I was going to do a final post where I listened to the interview again, and documented each of my statements regarding 2KR from the proponents. Why? Because I have heard ad nauseum, on FB, in comments, in e-mails, in phone calls, and even in private groups I should not have seen, that I do not understand 2KR as it is being taught.
However, at this time I will have to let my interview stand on its own. I have too many projects, including both my parish and my family. I need to concentrate on them. Additionally, all but a couple of statements I made in the interview have already been supported by previous articles. You can see them HERE, HERE, and HERE. The rest, I assure had documentation. I had thirty pages of documentation in front of me. In a short interview I could not possible get to it all – or even most of it. The goal was to lay out in a simple way what 2KR was, and to explain why it is not the best way to speak.
Since then, I have been accused of setting up a straw man. “If you only understood it as it is actually taught, you would have no problem with it.” Well, I have a problem with it as it is being presented by the proponents in their own writings. If that is not definitive for what this thing is, then it is something so plastic as to be useless.
According to one commenter, “Law-Gospel has no room for a Christian ethic.” But Law and Gospel are not merely one way of understanding holy scripture. They are THE way that God speaks to us in Holy Scripture. If there is something missing from Law and Gospel, then there is something actually deficient in Lutheran Theology, as Luther taught it, and as it is confessed in the Book of Concord.
More will, I suspect, be written on this in the coming months and years on both sides, and by better minds than me. It seems like the LCMS is about to have a major battle over whether God speaks to us in Law and Gospel, or whether that is merely one way among others of understanding scripture. I would never have guessed that the church of CFW “Law and Gospel” Walther would come to this, but then who would have guessed we would spend two decades arguing about whether the bible actually communicates facts or not.
Our task it to preach the Word of God. When wolves attack, we move to where they are and fight them off. We don’t get to pick where that is. For now, I’ve said all I care to say, and all that will likely be useful, at this time. I will continue reading, studying and preparing defenses against it. For this is a danger.
“He just doesn’t get it.”
In that I don’t see any need to reject Law and Gospel, no, I don’t get it. I see no need to twist Luther’s teaching to match the intellectual fancies of the “bright lights” of our generation. I see no need to reject that which I have been taught, first from my confirmation pastor, my Lutheran Day School and High School teachers, then from my professors, but always from God’s Word. This “New Theology” seeks to undermine the pure doctrine of the Word of God. And so, I suppose what I don’t get is why anyone would want to do that.
Satis est. For now.