Ingrid Schlueter Resigns From Janet Mefferd Show Over Mark Driscoll Plagiarism Controversy

Coming from Julie Anne at Spiritual Sounding Board:

Schlueter’s comment is as follows:

I was a part-time, topic producer for Janet Mefferd until yesterday when I resigned over this situation. All I can share is that there is an evangelical celebrity machine that is more powerful than anyone realizes. You may not go up against the machine. That is all. Mark Driscoll clearly plagiarized and those who could have underscored the seriousness of it and demanded accountability did not. That is the reality of the evangelical industrial complex.

She added later in the thread:

I’ve read much speculation online, which is understandable given the confusing situation, most of it dead wrong. Being limited in what I can share, let me just say that truth tellers face multiple pressure sources these days. I hosted a radio show for 23 years and know from experience how Big Publishing protects its celebrities. Anything but fawning adulation for those who come on your show (a gift of free air time for the author/publisher by the way) is not taken well. Like Dr. Carl Trueman so aptly asked yesterday in his column at Reformation 21, does honest journalism have any role to play in evangelicalism now? (It was rhetorical.) My own take on that question is, no, it does not. The moment hard questions are asked, the negative focus goes on the questioner, not the celebrity, when there is something that needs scrutiny. Those who have the temerity to call out a celebrity have tremendous courage. The easiest thing in the world is to do fluffy interviews with fluffy guests on fluffy books. So hats off to those like Janet who have the courage to ask at all. And my own opinion on Mr. Driscoll is that despite the bravado, despite the near silence of his Reformed peers and enablers, his brand is damaged, and damaged by his own hand.

To follow the conversation, go on over to Spiritual Sounding Board.
Earlier today, I asked Janet Mefferd for an interview regarding her statement yesterday. In an email, she declined to comment.

UPDATE: The comments have now been removed with comment from Julie Ann at Spiritual Sounding Board.

Here is another side-by-side comparison of material from Trial: 8 Witnesses from 1&2 Peter and New Bible Commentary. This image contains different material from what I posted earlier this week.

See also:
On The Allegations Of Plagiarism Against Mark Driscoll (12/2/13)
Zombies, Plagiarism And Mark Driscoll Helped Me Write This Blog Post (12/3/13)
Mark Driscoll And His Church On Plagiarism (12/4/13)
Janet Mefferd Removes Evidence Relating To Charges Of Plagiarism Against Mark Driscoll; Apologizes To Audience (12/4/13)
Mark Driscoll Accused Of Plagiarism By Radio Host (Religion News Service)
More Allegations Of Plagiarism Surface Against Mark Driscoll (Religion News Service)

191 thoughts on “Ingrid Schlueter Resigns From Janet Mefferd Show Over Mark Driscoll Plagiarism Controversy”

  1. So now it’s a conspiracy by big publishing to hide the truth rather than an appalling error in judgment by Mefferd and her producer in how they handled it… including stirring the pot by bringing talk of lawsuits into the discussion on the air. There is no place for “gotcha” journalism in God’s kingdom. There were many ways this could have been handled ethically and responsibly without a public ambush. In a case of plagiarism, guilt is a demonstrable matter of record and only needs to be pointed out. Schlueter might be well advised to take a few days in private before making more public remarks.

    1. Well, apparently her comments raised some eyebrows somewhere because they are now gone.

    2. A wise post from you. Thanks for it.
      As for Driscoll, so far this issue is only about what may only be a mistake about a lack of citation in what was little more than an internal study guide.
      The real issue this brings up is the number of people salivating at the chance to smear a pastor.

      1. It isn’t a chance to smear a pastor. He isn’t worth being called a pastor and hasn’t been for a long time. He is a bully and plagiarism is frankly only the tip of the iceberg with what is wrong with him.
        Since everyone has excused so many other more egregious offenses in popular pastors these days (James Macdonald’s money shenanigans and bullying, Driscoll’s pronouncement of heretic Jakes as orthodox, C J Mahaney and company’s criminally negligent handling of sex offenders in his churches, Ergun Caner continually being promoted though he is as much a fraud as Mike Warnke was), I am not surprised you Driscoll groupies are blowing it off.

        1. You can’t provide any evidence that Driscoll isn’t “worth being called a pastor and hasn’t been for a long time”. Or that he is a “bully” or that the plagiarism you’ve already convicted him of is “the tip of the iceberg”. You’ve broken the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) by bearing false witness. If you refuse to repent, then you are a slanderer and need to examine yourself if you are really “in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Are you really a Christian at all or just a religious hypocrite?

      1. He said in the interview that if he made a mistake then he apologizes. Your statement only makes sense if you assume that Driscoll did it intentionally.

        1. No, it makes sense regardless, and not everyone has heard the interview. A statement from Mark would be nice Mr. “I am of Mark Driscoll”. Did you create your Disqus account for the sole purpose of becoming a Driscoll apologist? 1 Cor 3:12-13.

