Top Christian Publisher: Driscoll Plagiarized

Despite Mark Driscoll’s efforts to suppress information about his unfurling plagiarism scandal, one Christian publisher has gone public with claims that the right-wing megachurch pastor plagiarized a passage in one of his books. This is far from the only charge of plagiarism Driscoll has faced in recent days, but his allies seem intent on burying the issue.

InterVarsity Press, which bills itself as “the leading publisher of thoughtful Christian books dedicated to serving the university, the church and the world,” released a statement this morning to Christianity Today alleging that Driscoll had plagiarized entire paragraphs from a book that it published:

Several paragraphs from the New Bible Commentary edited by G. J. Wenham, J. A. Motyer, D. A. Carson and R. T. France published by InterVarsity Press appear in Mark Driscoll's now out of print book Trial: 8 Witnesses From 1 & 2 Peter. These improperly appeared without quotation or attribution. With proper citation the material would have been a case of fair use.

InterVarsity Press believes all writers should use great care as they do research and prepare texts for any use to make sure that proper acknowledgement is given to source material.

“We are grateful this was brought to our attention, and we have removed that document from our website to correct the mistake,” Driscoll’s church said in response to InterVarsity’s statement. “Additionally, we are examining all of our similar content as a precautionary measure.”

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd uncovered several examples of plagiarism by Driscoll and confronted him about the matter on her radio show last week. Soon afterwards, Mefferd’s supporting material and her interview with Driscoll disappeared from her website, and she apologized for making the claims public.

In case you need another clue as to why Mefferd apologized and is trying to remove all evidence of the matter, the Christian Post reports that Driscoll’s publisher, Tyndale House, has a partnership with Mefferd’s employer, the Salem Radio Network. Salem’s “Testimonials” page features an excerpt from a Tyndale spokesperson:

Salem Radio Network is one of Tyndale’s most valued and respected media partners. They have always provided us with custom advertising campaigns that deliver outstanding results. Their professionalism and expertise has brought us back year after year. We couldn’t be happier with the quality of service we’ve received from SRN.

Tyndale criticized Mefferd for her “belligerent tone” during the interview in which she confronted Driscoll with plagiarism charges. One pastor close to Driscoll even called for a boycott of Mefferd’s show.

Ingrid Schlueter resigned as a producer from Mefferd’s show shortly after Mefferd apologized to Driscoll, strongly suggesting that she faced pressure from “the machine”:

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.



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.

WND Investigates: Is Obama A Communist Or A Nazi?

In a bombshell investigation published yesterday, the right-wing news outlet WorldNetDaily has learned that President Obama is not a communist! But don’t be too stunned by this startling claim, as instead it turns out that the president is a Nazi.

WND’s Bob Unruh interviewed radio host Chuck Morse yesterday about the president’s alleged Nazism, which is based on the laughable claim that the Nazis were actually left-wing.

“I’m not suggesting [Obama] is an anti-Semite. I’m not suggesting he’s going to set up a Holocaust. But putting all that stuff aside, when you strip that away from historical Nazism and look at the political philosophy of Nazism, this is very much what Barack Obama is into,” Morse said.

His evidence?

Well, Obama talks about Nazi-things like “hope” and “change” and supports “left-progressivism,” which he argues “is largely to blame not only for the Nazi Holocaust but also for most of the programs of Holocaust, Genocide and Democide that have been implemented in the modern era.”

Critics of Barack Obama, horrified at his “transformation” of America and particularly his government takeovers of large parts of the U.S. economy, have gone so far as to accuse him of being a communist or neo-communist. However, those critics are mistaken, contends a conservative talk host and author whose new book “Was Hitler a Leftist?” examines the German dictator’s radical agenda in light of today’s leftist movement in the United States.

His conclusion? Obama is, at least in some ways, more akin to a “national socialist” than a communist.

“I have to be careful saying that,” said Chuck Morse, host of the IRN USA News talk show. “I’m not suggesting [Obama] is an anti-Semite. I’m not suggesting he’s going to set up a Holocaust. But putting all that stuff aside, when you strip that away from historical Nazism and look at the political philosophy of Nazism, this is very much what Barack Obama is into.”



