The Burr in the Burgh

Lutherans are occasionally accused of being antinomians. Antinomians are people who are "against the law." During the Lutheran Reformation of the Church, the reformers were calling people to a living faith in the Christ whose death fully atoned for the sins of the world. Martin Luther tells us that at the time, the only sermons one heard were either about the saints or good deeds, but little was said or known of Christ as Savior. So the Lutherans preached Christ crucified, the gospel of free salvation through faith in Him.

But then, for some, the pendulum swung too far the other direction. Over-reacting to Rome's hyper-emphasis on good works, some Lutherans talked about Jesus well enough but failed to say anything useful about living the Christian life, about sanctification.

My friends, the gospel is not a license to sin. And Luther's own writings against the antinomians of his time demonstrate that this is not Reformation doctrine.

Now today, there are some Lutheran antinomians once again. Sometimes these are the liberals who are guilty of gospel-reductionism. To them, as long as you preach justification by faith alone, everything else is negotiable. So you might hear a decent sermon about God's grace, but nothing about sin, wrath, judgment. This is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called cheap grace. It is grace without discipleship. Forgiveness without repentance. And it ain't Lutheran. It ain't biblical.

But even amongst the traditionalist conservative Lutherans, there is a sort of antinomianism. Just about every heresy in the church is a good thing taken too far. Those who so treasure the work of Jesus on the cross can, if not vigilant, give the impression that it is not OK to talk about sanctification and living in the world as a Christian. They'll say, "Oh, that's what those Catholics do." Or more likely today, "Oh, that's what those evangelicals do." It used to be that "good" Lutherans were afraid of being identified as Romish. Now the "good" Lutherans are afraid of being compared to fundamentalists.

So the Romo-phobes among us (particularly in the first two-thirds of the 20th century) over-reacted by tossing out traditional vestments, liturgies, rites, practices, etc. Don't wear a crucifix or else you'll be thought a Catholic (O Dread!). That is ridiculous. Is it possible that today, the evangelico-phobes are so concerned about not being thought of as baptists in fancier robes, that we neglect preaching the whole counsel of God?

Being anti-anti-nomian, as I am, is not so much about what I'm against. It's about being FOR preaching the law of God, first as a mirror which reveals my sin, but also as a rule for life. It's about preaching the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian, through the Word. It's about vocation. It's about understanding the two realms we inhabit.

Pastor Paul McCain has an excellent post with a link to an excellent article on this very subject.


Addendum: I just wanted to add a few words to this post as a result of some of the sage comments readers have left.

It has been correctly pointed out that the law always accuses us. Every time you hear the law of God proclaimed, the Holy Spirit will use it to convict you of your sin. The law always accuses. It accuses us even if the preacher's intent is not to accuse, but to inform or instruct. Since we can never fully adhere to the instruction of God, the law always accuses us.

The law always accuses, but it does not only accuse. When I preach a sermon (Law and Gospel with the Gospel predominating), I don't figure "well, here I will use the law to accuse" and "here I will use the law to instruct in holy living." I just preach as clearly and faithfully as I am able and trust the Holy Spirit to apply it to the hearer.