the objects of disgust and derision in some cases with justification but it is sad that the “good” ones will invetably get “tarred with the same brush”. At the same time newspaper sales are in serious decline. The media need to clean up their act and become more informative, less opinionated and self important, and moe to the poin more truthful and balanced.

  200. __

    @ Christain

    The ‘real’ reality is that with a very few notable exception(s) most Christian writers properly footnote their sources.

  201. Pingback: On plagerism, tone, and tribalism | Stand Up for the Truth

  202. I suspect that plagiarism will some day be the least of the allegations around this controversial publicity hound. It doesn’t discredit Christianity to point out the man’s errors, it discredits Christianity to remain silent. The world watches aghast at his lack of character already while Christians argue among themselves about playing nice with the bully.

    I’ve followed Driscoll’s career over the years because as a native of Seattle I felt it important to know and understand the spiritual influences in my city. I watched with alarm as it seemed wherever his influence grew so did the number of arrogant, shock jock hipsters dudes that seemed to get pleasure out of putting little women in their place in the name of Driscoll theology.

    It disturbed me when a former favorite theologian stated in defense of Mark’s divisive and swaggering offensiveness that “his doctrine is perfect”. Then I realized none of this is about doctrine, or Christianity or representing Christ before the watching world. He is a little man invested in self promotion, building a sort of gangster image and dishing out verbal abuse on women and people with less power. His Kingdom of yes men is going to lead where these things always lead. The image of a strutting self aggrandizing punk comes to mind, that he does so in the name of Christ actually has nothing to do with Christ, just another huckster pursuing recognition and fame or infamy whatever he can wrest in the name of God. It is all a game and for most people, the little man is irrelevant. The fighting about defending his “honor” is also irrelevant, what matters here is some truth telling about the elephants sitting in the churches of evangelicals while we remain in polite denial.

  203. Katarina wrote:

    I suspect that plagiarism will some day be the least of the allegations around this controversial publicity hound.

    Katarina wrote:

    I watched with alarm as it seemed wherever his influence grew so did the number of arrogant, shock jock hipsters dudes that seemed to get pleasure out of putting little women in their place in the name of Driscoll theology.

    Katarina wrote:

    It disturbed me when a former favorite theologian stated in defense of Mark’s divisive and swaggering offensiveness that “his doctrine is perfect”

    Darn good first comment on TWW. Welcome. We agree with you. We believe that his problems will only escalate. And his fanboys will continue to be in denial because they love a loud mouth swaggering parody of manhood. Parody? Any guy who tries to blame his ghostwriter is no man.

  204. Pingback: On plagiarism, tone, and tribalism - Stand Up For The Truth