          1. Baloney. I’ve seen no such evidence. You say 14. Someone else said 18. Which is it? You people can’t get your story straight.
            There is a lack of proper citation of 2 brief paragraphs in what is little more than an internal study guide. So far, that’s it. So don’t repeat your accusation until you get actual proof of it. And apologize for it unless you can provide the proof.

        3. But he didn’t actually apologize for making a mistake did he? Nor does it appear that he has since re-examined the material to determine if he failed to properly cite someone else’s work and made any statements about it.

      2. If plagiarism was that clear, why are the publishers and those who were allegedly plagiarized not sounding off? Given Ingrid’s track record it’s most likely a witch hunt.

        1. Because they will lose money and make Christians look bad. can’t have any of that, you know. Gotta follow the same road the Roman Catholic church did. Hide, obfuscate, shuffle the deck.

          1. I’s not that simple if publishing house truly believes one of their authors plagiarized.

          2. Of course it’s not that *simple.* They’re probably at least grumbling at Mark Driscoll for putting them in this uncomfortable position and telling him to be more careful next time. But hey, once you’ve made an example of some honest journalist, the chances of anyone standing up to the bullies anymore is much smaller so…yeah. Not simple at all. Politics is never simple!

          1. Not thoroughly. My point was not to defend Driscoll, just to say that if the plagiarism was that obvious, things would not have played out the way they did.

          2. The plagiarism is obvious enough that even Mr. John Carpenter, a rabid commenter who spends a lot of his time making personal attacks on anyone who dares to say anything negative about Driscoll, admitted in a previous comment thread, and I quote, “I agree that the commentary stuff is probably plagiarism.”
            Seriously, if you look at it, it’s word for word; he even copied the footnotes as though they were his own research. Then refer to the previous post regarding Driscoll’s own statements about how sinful plagiarism is, and you’ll see the problem.

          3. The alleged plagiarism of two brief paragraphs from a commentary of 1 Peter is more substantial. However, the publication in which it apparently occurred is little more than an internal study guide. Churches commonly produce material for their Sunday School or small groups and likely, inadvertent failures to proper cite sources is also common. The mistake should be corrected but until evidence is forth-coming that it was intentional plagiarism, to treat this as though it is a great moral failure is absurd.

          4. As I said elsewhere, if it is plagiarism it’ll play out among the affected parties.

          6. I’m not buying this publishing house conspiracy, it’ll all play out among the characters who are truly affected. The rest of them will move on to another “controversy.”

          7. A couple of months ago probably the same kinds of people were screaming about how Driscoll “lied” about his books being “confiscated” at the “Strange Fire” conference. When nothing from this fabricated controversy sticks, they’ll be jumping to the next conclusion they can. And we wonder why the church is losing people and the culture!

    4. One should question why no one is questioning Driscoll? Why is he so silent on it? Even if you disagree with the way Mefferd handled it, one must question the legitimacy of her claims.

      1. I would expect Driscoll to remain out of it. It’s for his publisher to address.

        1. A man whose whole vocation is dependent on his integrity should not leave defense of his integrity to his “publishers” who are a for profit organization. I would think he would want to defend his own integrity with some kind of statement no matter how short.

          1. Opinions, we all have them. Neither Carson nor Driscoll adressed it, and that makes sense to me.

          2. Probably because people like you wouldn’t believe him. If he makes a statement personally, you’ll scoff at him. If the publishers say his writings meet industry standards of citing sources, you still condemn him.

          3. Hey John,
            No I would not scoff at him if he gave a valid answer. And per another post to me, it is my business since we carry his books in our bookstore…at least right now…Why you judge me so I do not know since you do not know me. I really wish you would have addressed your perceived problem with me in a more private manner as per Matt. 18 from now on please. If I could have a priavte way to address you I would like to invoke Matt. 18 , but i need a way to contact you…email?

  2. You know, she may not want those comments to be made public right now, at least with her name attatched to them. Did you get permission from her to do publish them here?
    I am sure that there is pressure from publishers to be nice to Christian authors, even if hard questions need to be asked. However, in this instance, it seems that unless you got prior permission to publish these comments, you are in the wrong.
    It is sad that she felt a need to quit her job. She may be spot on in her observations. However, did you ask permission?
    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/06/how-to-stop-online-copyright-infringement/id=15035/

    1. Initially they were posted on another blog. But since then yes, I have permission to post them.

      1. Which blog? I’d like to see them in their original context because the links don’t give me that.

          1. Julie Ann,
            You know very well from our Twitter exchange that my confusion was the result of not knowing *you* had deleted Ingrid’s comments.
            A little honesty about that on your part would have been nice to see instead of this comment.

          2. Kamilla – my name is right above you with “e” on the end. Or feel free to use JA.
            Are you accusing me of being dishonest? Dishonest about what?

          3. Goodness, if I got precious every time someone misspelled my name ….
            Yes, I am saying your comment is dishonest. As we all know now, you removed comments from your blog without leaving any evidence as to which ones you removed. Because you have done this, it is impossible to see Ingrid’s comments in their context. That’s what I was asking for.
            But I’m done playing these games. Good bye.

