Does the Gospel Excuse Sin?
As readers of this blog site know, a topic that has had my attention for quite some time is the problem of an aversion to sanctification that has taken hold in certain quarters in Confessional Lutheranism. It is a subset of Gospel reductionism, and a sad legacy of those years in our Synod when there was active and open denial of the third use of the law. Under that influence there developed unfortunate views of Christian sanctification. Also there are those who appear to think that the best antidote to legalism is a certain kind of antinomianism. I’ve noticed for many years that there are those who go so far as to think that since Pietism is a problem, a demonstration of impiety is the solution: coarse language, crude humor, making fun of people, drinking to excess, etc.
It is a sort of pendulum move. If there are Christians who lose sight of Christ and the Gospel in their quest to be about good works, there is this odd notion that the way to counteract that is attempting to reduce the entire Christian experience and life to a rather formulaic, rote articulation of the doctrine of justification and denunciation of works righteousness. The proper distinction between Law and Gospel has come to be understood to mean that a sermon should not speak about the Christian’s life transformed by the Gospel. I’ve been told by several Lutheran pastors that any sermon that ends with any mention of works thereby fails to distinguish between Law and Gospel. I find no evidence for this position in the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, or any of our Lutheran orthodox fathers, including Luther, down to our own time with Walther. It is a legacy of more recent Lutheran speculation, not historic Lutheranism.
As a result of all this, it is no wonder that there are Lutheran Christians who regard the Gospel as not much more than a way to be "let off the hook" for personal responsibility for moral, virtuous Christian behavior. I’ve had more than one conversation with a pastor who has indicated that this is cropping up increasingly in pastoral ministry. A person comes expressing a sense of remorse for a situation but is not capable of recognizing their own culpability for the situation and their contribution to the situation in their lack of commitment to virtue and morality as a Christian living out their lives in grateful obedience to God. They come seeking forgiveness, or perhaps, to be made to feel better, with some sort of pastoral, "Oh, that’s ok. You are only human. Don’t worry, you are forgiven" when they have no intention to stop the sinful behavior. Simply put, Christ did not shed His blood on the cross to give you "freedom" to live like a pig, unconcerned about good works and living your life to glorify God. Some have even taken to promoting shirts that say "Weak on
sanctification." That is as offensive to me as a shirt that would
proclaim, "Weak on justification."
The Gospel sets us free from sin, not free to sin. The Gospel liberates us from captivity from sin, but does not excuse a libertine life. The Gospel forgives sin, it does not excuse it. We are justified by Christ’s perfect righteousness, but unrighteousness is never justified.
Some might say, "There McCain goes again. Another rant about good works. Who does he think he is?" Who am I? ‘m a sinner who daily sins, much, and is in need of forgiveness. I’m a man who loses my temper, who becomes impatient, who says things I wish I would not say, who thinks things I wish I would not think, who does thing I wish I would not do, that I don’t even want to do. Who am I? A sinner. Like you. That’s why daily I pray, "Forgive us our trespasses." But I do not want to reach a point where I try to let myself off the hook and say, "Oh, don’t worry about the sins in your life. Don’t be concerned. Don’t try to stop sinning and don’t try to live the life to which I’m called in Christ." I hope I’m never not concerned. I hope and pray I’m never not troubled by my sin. For if and when that time comes, I know that the Gospel will not be as sweet and of such joy.
Time and again I encounter an attitude born of an improper lack of teaching about the life of good works to which we are called in Christ. I’ve run into more than a few earnest Lutheran Christians who actually believe that it is permissible for them to indulge themselves in drunkenness and coarse, crude, vulgar language, enjoying pornographic rap lyrics, and the most vile of movies. Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from the Scriptures, nor the Lutheran Confessions. We Lutherans love the Bible when it talks about justification and forgiveness, but do we love it as much when it speaks specifically to us, as Christians, about the consequences of the new life in Christ? Note the two passages that follow. These are not being written to unregenerate pagans but to those who have been born anew in Christ.
Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love,
as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a
sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. But fornication and all
uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is
fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse
jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Ephesians
5:1-4)
But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath,
malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. (Colossians 3:8)
In Christ, we do strive to obey God and glorify Him with our behavior. Notice: in Christ we do this. We in Christ and Christ in us. We are not concerned about good works to win or merit or earn God’s love and favor, but to glorify Him, to thank Him, to praise Him, to serve Him, to obey Him, for the pleasure of it, for the joy of it, for the fact that we are new creations in Christ.
Update: Thanks to Brian who offered a comment to this post. I went over to his blog site and there discovered a couple quotes by LCMS theologian Gilbert Meilaender that are expressing concerns similar to mine. I’ve never read Meilaender much at all, to be honest, but it was intriguing to me to read him expressing things I’m wrestling with. I am not at all persuaded that the problem is the Law/Gospel dialectic itself, but very poor applications and understandings of it. Here is what Meilaender has written:
“I want to examine critically a certain understanding of Lutheranism,
which (whether our language in that of paradox, of the law-gospel
distinction, of the law always accusing, of dialect, or of freedom from
the law and critique of any third use of the law) eventually arrives at
a kind of practical antinomianism — which is, alas, all too readily
accompanied by a strident moralism — but which, were it consistent,
would have no reason to pray that our hearts may be set to obey God’s
commandments.” (p. 253)
And:
“Not without good reason … has Niels Henrik Gregersen argued that
“Luther’s dialect of law and gospel should not be elevated into a
theological principle that structures the interpretation of Christian
faith from beginning to end.” When that is done, Gregersen notes, we
end with a theology that “cannot express the extent to which the New
Testament constantly instructs the believer to act according to his or
her belief: ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Jesus Christ.’” We
need to better than this dialectical Lutheranism. We need a theology
that does not invite us to forget that “the grace of God has appeared
for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and
worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this
world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself up for us to redeem
us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who
are zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:11-14), We need a theology that
does not invite us to act as if the incarnation, cross, and empty tomb
have done nothing new and transforming in history.” (page 263-264)
Source:
From Hearts Set to Obey, chapter 14 of I Am the Lord Your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments, edited by Carl Braaten and Christopher Seitz (Eerdmans, 2005).
Pastor McCain. Thanks a lot for this thoughtful post. Very well said.
Pastor McCain. If you’ll allow me to follow my own comment here, I think Meilaender in his article cited above offers a wonderful analysis and correction to a certain type of law/gospel hermeneutic that is operative in certain segments of Lutheranism. Personally speaking, and without being too dramatic, Meilaender’s essay has given me hope as a Lutheran!
I also think, as you said above, that a poor understanding and application (that’s why I rather sarcastically put the “#8482;” sign in my post title) is probably the main culprit.
Also, M. Mattes has briefly reviewed two recent Meilaender books in the latest Logia journal. I haven’t read the books myself but from the reviews it looks as if Meilaender has made more comments of a similar vein.
Thank you, Rev. McCain. Your post is most helpful.
It does bring up a question, one that I’ve had for a long time and I’ve never been able to understand or find a satisfactory answer to.
There are quite a number of passages in the NT like the two that you quoted, from Ephesians and Colossians.
How are these properly categorized? Are they law? Are they Gospel?
Or are they commands?
I’ve spent a lot of brainpower trying to figure this out, to no avail! Now I’m wondering, after your quotes from Dr. Meileander, that perhaps the law/gospel paradigm doesn’t apply here. Rather, they’re commands from God, done as a result of our new identity in Christ?
God bless you.
I think it’s helpful when, considering good works, to look at the lives of the saints who have gone before us and consider their faith and deeds, as our Confessions note.
