Desperately Seeking the First Use of the Law
At the midpoint now of my biblically allotted threescore and ten, I have come to the sad conclusion that anybody is capable of anything. I have also, not coincidentally, come to the conclusion that one of the worst failures of our Lutheran churches has been the widespread abandonment of preaching on the first use of the law. I can’t remember ever, since childhood, hearing a Lutheran sermon simply expositing the Ten Commandments, telling me in plain speech that this action is pleasing to God while that action is not...
At the midpoint now of my biblically allotted threescore and ten, I have come to the sad conclusion that anybody is capable of anything. I have also, not coincidentally, come to the conclusion that one of the worst failures of our Lutheran churches has been the widespread abandonment of preaching on the first use of the law. I can’t remember ever, since childhood, hearing a Lutheran sermon simply expositing the Ten Commandments, telling me in plain speech that this action is pleasing to God while that action is not.
We Lutherans can manage to preach Christ as gospel (well, some of the time… look for an article in the summer 2011 issue calling even this into question). We can manage to preach the second use of the law. Actually, though, I think we’re a little intoxicated with the second use. We see so many people whose lives are falling apart, from their own doing or as victims of others’ misdeeds, and quite naturally we want to offer them solace and hope. It is a good and holy thing to reach out to the suffering—even suffering because of their own self-chosen sin—with Christ’s forgiveness and the chance at a regenerate life.
But what happens when we only do that? What if the first use is abandoned or silenced? For one thing, it makes it very hard for the sinners to see why, exactly, what they did was so bad. In our hyper-psychologized culture, there is a pervasive sense that the only real sin is malice, deliberately doing evil for evil’s sake. Certainly, there are those who are guilty of this kind of sin. Augustine’s story of loving the transgression of stealing the pears sheerly because it was transgressive points to that reality.
But I doubt there are really very many who love evil for its own sake. Most of us pursue our loves, and the problem is that our loves, falling short of the love of God and not being ordered by the love of God, compete with each other. One love loses out to another; a lower love displaces a higher. (Example: when love of country usurps love of all people in God’s image, we are saddled with the sin of nationalism, even though it is not wrong in itself to love our country.) With no first use of the law to tell us what God desires in our dealings with one another, we are left with a free-for-all among our competing loves.
If our sins are the by-product of our loves, then it also means that nearly all of our sins are understandable. Another tacit myth of our psychologized culture is that if a sin is understandable, then it can’t really be all that bad, or it can at least be excused. Without the first use of the law, there is little incentive to recognize that the horribleness of sin is exactly how one sin, however understandable, gives rise to ten more, not only in the first sinner but in all those affected by his sin. Witness the terrible frequency with which children grow up to commit the exact same sins of their parents. Understandable, isn’t it, that they copy what they saw? Or that the hurt react by hurting others? That the trapped lash out and the powerful guard their power in fear of the coming retaliation? The understandableness of sin is good cause for mercy, but it is also good cause for countering sin’s logic with the logic of God’s law. Those people tempted or victimized by understandable sins have other options; they can follow God’s way instead of sin’s way. And, astonishing thought, proclaiming this law might just prevent the outbreak of such sins in the first place, along with all their collateral damage!
For really, if a church preaches only the second use and never the first, what has it become? It has become a predator on human misery. A church that cannot say how God intends human souls and communities to be—loving and fearing God above all things, honoring parents, remaining faithful to spouses, restraining the urge to steal and covet, speaking truthfully about others—is like a scavenger lying in wait for the wounded to fall. Then it pounces, at no risk to itself, to snap up all the shattered pieces. It can offer little more than a spiritual bandaid to the damage and has no way of helping to reconstruct what has been destroyed and lost, no vision of God’s good intentions to guide that reconstruction. It has done absolutely nothing to prevent the fall of the wounded in the first place.
And defending this absence of the first use in the name of Luther is certainly a violation of the Eighth Commandment. In the preface to the Large Catechism, after citing Psalm 1:2 (“blessed are those who meditate on God’s law day and night”) and Deuteronomy 6:7-8 (how we should meditate on God’s precepts at all times), Luther concludes: “Oh, what mad, senseless fools we are! We must ever live and dwell in the midst of such mighty enemies like the devils, and yet would despise our weapons and armor, too lazy to examine them or give them a thought!”