          4. My, touchy touchy. Well, it must be nice to armchair quarterback since you have nothing to lose.
            Seriously I understand your frustration but it’s a little narcissistic of you to think that your feelings and need for information were first on anyone’s priority list.

          5. Kamilla – The comments were in the midst of Julie Anne’s post on Driscoll. The entire comments are there; I didn’t edit them at all.

          6. Haven’t we already done this? See my comment immediately above your about playing games.

      2. Just checking. I have had it happen to me, but without my permission. Take care.

  3. When she had her own show and “discernment” site Ingrid acted like a Pharisee. She used her personal cultural preferences as a grid to judge others. And if you don’t fit her preference, if your expressions of the faith were not to her liking (regardless of their biblical fidelity) she discerned you are a slice of Laodicea.

    1. Ah. Okay. You know, I want to engage in some speculation, here, since speculation seems to be what we have left.
      Ingrid + assistant producer + someone told Janet that Driscoll hung up on her + strange tweets in Janet’s name + Ingrid’s history = Ingrid’s “resignation.”

      1. When this whole thing first exploded on the web I wondered why someone would accuse Driscoll in a public forum. Why not follow more biblical methods if you think sin has been committed? And why the drama, first saying he hung up… then it’s revealed he didn’t.
        It was not until later, when I saw Ingrid was the producer… this answered my questions.

        1. 1Ti 5:19-21 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. (20) Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (21) I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

          1. why use a 400 + year-old translation?
            There have, as yet, been no witnesses produced who can testify that Driscoll intentionally plagiarized in the study guide on 1 Peter. Until you have any witnesses, then you should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake — at least until such a time as he doesn’t correct it.

          3. Paul did not hold to the Matt 18 when people in high profile positions, such as Peter, were in the wrong. Matt 18 appears to be in personal offenses. However if Ms. Mefford had of held to Matt. 18 and went to Driscoll in private with all 4 of the accusations (which wasnt just a personal offense between her and him but an offense to all of christondom considering his audience) it still would have required an opening up of the offense to all because it was done to/in front of all.

          4. My original point was only to say there was a better way to address the question (Which is also what Ms. Mefford said in her apology), and I wondered why it was handled as it was… until I saw that Ingrid was involved… then it made sense.

          6. I don’t know what her agenda is, I’m just familiar with her methods and attitudes. She ran a website for a while dedicated to pointing out what she thought was wrong with American Evangelical Churches. Sometimes she would have legitimate points. However, these were often obscured by her caustic delivery.
            In far too many cases, what she railed against were not issues of fidelity to the faith, but expressions of it she didn’t like. For example, she had a preference as to what types of music were acceptable for worship. She had preferences to how worship was to be organized and structured. If a church deviated from this, it was judged as a circus church.
            I’m sure her concern is legitimate and her agenda noble. The irony is, all the while she trumpeted the need for discernment, she was unable to do so herself. She appeared incapable of discerning what were the true theological issues, and what were just issues of taste and preference.

          8. “In far too many cases, what she railed against were not issues of fidelity to the faith, but expressions of it she didn’t like. ”
            I guess you’d have to share a common definition of what ‘fidelity to the faith’ would be.
            oh, and go read some Luther for a change. Particularly you might try the introduction to Bondage of the Will, if you want to see caustic. If you don’t like the use of sarcasm and satire, don’t read it. It doesn’t mean it’s an illegitimate tool.

        2. Wow. At any rate, for me, Janet is vindicated with her eloquent apology and the resignation of Ingrid.

          1. Yes, it is surprising how much of this seems to still be about Janet even though she has apologized. So now can people actually pay attention to the charges made and what Driscoll is doing about them?

          2. Let me get this straight… Obvious plagiarism has taken place…copying directly from someone else work and passing it as your own without proper citation and selling it to the public…. and the one who pointed it out needs to apologize? Everyone needs to look at the evidence and then take a look at Mars Hill legal page…Mark would be convicted rather quickly if he held to his own standards. That’s the facts, whether you like who said it or not.

          3. Let me get this straight: What is little more than an internal study guide lacks proper citation in two brief paragraphs and you, first, refuse to entertain the idea that people can make mistakes and then sound as if this were a monumental moral issue. What do you think of Ergun Caner?

          4. I agree with you on Caner John.
            Plagiarism whether it is internally at church or not is still copyright infringement. Intentional or not does matter to the church and should, but not to the law. Copyright infringement is still copy right infringment.

          5. And people make mistakes. If it’s corrected, then fine and good. But if you’re assuming that it wasn’t a mistake, with no proof whatsoever, that is a moral problem with you that you need to deal with and which I’m free to challenge you about here. And THAT kind of reflexive suspicion of pastors is THE real issue here.

          6. I know nothing of her, but the apology and removal of accusations were a good move.

        3. She was a TOPIC producer (i.e. researcher/topic finder) not a show producer. Please read the original quote. Don’t make it look like more than it is.