Morse examines elements of National Socialism he sees in Obama’s administration. Those include a national welfare system, nationalization of police forces, a centralized regulation of private businesses, a centralization of power and bureaucracies imposing their own demands on a citizenry.

He also looks at the use of demonization, noting many leftists today don’t say their political opponents merely are wrong but that they want to hurt people. His book notes Hitler’s suspension of the German Constitution. Members of Congress just this week held a hearing in which experts testified Obama has systematically breached the Constitution.

That Nazism was leftist hardly can be argued, he said.



Morse said it’s a concern that the federal government has been purchasing tens of millions of hollow point ammunition, which is illegal in international use, he said. What, he asked, would it be used for?

In his book, he challenges “students of Nazism and of the Nazi Holocaust to integrate the missing link into the otherwise excellent body of work and research that has been done on Hitler and his evil regime.”



“Let’s be clear,” he writes, “Left-progressives today are not responsible for the Holocaust, nor were most well-meaning left-progressives at the time of the Holocaust responsible. Yet, and unquestionably, left-progressivism, as a political philosophy and theory, when enthroned and when holding the reins of absolute power, is largely to blame not only for the Nazi Holocaust but also for most of the programs of Holocaust, Genocide and Democide that have been implemented in the modern era.”



He also noted that among Hitler’s themes were the now-familiar “hope” and “change.”

Religious Right Activists Laud Congressman's Campaign Against Gay Republicans

Anti-gay leaders are cheering on Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) in his effort to block funding and support for two openly gay Republican congressional candidates. Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s Peter LaBarbera praised Forbes for trying to preserve the GOP’s hard line against gay equality:

"The Republican party platform is opposed for the most part to homosexual activism, especially gay so-called marriage," says LaBarbera. "So Forbes understands that the Republican Party should not be in the business of promoting candidates that are going to promote sexual immorality."

LaBarbera says he is disappointed that many other prominent Republicans don't have a problem with "gay" GOP candidates.

"It's disappointing to see House Speaker Boehner and other prominent Republicans backing openly homosexual candidates because these candidates are not going to serve the interest of the Republican Party if the party still claims to be pro-family," the family advocate tells OneNewsNow.

Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values, meanwhile, criticized House Speaker John Boehner for distancing himself from Forbes’ initiative.

In fact, Burress thinks “it is time for Boehner to be replaced as speaker” for caving to “self-proclaimed homosexuals” and “the homosexual agenda.”

"Sometimes I think he's been in Washington too long," Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values Action Political Action Committee, says of House Speaker John Boehner.



"If you're going to elect people who are self-proclaimed homosexuals, then you're totally ignoring what the Republican Party stands for in its national platform, marriage between one man and one woman," Burress tells OneNewsNow.

Burress observes he has never seen a homosexual in the Republican Party "who does not promote the homosexual agenda," which he says includes same-sex marriage and abortion.

One problem plaguing the GOP is the so-called big tent approach.

"The Democrats have two non-negotiable issues, same-sex marriage and abortion rights," Burress claims. "The Republican Party never talks about their non-negotiable issues because I don't think they have any."

Burress also says it is time for Boehner to be replaced as speaker.

UPDATE: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins also favors Forbes’ push against gay candidates:

While Forbes has been blasted for his comments, he knows -- as well as we do -- that this debate is about a lot more than someone's sexual preference. While we reject the false dichotomy of private and public morality, I -- like most Americans -- would rather not know about a person's bedroom habits. That's not the issue for Rep. Forbes. What he cares about --and what the GOP should too -- is whether these candidates will abide by the party's platform. When Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked if his party could support an openly homosexual candidate, he replied, "I do." But the real question isn't whether the GOP would support an openly homosexual candidate, but whether it would support an openly homosexual activist who has sought to redefine marriage and undermine religious freedom. At the end of the day, conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on virtues that pre-date positive law. If there is a litmus test, it should be on ideology.

Instead, the NRCC and Republican Establishment are so desperate to beat the opposition that they'll sacrifice core principles to try. And here's the irony: that weak-kneed approach is what turns voters off. "Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender, or sexual orientation," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the NRCC, "but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats." Translation: the GOP will throw its support behind any candidate they believe can win, even it means throwing the party's stated principles overboard.