Pastors: preach the whole law, in all its uses, to your congregations; arm them! Parents: teach your children the Ten Commandments, discuss them, practice them! All Christians: offer your friends, your colleagues, your neighbors, your distant relatives and your near ones, your fellow churchgoers, offer them all the words of the Word of Life, the law that protects and guides life, the law that drives us to Christ, the gospel of forgiveness of sins, the gospel of the Holy Spirit given for a new life!
First or Third?
comment
First Use of the Law
Thank you so much for this. Yes, we need to recapture teaching about the first use of the law, or the natural law. You correctly point out that Luther identifies the first use of the law as (a) didactic; and (b) equivalent to the Ten Commandments.
Such thoughts, while classically Lutheran, are indeed refreshing today!
God's blessings,
Rev. Robert C. Baker
General Editor, Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (CPH, 2011)
good article
As preaching God's law leads ideally to a deeper awareness of sin (or further entrenchment in one's presumed righteousness...another sad turn) as well as its result: ie. death, will make the Gospel rightly taught sweeter than honey from the honeycomb! Gospel here is Christ's exchange of his life and death for the sinner's life and death! see Galatians 2:19-20
Thanks for the article
Use in Worship
Liturgical Use of the Ten Commandments
Well put
Sunday morning, my last in New England .... I looked for a church to attend. Several I eliminated for reasons I do not now remember, but on seeing a John Knox church I pulled into a side street and parked. I took my seat in the rear of the spotless, polished place of worship. The prayers were to the point, directing the attention of the Almighty to certain weaknesses and undivine tendencies I know to be mine and could only suppose were shared by the others gathered there.
The service did my heart and I hope my soul good. It had been long since I had heard such an approach. It is our practice now, at least in the large cities, to find from our psychiatric priesthood that our sins are not really sins at all, but accidents set in motion by forces beyond our control. There was no such nonsense in this church. The minister ... opened with a prayer and assured us that we were a pretty sorry lot. And he was right..... He spoke of hell as an expert, not the mush-mush hell of these soft days, but a white-hot hell served by technicians of the first order.
For some years now God has been a pal to us, practicing togetherness...but this Vermont God cared enough about me to go to a lot of trouble kicking the hell out of me. He put my sins in a new perspective. Whereas they had been small and mean and nasty and beset forgotten, this minister gave them some size and bloom and dignity.... I wasn’t a naughty child but a first-rate sinner, and I was going to catch it.
All across the country I went to church on Sundays, a different denomination every week, but nowhere did I find the quality of that Vermont preacher. He forged a religion designed to last, not some predigested obsolescence.
John Steinbeck
Travels With Charley
1962
not sure it's First Use
The problem is that we let legal exposition get in the way of proclaiming Christ crucified and risen-- the purpose is always a legal one, whether "conservative" or "liberal". It's always about what we ought to be doing, and not about what God has done for us or how that brings healing.
There is also a season...
there are specifics
There are specifics. Look at the social statements, look at this latest wellness and health stuff, look at all of these political stands the ELCA takes. This is all First Use in action. Same with the social justice that is loved by many in the ELCA; it's primarily a demonstration of First Use.
mwdooley@comcast.net
On the other hand, admonitions against theft, adultery, lying and envy strike far closer to home in our daily lives. Like what? The pulpit can speak volumes to us men just in what it means to be a Christian husband to our wives. You want to "afflict the comfortable"? Try that one on for size.
so it's more a question of 'which laws'
IIRC, for all that we reduced the sexuality statement to 'homosexuality is/is not a sin', there was plenty in there about adultery and other sexual sins. The Genetics one probably touches on envy, greed, body as a temple, and other Law stuff too. You'll note, I'm not a fan of it, but that's because I see the problem in the Law not striking deep enough there (to our rebellion against God from which we cannot escape) and in the Gospel not being the grounding for our statement.
What it sounds like to me is that it isn't the lack of First Use, so much as a desire to focus on different First Uses. Really, the First Use chosen should hit the community where it needs it. That doesn't address the problem of lack of proclaiming Christ crucified for us, though, which I see as a far greater problem in the church.
In matters of “I and thou”
It very appropriate for Christians to gather together in such organizations such as “Lutherans for Life”, “Lutherans for Reproductive Choice”, “Lutherans for Peace”, or “Lutherans for a Balance Budget” for that matter. I see no call for a political quietism among us. The Church must speak out forthrightly on the evil of abortion (for instance); but whether abortion is an issue best addressed by the State is a matter each Christian must pursue according his own assessment.