  4. What one persons calls hard hitting journalism, someone else would call serial character assassination.

  5. What one persons calls hard hitting journalism, someone else would call serial character assassination.

    1. For what? For lacking proper citation in two brief paragraphs in what is little more than an internal study guide?
      Shame on you for jumping on this like it’s a major issue.
      Meanwhile a “Christian” college in George elects a man as president who was proven to have fabricated his testimony and people ignore it.

      1. I’ll agree with you re Ergun Caner. But if no one cares about that, or the other scandals I’ve mentioned above, because the pastors are popular and bring in money, you’re right, no one is going to care about plagiarism.

        1. A lack of a proper citation for 2 paragraphs in what amounts to little more than an internal study guide is only a moral issue if it was done intentionally, which there is no proof of.

  7. When she had her own show and “discernment” site Ingrid acted like a Pharisee. She used her personal cultural preferences as a grid to judge others. And if you don’t fit her preference, if your expressions of the faith were not to her liking (regardless of their biblical fidelity) she discerned you are a slice of Laodicea.

    1. Ah. Okay. You know, I want to engage in some speculation, here, since speculation seems to be what we have left.
      Ingrid + assistant producer + someone told Janet that Driscoll hung up on her + strange tweets in Janet’s name + Ingrid’s history = Ingrid’s “resignation.”

      1. When this whole thing first exploded on the web I wondered why someone would accuse Driscoll in a public forum. Why not follow more biblical methods if you think sin has been committed? And why the drama, first saying he hung up… then it’s revealed he didn’t.
        It was not until later, when I saw Ingrid was the producer… this answered my questions.

        1. Wow. At any rate, for me, Janet is vindicated with her eloquent apology and the resignation of Ingrid.

          2. Let me get this straight… Obvious plagiarism has taken place…copying directly from someone else work and passing it as your own without proper citation and selling it to the public…. and the one who pointed it out needs to apologize? Everyone needs to look at the evidence and then take a look at Mars Hill legal page…Mark would be convicted rather quickly if he held to his own standards. That’s the facts, whether you like who said it or not.

          3. Let me get this straight: What is little more than an internal study guide lacks proper citation in two brief paragraphs and you, first, refuse to entertain the idea that people can make mistakes and then sound as if this were a monumental moral issue. What do you think of Ergun Caner?

          4. I agree with you on Caner John.
            Plagiarism whether it is internally at church or not is still copyright infringement. Intentional or not does matter to the church and should, but not to the law. Copyright infringement is still copy right infringment.

          5. Alan – Of course you are correct. The only reason I can see for minimizing this is because Driscoll is a celebrity. As you pointed out, if the situation was reversed and someone had lifted material from a Driscoll sermon or a study guide or a book, Driscoll’s own website indicates he would call it plagiarism.

          6. You seriously can’t see that maybe — has it occurred to you at all? — that a failure to provide a proper citation for two brief paragraphs in what amounts to little more than an internal study guide could be a mistake? You really can’t see that maybe a possibility?
            And I challenge you to show us where Driscoll says that accidentally failing to provide a citation is plagiarism. Quote him saying that.

          7. And people make mistakes. If it’s corrected, then fine and good. But if you’re assuming that it wasn’t a mistake, with no proof whatsoever, that is a moral problem with you that you need to deal with and which I’m free to challenge you about here. And THAT kind of reflexive suspicion of pastors is THE real issue here.

          8. Yes, it is surprising how much of this seems to still be about Janet even though she has apologized. So now can people actually pay attention to the charges made and what Driscoll is doing about them?

        2. 1Ti 5:19-21 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. (20) Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (21) I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

          2. Paul did not hold to the Matt 18 when people in high profile positions, such as Peter, were in the wrong. Matt 18 appears to be in personal offenses. However if Ms. Mefford had of held to Matt. 18 and went to Driscoll in private with all 4 of the accusations (which wasnt just a personal offense between her and him but an offense to all of christondom considering his audience) it still would have required an opening up of the offense to all because it was done to/in front of all.

          3. My original point was only to say there was a better way to address the question (Which is also what Ms. Mefford said in her apology), and I wondered why it was handled as it was… until I saw that Ingrid was involved… then it made sense.

          5. I don’t know what her agenda is, I’m just familiar with her methods and attitudes. She ran a website for a while dedicated to pointing out what she thought was wrong with American Evangelical Churches. Sometimes she would have legitimate points. However, these were often obscured by her caustic delivery.
            In far too many cases, what she railed against were not issues of fidelity to the faith, but expressions of it she didn’t like. For example, she had a preference as to what types of music were acceptable for worship. She had preferences to how worship was to be organized and structured. If a church deviated from this, it was judged as a circus church.
            I’m sure her concern is legitimate and her agenda noble. The irony is, all the while she trumpeted the need for discernment, she was unable to do so herself. She appeared incapable of discerning what were the true theological issues, and what were just issues of taste and preference.

          6. “In far too many cases, what she railed against were not issues of fidelity to the faith, but expressions of it she didn’t like. ”
            I guess you’d have to share a common definition of what ‘fidelity to the faith’ would be.
            oh, and go read some Luther for a change. Particularly you might try the introduction to Bondage of the Will, if you want to see caustic. If you don’t like the use of sarcasm and satire, don’t read it. It doesn’t mean it’s an illegitimate tool.