Is the “weak on sanctification” slogan supposed to be a reference to SD VI? “As soon as the Holy Spirit has begun His work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and holy Sacraments, we can and should cooperate through His power, although still in great weakness. This cooperation does not come from our fleshly natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts that the Holy Spirit has begun in us in conversion.”
McCain: No, it’s actually a quote from Gerhard Forde who is criticized for being “weak on sanctification” because he talks about justification “too much” according to his critics. Forde is actually “weak” theologically on the vicarious satisfaction of Christ and the third use of the law.
The cited article discusses all the things one should be doing in their new life in Christ, but I think it’s missing the same point that’s missed in a lot of teaching in Lutheran circles – namely the nature of God’s justice and righteous judgment that necessitated Christ’s atoning work here on earth.
Romans 2:4-5: “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”
In Lutheran circles one hears a lot about “you’re a sinner, but God’s forgiven you”, but there’s not much heard about how God is with each person all the time, that He dwells in the hearts of those who believe, that He knows all that you say, do, and think through the working of the Holy Spirit, and while He is patient and forgiving, He is also *just* and *righteous*, and will not be mocked, as Galatians discusses.
Galatians 6:7-8 “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
If one looks around, the “reaping what one sows” can be seen time and time again. It’s so prevelant that even the unbelievers have a name for it – they call it “karma.”
Reaping what one sows also appears in Hebrews 6:7-8 “For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.”
What can all manner of un-cleanness be considered as anything other than thorns and thistles? And what is the end of a person who produces such fruits?
If people knew about how God is in His people and works through them, that He is as *just* and *righteous* as He is patient and forgiving – then perhaps their eyes would be opened as to just how precarious their position is when they engage in errant behavior, and have a better understanding of just how huge an accomplishment Christ’s atoning work on earth is.
I would also hope they would gain a clearer knowledge of just how dependent they are on Christ and the Holy Spirit, and that God is faithful to enable them to will and to do the good deeds that He has already been laid out for them to walk in, even though we will fall down from time to time.
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:10
All quotes The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001, Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
So, what does the Christian life look like? Is it not one of looking at my sins and seeing how I’ve failed, turning in repentance to the One who died for all my sins, past, present and future? I believe that Christ and all He has done is my motivation to live in repentance and daily forgiveness. To look elsewhere (including my own
weak, faltering faith) is to go back to the Law, is it not? We cannot
hope to bring about sanctification through admonitions to “do better”
can we? Has not Christ atoned for all my sins, even my failure to live what some say is a “sanctified life” according to their Law- directed insistance that I should be “growing in sanctification”?
Talking about good deeds isn’t the same as saying that the power to do them comes simply through your good efforts. How can you get, from this post, the idea that anyone is denying that Christ atoned for all my sins, including the failure to make efforts to do better? (That implies, by the way, that we *should* be making such an effort.)
What does the Christian life look like? It looks like a life that’s actually lived out, and deals with more than an hour or so on Sunday morning. We do continually look to Christ throughout the week, but we do more than live introspectively, too.
You say that “we do continually look to Christ throughout the week”
For what do we look to Christ for?
Thank you for this wonderful topic. As much as I love the Lutheran Church and Issues Etc. with Todd Wilken, every single discussion on sanctification that I hear on that program leaves me with the impression that sanctification is sinful! HUH?! I must be hearing them wrong, but that is what is sounds like. My impression from the discussions is that we are so intrinsically sinful that the old Adam RULES over the new man, and the only thing we can do is go to church as often as possible. Yet when I open my Bible I find:
1 Cor 10:13
No temptation has seized you except that which is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so you can stand up under it.
James 4:7-8
Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.
BTW, I love Issues Etc. and the Rev Wilken.
The second lesson for All Saints was 1 John 3:1-3. This text and the whole of First John is a wholesome antidote to any form of antinomianism. Those who live lives of intentional, purposeful, ongoing sin are simply not Christians. We are always sinners but we are not dominated by sin.
