Chemo for the Body of Christ

In the Sunday School class I'm teaching, we're reading Luther for Armchair Theologians by Steven Paulson. The second reviewer at the Amazon page for this book correctly notes that Paulson doesn't put Luther's doctrine of justification front and center; rather he emphasizes themes in Luther's life and writings that are neglected by most people aside from professional theologians: no free will, the creative power of the Word (wholly external to the believer), and how scripture interprets you, not the other way around.

However, I'm not sure whether or not this makes the book a bit less accessible to lay people, which the reviewer fears. In stressing this set of themes, Paulson conveys the polemical, even offensive edge to Luther's theology, which has as much to do with content as it does Luther's or the author's style. And I don't think you've understood Luther until and unless you either feel appalled at what you've read, or feel like you've been punched in the gut.

For instance: since, according to Luther, there is no free will that can turn to Christ, no divine spark that can be fanned into a flame, no nothing within except an abyss of God-hatred, there is no sense telling people what they ought to do to please God or how to do it. Aside from maintaining civil order, the only point of all those commandments in the Bible is to show you how you don't live, not how you ought to live.

This results in some odd sounding preaching.

Say the topic of the day is the 10th commandment, Thou shalt not covet. If I were to preach on this I'd say something about what coveting is, why it's bad, and what God wants us to do about it. God wants us to ask him for his help to be less greedy. God wants us to count our blessings, which makes us less covetous. God wants us to be generous in giving our time, and money, and most of all, our love. For when we give of ourselves, we are truly rich, but hankering after more and more stuff always leaves us feeling poor. And I would sprinkle some self-deprecating illustrations in there, so that no one would feel like I was stepping on their toes too hard.

This is how I imagine truly Lutheran preaching would sound on the same topic:

The law  says, You shall not covet. But you do covet. In fact, you covet all the time. You are a bunch of greedy, insatiable, grasping, hankering, taking, coveters. No sooner do you get a wife than you want another one. A boat isn't enough for you. No, you want a yacht. A brand new car? No; you've got to have an even bigger, better car.

But did Jesus covet? No, he did not. He kept the law. The only thing he ever took was your sin of coveting. He took that, to give his life for you. Jesus is a giver, not a taker. And thank God he is. Because on Judgment Day, when God the Father examines your life, he will not see your greed and your hankering, but the righteousness of Christ. If it weren't for that, you'd burn in hell. But seeings how you belong to Christ through faith, you won't.

I admitted to the class that I'd be afraid to preach like this much more than once or twice a year. I mean, people might stop paying on their pledges if they heard a lot of stuff like this.

But more than that, is this kind of preaching all that effective? (And not in that church growth kind of way). I can imagine that listening to the Law-Gospel polemic week after week might result in people heeding a subliminal message not to covet. However, some of the meanest people I've ever met were Missouri Synod Lutherans. It was almost as if they were determined to prove Luther right by purposely living lives that could only be justified by an alien righteousness.

(On the other hand, a couple of the kindest people I have ever met are Missouri Synod Lutherans, so there's that to consider too).

I think that Luther's polemic is like chemotherapy for the Body of Christ. It's strong medicine for a serious illness, with potentially fatal side effects.

But what if the body is relatively healthy? Isn't there some room for the homiletical equivalent of multi-vitamins? Or in raising this question, have I exposed myself as a theologian of glory?