Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Law Always...

There is an old phrase in Lutheranism that I like -- the Law Always Accuses. The point is this -- as we are not perfect, the Law always shows us our lack, where we fall short. It always accuses us.

Likewise, I'd like to propose a companion idea. The Law always binds. Seriously - the Law will always bind the conscience of a Christian. If God speaks the Law, people are bound to it. If He says "Thou Shall Not" - that is going to weigh upon my conscience, and it is bound.

Likewise, if I as a pastor say, "Thou shall not" or "Thou shall" - that is going to bind the conscience. That is going to put pressure to behave in a certain way upon a person. In fact, many times, if we speak the law, we DO want to shape behavior. If I tell my son in a few years, "You will take out the trash" - that's an attempt to shape behavior.

Now, what does this mean? I, as a pastor, had better make INCREDIBLY SURE that when I tell people what they should or should not do, that I am speaking only God's Word and not my whims, not my thoughts, not my desires. Why? Because I am a pastor - and people expect me to be speaking not for Eric Brown, but for God. Any anything I state will have God's weight behind it.

For a pastor to give a command that is not in scripture is wrong... it's an abuse of God's Name, of God's authority. It's saying, "God wants you to ______" when He did not really.

The Law always binds... and if you speak law you are binding people. Make sure that you are speaking a Law that is God's Law.

18 comments:

Carl Vehse said...

In addition to "The Law always accuses," there are, as Lutherans understand, the other two uses of the Law:

For the world, the Law always curbs.
For the Christian, the Law always guides.

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Ah... so are there non-binding curbs... or non-binding guides?

Anonymous said...

Substitute "God's will" for "Law" and you'll always come out right, regardless of the "uses" of the Law.

Thus, "God's will" always accuses... the sinner. God's will accuses neither God, nor Christ, nor the saint.

Further, God's Law is revealed in two places: first and foremost, Holy Scripture; second, human reason ("natural" law).

Robert at bioethike.com

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

You realize that if you equate human reason with "natural law" you have just called natural law a whore, right? At least that's what Luther likes to call Dame Reason -- at least as cycled through sinful, fallen man.

And of course, I thought it was the will of God to seek and save the lost. Not overly accusatory there. Oh well.

Anonymous said...

I'm using traditional, orthodox, confessional Lutheran language, Rev. Brown, and you've taken offense at it. That's rather sad.

Robert at bioethike.com

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Well, as I am using language that is traditional, orthodox, confessional, and Scriptural... I'll take mine.

Human reason is natural law? Really?

Now, if you wanted to argue that man can by the powers of his reason discern natural law, that would be something I would agree with. However, I would note that as man's reason is fallen, that man often errors in his process of deduction.

Thus, I will be much more content to simply rejoice in that which is revealed, for while I know that my reason might very well deceive me, the Word of God will not.

Oh, and as I am always a sinner, even though I am saint as well, the Law always accuses.

Carl Vehse said...

Ah... so are there non-binding curbs... or non-binding guides?

First, may I recommend the following article, "So do you want to know what George Gopen, prof of English and legal writing, thinks about the word "so"?"

Second, so when was the issue of "non-binding" raised?

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

1. So - that's almost ad hominem? =o)

2. The point of the original post was that the Law always binds (which I drew as a parallel to the Law always accuses). There is an assertion of what the law *always* does.

Then, you bring forth a limiting distinction -- "For the world..." and "For the Christian." By limiting the curb to the world, you've limited the times the Law works in that fashion. This may be fine - we say that the 3rd use does not apply to the unbeliever... the Law does not always guide.

But as you brought up a limiting distinction, the questions are asked - are there non-binding curbs? Are there non-binding guides?

Are you bringing up this distinction to challenge the idea that the Law *always* universally binds, or is it just a non-sequitur about times when the Law doesn't "always" work for everyone... just everyone in a subcategory?

Carl Vehse said...

Then, you bring forth a limiting distinction..."

No, I brought forth a concurrent distinction in stating two other uses of the Law that are always there along with what Lutherans refer to as the Second Use of the Law.

I made no assertion denying or limiting that the Law always accuses. That God exercises all three uses of the Law is part of the Lutheran Confessions.

Rev. Eric J Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rev. Eric J Brown said...

So... why did you bring it up then? Why? The topic was the law always binding... why bring up the first and third use, except expecting there to be no tie to the idea of "binding" as per the original post.

Why?

For example, let us suppose I had written a post whose point was as follows: The Chicago Cubs Stink.

If someone shows up in the the comments and says, "Well, there are the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Bears"... well, that's true, but why bring it up unless there is going to be an implied contrast to the Cubs and their lousy play?

"But, well, the Tribune Sports pages always talk about the White Sox and the Bears too." That's nice... but, you know, um, we were talking about the Cubs and how they stink. Either there's an implied contrast, or it's just a non sequitur

Carl Vehse said...

"So... why did you bring it up then?"

The title of the thread is "The Law Always..." After stating, "There is an old phrase in Lutheranism that I like -- the Law Always Accuses," you then add, "Likewise, I'd like to propose a companion idea. The Law always binds."

In my first comment I simply added two more valid contributions to "The Law Always..." And I included nothing about "non-binding."

If I had commented with something like "But the Gospel always..." or "the Sacraments always..." your subsequent post about the Chicago White Sox or the Bears might be applicable.

Now I am starting to wonder why - Why in a thread on "The Law Always..." is there such apparent antagonism about mentioning the Uses of the Law (or at least two of them)?

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Really? Because I had ellipses in the title you threw in other things that are what the Law always does? Really?

See, the rest of the title is given in the post... the Law always binds.

This was not a "hey everybody, what does the Law always do... let's make a list". On my own blog, I establish the themes of the particular posts -- really, I do, that is my postoperative as author.

This was a post about the law always binding. That's what is is meant to be. If you want to discuss other aspects of the Law, you may do it elsewhere.

If you wish to reply, you may reply to this question: "Are there non-binding curbs... or non-binding guides?"

You may answer the question. And I mean answer - I don't mean saying, "Well, I didn't say anything about non-binding" -- I mean answering the question and pursuing the point of this post.

Otherwise, your response will be deleted.

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Carl gives an answer after a snarky introduction -- I am reposting his reply having eliminated the snark.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

In so much as God's Law in its three uses, is always present and active in this life both in the righteous and unrighteous, it is truly binding; the Law and its uses have not been removed from mankind in this world. And in the Law's first two uses such binding for either the unrighteous or the old Adam within the Christian could be described by your phrase, "That is going to put pressure to behave in a certain way upon a person," such pressure being a "curb" and an "accusation."

However, the binding of the Law under the Third Use, which applies only to the born-again Adam in faith created by the Holy Spirit, is not one of pressure or a curb or an accusation. Here the binding is described by the Solid Declaration:

"But when man is born anew by the Spirit of God, and liberated from the Law, that is, freed from this driver, and is led by the Spirit of Christ, he lives according to the immutable will of God comprised in the Law, and so far as he is born anew, does everything from a free, cheerful spirit.... moreover, because so far as they have been born anew according to the inner man, they do what is pleasing to God, not by coercion of the Law, but by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, voluntarily and spontaneously from their hearts; however, they maintain nevertheless a constant struggle against the old Adam."

It is one of the paradoxes of a Christian, as a sinner/saint, that we live in this life under both the accusatory and guide uses of the Law. but in the life to come we Christians will not be bound by the pressure of the curb or accusatory use of the Law, as the SD states:

"But as they will behold God face to face, so they will, through the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, do the will of God [the heavenly Father] with unmingled joy, voluntarily, unconstrained, without any hindrance, with entire purity and perfection, and will rejoice in it eternally."

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Two responses:

1. Addressing the 3rd use of the Law by itself is artificial at best -- we can... but in this life it is impossible for any individual to say, "Ah, I only hear third use here" - to do so is sheer egoism.

2. Even in the world to come, the Law will still be... binding. Even while I do the law (now in part, then in full) with a cheerful and free spirit... it is still binding. It is not... optional. So even while as a Christian I delight in it, it still binds, it still shapes... I simply delight in that binding, in that shaping.

Carl Vehse said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rev. Eric J Brown said...

Carl responds (again, with snark or condescenion remarks, this time at the end, removed)

"Addressing the 3rd use of the Law by itself is artificial at best"

The 3rd use of the Law was addressed very naturally by itself, after all three uses were discussed, because of the unique binding (which is what you asked about) of the 3rd use (a guide), compared to the binding of the Law for the other two uses.

"but in this life it is impossible for any individual to say, "Ah, I only hear third use here" - to do so is sheer egoism."

Nothing in your thread, or my comments, deals with a Christian hearing only the third use as opposed to the 2nd use, at least in this life. I did include an excerpt from the Solid Declaration, which described the nature of the Law's binding in the life to come, where the 1st and 2nd uses will not be heard.

Rev. Eric J Brown said...

You say, "I did include an excerpt from the Solid Declaration, which described the nature of the Law's binding in the life to come, where the 1st and 2nd uses will not be heard."

And this is where you are wrong.

The uses are never *heard*. They are ways in which the Holy Spirit uses the law which is heard.

Law is law is law. There are not three sorts of types of law... but rather the Law is used by the Holy Spirit upon us in three ways -- to curb, to show sin, to guide. The Law itself doesn't change depending upon the use... rather, the Spirit uses the same law in different ways in different situations.

In the life of the world to come, the Law will be Law. In the garden, you had law. Before the fall, was it accusatory? No. But was it binding upon Adam... yes.

The law must be followed, it is never optional, and this will hold true even into the life of the world to come.

There are not three types of Law - there is one Law which is used by the Holy Spirit in three different ways.