This blog is excerpted from an article by Rev. Carl C. Fickenscher II that was published in a previous edition of Concordia Pulpit Resources.
So much has been written on the dynamics of Law and Gospel—by classic authors such as Luther and Walther as well as more contemporary ones such as Gerhard Aho, Richard Lischer, Herman Stuempfle, and Gerhard Forde—that Law-Gospel preaching might be evaluated from any number of perspectives. In this study, though, seven criteria have been distilled from the various sources. While these are not exhaustive, they will be sufficient to determine whether meaningful differences in Law-Gospel effectiveness exist among sermon forms. In addition, it is hoped that the criteria can be guidelines which we preachers use personally to sharpen the Law and Gospel of our own messages.
Bipolarity
The first criterion: Properly divided Law and Gospel is bipolar. By their nature Law and Gospel always appear in conflict, never to be reconciled. However, they are to be applied in complement. The mode in which Law is preached in a particular sermon should be answered by a mode of Gospel which correlates.
Scripture presents many such correlations. For example, in some biblical texts, the Law is expressed primarily in forensic terms, as if a judge were pronouncing a defendant guilty. After declaring the Law in that mode, the preacher should carefully formulate the Gospel in his sermon so that it answers that particular problem. He would likely choose to present the Gospel as justification or acquittal. When, in another text, the Law is expressed as debt, the preacher would supply gospel with forgiveness, while defeat would be answered with victory, obedience with power, and so on. In such ways, by capitalizing on their natural bipolarity, Law and Gospel are preached in clear distinction.
Gospel Predominance
Second, properly divided Law and Gospel has Gospel predominance. While correlated, Law and Gospel are not to appear in the sermon as equal partners. This assertion climaxed Walther’s theses: “The Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching.” Both Law and Gospel are the Word of God, but the Gospel is to be preached as the “higher” Word.
This does not mean the minutes devoted to Gospel in a sermon will always be greater than those given to Law. It does not mean every worshiper leaves smiling every Sunday. It does mean that the hearers are always left with a remedy, with hope. When Law and Gospel clash in preaching (as their bipolar nature demands) there should always be a clear winner: the Gospel. Lischer says it well:
We do not balance law and gospel for religiously pleasing effects. By the Spirit’s help, we rightly divide them so that in our sermons, and in the lives of those who hear them, God’s grace may overshadow and defeat his judgment, just as it did long ago in the faithful ministry of his Son. We preach life and death—with the advantage to life.
Clarity
The third criterion: Properly divided Law and Gospel is clear in its distinction. This might seem obvious, since confusion is the very opposite of distinction. Clarity of Law and Gospel must be emphasized, however, because fallen human beings have a natural tendency to distort them. Lischer warns that “even in our redeemed state we are all born legalists to whom grace remains an unnatural and often surprising intrusion.” In other words, given the slightest excuse, people turn Gospel into Law.
Even when the preacher is precise in expressing the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, the hearer may receive more Law than Gospel. Luther explains why: “When it comes to experience, you will find the Gospel a rare guest but the Law a constant guest in your conscience, which is habituated to the Law and the sense of sin; reason, too, supports this sense.” The Law has been written on everyone’s heart; it is natural to them. The Gospel is revealed only through God’s Word. Man is accustomed to earning a reward, which is the essence of the Law. To receive something free of charge, the essence of the Gospel, however, is altogether contrary to man’s natural way of thinking. Clarity, therefore, is an important criterion for Law and Gospel preaching. It cannot go without saying.
Historical Basis
Fourth, properly divided Law and Gospel is based in this. Both Law and Gospel proclaim historical events. This may be more apparent in the case of the Gospel, which, by its very definition, is always based on what God has done. Since God alone acts in the Gospel, a sermon without historical basis can be only Law. Detached from God’s historic acts, a sermon can be nothing more than exhorting the works of man. Proper distinction of Law and Gospel becomes impossible. A sermon which effectively communicates Law and Gospel will thus generally have at its core the historical events of the text and the Scriptures as a whole. The sermon will usually be closely connected to something that happened, something that God did.
Correspondence to Life
The fifth criterion: Properly divided Law and Gospel corresponds to life. Heinrich Ott names three necessary parts to the sermon: (1) it should show man “his sin and wretchedness;” (2) it should reveal “what God has done … to meet the need of his sin and misery … in the actual situation of his life;” and (3) it should teach how “he is obliged to live for God.” Though Ott does not make the designations, his three elements aptly describe (1) Law (second use), (2) Gospel, and (3) Law (third use), though the power to live according to God’s law comes from and through the Gospel. Moreover, the three points correspond, Ott says, to “structural phases in the whole life of faith.” The soul is first confronted with sin; next, it is converted by the Word of the Gospel; finally, it responds, by the Spirit’s power, with a life of good works. Because it is already written on man’s heart, the Law is the initial point of contact. Preaching God’s demands and the consequences of falling short ring true in the ears and hearts of sinful people. Conscience-stricken hearers identify themselves with the sermon; they see how their lives fail to measure up. Then, after the Law has made contact by mirroring man’s plight, the appropriate correlates of Gospel will also ring true. In this way, the Gospel, too, begins to correspond to life.
Performative Potential
Sixth, properly divided Law and Gospel actually perform or convey what they threaten and promise. “Whoever believes the Scriptures,” Walther writes, “receives what they say; for they do not merely tell about the gifts of grace, but also offer and confer them.” Law and Gospel, therefore, are not merely to be discussed, talked about, in the sermon, but to be proclaimed. Forde writes:
Proclamation belongs to the primary discourse of the church … , the direct declaration of the Word of God, that is, Word from God. … As primary discourse, proclamation ideally is present-tense, first-to-second person unconditional promise authorized by what occurs in Jesus Christ according to the scriptures. The most apt paradigm for such speaking is the absolution: “I declare unto you the gracious forgiveness of all your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” … The deed is done, unconditionally. … Proclamation is present tense: I here and now give the gift to you. … This is God’s present move, the current “mighty act” of the living God.
In other words, a sermon most effectively communicates Law and Gospel when it proclaims, declares, performs truths of forgiveness and blessing (or of judgment) upon the hearers, rather than simply talking about truths.
Gospel Motivation
Finally, the seventh criterion: Properly divided Law and Gospel motivates by the Gospel. While the Law instructs as to what good works are, only the Gospel can motivate people to do them. Law motivation is characterized by the imperative mood; the indicative mood is generally more appropriate to Gospel. Declaring what Christ has done to redeem the sinner moves his heart to respond in sincere good works. Properly divided Law and Gospel will emphasize God’s gracious work so that hearers will be motivated to Christlike living by faith.
Conclusion
Does my sermon reflect all that? Bipolarity? Gospel predominance? Clarity? Historical basis? Correspondence to life? Performative potential? Gospel motivation? While all these criteria contribute to the communication of Law and Gospel in proper distinction, it is unlikely that any sermon would reflect each one with equal vitality. Sermons are usually a mixture, a lot of this, a little of that, not much of the other. And next Sunday the mix will be different. Could that be—at least in part—because sermons take so many different forms? Does one sermonic form rather than another better allow the Gospel to predominate? to perform? to motivate? Applying these criteria to three major sermon forms will begin the search for the answer.
Read more of this article with a free PDF download from Concordia Pulpit Resources.
