Janet Mefferd pulls documentation alleging plagiarism against Mark Driscoll

See UPDATE below

Christian talkshow host and journalist, Janet Mefferd, removed documents which appeared to show plagiarism by controversial pastor and Young, Restless, and Reformed icon, Mark Driscoll. Earlier Mefferd had pressed Driscoll in an interview to explain why he apparently used material from Reformed theologian, Peter Jones, without properly citing his material, an interview which turned sour quickly with Driscoll allegedly hanging up (unfortunately the allegation of 'hanging up' took the spotlight away from the more serious breach if true--plagiarism).

Mefferd produced even more indicting forms of potential plagiarism by comparing passages in Driscoll's published works to passages found in mainstream commentaries. Warren Throckmorton reproduced Mefferd's original documents and has some helpful commentary concerning the issue of plagiarism.

In addition, Religious News Service (RNS) senior columnist, Jonathan Merritt, cites Brad Greenberg, Intellectual Proterty Fellow at Columbia Law School as saying:

“The passages that Mefferd has identified appear to be copied almost verbatim from the Carson New Bible Commentary. Merely changing a few words, such as ‘unschooled’ to ‘uneducated’, is likely not enough to skirt liability for copyright infringement,” Greenberg said. “The only relevant defense that I could see Driscoll having is independent creation–that is, he wrote this passage completely independent of the Carson text, and the striking similarity is mere coincidence. That, of course, is exceptionally unlikely because the Carson text was far from obscure and, in fact, was later cited by Driscoll.”

According to Merritt, Greenberg indicated Mefferd's allegation of plagiarism strengthened from her initial evidence she pressed in the interview when she showed the almost verbatim copying of passages in the latest evidence she provided but subsequently pulled from her site. Merritt reports:

"According to Brad Greenberg, Intellectual Property Fellow at Columbia Law School, the first allegation is far less serious than the newer ones insofar as the law is concerned. Copyright laws protect expression — the exact ordering of words — not the idea, Greenberg told me." - See more at the RNS article by Jonathan Merritt

One surely should not assume any moral breach on behalf of Janet Mefferd. If she pulled the documents, we presume she did so for good and evident reason. According to one source,¹ she intends to publicly address the issue with her listening audience.

For that matter, one need not assume personal guilt for Mark Driscoll even though he remains fully liable if it's actually determined plagiarism is present in his books. Assuming, of course, Driscoll did not write the passages but either an editorial assistant or ghostwriter compiled the material for him. In that case, Driscoll's error lies elsewhere but nonetheless remains fully responsible and liable if breach of copyright is determined.

Whatever the case, I'm quite sure no major magazine will proclaim this year as "the year of the evangelical."

 

¹UPDATE: When I posted this piece, I was aware Janet Mefferd had apparently spoken publicly and offered an apology to Mark Driscoll, Tyndale House and her listening audience but when I clicked on the page of the blogger who originally alerted us to the particular broadcast, the link was broken. Thanks to North Carolina pastor, Tim Rogers for pointing me to the specific broadcast in which Mefferd humbly offers an apology to her listening audience and all parties involved for prematurely bringing the evidences to public attention and scrutiny. Here's the broadcast. Mefferd's apology begins at 5:30 in. For my part, her obviously sincere apology should strengthen our respect for her as a credible journalist, radio host, and committed believer. Thank you, Janet, for following both godly Christian counsel and your mature Christian conscience. 

 

Related articles

Mefferd Backs Down on Driscoll's Plagarism

Mark Driscoll: Plagiarism - Thou Shalt Not Steal!

