First, I want to thank all of you who were willing to stand up and confront me on my error and the misinformation I posted in my last few posts. It takes a lot of courage to do so and it’s comforting knowing that all of you posted out of love and concern and not out of anger and hate.

Second, it can’t be overstated that a public form, such as this blog, has many pros and cons associated with it. Most of the cons have to do with writing things that can be misunderstood, writing things that are not well thought out and writing things that are critical of large groups of people. I think that my last few posts have accomplished all of those and that my dear readers, is a shame. It’s a shame that I did not share my opinions and thoughts in a meaningful and understandable way. It’s a shame that I wrote them from a precarious emotional and spiritual state. It’s a shame that I wrote things that were discouraging and divisive to a large group of people who are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Third, throughout these posts I had based my opinions and thoughts, solely on what was available as public knowledge and did no behind the scenes research at all. At first, this was intentional because it seemed to me that Dr. MacArthur’s posts clearly weren’t telling the whole story and my hopes were that people would press themselves and others into seeking out the full truth and the full story. What I mean by that is this: When Dr. MacArthur posted the first three articles it really didn’t seem plausible that one sermon two years ago was really the issue he was addressing. Because it was unclear to me, I shared suspicions and conjecture based only on what he had wrote and didn’t take into account that there may have been other things that had happened behind the scenes that I had no knowledge of. Thus when Dr. MacArthur’s fourth article came out and answered some questions and concerns, but not the questions or concerns I wanted answers to, I continued my attack and concluded my posts based only on what was said instead of seeking answers to the questions and concerns I had.

Fourth, no one knows better than me that Matthew 18 is the primary passage when dealing with interpersonal conflict and disagreement amongst believers. Therefore, if I had concerns or questions with Dr. MacArthur’s articles, my first stop should have been to contact him personally. Even though he discouraged this in his post, if I felt my concerns and questions were such that his approach and conduct was damaging to the Gospel then I had a mandate and an obligation to approach him first. Instead, I posted a public blog throwing around accusations. Some that had merit and some that did not. However, even the concerns that may have shown some merit, have now been tarnished by those that were made out of anger and partial information.

Therefore, I have written the following letter to Dr. MacArthur:

Dear Dr. John MacArthur,

I am a former TMC student and I am truly grateful and blessed by the time that God allowed me to be there under your leadership and the leadership of the excellent and exemplary faculty and staff that you lead.

I am writing this letter and asking for your forgiveness. Shortly after you published the “The Rape of Solomon’s Song” I posted several entries on my blog (http://talesfromtheyellowbrickroad/blog) that were slanderous to you, divisive to the body of Christ and filled with ignorant and inflammatory accusations against you and your congregation. I admit that this entry was written out of anger and hurt from a separate and unrelated matter at another church that has deeply wounded and hurt me emotionally and spiritually. I do not offer this information as an excuse, but rather as a plea for your understanding, mercy and grace in this matter.

In addition, while I may have had genuine and valid concerns about the motives and reasoning for your posts, most of them have been clarified by your final post as well as information that has been passed onto me by several gracious and loving members of your congregation. Let me assure you Dr. MacArthur, that they confronted and approached me with the love of Christ and with the goal of pointing out my errors and calling me to repent of my unfounded accusations. Your sheep have been well trained by their shepherd and this has been the largest factor in my reason for this letter.

I know that you love and care for your flock and even for the Body of Christ at large. This is demonstrated by your commitment to TMC, TMS and to boldly defending and contending for the Gospel every time you step into a pulpit. Your words are often strong but never obscene and as a result your ability to comment on the words of another Pastor are perhaps best suited for someone such as yourself. I’m not going to pretend or assume that I know all the reasons you wrote those articles, but what caused my concern was not only the way you referred to Mark Driscoll and the way you didn’t refer to him.