          9. why use a 400 + year-old translation?
            There have, as yet, been no witnesses produced who can testify that Driscoll intentionally plagiarized in the study guide on 1 Peter. Until you have any witnesses, then you should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake — at least until such a time as he doesn’t correct it.

        3. She was a TOPIC producer (i.e. researcher/topic finder) not a show producer. Please read the original quote. Don’t make it look like more than it is.

  8. So, Warren, I am wondering why these comments, that were taken down by Julie Anne, somehow are still on your site? They were taken down to protect the commenter. You say that you have permission, but some of us are wondering: ‘from whom’?

      2. Thanks for being more clear and specific about having permission directly from Ms. Shuelter. I’ve been following this unfolding story, and it was kind of disconcerting to see your unclear first response of “Yes, I have permission to post them.” That immediately brought to mind those vague kinds of acknowledgements like, “Mistakes were made” or “Someone gave the okay to act” … potentially raises suspicions.
        Especially when the issues of permission, citation, and plagiarism are part of the larger issues here, I believe that the more clear, the better. I do understand, though, that there is a balance between being precise enough to get the point across, but guarded when necessary to protect people involved.
        However, I couldn’t figure out what was going on from the vague statement I read. I felt left to my own interpretations to either accept what you said at face value — and these are my first times to your blog, so I don’t know who you are yet — and fill in whatever gaps I sensed, or to push back. Ms. Carlaw and Ms. Orlowski beat me to that, so I let their inquiries stand.
        So — again, thanks, Mr. Throckmorton. As a spiritual abuse survivor, these kinds of responsiveness and responsibility things are crucial to my discerning who earns the evaluation as “trustworthy” in the blogosphere, versus who will just prove stressworthy.

      3. I don’t know but you might want to check and see if the situation has changed. This is all such a big mess and of course, the rich and famous never suffer as much as the little kid who mentions that the emperor is nekkid.

        1. Paula – I think the toothpaste is out of the tube by this point. I do agree it is a mess but I think the remedy here is more light.

      1. That’s slanderous. You’re assuming it wasn’t a mistake and thus accusing him of lying. Unless you have any real evidence of that, you need to repent.

        1. Actually John I said “according to his actions” and the real evidence is the black and white writings from his book and Carsons. I am sure since you judged me on a sentence of writing you will allow me the privilege of making a judgement call on a couple of paragraphs. Unless of course the (your) rules change.

          1. I know exactly what you wrote and I’m sorry that rather than repenting of it, you try to defend it.
            What are his actions? There is a lack of citation in two paragraphs in what amounts to little more than an internal study guide. That you accuse him of teaching by example that one needs no permission to copy means that you are ASSUMING he did it on purpose. It’s just that ASSUMPTION that is the problem. What is so difficult for you people to understand that you do not have the right to assume the worst of people?
            So, I stand by my comment: That’s slanderous. You’re assuming it wasn’t a mistake and thus accusing him of lying. Unless you have any real evidence of that, you need to repent.
            If you don’t, then you need to examine yourself as to whether you are really “in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5) or are you just another religious hypocrite?

    1. For what? For lacking proper citation in two brief paragraphs in what is little more than an internal study guide?
      Shame on you for jumping on this like it’s a major issue.
      Meanwhile a “Christian” college in George elects a man as president who was proven to have fabricated his testimony and people ignore it.

      1. I’ll agree with you re Ergun Caner. But if no one cares about that, or the other scandals I’ve mentioned above, because the pastors are popular and bring in money, you’re right, no one is going to care about plagiarism.

        1. A lack of a proper citation for 2 paragraphs in what amounts to little more than an internal study guide is only a moral issue if it was done intentionally, which there is no proof of.

  10. So, Warren, I am wondering why these comments, that were taken down by Julie Anne, somehow are still on your site? They were taken down to protect the commenter. You say that you have permission, but some of us are wondering: ‘from whom’?

    1. I have permission from Ingrid Schlueter; I spoke with her last night.

      2. Thanks for being more clear and specific about having permission directly from Ms. Shuelter. I’ve been following this unfolding story, and it was kind of disconcerting to see your unclear first response of “Yes, I have permission to post them.” That immediately brought to mind those vague kinds of acknowledgements like, “Mistakes were made” or “Someone gave the okay to act” … potentially raises suspicions.
        Especially when the issues of permission, citation, and plagiarism are part of the larger issues here, I believe that the more clear, the better. I do understand, though, that there is a balance between being precise enough to get the point across, but guarded when necessary to protect people involved.
        However, I couldn’t figure out what was going on from the vague statement I read. I felt left to my own interpretations to either accept what you said at face value — and these are my first times to your blog, so I don’t know who you are yet — and fill in whatever gaps I sensed, or to push back. Ms. Carlaw and Ms. Orlowski beat me to that, so I let their inquiries stand.
        So — again, thanks, Mr. Throckmorton. As a spiritual abuse survivor, these kinds of responsiveness and responsibility things are crucial to my discerning who earns the evaluation as “trustworthy” in the blogosphere, versus who will just prove stressworthy.

