Up next:

The next post, which I haven't got time for this minute, needs to hit the uses and abuses of law/gospel dialectic and the office of the keys.  Here's what I put up on Facebook not too long ago:
The more I go back into 2009 and read up on the reponse to CWA, the more irritated I get at the theology on display. Seriously: the keys may be one of Luther's late-extended marks of the church, but they are not a means of grace. 
I've been coming to a realization about forgiveness lately. It isn't an end in itself; it's strategic. It sets the power of sin aside, demonstrating the truth, which is that God has no need to respect our sin as an impediment, as though it could possibly stand in the way of salvation, redemption, and the call to mission. Which are what God *does*, what God *wants to do*. What God wants *us* to do. Binding sins and sinners is not even beside the point; it competes against the point. 
Modification to the above: binding sinners is useful as part of the civil order -- I'm not about to argue that Ted Kaczynski, for example, should be free to do as he pleases so long as violence pleases him. But it does not interfere with the progress of the gospel. Nor am I about to argue that he should be removed from Christian community because of his actions, or exempt from Christian care. Which basically writes off the usual uses of that key...
Some of that I've said here already; but the development for the specific theological offense has to come on its own.

Comments