Mark Driscoll and Peter Jones: Unfinished Business in the Plagiarism Controversy

The controversy over Mark Driscoll’s use of material written by others started with Janet Mefferd’s accusation that Driscoll plagiarized Peter Jones concepts and descriptions of one-ism and two-ism. According to Jones in his book One or two: Seeing a world of difference (see how easy that is!), one-ism is the view that everything is of one essence. As Jones says in the book, “everything is a piece of the divine.” Two-ism recognizes a distinction between the uncreated (God) and created (everything else).  The self-contained, uncreated God determines the course of the creation.
Jones claims responsibility for coining these terms. On page one of One or Two, Jones claims:

I briefly examined this issue last month by asking plagiarism expert Neil Holdway to comment on Driscoll’s use of Jones material in Driscoll’s book, A Call to Resurgence. Holdway opined that Driscoll’s brief note citing Jones was insufficient given Driscoll’s extensive use of Jones’ material. Furthermore, Driscoll’s use of Jones’ work is not limited to A Call to Resurgence. Without citation of Jones’ books, Driscoll refers to one-ism and two-ism on the Mars Hill and Resurgence websites. He also covers the same material in his 2011 book with Gerry Breshears, Doctrine. While he refers to conversations and audio of Jones in Doctrine, for some reason, Driscoll fails to cite sources which would make clear that Jones’ coined the terms and developed the concepts.
First, on The Resurgence website, Driscoll is credited with authorship of a post which appears to be the basis for a similar section in his Doctrine book.

The truth is what we will call two-ism. Two-ism is the biblical doctrine that the Creator and creation are separate and that creation is subject to the Creator. Visually, you can think of this in terms of two circles with one being God the creator and the other containing all of his creation…
The lie is what we will call one-ism. One-ism is the pagan and idolatrous doctrine that there is no distinction between Creator and creation, and/or a denial that there is a Creator…
To learn more about one-ism and two-ism and see how it plays out in all kinds of ways in our church and culture, come to the Exchange conference. Mark Driscoll, Peter Jones, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung, and others will teach you how to distinguish the Truth from the Lie in all of life.

The only reference to Jones is in the commercial for the Exchange conference. If one didn’t know better, one would think that Driscoll (“we will call…”) and/or the others were co-creators of the concepts.
Another reference to Jones’ work can be found on the Mars Hill website (May, 2010).

Pastor Mark has been examining the idea of One-ism vs. Two-ism recently over on The Resurgence. Make sure you check out his previous post, in which we saw how the Truth and the Lie of Romans 1:25 can be understood as a simple contrast between one-ism and two-ism. As a worldview, one-ism is antithetical to Christian two-ism because it seeks to place everything in the one circle.

Driscoll then reproduces a long section from his book Doctrine, where he lists many of the same concepts that Jones does in his books. At the end of this excerpt from Doctrine, Driscoll sources his book but not Jones:

From Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe, pp. 344–346. To learn more about one-ism and two-ism and see how it plays out in all kinds of ways in our church and culture, come to the Exchange conference. Mark Driscoll, Peter Jones, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung, and others will teach you how to distinguish the Truth from the Lie in all of life. Exchange is June 17 & 18 in San Diego, California. Find out more.

Then in the book Doctrine on pages 342-346, Driscoll and Breshears use the material from The Resurgence website. This same material, paraphrased lightly, can also be found in A Call to Resurgence.

The truth is what we will call two-ism. Two-ism is the biblical doc-trine that the Creator and creation are separate and that creation is subjectto the Creator. Visually, you can think of this in terms of two circles with one being God the creator and the other containing all of his creation (seeChart 11.1).
The lie is what we will call one-ism. One-ism is the pagan and idola-trous doctrine that there is no distinction between Creator and creation,and/or a denial that there is a Creator.

In Doctrine with footnote 10, Driscoll and Breshears do give some credit to Jones:

10 Peter Jones has spent a great deal of his time explaining this issue to me (Mark). Jones is one of the leading experts in the world on paganism, and much of what ensues in this section has been gleaned from time with him, for which I am very thankful. His thoughts on one-ism can be found at http://www.theresurgence.com/peter_jones_2008-01-08_audio_walking_in_the_land_of_blur and http://www.theresurgence.com/ peter_jones_2008-01-08_video_ walking_in_the_land_of_blur

Driscoll and Breshears published their book in 2011. Jones’ book One or Two was published in 2010. How hard would it have been to cite One or Two? Instead, Driscoll sends the reader to Mars Hill’s Resurgence website. Currently, the first link works but doesn’t mention one-ism or two-ism. The second link has been scrubbed. What is missing in all of this is a clear statement that the terms were coined by Jones with citations to Jones’ books properly crediting him.
As I noted in my first post on this subject, Driscoll does not ignore Jones. In fact, the conference referred to above featured Jones and Driscoll directs people to The Resurgence website where Jones’ audio and video can be found. A persistent reader might eventually figure out that the material credited to Driscoll in his website posts and books directly come from Jones. However, it is hard to see how one could come to this conclusion easily. In fact, it is unnecessarily difficult.
 

