Thursday Theology: A Pastoral Exchange on Social Gospel and the Third Use of the Law.

Co-missioners,  

Today’s contribution comes to us in an unusual format. It is a brief email exchange between a pastor and his bishop on a theological matter that is close to the heart of many of you. I want to thank Steve Kuhl for sharing this and Steve’s bishop Paul Erickson for responding thoughtfully.  

Would that we could have more theological conversations like this in the church! I have the sense that much (too much?) of our brainpower as ministers in the church is expended on administrative and logistical matters: forms, budgets, schedules, etc. These are important and necessary parts of our work, worth attending to. But we cannot let them edge out the ongoing and serious engagement with questions of scriptural interpretation and the search for theological clarity. The main thing should be the main thing, i.e. the Gospel. Arguably, it may be the one thing truly “necessary” (Luke 10:42) in the church. 

It seems to me that we sometimes act as if discussing points of doctrine is too “arcane” or “nerdy” to matter. People talk about theologians debating how many angels can fit on the head of a needle to make fun of unnecessary “speculation”. But there are serious questions to be grappled with that absolutely do affect the church’s witness and the faith of the people in our communities! We shouldn’t be shy to broach them. 

So, perhaps we can receive this week’s submission by Steve as a summons to do likewise: Start a conversation with your bishop (or your church staff, or lay leaders, or anyone else you can find…) on an important theological question that matters to you. Don’t be shy or worry that others won’t care. Also don’t be judgy, mind you, or act as if you are superior. Like our brother Steve Kuhl did in this exchange, remain humble, curious, and speak from conviction. Let’s talk about theology! It matters!! 

Peace & joy, 
Co-editor Robin Lütjohann 
for the Crossings Community

___________________________________________________________________________ 

A Pastoral Exchange on Social Gospel and the Third Use of the Law.

by Steve Kuhl

2 & 3 Feb. ‘26  

Kuhl to his bishop: 

Français : Crosseron en ivoire (Italie XIIIe siècle) avec un agneau, musée du Louvre OA 7267. Don de Félix Doisteau en 1919.
From Wikimedia Commons

In my Rostered Minister’s Year End Report to the Bishop I answered the question “What is the most important thing you learned in your continuing education this year” like this… 

“I have been working on a Statement for the Crossings Community on Christian Nationalism, specifically, critiquing its misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel. It views the gospel as a “social gospel,” a set of conservative moral-social values that are to be applied to effect social transformation. The irony is that the mainline church also functions with a “social gospel,” a set of liberal moral social values that are to be applied to effect social transformation. So while they are at absolute loggerheads politically, they are essentially the same theologically, Both essentially make Jesus into a new Moses, a law giver, by equating the gospel with what Luther called the civil function of the law rather than the redeemer, the servant, who graciously justifies the sinner through the forgiveness of sin and bestows them with the Holy Spirit. In short, both fail to distinguish law and gospel and, therefore, both fail to unite sinners, whether left or right leaning, around the one thing that can unite them, the forgiveness of sins. Unfortunately, while I find most of the ELCA Social Statements politically agreeable, I find its theology thin, a mere social gospel. They might give lip-service to the law-gospel distinction, but they fail to use it methodologically, thus turning the gospel into prescriptions of what we must do and not a proclamation of what God does for us. The letter that was signed by a select group of ELCA bishops was especially disappointing in this regard. In addition, I think the decline of the mainline churches might be a sign of God’s judgment on us for not speaking boldly about the work of God’s reconciliation to us in Christ. Here is an article I found that also suggests this: https://lorenrichmondjr.substack.com/p/the-death-spiral-of-progressive-christianity This is enough for now.” 

The bishop responded to my report like this: 

Steven: 

Thanks for your annual report, and for your willingness to walk with the folks at Nativity and Adoration in their life and ministry. As you might expect, I disagree with your analysis of mainline ELCA theology, and I’m happy to engage more if need be. In short, I do not see the call to how Christians should live as collapsing the law and gospel distinction, but an articulation of the third use of the law. In short, it doesn’t replace God’s action with our action, but gives us guidance in how we are to live in response to God’s action for us in Christ.  

I’m glad that you have recovered enough from your health struggles to engage in ministry, and I hope you are able to continue serving as long as you are willing. 

Thanks, 
Paul 
The Rev. Paul D. Erickson, Bishop 

Kuhl’s response: 

Dear Bishop Paul, thanks for your response to my Rostered Minister’s Report.  I know from past year’s correspondences you take these reports very seriously.  I appreciate that. 

First, I am grateful to have the opportunity to serve two little congregations in the Synod.  Your flexibility in making pastoral ministry available to them in their unusual circumstances is evangelical. It reflects what the Augsburg Confessions means by an evangelical bishop.  The bishop’s proper authority (established by what the confessors called “divine right”) is to make sure that the one Gospel and Sacraments are readily available to the people of God.  That authority is otherwise known as “the office of the keys.”  Whatever other role or administrative authority a bishop has within the Christian Community, though important, is nevertheless an alien or legal authority (established by “human right”) and, hence, subordinate to this proper authority. 