Klayman: Fight To Overthrow Obama Like Mandela's Fight Against Apartheid

Channeling Rick Santorum, Freedom Watch’s Larry Klayman wrote in a column this weekend that Tea Party activists fighting President Obama are the true heirs to Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.

Klayman, who is calling for the overthrow of the Obama administration, wrote in WorldNetDaily that he will soon establish a Third Continental Congress and a “government in waiting” since his tiny White House rally failed to convince the president to resign.

“[L]et us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary,” Klayman wrote.

“We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.”

The parallels to the even direr situation the United States now finds itself in today are striking. We are ruled by someone who is in effect the pharaoh and at the least a Muslim at heart who disdains the Judeo-Christian heritage and foundations upon which our nation was forged and who has rung up extreme national debt and loathes capitalism, instead seeing it his “duty” to redistribute wealth to “his” people for years of their slavery. President Barack Hussein Obama and his compromised if not corrupt enablers in Congress and in the judiciary, like a time warp, have thrust We the People back to 1776 and provoked our Second American Revolution. And, the current revolutionary climate is even more severe, since unlike the colonies, contemporary America is on the steep decline. Our resources, wealth, ethics, spirituality and liberties are being stifled by a socialistic choke hold on our economy and lives, where our “Muslim” president and the government, not God, is to be worshiped and obeyed – else authoritarian henchmen and thugs at the NSA and IRS will destroy you.

To seek redress for our grievances, as our forefathers attempted leading up to independence day on July 4, 1776, the Reclaim America Now Coalition gave notice in front of the White House on Nov.19 of this year that if the people’s freedoms were not restored by the day after Thanksgiving, the Second American Revolution would begin in earnest. True to the predictions of anyone living in our times, our grievances went unanswered by our illegitimate government usurpers, and now we must make good on our threats of non-violent, civil disobedience to attempt redress.

In this regard, as we mourn the death this week of Nelson Mandela, a great man who, like his American counterpart Martin Luther King, used civil disobedience successfully to bring freedom to his people and by definition all people (who are created equal with certain unalienable rights, as Jefferson put it), let us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary.

We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.

We will also use the occasion to appoint committees to coordinate the revolution and to elect a government in waiting to take over on the day when our current corrupt leaders are forced by the citizenry to leave their thrones and freedom is restored to our shores.

Like our Founding Fathers in 1776, the time is now to risk all we have to save the nation from government tyrants before all is lost.

Our YouTube Page Has Been Restored And Klingenschmitt Has Been Warned To 'Cease And Desist'

For the last month, we have been locked in a battle with "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt stemming from a series of bogus claims that he filed against our YouTube channel, claiming that we had been stealing and misrepresenting his copyrighted content.

In early November, Klingenschmitt filed multiple claims against our account, resulting in our entire account being terminated by YouTube.  We immediately filed counter-claims against all of Klingenschmitt's complaints, asserting that our videos were protected by Fair Use and, two weeks later, after Klingenschmitt failed to pursue his bogus claims in court, our account was restored.

But just one day later, Klingenschmitt filed another series of false copyright claims against our account and got our account terminated once again. Just as before, we filed another round of counter-claims against all of his copyright notices and, late last week, our YouTube account was restored for the second time.

Over the last month, we have been working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and law firm of Hogan Lovells on how to respond to Klingenschmitt's attacks on our YouTube account and our work.

As such, last week Klingenschmitt was mailed a cease and desist letter [PDF] on our behalf informing him about Fair Use and explicitly warning him that if he continues to file bogus copyright complaints against our YouTube account, legal action will be taken against him:

Over the past several weeks, you have filed a series of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notices with YouTube targeting video clips taken from your video program, PIJN News. DMCA takedown notices only should be lodged when a copyright owner has a legitimate belief that the challenged material is infringing their copyrighted works. You have no legitimate basis to hold such a belief and, therefore, should not have lodged the notices with YouTube. The videos you have challenged are protected by the fair use doctrine and therefore are non-infringing. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (“the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism [and] comment . . . is not an infringement of copyright.)

...