John Catanzaro to Appeal License Suspension

On his website yesterday, John Catanzaro, Mark Driscoll’s naturopathpartially addressed the growing controversy surrounding his license suspension.

To our valued patients and friends of Health and Wellness Institute of Integrative Medicine:

From: Dr. John Catanzaro

As many of you know, the Washington Department of Health (WA DOH) has raised concerns about our use of experimental autologous peptide vaccine in research. We disagree with the WA DOH and are appealing. We are working diligently with our legal team on our appeal.

We continue to provide personalized wellness and cancer care and all of our physicians, nurse team and admin team are here to serve you. There will be no interruption in our ability to provide you excellent quality care.

We want to sincerely thank you for your support and understanding during this difficult time. Our admin team can assist you in identifying ways you can support us during this process.

Warm Regards,
Dr. John

The Washington Department of Health did more than raise “concerns.” The naturopath board suspended his license to practice. In contrast to the message of “no interruption,” he is not supposed to practice while it is suspended. According to the Washington board, he has until Monday, February 17 to appeal.

Catanzaro only partially addressed issues which have been raised. Prior to the state board’s action, Catanzaro claimed to have a collaborative relationship with Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Ken Anderson an oncologist at DFCI, and the University of Washington for the purpose of developing cancer vaccines. In recent days, DFCI, Ken Anderson and UW have denied collaboration with Catanzaro or his clinic. If I was considering alternative care, this would be a huge red flag for me.

Another question is how naturopaths in this group are able to treat cancer at all. Naturopaths must work collaboratively with a MD or DO in order to treat malignancies in the state of Washington.* None of the medical staff listed on the website are credentialed as a MD or DO.

*WAC 246-836-210 (4) Naturopathic physicians may not treat malignancies except in collaboration with a practitioner licensed under chapter 18.57 or 18.71 RCW.

Click the link to read the State of Washington complaint.

Reference to Dana Farber Cancer Institute Removed from John Catanzaro's Clinic Website; U of WA Says There is No Connection

Since John Catanzaro’s license to practice as a naturopath was suspended in January, many websites have been scrubbed. Immediately, Mars Hill Church removed all 18 of John Catanzaro’s articles from The Resurgence website (you can see the posts here). Then, after being warned by Harvard’s Dana Farber Cancer Institute, references to the alleged collaboration between Catanzaro’s Health and Wellness Institute for Integrative Medicine and Cancer Treatment and DFCI have been removed. The current link doesn’t mention DFCI, but last week it did:

The other reference to DFCI was on Catanzaro’s Linked In page, and now that is missing as well.

Unless Catanzaro can offer proof of a collaboration with DFCI (I have asked for such evidence), it appears that he never did have a connection. He also claimed to be collaborating with the University of Washington “in the development of personalized cancer defense vaccines.” About that claim, UW spokeswoman Bobbi Nodell told me, “We cannot find a connection to UW.”*
More Scrubbing
In May, 2013, Mark Driscoll promoted Catanzaro’s ebook on marijuana on Facebook and Twitter, but those links are now broken. (Google cache tells the tale. Click the links to see the posts – Facebook; Twitter)
Mark Driscoll’s foreward to Catanzaro’s book was once on the HWIFC website, but isn’t now.

Once Catanzaro promoted Driscoll’s ebook, Puff or Pass? as a free gift for subscribing to the HWIFC newsletter. Now it is missing.
One page that hasn’t disappeared (but I suspect will soon after this post goes up) is this reference by Catanzaro to Mark Driscoll as his pastor and his article titled, “A Christian Doctor’s Opinion on Pot.”
Here is another page still up on Facebook where Catanzaro is referred to as a “licensed physician.” However, if you click the link in this Facebook post you come to an empty page on The Resurgence website.
To see all posts on this topic, click this link.
*UPDATE: This comment was added after this article was posted.

From Martin Luther To Mark Driscoll: A Literary Version Of The Telephone Game

Stories passed along from one person to another often vary significantly from the original telling. Over time, paraphrasing the work of other people can lead to some interesting but incorrect stories being passed down as fact.  Mark Driscoll’s books Real Marriage and Religion Saves contain illustrations of this telephone game in writing.
On January 21, I wrote about remarkable similarities between Driscoll’s Real Marriage and Leland Ryken’s book Worldly Saints.  In that post, I also noted another book apparently consulted by Driscoll based on the similarity of wording regarding a story about St. Francis of Assisi. On page 115, of Real Marriage, Driscoll claims:

Saint Francis made women out of snow and then caressed them in order to quiet the lust that burned in him.