Mark Driscoll Nailed for Plagiarism

Mark Driscoll: Given an F for His Plagiarisms

Mark Driscoll peeved at Janet Mefferd and hangs up--"you're rude and unkind"

Janet Mefferd on Joe Carter: Round 2--'Carter's message to Christians is SHUT UP'

Comments

[Ben Simpson]

Janet Mefferd is becoming a regular James White on this one. Good for her! I hope she helps hold Mark Driscoll accountable like James has been able to do somewhat with Ergun Caner.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Ben,

Either you're incredibly opaque, didn't read this post, or perhaps just want to stir up muck. Which would it be, Ben? Either of the above or something else? To liken Janet Mefferd to James White is like comparing Mount Everest to red ant mounds in West Georgia. Just a bit screwy. Mefferd made a public accusation, posted what she believed was evidence, withdrew it, and humbly apologized for creating division amongst God's people, even going the second mile in suggesting she should first have consulted about this in private even though it was public material she examined. In short, she displays mature not to mention classy Christian character in dealing with what in no uncertain terms is a very provocative issue.

[Andrew Barker]

Ha, Ben, I see you've recovered enough to breathe in the air on this site. The problem is Ben, I can't quite work out what it is you're saying.

Are you saying that Mefferd conducts herself in the same way White conducts himself? If so, following Mefferd's public apology perhaps you could post evidence of the last time White made a public apology over getting something 'wrong'. I've put wrong in inverted commas because in truth I don't think she is wrong about the plagiarism itself. That would appear to be self evident.

I haven't checked web sites etc. for any apologies from White, but I wouldn't lay odds on you coming up with the goods on this one. Come on Ben, amaze us all!

[Ben Simpson]

James White and Janet Mefferd seem to have a lot in common:

1) They are both into radio. In fact, he has hosted her radio show several times.

2) They both seek to hold accountable public Christian figures who have done wrong. In fact, they both agree on this Driscoll issue.

3) They both are being opposed for doing so. I personally am glad that she is showing Christian love to Driscoll this way although I did not agree that the way in which she ambushed him on her show that day was appropriate. I'm glad that she has put forth an apology. Very classy and Christian indeed. In fact, exemplary!

[Scott Shaver]

To be perfectly honest,

Guys like Ben Simpson with all these demands for public clarifications and accusations of moral turpitude are a joke.

Will be interesting to see how spotless they are personally when the books are opened huh?

My grandfather used to say a guilty pig squeals loudest.

[Max]

It's always right to do the right thing ... and Ms. Mefferd is acting on her convictions to do the right thing in regard to this issue. In the meantime, perhaps she has caused Driscoll to dot "his" i's and cross "his" t's for future books ... but I doubt that she has accomplished containing the macho potty-mouth preacher within proper boundaries. There are too many of these New Calvinist notables who are bullet-proof. Certain corners of the reformed school continue to prop them up, for they love and adore their icons and see no evil/hear no evil.

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

Your analogy is absurd. I can make a similar one:

1) James White and I breath air

2) James White and I are grandpas

3) James White and I have Bibles

Therefore, James White and I have a lot in common

Yes, I suppose one can maintain White and I have innumerable things in common. But the analogy nonetheless remains absurd.

To your point here, Mefferd offered a public apology within a week and stopped assuring the listening audience the division in the church was not what she wanted. White has been hounding Caner for six years with moral assaults and no stopping in sight. Hence, your similarities are nothing more than trying to needlessly stir up muck. Not going to happen on this thread I assure.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Be informed in advance: as I mentioned to Ben above, his comments are so absurd, and frankly, disgusting, I can only take it that's he's attempting to muck rake on this thread. Not going to happen. Whatever is driving Ergun Caner haters like Ben Simpson, Jared Moore, Mark Lamprecht, James White, et al is not anything I desire to accommodate or support.

Hence, any comments which attempt to make this thread into re-hashing White and Khan's claims concerning Caner will not be posted. Ben can take his hatred and vindictiveness toward people elsewhere.

