Dan Nelson
Law & Gospel
Middle of Term Examination
11 November 2015
Question 1
Prospective Student, I am so glad you asked such a remarkable question. The theology behind the Law & Gospel perspective might seem outdated, but it is actually quite helpful for being drawn into participation in God’s created world. Most modern pastors focus on the differences between Sin and Grace; that is, we are all sinners, ugly in God’s eyes, in need of God’s redemption and grace through Jesus Christ on the Cross. This is not unhelpful for some people. What we strive to draw others into is re-shifting their understanding of what the center of our lives and our theology should be, and that is back to God. Here, dear student, Law & Gospel becomes manifest. In Genesis 1 God commands humanity to fill the earth, multiply and steward creation. Here we have God creating Law. This pre-dates original sin. After all, how could there be sin if there wasn’t already law. Furthermore, God continues to breath creation further and further into existence. Every moment is created by God, and we are called as co-creators into the world. The Law, then calls us to good and trustworthy actions. However, because we are sinners, and the law functions differently at different times, God recognizes that we are incapable of fulfilling God’s call as well as we should, so God also assures us of the promise of God’s salvation. This is the Gospel. That Jesus Christ, God incarnate through the Holy Spirit was sent to earth to die so that we might live. That while death, sin, and all of the forces that defy God might seem to ultimately prevail in the world, God continues to save creation over and over again, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is certainly good news. This is the Gospel, this is God’s eternal promise that cannot be undone. This is a free gift from a loving God. Because God is at the center, we cannot reject this promise. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, sure, and you can read the Sin/Grace theology into that; but that puts too much emphasis onto humanity. In the beginning God created; therefore our theology, our worship, and our lives should reflect that God is at the center, over and over and over again.
Dear Student, while this mode of theological understanding might seem outmoded, or out of date, it is worth noting that this theology comes from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, and rooted in the Christian Scriptures. It is certainly old, but that shouldn’t imply that it is invaluable. Article IV of the Apology cites that all of scripture should be divided into this understanding: Law & Promise (5). While this seems counter-intuitive in the modern Christian narrative laden with Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Matt Chandler, I don’t think they would have great dissatisfaction with the re-shifting of the Bible back onto the one who inspired it. Even the Psalmist, who reflects greatly on the creativity of God (Psalm 8), as well as their own sin (Psalm 51), they recognize that all goodness comes through God, as understood through the Law (Psalm 1, 119). This is not denying the radical nature of the grace of God, or the assumption and understanding that humanity is in desperate need of this grace. This is most certainly true. But to immediately jump to the cross is a discredit to all of the ways that God has worked through the world, using the law. There is promise in the salvation of the law. That is: God’s action and agency in the world, perfected in the cross of Christ, is not the only way to experience the promises of God. Everyone loves to quote John 3:16, and this is good, but a better translation would be “In this way God loves….” That God’s saving action is not limited to Jesus. And this acknowledges the Sin/Grace dichotomy, but it is inauthentic to the rich scriptural narrative and understanding with who created the heavens and the earth, and the constant movement in that direction from God to us, and from us to neighbor, which is given through the law. Our own ability to fuck it up constantly is assured and assumed, which is where the radical promise of God’s action in spite of our brokenness is an affirmation of our belovedness. That God’s promises supersede all of our best efforts. This is good news. This is Gospel. This is most certainly true.
Question 2
(introduction skipped)
Pastor 1: “I am so glad to hear things are going well at (such and such) Lutheran Church in Anytown, USA. I’ve been wondering since I got my call; how are you so sure of the second use of the law? I hear that we all are sinners, sure, but if we could only adhere to the first use, the civil use, that calls us to create a more trustworthy world!”
Pastor 2: “I am so glad you asked. I love the second use of the law. I get off on that. Well, love is a strong word. I mean, I feel condemned for my sin, and I recognize that this is God’s revelation working in me, through the second use of the law. It is like the feeling I got in Cedar City, Utah, when the cop pulled me over for doing 91 in an 80. I knew I was wrong. I knew I had fucked up. This is helpful in my congregation because once people are aware of their brokenness, the second use, then they come to Christ. Well, Christ comes to them. They have that understanding through the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Pastor 1: “Give credit where credit is due.”
Both laugh.
Pastor 1: “But really, the congregation responds to such condemnation? I find that at my context, the congregation loves to study the Old Testament: the 10 Commandments, and my sermon series on Leviticus was such a home-run!”
Pastor 2: “Absolutely, they do. But tell me, why so strong on the first use?”
Pastor 1: “Well, to quote the Smalcald Articles, ‘Here we maintain that the law was given by God, in the first place, to curb sin by means of the threat and terror of punishment and also by means of the promise and offer of grace and favor’ (311). We can clearly see that the Law is good, as given by God, and the first use of such calls us into creative order, with God, alongside the neighbor, to create a more honest and trustworthy world. Here we understand God’s favor for us.”
Pastor 2: “But what do you do with the Roman’s text, ‘All have sinned…’?”
Pastor 1: “Sure! But that doesn’t mean that the law is bad. Laws help us feel protected, and safe; and we are called to uphold the law to love the neighbor; and this is how we show love to God. Any violation of the Second Table commandments is a violation of the first. By not loving our neighbor, we are not loving God.”
Pastor 2: “Absolutely, you’re correct. But we can’t uphold all of that. And my congregation knows that. Here is where the usefulness of the second use of the law is upheld and made known. Because Christ was sent, because of our sin, because of our brokenness and shame. So, how does that function in the lives of those born into a broken creation?”