The words that I read were filled with strong statements against his exegesis of the passage as well as to his overall problem with “filthy language.” With this I wholeheartedly agree that a strong rebuke is necessary and even required by those who are shepherds to other shepherds. But what struck me was the absence of the spirit of gentleness. You stated on a number of occasions that your motivation for the articles was because a group of believers has sent you a tape. What you didn’t state was that you love Mark and have his best interests at heart, along with the Body of Christ at large.

It’s important to note that this point, that some members of your congregation informed me that you have written to Mark on several occasions. Perhaps in those letters your tone was less harsh and more loving and I am willing to accept that. But, my concern was that this was not communicated in any of the first three articles and in the final article you mentioned a letter that you had written him two years ago that sounded just as strong as your articles. In fact, the impression I got, only from what you wrote in those articles, was that you wrote him one letter two years ago before submitting those three articles to the entire world. That is what has led me to wonder if you love Mark and those whom he shepherds.

It would be silly of me at this point to include a long list of scripture as a basis for this, as you have preached on all of them probably two to three times over the past 40 years. However I will submit the following for your consideration:

“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” Galatians 6:1 (ESV)

Dr. MacArthur I am willing to be humble and contrite if I have erred in my concern that you did not approach your articles in a spirit of gentleness. I am also willing to be humble and contrite if I have misunderstood the purpose of your article asthe well being of those that sent you the recording and not Mark and his flock. I am also hoping that you will receive my words in this letter in a spirit of gentleness.

Again, I am sorry for the words I used in my posts that were not loving, kind or gentle. And I have publically repented of those false statements and slanderous words on my blog and verbally to those in your congregation who approached me.

Your Brother In Christ,
Cliff Ames Jr.

Fifth, I want to restate something I said in my last post, but be more clear: Mark’s words to the people in Scotland would never be appropriate or okay for a Pastor to say in a Sermon from the pulpit. His exegesis on the Song of Solomon was bad and the language he used was explicit. I was mistaken is stating that he repented of the words he spoke to the people in Scotland, but I am not mistaken that his attempt to have it removed shows that he has realized his words were a problem.

Lastly my dear readers, I ask for your forgiveness for my errors, my false accusations, my assumptions and my poor motives for my posts. I have caused division amongst you because of my own selfish desire to express anger about something totally unrelated. It was not fair to accuse those that attend GCC of wrongdoing, especially since I do not attend GCC and have only been there a handful of times. I had no right to lump all of you into a singular category of those who hate Mark Driscoll or have treated him badly. And for those of you who have taken one side or another and have been arguing back and forth with each other whether online or in person, please, in the name of Christ, stop. Just so we are clear, I am renouncing, repealing, repenting and rejecting those words that were false, filled with error and written out of anger and as a result it is no longer necessary to carry on a debate or discussion based on my words on this blog.

If you feel like this is an unsatisfactory apology, repentance of my words or you are still concerned about what was said, then I beg you in the name of Christ, not to hold it against me, but to lovingly contact me as so many of you have already done. I will talk to you, email you or even chat with you in person if that is what it takes to repair a rift in our relationship.

I hope you will keep reading and will continue to participate when other posts come up that are more edifying and glorifying to Christ and His Bride. My intention isn’t necessarily to avoid controversial topics, but to post entries that will encourage and build up the Body of Christ rather then tear down and divide as I have done this past week.

Thanks in advance for your mercy and grace,
Cliff Ames Jr.

To begin I want to start with a little timeline I constructed, based on John MacArthur’s posts as well as Mark Driscroll’s posts and his own words:

• September 30th, 2007 – JMac sends his letter to Mark
• November 18th, 2007 – Mark gives the Song Of Solomon lectures in Scotland
• March 9th, 2009 – Phil Johnson publicly attacks Mark during the Shepherds Conference in a message called “Sound Doctrine; Sound Words.”
  
• March 26th, 2009 – Mark posts “John MacArthur On Bible Teaching” in which he adds JMac to the growing list of those who are part of the “New Calvinist” movement. He also applauds JMac for his longstanding devotion to defending scripture.
  
