Well, she did say that the interview should not have occurred at all. So, “what she did” (the interview) was included in the apology. But you’re right, the apology does not let Mr. Driscoll “off the hook,” and do I think it was Ms. Mefferd’s intention to do so. I think she was taking responsibility for her own errors, which was admirable.

there’s a lot of what can most charitably be called “irony” around this issue. 🙂

A fine comment. Thanks for it.
1 Timothy 5:19 by extension tells us how to deal with accusations toward elders. (Surely we’re not to believe that Timothy couldn’t entertain an uncorroborated accusation but today now we can.) We give them the benefit of the doubt. In this case, that means NOT assuming intentional plagiarism but assuming it was a mistake, until there is corroborated evidence otherwise.
Ignoring the principle in 1 Timothy 5:19 is, in my opinion, the really significant spiritual and moral issue in this debacle. It’s those who are quickest to condemn Driscoll for a lack of citation of two brief paragraphs in what is little more than an internal study-guide — they are the problem that is destroying the evangelical church in America (not a lack of a footnote).