      3. Warren, Thank you for clarifying. Your initial comment was just too vague.

      4. I don’t know but you might want to check and see if the situation has changed. This is all such a big mess and of course, the rich and famous never suffer as much as the little kid who mentions that the emperor is nekkid.

        1. Paula – I think the toothpaste is out of the tube by this point. I do agree it is a mess but I think the remedy here is more light.

    2. Well according to the actions of Mr. Driscoll, one no longer needs permission to copy…..

      1. That’s slanderous. You’re assuming it wasn’t a mistake and thus accusing him of lying. Unless you have any real evidence of that, you need to repent.

        1. Actually John I said “according to his actions” and the real evidence is the black and white writings from his book and Carsons. I am sure since you judged me on a sentence of writing you will allow me the privilege of making a judgement call on a couple of paragraphs. Unless of course the (your) rules change.

          1. I know exactly what you wrote and I’m sorry that rather than repenting of it, you try to defend it.
            What are his actions? There is a lack of citation in two paragraphs in what amounts to little more than an internal study guide. That you accuse him of teaching by example that one needs no permission to copy means that you are ASSUMING he did it on purpose. It’s just that ASSUMPTION that is the problem. What is so difficult for you people to understand that you do not have the right to assume the worst of people?
            So, I stand by my comment: That’s slanderous. You’re assuming it wasn’t a mistake and thus accusing him of lying. Unless you have any real evidence of that, you need to repent.
            If you don’t, then you need to examine yourself as to whether you are really “in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5) or are you just another religious hypocrite?

  11. You know, she may not want those comments to be made public right now, at least with her name attatched to them. Did you get permission from her to do publish them here?
    I am sure that there is pressure from publishers to be nice to Christian authors, even if hard questions need to be asked. However, in this instance, it seems that unless you got prior permission to publish these comments, you are in the wrong.
    It is sad that she felt a need to quit her job. She may be spot on in her observations. However, did you ask permission?
    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/02/06/how-to-stop-online-copyright-infringement/id=15035/

    1. Initially they were posted on another blog. But since then yes, I have permission to post them.

      2. Which blog? I’d like to see them in their original context because the links don’t give me that.

          1. Julie Ann,
            You know very well from our Twitter exchange that my confusion was the result of not knowing *you* had deleted Ingrid’s comments.
            A little honesty about that on your part would have been nice to see instead of this comment.

          2. Kamilla – my name is right above you with “e” on the end. Or feel free to use JA.
            Are you accusing me of being dishonest? Dishonest about what?

          3. Goodness, if I got precious every time someone misspelled my name ….
            Yes, I am saying your comment is dishonest. As we all know now, you removed comments from your blog without leaving any evidence as to which ones you removed. Because you have done this, it is impossible to see Ingrid’s comments in their context. That’s what I was asking for.
            But I’m done playing these games. Good bye.

          4. My, touchy touchy. Well, it must be nice to armchair quarterback since you have nothing to lose.
            Seriously I understand your frustration but it’s a little narcissistic of you to think that your feelings and need for information were first on anyone’s priority list.

          5. Kamilla – The comments were in the midst of Julie Anne’s post on Driscoll. The entire comments are there; I didn’t edit them at all.

          6. Haven’t we already done this? See my comment immediately above your about playing games.

  12. That page at Julie Anne’s blog hasn’t been accessible for a while this afternoon. Any idea why, Warren?
    By the way, the Mefferd interview wasn’t gotcha journalism. Driscoll’s people apparently asked to be on the show and Mefferd agreed but said there would be tough questions. You know who else was a tough questioner for religious leaders? Jesus.
    There’s room for real journalism and journalists in the kingdom of Christ. Some people don’t want to see it happen, though. That’s awfully sad.

    1. Tim – No, I don’t. That was fast. I just put the post up and then it was gone.

      1. It just came back up with this announcement from Julie Anne (I’d been in email contact with her since leaving that question for you earlier; this is a mess!):
        “Julie Anne
        “December 5, 2013 @ 3:28 PM
        “Announcement:
        “Although you all know me as a ranting redhead and I’m not afraid to go after spiritual bullies, this blog’s first purpose is defending and protecting. It is in light of the blog’s first goal, that I needed to remove some comments, tweets, and related responses. This is unprecedented for me and was a difficult decision to make.
        “I am unable to discuss this any further and will be moderating carefully to remove related comments. I am absolutely fine. Thanks for the e-mails checking on me.”
        Warren, I think the parts you excerpted here are the ones she needed to take down to protect people. You might contact Julie Anne for her thoughts on the matter.
        Tim

      2. I’d recommend if other such blog posts occur you keep a copy you can refer back to in case the original disappears again.

    2. “There’s room for real journalism and journalists in the kingdom of Christ.”
      Sure there is. But no room in the Christian Mafia.

