Sometimes God’s people suffer for the sake of righteousness. When that is the case, we are called to not be afraid of those who would punish righteousness from corrupt motives. Instead, we are to prioritize, and to make preparation for, answering accusers with gentleness and respect, and with a good conscience, so that those who hate our good behavior in Christ will be ashamed of themselves.
Other times, Martyn Lloyd Jones is right to call out those who claim persecution for righteousness when in actuality they have sown the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind.
As Hosea says, I think it can be applied to them: "The standing grain has no heads; it shall yield no flour; if it were to yield, strangers would devour it."
On a related note, here lately I’ve been reading up on the Ecumenical movement in our day. And it’s funny to me that I find myself agreeing with certain points made by Dr. Peter Leithart about the carnality of embracing the sentiment inherent to "I am of Paul," "I am of Apollos" where Protestant denominations are concerned.
The reason this amuses me is that I have absolutely no interest in larger efforts by him to let bygones be bygones where doctrine is concerned just so we can rejoin Rome - as Leithart essentially argues for. Rather, I am all the more disturbed the more I study by the move towards Globalism in the Post-War consensus which has fueled so many of the calls for Christian unity as-late.
As much or more as I may agree with Dr. Leithart on some of his supporting points, it seems from what I’ve heard of his public debates from several years back, with Fred Sanders, Carl Trueman, and Doug Wilson, that he misses the equal application of this concern for unity when such would apply to the Roman Church.
This kind of partiality is not good. Nor do I believe it's destined to succeed, however popular it may be for a time, and however persuasively designed lots of nudging towards it right now may feel.
But to be clear, I generally agree with Leithart’s concerns about Protestant sectarianism disguised as Christian orthodoxy. I share his concern about being unreasonably loyal to this or that particular servant of the Lord - whether real or imagined - at the expense of Christian unity. And this I mean not least with Protestantism, since I myself am a Protestant, and Protestantism in America is what I know best from an personal experiential standpoint.
Yet we all must police our own after a fashion, or else we will not get far chiding other circles. So take equal note of the Scripture and its ramifications for two temptations which seem opposite, yet are actually close cousins.
“Bad company ruins good morals” is contrasted in God's Word with “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” And these rebuke both those who shrug about doctrine in favor of fast agreement and superficial unity, and those who make mountains out of mole hills and strain out gnats while swallowing camels.
In both cases - where we accept bad company where antinomianism is concerned, and where we accept bad company where factional partiality reigns supreme; where we love friendship with the world, and where we say "I am of Paul" or "I am of Apollos" - something of the full importance of Christ as the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep is being dismissed as trivial. And in such cases of both varieties, those who sow the wind cannot merely rebuke the whirlwind. They must reap it if they won't repent of it.
Yet one thing I cannot abide by in all of this: when some in either the former or latter camp incite strong emotion in their debate opponents, or targets of opportunity, then turn around and make a mockery of reasonable responses to unnecessary rudeness by rebuking the byproducts of their antagonism - the anger, sadness, and anxiety they themselves deliberately provoked.