HB,
What I find problematic, and I think this is what Meilaender partly had in mind, is the neglect by certain Lutherans in regards to the indicative/imperative structure found in Paul’s theology. Paul says in numerous places “Christ is risen, you have been raised with him, start doing ABC and stop doing XYZ”. The law/gospel hermeneutic, or at least certain versions of it, does not know what to do with statements like these, IMHO. Is this law? Is this gospel? Personally, I think these are the wrong questions for several reasons.
I would really check out the Meilaender essay if you have access to it. It’s wonderful.
To tell Christians how they should behave is a preaching of the Law (3rd use). Such Law preaching is necessary, especially because we still have the old Adam clinging to our bones, who constantly needs to be beaten with the Law. Those who excuse sin because it is forgiven err and should be rebuked. The Christian life described by Rev. McCain, “We are not concerned about good works to win or merit or earn God’s love and favor, but to glorify Him, to thank Him, to praise Him, to serve Him, to obey Him, for the pleasure of it, for the joy of it, for the fact that we are new creations in Christ.” is a description of the fruit of the Holy Spirit, well described by the Formula of Concord, Epitome VI.5. This life is not generated by the preaching of the Law (not even in its 3rd use), but is generated by the work of the Holy Spirit.
We look to Christ for forgiveness and the power to live new lives. This power does not come from the Law, but from the Gospel. But the Law instructs us, rebukes us, trains us, and shows us what that new life looks like.
I have a real problem with the idea that Christians are not supposed to live purposefully and deliberately in service to their neighbor. I get the impression that some believe that thinking about Jesus’s death for us inevitably results in automated service to our neighbor without needing a backward glance at the Law as a guide. This is contrary to our confessions. It is akin to saying that don’t really need to think about or care about our neighbor, since it’s really just Jesus caring for our neighbor using the mindless shells of our human bodies.
I would like to submit a sermon for consideration on this topic:
http://www.stpaulbluepoint.org/page1/page3/assets/DS_20110_1.mp3
It is my sermon from September 9, on Galatians 5:16-24. Please make sure to listen to the whole thing. It is rather long. But I think that Paul’s post and other comments on here on this stuff are just missing the point, the center, and in some ways getting seriously close to denigrating a proper biblical piety, calling some things “formulaic.”
Hi Dave. I would love to listen to your sermon but I’m restricted by time. Maybe I can throw it on my iPod for listening in the car later on.
I can’t speak for Pastor McCain (and I think I would be safe to say that I am probably more critical of the law/gospel hermeneutic than he is, if he is at all), but what in any comment above or in any comment referenced above do you find to be missing the point and “getting seriously close to denigrating a proper biblical piety”. I find your comment specifically interesting because I would say the same thing about certain strands of the law/gospel hermeneutic.
Just curious. Thanks
Brian, Law/Gospel is not the problem here. A proper/complete preaching of the law is part of the problem. That is, that the law is not being properly and fully preached. That does not solve the problem of sanctification/good works gone missing, but enables those who are stumbling in this regard to see the problem and seek the proper answer. (neither licentiousness nor legalism/law).
I would encourage you to listen to the sermon…30+ minutes…the introduction is the reason it is so long, but that is because I was trying to deal, in part, with the issue of homosexuality (a very sensitive topic here at the moment, with some tempted to say that we are just being holier than thou), putting it in perspective, biblically speaking. So listen to it, the whole thing, being patient with the long intro and you will get my point, I hope.
The matter of denigration that I was speaking about, is that if you understand what I am trying to say in the sermon, based on Gal 5, 2 Cor 6 et al, you will find that seeking the answer in the means of grace, trusting that God will work through them, is anything but formulaic, even though, such piety does not appear to be as intense as those who talk a lot about how intent they are to do good works. Intentions, no matter how intense, create nothing, spiritually speaking. Rather, in some ways, a biblical piety is centered on God’s work, intensity etc.
The Gospel doesn’t excuse sin; it forgives sin.
Big difference.