Second, I’m not surprised that you disagreed with “what I learned” this year through my continuing education.  But I am surprised that your attempt to justify what you yourself call “mainline ELCA Theology” only seems to confirm my point.  You describe this theology as an exercise in “the third use of the law.”  That’s just another linguistic phrase to describe what I called the “social gospel,” equating the gospel with a set of social values.  This “third use” is not a Lutheran concept but a Calvinist concept which, unfortunately, Philip Melancthon later adopted and which the Formula of Concord in Article VI gently refuted.  As Calvinist theology it is, in other words, “mainline theology” in the United States, and a theology that the ELCA is drifting into.   

Deutsch: Erstausgabe der Augsburger Konfession mit Vorstücken und Anhang in lateinischer Sprache, Confessio fidei exhibita invictiss. Imp. Carolo V. Cesari Aug. in Comicijs Augusta. Anno M.D.XXX. Addita est Apologia Confeßionis, Rhau, Wittenberg 1531
From Wikimedia Commons

This drift, I believe, was anticipated by many of the leading ALC, LCA, and AELC theologians when the ELCA was being formed.  Read the book “The New Church Debate: Issues Facing American Lutheranism” and you can see hints of this.  The theologians were worried that theology (Lutheran Confessional grounding) was giving way to organizational theory (bureaucratic, constitutional order) and that seems to me to be the impetus behind the Commission for a Renewed Lutheran Church.  This drift is also present in the trend to have social teaching statements take precedence over teaching the theology of the Lutheran Confessions.  We are in an age where congregations are shrinking.  Why is that?  Could it be that the focus has shifted from proclaiming the gospel of Justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ to promoting a progressive civic, cultural agendas as though that is the gospel?  That, I think, is what the article that I sent you is suggesting.  (I send it again, https://lorenrichmondjr.substack.com/p/the-death-spiral-of-progressive-christianity ) At least I think it is worth considering. 

I’m sure both of us are operating with assumptions that are foreign to one another, making it hard to understand each other’s position.  For example, in “Faith and Civic Life” I wished there had been a better discussion of law and gospel, the relationship of faith and good works, and, finally, a comprehensive exploration of Article XVI of the Augsburg Confession and Apology on what is variously titled Civil Affairs, Civil Government, and Political Order.  It speaks eloquently to the vocation of the Christian in the world.  But in lieu of a long conversation, let me suggest, as a good theological source on this topic, William Lazareth’s book “Christians in Society:  Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethic.”  One quote I will give you from his Afterword on the third use of the law. 

“We recollect that in his 1535 Commentary on Galatians on this very verse [Gal. 3:19], Luther obediently and explicitly develops his own evangelical position on a “double use of the law” (duplex usus legis).  It is inconsistent with the law’s threefold use (usus triplex), whether as taught by Melancthon, Calvin, or even in a student’s editorially forged, alleged endorsement of Melanchthon’s position by Luther himself at the conclusion of bis Second Disputation against the Antinomians (1538).  Instead, the law’s double use coherently corresponds to Luther’s governing view of God’s twofold rule of humanity against Satan within the two realms of creation and redemption.” (p. 242) 

Don’t get me wrong.  I do agree with many of the political positions the ELCA takes on social/civic matters.  My problem is the theological grounding used to push it.  It is not pastoral but legalistic, and robs people of the two-fold freedom of the gospel that Luther identifies in “The Freedom of a Christian”:  A freedom from the accurate accusation of the law on human sin (faith in the forgiveness of sins) and freedom for rendering love and service to our world (walking humbly in the spirit of Christ).  Bishops must, like everyone else, distinguish their various vocations.  As the Confessions make clear, the role of a bishop is to teach and preach the gospel and do so in a complex, conflicted world.  As a citizen, that same person needs to decide how they will engage in legal affairs of civic life.  When these two vocations overlap in public view, as inevitably they will, explaining oneself is crucial to the exercise of both; and as Lutheran’s that cannot happen without knowing the art of properly distinguishing law and gospel as it relates to the dialectic of the two kingdoms.  Being evangelical is intellectually (paradoxically) challenging, being legalistic is not. 

I appreciate your offer to further this discussion.  I’m not sure exactly how to do that.  Unfortunately, I have not been able to attend your discussion of “Faith and Civic Life,” but I’m not sure that would be a place to do it anyway.   I think the future of the Lutheran evangelical witness, not only to the world, but to the Church, is being lost to other agendas right now.   If it helps to understand why I say that, I attach a piece I wrote with a friend.  Since the crisis of our present time has raised theology, and the meaning of the Christian faith, to the fore, I hope we do not miss out on an opportunity to be more than a political voice, but also, and primarily, an evangelical one, which should be our “expertise.”   

Peace and Lenten blessings, 
You brother in Christ, 
Steve