This phrasing seems much like Shadia Drury’s wording in her book Terror and Civilization. On page 96, Drury writes:

Saint Francis tried to cool the lust that burned within him by caressing figures made of snow.

In her book, Drury cites a 1960 book by William Lazareth titled Luther on the Christian Home as the source of that informationOn page nine of that book, a paragraph briefly surveys the views of the church fathers on sexuality:

You will notice that this survey from Lazareth resembles various statements in Real Marriage and in another Driscoll book Religion Saves (click the links to see those books). The footnote in Lazareth leads to volume three of the six-volume Works of Martin Luther published in Germany between 1912-1921. The paragraph above is Lazareth’s translation of a paragraph by Luther dated 1538. Luther says Francis made “schneeballen” (snowballs) and “herzet und kusset” (hearted and kissed) them until his lust passed. However, the story is told differently by Celano, Francis’ biographer. Celano wrote:

How the devil, calling to Francis, tempted him with lust, and how the saint overcame the temptation
116 At the hermitage of the brothers at Sartiano, he who is always envious of the children of God, presumed to do the following against the saint. For seeing the saint continuing to increase in holiness and not neglecting today’s profit for yesterday’s, he called to Francis at prayer one night in his cell, saying three times: “Francis, Francis, Francis.” He answered, saying: “What do you want?” And the other: “There is no sinner in the world whom the Lord will not forgive if he is converted; but whoever destroys himself by harsh penance will not find mercy forever.” Immediately the saint recognized the cleverness of his enemy by a revelation, how he was trying to bring him back to lukewarmness. What then? The enemy did not stop short of inflicting upon him another struggle. For seeing that he could not thus conceal his snare, he prepared another snare, namely, the enticement of the flesh. But in vain, for he who had seen through the craftiness of the spirit could not be tricked by the flesh. The devil therefore tempted him with a most severe temptation of lust. But the blessed father, as soon as he noticed it, took off his clothing and beat himself very severely with his cord, saying: “See, brother ass, thus is it becoming for you to remain, thus is it becoming for you to bear the whip. The tunic belongs to the order; stealing is not allowed. If you want to go your way,
117 But when he saw that the temptation did not leave him in spite of the scourging, even though all his members were marked with welts, he opened his cell and went out into the garden and cast himself naked into a deep pile of snow. Then gathering handfuls of snow, he made from it seven lumps like balls. And setting them before him, he began to speak to his body: “Behold,” he said, “this larger one is your wife; these four are your two sons and your two daughters; the other two are your servant and your maid whom you must have to serve you. Hurry,” he said, “and clothe them all, for they are dying of cold. But if caring for them in so many ways troubles you, be solicitous for serving God alone.” The devil then departed quickly in confusion, and the saint returned to his cell glorifying God. A certain spiritual brother, who was praying at the time, saw the whole thing by the light of the moon. But when the saint found out later that this brother had seen him that night, he was greatly distressed and commanded him to tell the thing to no one as long as he lived in this world.

So passing down the story from Celano to Luther, and then from Luther to Lazareth, from Lazareth to Drury (or Driscoll) and from (possibly Drury) to Driscoll, the story changed a lot. Apparently, Luther adding the part about affection being applied to snowball people. By the time Driscoll told the story, St. Francis was making snow women to fondle.  While I don’t necessarily believe the original story, I think the strange retelling of the story may say more about Rev. Driscoll than St. Francis.
Before I leave this, I want to mention another odd story in Religion Saves on pages 186-187. According to Driscoll,

In the Victorian age, modestly became so extreme that long tablecloths were put over tables to hide the table legs for fear that men would see them and think of women’s legs and then lust.

This tale is generally considered to be false and may have come from the notes of one of two French writers, either Flora Tristan or M. Larcher (Pierre-Henri Larcher). According to this 1860 essay in Charles Dickens’ magazine All The Year Round (Vol. 4, p. 142-144), these French writers had misconceptions of the English. Dickens (or another unnamed writer) makes fun of the observations of the French writers by giving account of all the characteristics supposedly displayed by the English. The relevant section is here:

Cutting the leaves of this veracious volume in a sleepy, indolent kind of manner, I am suddenly aroused by finding that I never take off my hat to a lady, but only to a horse the reason being, that a woman causes me to spend money, and a horse causes me to gain it:wherefore I love, pat, and caress my horse, but in no wise love, pat, or caress my wife ; nor do I salute any lady whatsoever, but only my favourite racer. I also find that my wife and sisters put trousers on the legs of their pianos, chairs, and tables; that they never talk of the leg of a fowl, or ask for a slice of leg of mutton, but prefer a modest request for the limb of a chicken, and desire a little slice of that limb of mutton. Anything else would be “very shocking,” and would put English prudery quite out of countenance.