Go your way and sin no more.
Dave. Hi. Thanks. I’ll give it a listen. I think I may have misunderstood your first comment.
wcwirla. Yes, exactly. I agree. Here is where I get frustrated some times with (certain flavors of) the law/gospel hermeneutic and how I think it effects Christian living: it doesn’t know what to do with your admonition to “Go your way and sin no more”. It wants to ask, quite needlessly I must add, is this a law? As if we can approach the Scripture with a 2-col data sheet and drop verses into their appropriate ‘law’ or ‘gospel’ column.
Brian: Where is the Meilaender essay that you mentioned?
Thanks.
One of the underlying currents to this topic seems to be a sense that we have lost the distinction between what is sacred/sanctified and what is profane not only in this culture but also among members of the church. And perhaps the question that really underlies the initial post, in light of the examples given, is how will a sense of awe, respect, and fear of and for God and what is holy and sacred be restored among members of the body of Christ? How does one instill a sense of awe and reverence in others for the majesty and mystery that is God in a culture focused on me, what I can have, what I want, what I deserve? If there were a true respect and awe for the sacredness of one’s life under the cross, would there be such a prevalence of the contradictory behavior noted in the initial post?
Implied as useful tools in this discussion but not explicitly discussed are the doctrine of vocation and the fact of our dual citizenship in the two kingdoms and how both relate to the law/gospel dichotomy. It is very humbling to me to know and to realize that God has prepared work for me to do, and uses me in my role as husband, father, lawyer, friend, brother, son to accomplish His Will in all that I do and say. The language of the masks that God uses to accomplish His will in this world today is certainly helpful in understanding that, as a Christian, as I go about my daily activities I am doing more than being myself, I am representing Christ on earth in my words and deeds, carrying Him to others. More importantly, however, is that it is God working through me, as opposed to what I am doing — God chooses to use physical things and beings he created to accomplish his purpose on earth. And although we have been called by the Gospel and made heirs and citizens of the kingdom of God free from sin, death, and the power of the devil, we still live in this world to do the work prepared for us. One of the great mysteries of the Gospel is that God hides Himself in things such as suffering and the cross to reveal His power and glory in and to this world. The law/gospel distinction does not always adequately capture the fullness of this mystery, and, as has been said throughout this thread, can leave one thinking that things are either one way or the other — either you have to do XYZ or you are completely free from XYZ. If you have been hit over the head with the hammer too often it can really hurt, and the absence of that hammer can feel awfully liberating in the other extreme. The doctrines of vocation and the two kingdoms teach that the life and work of a Christian are sacred, important, useful, and have purpose, that are lives are made for service of others, and that God invades our daily lives with His presence in a real and concrete way. Recapturing these doctrines with vigor can serve as useful complements to the necessary preaching of law and gospel. Oh and vocation and the two kingdoms would most definitely serve those congregations developing interest group ministries well. Food for thought.
Neil. The essay is from *I Am the Lord Your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments*, edited by Carl Braaten and Christopher Seitz (Eerdmans, 2005). Meilaender’s essay, *Hearts Set To Obey*, is the last chapter of the book.
Andrew. I’m 100% sure that I would depart from Pr. McCain and others here but I think two kingdom thinking only makes things worse. But these are just thoughts from one who is a Lutheran, but reluctantly so
I am actually the proud owner of one of these shirts.Here is what I would like to say about them.
I think many of you lack any sense of humor or ethos about who we are and what we are about. Virtually the entirety of Christianity proclaims our message to be about our “walk” with Jesus. The Christian message has been portrayed to the world as either “you better or else”, or “do this and you will prosper.” I will not presume to lecture the pastors on here, because you know well that our churches proclaim Christ crucified first, and works come from faith in that.
My pastor always says that our message is not “you better or else”, but instead “you cannot but Christ did.” It is not that we don’t preach works, but instead that we do not believe that we are saved by them. He always quotes the “we establish them” passage.