    3. Saying there would be tough questions is a far cry from the kind of ambush she pulled, as apparently now even she acknowledges.
      Could you please honestly tell us why you have such an instinctive hatred toward a theological orthodox and, as yet, morally irreproachable Christian leader?
      In other words, why the ax to grind?

      1. Tough questions for minorly erring pastors would probably not look like this so-called “ambush.” But tough questions for pastors who think they can do no wrong, who don’t give straight answers, etc. yeah, I can see why you would think that looks like an ambush, especially if you’re ok with pastors being evasive spin doctors and less than honest.
        I’m put in mind of that quote from D L Moody these days. “I like the way (Janet) is doing it better than the way (pretty much everyone else) is not doing it.”

  14. So now it’s a conspiracy by big publishing to hide the truth rather than an appalling error in judgment by Mefferd and her producer in how they handled it… including stirring the pot by bringing talk of lawsuits into the discussion on the air. There is no place for “gotcha” journalism in God’s kingdom. There were many ways this could have been handled ethically and responsibly without a public ambush. In a case of plagiarism, guilt is a demonstrable matter of record and only needs to be pointed out. Schlueter might be well advised to take a few days in private before making more public remarks.

    1. Well, apparently her comments raised some eyebrows somewhere because they are now gone.

    2. One should question why no one is questioning Driscoll? Why is he so silent on it? Even if you disagree with the way Mefferd handled it, one must question the legitimacy of her claims.

        1. A man whose whole vocation is dependent on his integrity should not leave defense of his integrity to his “publishers” who are a for profit organization. I would think he would want to defend his own integrity with some kind of statement no matter how short.

          1. Opinions, we all have them. Neither Carson nor Driscoll adressed it, and that makes sense to me.

          2. Probably because people like you wouldn’t believe him. If he makes a statement personally, you’ll scoff at him. If the publishers say his writings meet industry standards of citing sources, you still condemn him.

          3. Hey John,
            No I would not scoff at him if he gave a valid answer. And per another post to me, it is my business since we carry his books in our bookstore…at least right now…Why you judge me so I do not know since you do not know me. I really wish you would have addressed your perceived problem with me in a more private manner as per Matt. 18 from now on please. If I could have a priavte way to address you I would like to invoke Matt. 18 , but i need a way to contact you…email?

          4. Frankly, I don’t believe you. When his publisher comes out and says that the use of Jones’ material, etc., is according to “industry standards” and you don’t give any credit for that, then that’s a problem. I believe if Driscoll were to make a statement you’d just say, “He’s being self-serving.”
            What you’ve said, you’ve said publicly so it can be addressed publicly. But we don’t know if Driscoll has done anything sinful. Failing to cite a source is a sin if it was done intentionally. If it wasn’t intentional, then it’s not a sin and it’s really just not your business.

          5. John, I am an elder of a church and you are the only one making an accusation against me. You have accused me of lying publicly and i wish you would give the same respect you want for Mark D. Also you should approach me according to Matt 18. You have called me a liar per above, in public I might add. if you have no hard evidence i would like a public apoligy for this rebellious spirit you have against an elder of a local church.

          6. Yes it is some of my business since we sell his books in our bookstore at least. Of course if it’s none of my business it is none of yours either, unless you are a member at Mars Hill

      1. If plagiarism was that clear, why are the publishers and those who were allegedly plagiarized not sounding off? Given Ingrid’s track record it’s most likely a witch hunt.

          1. Not thoroughly. My point was not to defend Driscoll, just to say that if the plagiarism was that obvious, things would not have played out the way they did.

          3. I’m not buying this publishing house conspiracy, it’ll all play out among the characters who are truly affected. The rest of them will move on to another “controversy.”

          4. Yes, of course. Everyone is pure and clean as the wind driven snow (except Janet Mefferd of course, she’s clearly the one in the wrong here for violating some unspoken social etiquette)
            I mean, yeah… those big ministries and parachurch organizations.. they always do the right thing especially when money is involved.

          5. She says she was wrong. Are you calling Mefferd a liar?
            You’ve revealed your worldly cynicism. That’s what this issue is really about.

          6. A couple of months ago probably the same kinds of people were screaming about how Driscoll “lied” about his books being “confiscated” at the “Strange Fire” conference. When nothing from this fabricated controversy sticks, they’ll be jumping to the next conclusion they can. And we wonder why the church is losing people and the culture!

          7. The plagiarism is obvious enough that even Mr. John Carpenter, a rabid commenter who spends a lot of his time making personal attacks on anyone who dares to say anything negative about Driscoll, admitted in a previous comment thread, and I quote, “I agree that the commentary stuff is probably plagiarism.”
            Seriously, if you look at it, it’s word for word; he even copied the footnotes as though they were his own research. Then refer to the previous post regarding Driscoll’s own statements about how sinful plagiarism is, and you’ll see the problem.