Pastor 1: “I am so glad you asked. The first use functions that it calls us into communities of faith to love God through loving the neighbor. We see this littered across the scriptures.”
Pastor 2: “Absolutely, but we also see broken people continually messing up what God has done, and knowing their sin and need of God’s redemption.”
Pastor 1: “True. But I find that positive rules, like raising a child, is more helpful.”
Pastor 2: “YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE KIDS!”
Pastor 1: “But I have nieces; and they love when we turn rules into games, but that is neither here nor there. What the fact of the matter is, sure, humans will not always get it right, so I agree with the second use, but being called into a creative order is good and right and trustworthy, and this is where the law is super helpful.”
Pastor 2: “I concede that the first use is helpful, if not necessary for life; but I still can’t reconcile my own brokenness. My need for salvation, made known through the second use of the law, is the most helpful aspect of my ministry. The congregation, born into sin, aspire to do well, but revel in the promise of their salvation, in spite of themselves.”
Pastor 1: “Preach; don’t stop.”
Pastor 2: “So, the second use of the law can be but isn’t always the avenue that my flock hears through the spirit that they have sinned, BUT that their sins are forgiven. Every freaking time. Over and over again.”
Pastor 1: “Glory!”
Pastor 2: “But, I see what you mean; how we need the laws to be called into God’s creative order, and that is good news.”
Pastor 1: “I value these talks.”
Pastor 2: “As do I.”
(end of scene)
Question 3
“The Third Use of the Law is a helpful way to understand how God is using the law in the Christian life after a person comes to faith.”
Historically, those in favor of the third use of the law have used it as such to call those of faith into right Christian relationship, not only with God but also with the neighbor. This is certainly a good and helpful device. Opponents, though, argue that the third use is irrelevant, and that it is a recapitulation of the first use of the law. I find that this thesis provided is helpful for new disciples and those to the Christian faith, the question of how to live once saved is a worthy question. However, this thesis, while helpful, is ultimately false, and that this is indeed the first use of the law, re-assumed. God continues to call us into co-creating a more honest and trustworthy world, for sure. But to assume that God’s law changes once a person comes to understand, believe, or hear their own salvation is erroneous. This is because God is the one who does the saving, and Christians and non-Christians sin alike, daily. Over and over again. Calvin and Luther would be floored with he notion that this is dividing the church. I don’t think this was their intention. This question is a good one, because it calls into order the role of Christian lifestyle, and what it means to know your salvation, and live into that. We are certainly called into living into this reality, but are ultimately incapable of doing this rightly. I think these are the questions congregations are asking, and sermons on how to live are helpful and good. However, the academic discourse can be more damaging than good once both roles assume to know what the other might say. This is dividing the church. God is the one who saves, we can all agree upon that; and it is good to preach on healthy living, healthy spirituality, and the roll of fellowship, discipleship and community. The danger though would be to argue that one side is more or less valid because of some historical figure writing their interpretation of the same biblical text and what that looks like for the sake of their parish. Who cares? If someone is saved and honestly trying their best to live in response to God’s graciousness, does it matter what definition of the law it is filed under? This is a 1% argument, and it matters even less. As a pastor it is good to know the effectiveness of the law and its uses in a sermon, but at the end of the day, no body is listening to you preaching. They are listening to the Spirit working the Word of God into their lives, and to God be the glory if they are able to listen with ears and be born new creations. Lutheran confessional witness claims that any faith is not our own, but comes through the power of the Spirit of God. This is certainly true. But if someone’s faith comes through their own understanding that they made a choice to be saved, or to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, confessionally that is the Spirit working, whether they admit it or not. If their life is then spent living into that witness, I would be a fool to “correct” them into thinking it was through the civil use and not some disputed other usefulness. We make ourselves up to be more important than we actually are.
Question 4
This beautiful passage from the Gospel of Mark asserts that there is good news in shock and terror. This stems from the fulfillment of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That God is alive and working in the world, even in the most abject and horrible places. When all hope is seemed lost or broken, that death does not have the last word. The disciples had seen their Lord betrayed, beaten, and executed before their eyes, and that three years of their lives had seemed like it was thrown away. There was also fear that their own lives would be next. What this story is affirming to them is that their Lord was not in the tomb, and that death was not the final sentence.
What is also wonderful about this story is that women were among the first to witness the resurrection, and then called to proclaim that Jesus Christ was risen from the dead. This should have set a standard for religious institutions for the next 2,ooo years, and while it was made manifest with female religious leaders in the first century, male clergy asserted dominance once more out of a quest for power. Broken people leading broken people. But what we see here is that those who are deemed unworthy of society are called to be part of the resurrection narrative; and that God uses all people to God’s own glory and proclamation, regardless of status, affiliation, or class. This is good news, especially for broken pastors seeking to do good in the world. God uses every person.
If it weren’t enough that the resurrection occurred, the absence of Jesus in the tomb meant that God was still at work, and would continue to be. That the LORD of the Torah, or the Septuagint had presence in the suffering and loss of those whom God loved, and would not abandon them, forsake them, or forget them.
Dear Colleague, I hope that your reading of scripture is hinged upon the resurrection, and not on Holy Saturday. Our congregations often can feel like God is dead and has left them, as the disciples felt, but that glorious Easter morning promises that no matter how dark the night of our sin might feel, that God promises new life, and rebirth, over and despite who we are.
dan miglets nelson 