• April 5th, 2009 – Mark posts “Spring Cleaning” in which he realizes that his lectures “out of the country” were inappropriate for the internet and were meant to be private. He shares that he wants the lectures removed and that he appreciated his critics bringing this to his attention.
  
• April 14th-17th, 2009 – JMac launches his attack on Mark’s lecture via “The Rape of Solomon’s Song”

So, I am going to base my conclusion based on those events.

1. Mark’s Scotland lectures, messages, sermons or whatever you want to call them were not intended for public use and for JMac to construct his 4 articles around those lectures was not the wisest idea. It seems to me JMac picked the most inflammatory example he could think of in order to paint and cast Mark into a filthy, vile and despicable preacher and in order to satisfy the demands of those that sent him the recordings in the first place. It also makes me think he was hard pressed to find other evidence that could not be easily defended by Mark or others who would question JMac’s objectivity in his writing.

2. Mark’s Scotland lectures, messages, sermons or whatever you want to call them were bad exegesis. Mark went too far in interpreting the various symbols and such into body parts and various kinds of sexual activities. I think his attempt to have them removed didn’t go far enough. He needed to state in no uncertain terms that those lectures were not appropriate and that he has since revised his understanding of the Song of Solomon. And if Mark thinks he interpreted those passages correctly in that lecture and that turning symbolism into commands is okay then that is a problem worth noting.

3. Over the past few months Mark has received tons of media coverage and I think that makes JMac nervous, and for good reason. Mark is a young, vibrant energetic preacher and lots of us young kids have enjoyed learning and growing from Mark’s teaching over the years. But Mark sometimes has a Peter complex: he speaks without choosing his words carefully and sometimes is to impetuous to think through what needs to be said rather then what he wants to say. From my own observations I’d say Mark has grown significantly in this area which is a real tribute to how the Lord can still grow and change even a pastor of a mega-church. However, JMac’s concern seems to be that Mark has compromised his qualification to be a preacher because of the things he has said and at any moment is going to launch a “cussing preachers” movement that will corrupt the minds of the folks at TMS and TMC. But JMac should know better. He has trained those who have or are attending TMS or TMC to hold scripture as the ultimate authority and that no one, not even JMac gets a free pass if they are doing preaching things that are contrary to scripture.

4. I think JMac’s approach in these articles was bad. He sounds like a grumpy, angry, uptight, legalistic Father that needs to take a Prozac. Instead, JMac should have taken the approach of a loving Father and rebuked Mark for being careless in allowing those recordings to be made and distributed as well as not being quicker to see that he had erred in his exegesis. JMac needed to show humility and gentleness in his understanding of the situation and instead of using a letter sent almost 2 years ago as a warning. He should have made further attempts to seek out Mark’s heart. JMac’s words sound like an exasperated father who has written off his son as irredeemable, especially with his “Enough is enough” comment in his final post. Does JMac realize his unChrist-like statement? Does God ever say “Enough is enough” to JMac? Will God ever say that to one of His children who struggles with their sin? NEVER! God shows us Grace! God even shows JMac Grace! So why is JMac exempt from showing Grace to this young son?

My final point is this, I am willing to believe that JMac can change. I am willing to believe that the next time some preacher or ministry has strayed from the narrow path (even if it’s JMac’s own narrower path) that he can and will adopt a tone of Grace and Humility but will remain firm in defending Scripture. I’m know that JMac can be a loving and gracious person and have seen that repeatedly in his interaction with TMC and TMC students. He loves them, shepherds them and even extends grace to them when they err. He even extends grace to them if the err again. So why should someone else only receive one, six page letter before he is mercilessly and publicly rebuked for twelve pages two years later? If JMac and his followers continue to rebuke minsters of the Gospel using this method, then they need to change the name of their ministry from “Grace To You” to “Grace To Some.”