My pastor had something to do with those shirts. I have never seen him drunk, and I never heard him swear. I have never heard him encourage anything but piety to Jesus and his word. Is it possible that you gentleman aren’t getting the humor? Is it possible that you aren’t understanding that it means that “you better or else” is not our first line of attack? Do you gentleman never say funny things among yourselves that put down works righteousness theology and how we are different from the rest? If not, why not?
Perhaps some of you need to have a beer and a laugh with your friends, and praise God that we are saved by his mercy alone.
As someone relatively new to Lutheranism, my experience with sanctification comes from the free churches. There, good works are used almost exclusively to prove to yourself and to those around you that you are really a Christian.
It is my understanding that the sanctified life is lived out of a position of already being sanctified because of Christ, and in the “Christ in me” acts directed outside of myself to those that are “other”.
That life is bathed in prayer, confession, and absolution because of the effect of sin still remaining until I reach Glory. That confession and absolution is what makes the refreshing of partaking in the Body & Blood of the Lord possible, and a necessary application of the forgiveness needed to live in this clay pot from day to day.
Is this a wrong view of the sanctified life?
Thanks for your helpful blog.
MCCAIN RESPONSE:
No, spot on. But nothing at all wrong, with this proper view, to talk about, urge, and encourage one another to walk in Christ and to be about the good works to which we have been called, prepared in advance for us to do. Not to earn, merit or win God’s favor, but to thank and praise, serve and obey Him.
I do not know who put the shirts together, or why, but I do know that Senkbeil’s thesis in both of his books on Sanctification, mention this criticism of Lutherans, that we are “weak on sanctification”. Perhaps that is what the shirt is supposed to highlight, that very lie which Rome and Geneva have been leveling against Lutherans for years.
The sad thing is that I regularly hear it from Lutheran pastors, who, when pressed, seem to have no clue about how a Lutheran pastor should be able to answer this. They just mouth what Rome and Geneva are saying, much like they do about missions today.
I come from a non-Lutheran, evangelical background too, and I think we’ve all seen the particular form of legalism that is rampant in these churches. I still don’t think that the solution to legalism is something that looks a lot like antinomianism. We can do such a knee-jerk reaction to popular Christian culture that we err in the opposite direction– as noted in the second paragraph of the original post.
Cross reference the blog entry above, “Lesbian Pastor Tests ELCA Celibacy Rule” to prove Pr. McCain’s point. For instance: The ELCA spent a small chunk of change for the tag line, “Living in God’s Amazing Grace” that is attached to all official e-mails I receive as an ELCA pastor. The “By no means!” of Romans 6: 2 is a vanishing text in ‘this church’.
I guess just one last thought on this, and then I will move on. How would we view a statement like “Sin Boldly!” in light of your view on the “Weak on Sanctification” thing? Wouldn’t this statement lead many to think that we actually condone, er, sinning boldly? Isn’t it dangerous to make such a statement when it might be misunderstood? Should we as a synod then endorse such statements? Should our official publishing house publish such potentially scandalous and misleading encouragements? I would appreciate the clarification.
McCain: It is a comment Luther made to make a point, not a statement endorsing willful sin, or a lack of concern about good works. Luther’s enemies lifted the comment from its appropriate context and used it against him. Unfortunately, it is true, some of Luther’s “friends” have done the same thing with the phrase.
Frank Sonnek gives a very interesting meditation on sanctification over at “Cranach: The Blog of Veith.” On this page, http://www.geneveith.com/?p=59, you’ll have to scroll way down to comment #50 to see it.
The relevant point I take from Frank’s comment is that sanctification is something God does for me through the blood of Jesus, not something I do for myself, by myself.
We’d best be mindful of whom we’re calling weak if we would boast of being weak on justification or weak on sanctification.
A handy thought that you can throw out in just about any situation: It’s not about me; it’s about Jesus. (Help me, Lord, to remember this!)