This English magazine article appears to sarcastically dismiss the French account. I can’t find any historical accounts which support the claim. While it may be a small historical point, it is not possible to research Driscoll’s claim since he does not provide a source.  I suspect a telephone game style changing of the original observations to the questionable story told by Driscoll.
 
 
 

Claims Of Resurgence Ex-Author And Naturopath Questioned By Esteemed Cancer Institute

Last week, I wrote about John Catanzaro, a naturopath who Mark Driscoll has called his doctor. Driscoll has promoted Catanzaro in his sermons as the one who helped him overcome adrenal fatigue. This diagnosis is not a medical diagnosis but rather a theoretical concept often advanced by alternative medicine providers. Mars Hill promoted Catanzaro on the Resurgence website until recently when someone at MHC scrubbed all of Catazaro’s articles from the site. Although MHC has not given an explanation, the articles may have gone missing because Catanzaro’s license as a naturopath was suspended over allegations that he was giving untested cancer vaccines to patients.
To at least one patient, Catanzaro claimed he was working with Dr. Ken Anderson, an oncologist at Harvard’s Dana Farber Cancer Institute. On his Linked In page and his clinic website, he claims a special relationship with DFCI. However, it appears those claims are questionable.
On his Linked In page, Catanzaro says:

Dr. Catanzaro is pioneering movement toward personalized genetic and adaptive integrative immune treatment to fight cancer. He is working in a private movement with expert Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard cancer scientists in the area of cancer proteomics and molecular genetics in developing individualized HLA matched cancer peptide strategies through a subcontract with NeoBioLabs, Cambridge Ma.

Catanzaro’s clinic website says:

We are developing individual treatment strategies that will enhance each patient’s ability to fight and win the cancer battle; effectively blending medical science and integrative treatment to reach the cure. To accomplish this we are collaborating with Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard as well as University of Washington in the development of personalized cancer defense vaccines.

Consistent with Catanzaro’s claims, these bloggers describe a phone conversation where Catanzaro claimed he was working with DFCI and Ken Anderson to develop a cancer vaccine:

We are preparing for the development of the next immunotherapy vaccine with the Health & Wellness Center. I had a 2-hour conversation on the phone the other day with Dr. John Catanzaro, who talked us through why this vaccine is different and something to be particularly hopeful about… the most significant being that he is now partnering with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston!
The first time that Chelsa and I read anything speaking of a CURE for Multiple Myeloma was forwarded by a friend from an article published about advances by doctors at Dana-Farber. This provided us with a great deal of hope, as well as assurance that the treatment we are pursuing with Health & Wellness Center is legitimate. It was SUPER encouraging to hear Dr. John say that he is now partnering with Dr. Ken Anderson at the Dana-Farber Institute to develop the same kind of vaccine for Chelsa that Dana-Farber Institute has experienced so much success with. (I included some links below if you want to know more).

With the help of Dr. John Peteet, a friend at DFCI, I was able to make contact with Ken Anderson who replied simply that there is “no connection” between Catanzaro and Anderson.  A call to DFCI yielded a similar result. Teresa Herbert, spokeswoman for DFCI, told me:

Dr. Ken Anderson and John Catanzaro are not working on any projects together. They spoke on the phone once or twice but they are not working on any projects together and I am not aware that they ever were.

On his Linked In page above, Catanzaro mentions a sub-contract with NeoBioLabs. NBL is not a research group, but rather sells equipment and reagents used in research. In other words, the implication that Catanzaro is working with DFCI via NBL is misleading at best.*
Via email, twitter and Facebook, I asked Catanzaro and the Health and Wellness Institute for references or contacts at DFCI who could substantiate the claims but there has been no reply. Yesterday, Catanzaro appears to have responded indirectly to his suspension on his website. DFCI has promised to address several additional matters as soon as possible.
There are significant questions which remain for Catanzaro and DFCI to address. According to the information presented by Catanzaro’s patient, Catanzaro claimed that DFCI was being paid to help develop an individualized vaccine. However, since Catanzaro’s lab is not conducting approved clinical trials, it seems odd and frankly hard to believe that DFCI would provide the kind of services Catanzaro claims. Hopefully, DFCI can address this question soon. If there isn’t and hasn’t been a connection, then Mr. Catanzaro may have to explain more than his suspended license to his patients.
 
*Thanks to Dee Parsons for passing along the information on NBL.