Based on this legal analysis, your conduct and public statements, it appears to PFAW that you have lodged the DMCA notices not out of any genuine concerns for your copyrights, but rather for the purpose of causing YouTube to take down the RWW YouTube channel. You have publicized your campaign, and made clear that your efforts are motivated by your political disagreements with both RWW and some of the independent comments posted on the RWW’s YouTube account. RWW has challenged every takedown notice pursuant to YouTube’s counter-notification process, and every video has been restored following the statutory waiting period without any legal action for copyright infringement having been initiated by you. Nonetheless, you continued to submit separate notices, for multiple videos which appears to PFAW to be calculated to rapidly take down the account and disrupt PFAW’s business. Because YouTube has a publicly-stated policy of taking an account offline after three DMCA notices, your unfounded copyright allegations have caused YouTube to take down the RWW account entirely – twice. Based on your public statements, there is little doubt that this was your intended goal.

Your conduct with respect to the RWW YouTube channel must cease immediately. You are on notice that PFAW’s use of your videos constitutes fair use and that the DMCA provides that misuse of its procedures to shut down lawful speech can result in liability for “any damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs” that result. A number of other legal remedies also are available.

Our videos are protected by Fair Use and we intend to continue our efforts to report on the radical views and agenda of Religious Right activists. As such, we will keep posting videos like this of Klingenschmitt railing against Obamacare on his program today and repenting for a nation that treats "the president as if he is a healing god [when] he is not; he's an imposter, he's a liar, and he causes cancer through his policies":

Right Wing Round-Up - 12/6/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 12/6/13

  • Rick Santorum is the gift that keeps on giving, as he's now comparing the fight against Obamacare to Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid.
  • Is Sarah Palin really penning Christmas messages for the radicals over at The Oak Initiative?
  • Peter LaBarbera is upset "to see House Speaker Boehner and other prominent Republicans backing openly homosexual candidates because these candidates are not going to serve the interest of the Republican Party if the party still claims to be pro-family."
  • Robert Knight says Republicans have to learn to fight back in the "war on women": "They've got to learn how to talk about these issues – and also not to be defensive about them, but to put their questioners on the defensive."
  • Finally, groups of pastors organized by David Lane will be meeting with Mike Huckabee in an effort to convince him to run for president.

Sandy Rios On The War On Christmas: 'This Is Exactly What Hitler Did In Nazi Germany'

American Family Association head Tim Wildmon joined AFA radio host Sandy Rios today to discuss a USA Today article about how “Not all Christians believe there is a ‘War on Christmas.’” Wildmon spent most of the interview complaining that any Christian would dare criticize the AFA, which is a leading voice in movement to expose the “War on Christmas.” He told Rios that he resented Christian leaders who mock the idea of the War on Christmas or note that the AFA’s campaign actually emphasizes the material aspect of the holiday by focusing on how many stores tell customers “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.”

Wildmon accused one pastor, who told USA Today that Christians needed to come to grips with the religious diversity in the US, of wanting Christians to partake in “a dangerous retreat into isolating ourselves from the larger culture.”

“This is exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany,” Rios said. She went on to compare the supposed War on Christmas to religious oppression in the Soviet Union and North Korea.

“I don’t think this pastor understands and I don’t think people understand what is going on in the world,” she said. “They don’t have a large enough world. Their world is too small and so they don’t understand the dangers.”

Sorry Sarah Palin, But Thomas Jefferson Led The War On Christmas

Sarah Palin seems to be under the impression that Thomas Jefferson would stand with her and the folks at Fox News and Liberty University in protesting the non-existent “War on Christmas” and set straight “those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christianity.”

But Palin might want to read The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, or The Jefferson Bible, from which the nation’s founder actually removed passages from the Bible, including the virgin birth and angelic visitations detailed in Matthew and Luke, at the center of Christian teaching on Christ’s birth:

1: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3: And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5: To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6: And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7: And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS.

9: And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

Fischer: Obama Should Be Impeached ... Just For Educational Purposes

On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer agreed with a caller who demanded that Republicans in the House of Representatives "take a stand" and impeach President Obama even if he won't be convicted and removed by the Senate.

Fischer readily agreed, saying that even though there is no chance that Obama would actually be removed from office, House Republicans ought to go ahead and impeach him any way ... for educational purposes.

"There could be a powerful educational benefit from the House filing articles of impeachment," Fischer said, because "it would give the House the opportunity to make their case why this man needs to be removed from office ... And so they're be tremendous educational value in that; it may not go anywhere in the Senate ... but it may be time to recognize there's an educational benefit here":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious