A brief thought on Law-Gospel Preaching
It seems to me that the question of whether the "Gospel predominates" in a sermon has been somewhat of a bugaboo for seminarians (myself included) and pastors ever since Walther said it. As I was musing about how one might know when the Gospel is predominating, rather than the Law, I came up with this criteria: In a sermon you know that the Gospel is predominating WHEN ALL THE LAW HAS BEEN RESOLVED, specifically IN CHRIST. If the Law that is preached remains unresolved, the law has predominated. If the Law has been brought to its resolution (or 'end'; cf Rom. 10:4) in Christ Jesus, then the Gospel predominates. Thus it does not become a question of percentages or ratios; whether 4 pages were law and one was Gospel, or whether you spent twice as long talking about the Gospel. But instead the question is whether the accusation of the Law has adequately been answered by the Gospel of Christ. So there's my thought. I don't claim its original; it may be a concoction of what I have learned previously coming subconsciously to the surface :) I have to go back now and review Walther's thesis to see how that criteria compares.
Comments
Stuart, I totally see you point w/ the practical concern, and I think you are right that the Gospel should never become a postscript. I find that my sermons vary significantly (timewise) according to the time spent on Law presentation compared to Gospel presentation. I find the relationship to be heavily driven by the text itself. (Whether I do so faithfully to the text, let the Berean reader be the judge :)