[Scott Shaver]

Ben Simpson disgusts me. But that is strictly my opinion.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Peter

I firmly agree with you that Janet has demonstrated a good model to her listeners and fans. I will tell you something that is disappointing but not surprising namely, that many of those who quickly and fervently chose sides (and particularly those on Janet's side though she did not recruit anyone and she certainly is not responsible for their choices), unlike Janet Mefferd, do not appear to be persuaded to take personal inventory over the matter or anything that they have said based on Janet's earlier approach and words which are now removed

Not once, in any of the various "side taking" blogs where some rather extreme comments and assertion were made based on this, will you see anyone saying, "Hey, you know, Janet took a step back and recognized something wrong that she did and admitted and apologized for it. Maybe we need to take inventory too". Instead it is like watching a mob-mentality.

One might even surmise Janet is not there, to many of them, for substance but as a vehicle to be used when she can transport them to a spot they wish to go, otherwise, Janet will be ignored, like now.

She specifically said she did not wish to create a viral situation and the subsequent dissension which has gone on. Is anyone listening to that part of Janet Mefferd?

Apparently, if any, they are overwhelmed by the majority at the various websites of support who simply cannot accept Mefferd's integrity as trustworthy with regard to the apology and instead, assert directly and implicitly that Mefferd is offering an insincere apology and that, without evidence, she is being pressured to do so.

Good for Janet Mefferd, bad for those who simply wish to use her and the situation for recruiting disaffected people.

[Tim Rogers]

Calvinists trying to hijack a comment stream. Really? Com'on Peter. Next thing you are going to tell me is that James White can't speak Arabic.

[Andrew Barker]

Alex, I appreciate the tone of your contribution but it is not quite as balanced as perhaps you think. Janet Mefferd has withdrawn her blog and apologised but she has not explicitly indicated that her comments regarding plagiarism were wrong. At least that is my understanding.

There are a vast number of people who do not like the way Mark Driscoll conducts himself and to be frank were more than happy to see the man given a bloody nose! But therein hangs the problem because although naturally we all tend to feel this way, we know as Christians that we have to fight this tendency to 'get one over' on somebody.

I have to confess that what I have seen of Driscoll leads me to believe he is rude, arrogant, at times crude, can be untruthful or at least tells half truths and is Reformed in his theology! This in itself does not mean he is guilty of anything other than being what he is. But neither would it be fair to lump all those who find his conduct objectionable as either disaffected or jumping on a bandwagon. Plagiarism is stealing and that's offical from Driscoll!

It would also be unwise to read too much into Mefferd's withdrawal of her statement because as yet we still do not have a complete picture. The truth has a funny habit of coming out in the long run. Driscoll may yet rue the day he just didn't put his hand up to the plagiarism charge and deal with it promptly. Tyndale may lose the trust of many competent authors and end up losing out financially. But more importantly, because of Janet Mefferd's actions the Christian world may be spared a nasty spat which would do nobody any good and would hardly further the cause of the Gospel.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Andrew

Thanks and I agree that too much should not and cannot be read into Janet Mefferd's apology, and in fact we should only receive it as it was given. I tried to be careful with the force of my post not to imply I believed Janet Mefferd's apology meant that every single bit of content was all wrong and I certainly do not believe that.

But she did apologize for what ensued, being an unwitting accomplice to what seems to be a "mob mentality" by many people who are responding to this event as if the world has fallen apart. The melodrama by some participants based on speculation and incomplete information, to me, simply is incompatible with Biblical protocols with regard to our conduct and speech and should be a signal to those who might regard these sources as trustworthy overall though they may contain accurate information at times. Thus, they have become a mob-bully of disaffectionists, the very thing many of them claim to reject.

And to Mark Driscoll. I will tell you that I do not believe he is a confident source of consistent and seasoned Bible instruction. As well, with regard to this and related events, I agree that it appears wisest (from what I know and again I don't know all so even this is qualified) that he explain to his critics the issue at hand and reconcile the matter with Christian principle and if there is a weighty conflict left unresolved and reasonably proven to the public at large, no doubt he will feel its effects to some degree.