Civil affairs are always surrounded by the fog of what is known and what is unknown. The Church is filled with those whose beliefs range from Communist, Liberal, Conservative and Monarchist. It is not only on the solutions we disagree; we disagree on what the problems are and the urgency of their priority. Exactly what constitutes “justice” in any issue before us is a complicated matter which I hope we can grant that “gentlemen may disagree”.
Given the polarization we are currently experiencing in the body politic, the Church must be the one place where all can put their differences aside and join together in fellowship without partisan conflict breaking out or one side taken advantage of and cowed into silence for the sake of fellowship. In this regard, the pulpit should be tolerant and restraint should be the word.
What of Bonheoffer? In my opinion, much of what is said of Bonheoffer is ahistorical and has fathered a great deal of mischief. Nazi Germany was an extreme situation and Nazism itself was a direct attack on Christianity itself—something Hitler made no bones about. To use Bonheoffer’s martyrdom and that of all other Christians who fell under the Nazi heel as justification to use the Church as a platform for political advocacy is an insult to their memory.
As you might imagine, I have little patience for those who invoke the mantra of “this isn’t politics, it’s the Gospel”. Even the most “sainted” among us should be more humble than that. Inviting “what would Jesus do?” presumes way too much. Even if angels assure us of the righteousness of our cause, we do well to remember that the Lord has His own purposes.
Thus, I don’t see this matter as wanting to focus on one set of sins over another. Nor do I see taking both tables of the Law and narrowing them down to “for structuring society and restraining sin”. In any case, the Law applies whatever structure society may take. The truth is for most things in life the personal is not political. Today, in matters of “I and thou”, we have forgotten (often willfully) what sin is.
still First Use
This remains First Use, though. I'm not saying we should only be concerned about political issues or even social issues. We do need to be concerned with personal issues as well. But that isn't a lack of First Use, just a different focus of it. Also, a lot of social justice does begin with personal issues. Ending bullying, for example, starts with you and me, and how we comport ourselves and how we treat others. In all of this discussion of the Law, however, we need to keep in mind that it is Law, not Gospel, and the Gospel is not just some tool for achieving social justice or even perfect personal behavior.
Welcome to the Lutheran Church, Sarah!
Let's deal with the joy first. You have put your finger on the something we all need to hear, which hopefully most "Lutherans" have heard about sometime in the past, maybe during their catechesis: Our conscience desparately needs direction from God's Righteous Will, His Law. You, and hopefully others, have discovered this truth. It does no one any good to hear about about sin being simply "brokeness" (wish I had a nickel every time I heard this term used in sermons over the years). . .a sad state of affairs in the world where no-one is really, ever guilty. . . A no-fault world where we're all just victims. Dr. Laura and Dr. Phil have discovered it. . .It's about time we rediscovered it!
Now the despair. . .How is it, Sarah, that you feel that the Lutheran Church has taught or can teach the 2nd use of the Law without teaching the 1st use? How is it you feel that the 2nd use can even be understood exclusive of the 1st? How can terror emerge from non-demands? It is impossible!
For the 2nd use emerges out of the 1st use and, although they are distinct, they cannot be separated within the heart. If you think that the pastors who have used a "sans 1st" approach within the Lutheran Church have effectively taught their congregations the 2nd use, and are somehow preparing hearts for hearing the true Gospel, you are sadly mistaken! What I fear has happened is that in order not to offend, or come across as a "legalist" or a "fundamentalist", some pastors have tried, by their silence on the 1st use, to artfully separate the uses, hoping that each individual conscience would somehow "know" God's Righteous Will on their own (if, of course, their hearts have not already been hardened). After all, we must keep an open mind about such things as historical, contextual relevance of texts, bound consciences, and such. And, of course, everything's relative! But such an approach has simply created antinomian hearers where no one is really guilty of anything!
If the 1st use hasn't been preached, then people have never really heard the 2nd use either. And neither have they heard the true Gospel! The message that has been, and is being heard all too often, Sunday after Sunday, is that we're all just unfortunate "victims" with an enabling Christ, not a Redeeming One!
But for those who, like you, are now waking up to this tragedy, realize that not all churches who have "Lutheran" on the sign are truly Lutheran, and seek to join a church that teaches the whole counsel of God, then all I can say is: Welcome to the Lutheran Church!
Well then
RE: Well then
Acts 2 & 4
In an ideal, Christ-centered community, communal sharing of wealth for the sake of others is the appropriate way of living. However, we live in a sinful, greedy, world where selfishness thwarts any efforts for such an economic sharing system.
Thank you.
So, thank you for speaking the words that have been burning in me, not only since the sermon but for a number of years.