          11. The alleged plagiarism of two brief paragraphs from a commentary of 1 Peter is more substantial. However, the publication in which it apparently occurred is little more than an internal study guide. Churches commonly produce material for their Sunday School or small groups and likely, inadvertent failures to proper cite sources is also common. The mistake should be corrected but until evidence is forth-coming that it was intentional plagiarism, to treat this as though it is a great moral failure is absurd.

        2. Because they will lose money and make Christians look bad. can’t have any of that, you know. Gotta follow the same road the Roman Catholic church did. Hide, obfuscate, shuffle the deck.

          2. Of course it’s not that *simple.* They’re probably at least grumbling at Mark Driscoll for putting them in this uncomfortable position and telling him to be more careful next time. But hey, once you’ve made an example of some honest journalist, the chances of anyone standing up to the bullies anymore is much smaller so…yeah. Not simple at all. Politics is never simple!

        1. No, it makes sense regardless, and not everyone has heard the interview. A statement from Mark would be nice Mr. “I am of Mark Driscoll”. Did you create your Disqus account for the sole purpose of becoming a Driscoll apologist? 1 Cor 3:12-13.

          1. Baloney. I’ve seen no such evidence. You say 14. Someone else said 18. Which is it? You people can’t get your story straight.
            There is a lack of proper citation of 2 brief paragraphs in what is little more than an internal study guide. So far, that’s it. So don’t repeat your accusation until you get actual proof of it. And apologize for it unless you can provide the proof.

        3. But he didn’t actually apologize for making a mistake did he? Nor does it appear that he has since re-examined the material to determine if he failed to properly cite someone else’s work and made any statements about it.

    4. A wise post from you. Thanks for it.
      As for Driscoll, so far this issue is only about what may only be a mistake about a lack of citation in what was little more than an internal study guide.
      The real issue this brings up is the number of people salivating at the chance to smear a pastor.

      1. It isn’t a chance to smear a pastor. He isn’t worth being called a pastor and hasn’t been for a long time. He is a bully and plagiarism is frankly only the tip of the iceberg with what is wrong with him.
        Since everyone has excused so many other more egregious offenses in popular pastors these days (James Macdonald’s money shenanigans and bullying, Driscoll’s pronouncement of heretic Jakes as orthodox, C J Mahaney and company’s criminally negligent handling of sex offenders in his churches, Ergun Caner continually being promoted though he is as much a fraud as Mike Warnke was), I am not surprised you Driscoll groupies are blowing it off.

        1. You can’t provide any evidence that Driscoll isn’t “worth being called a pastor and hasn’t been for a long time”. Or that he is a “bully” or that the plagiarism you’ve already convicted him of is “the tip of the iceberg”. You’ve broken the 9th commandment (Ex. 20:16) by bearing false witness. If you refuse to repent, then you are a slanderer and need to examine yourself if you are really “in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Are you really a Christian at all or just a religious hypocrite?

  15. That page at Julie Anne’s blog hasn’t been accessible for a while this afternoon. Any idea why, Warren?
    By the way, the Mefferd interview wasn’t gotcha journalism. Driscoll’s people apparently asked to be on the show and Mefferd agreed but said there would be tough questions. You know who else was a tough questioner for religious leaders? Jesus.
    There’s room for real journalism and journalists in the kingdom of Christ. Some people don’t want to see it happen, though. That’s awfully sad.

    1. “There’s room for real journalism and journalists in the kingdom of Christ.”
      Sure there is. But no room in the Christian Mafia.

    2. Saying there would be tough questions is a far cry from the kind of ambush she pulled, as apparently now even she acknowledges.
      Could you please honestly tell us why you have such an instinctive hatred toward a theological orthodox and, as yet, morally irreproachable Christian leader?
      In other words, why the ax to grind?

      1. Tough questions for minorly erring pastors would probably not look like this so-called “ambush.” But tough questions for pastors who think they can do no wrong, who don’t give straight answers, etc. yeah, I can see why you would think that looks like an ambush, especially if you’re ok with pastors being evasive spin doctors and less than honest.
        I’m put in mind of that quote from D L Moody these days. “I like the way (Janet) is doing it better than the way (pretty much everyone else) is not doing it.”

    3. Tim – No, I don’t. That was fast. I just put the post up and then it was gone.

      1. I’d recommend if other such blog posts occur you keep a copy you can refer back to in case the original disappears again.

      2. It just came back up with this announcement from Julie Anne (I’d been in email contact with her since leaving that question for you earlier; this is a mess!):
        “Julie Anne
        “December 5, 2013 @ 3:28 PM
        “Announcement:
        “Although you all know me as a ranting redhead and I’m not afraid to go after spiritual bullies, this blog’s first purpose is defending and protecting. It is in light of the blog’s first goal, that I needed to remove some comments, tweets, and related responses. This is unprecedented for me and was a difficult decision to make.
        “I am unable to discuss this any further and will be moderating carefully to remove related comments. I am absolutely fine. Thanks for the e-mails checking on me.”
        Warren, I think the parts you excerpted here are the ones she needed to take down to protect people. You might contact Julie Anne for her thoughts on the matter.
        Tim

Comments are closed.