The Law Established Through Faith

My reflection this week is going to focus on Wesley’s two discourses, “The Law Established through Faith” (1750).  My thoughts fall neatly into two parts – the second part being entirely dependent upon acceptance of Wesley’s initial assumption (part I): (1) Wesley insists upon the necessity of the Law for Christian faith and practice; and (2) if we are to accept Wesley’s role, what does it look like to “preach law” in our current context?  These two parts follow the basic thesis for each of the two discourses.  Discourse I in essence lays out Wesley’s argument for the necessity of the Law, whereas Discourse II is Wesley’s suggestion as to how one might appropriate and establish the Law for Christian faith and practice.

The crux of Wesley’s argument for needing the law is to convict people of their sin.  Wesley claims that the gospel does not convict of sin.  That is not its role.  It is for the law to convict people of their sin. (p. 270) In other words, Wesley seems to be saying that the law is needed in order to convict and convince people of their sinful state before God and their need for redemption (gospel).  He even goes so far as to suggest that it is by preaching the law that we are reminded how powerful and life giving the gospel really is. (p. 272)

I understand the point that Wesley is making, and on some level it makes a lot of sense to me.  Of course it is important for people to be convicted and convinced of their sin.  I have no problem with that.  Where I question Wesley is his insistence upon the law as having to play that role, in light of the gospel’s inability to serve such a function.  This sounds almost like a foreign language today where “preach the gospel” (at all times, in all ways) is the message that dominates the arenas in which preachers are being taught and trained – seminary classrooms, local churches, preaching conferences, books, and articles.

How much of this issue is culturally captive?  What would Wesley say if he were alive today – would he maintain his insistence on needing to preach and establish the law?  It seems that concern (even anxiety) for the eternal state of one’s soul was a far more common preoccupation in the 18^th century than it is for the average person today.  How might this affect or influence Wesley’s response to the context that we live in?

If I am completely honest, I wonder if Wesley might offer an important warning or correction to us in ministry and preaching today.  Whether it comes through preaching law or some other means, I think that Wesley’s insistence on the need for people to be convicted and convinced of their sin is worthy of our attention.  The truth of the gospel certainly rings with piercing clarity when heard in relation to sin and our need for redemption.  The cognisant sinner more readily appreciates the power and beauty of the gospel than one still ignorant to their fallen state.  The gospel is received as truly life-giving by one who recognizes that they are spiritually dead.

Have we perhaps over-reacted to the abuses and extremes of “hellfire and brimstone” preaching dripping with judgment by refusing to talk about human sinfulness?  Perhaps the real challenge lies in finding how to do this in our day and age.  What might it look like to “preach law” in healthy ways today?  How might we convince people of their sin and need for a Saviour without being dismissed as being judgmental or preaching condemnation?

Wesley’s response to these questions in Discourse II is threefold: (1) We establish the law by preaching ‘our doctrine’ – in its whole extent, to explain and enforce every part of it in the same manner of Christ.  (2) We establish the law by preaching a faith that produces holiness, not one that supersedes holiness.  And most importantly, (3) we establish the law by establishing it first in our own hearts and lives.  As Heitzenrater suggests in his introductory comments, I think that the real value of Wesley’s response here is the notion that “faith is in order to love.” (p. 277)  Faith leads to love; the desired end is love, not faith.  Faith is in order to produce a holy love for God and others.

Love is central to Wesley’s understanding of holiness.  And yet, this kind of holy love is only possible through faith.  It is faith that fuels righteousness and true holiness.  It is faith that fuels loving God and loving others.  Holiness is no longer pursued as an obligation, but willingly and from a grateful heart of love toward God.  Loving others is neither an obligation laid upon the Christian, but a willing and grateful response that is grounded in faith and the love of God.  And this response is no simply outward, but this faith works inwardly by love to purify the heart, cleansing it from all vile affections.  Therefore, Wesley completely redefines our understandings of both faith and the law.

I think this may prove a helpful way forward.  Words or actions that are intended to awaken people to their spiritual condition that are motivated by both an inward and outward love are likely to be well received.  This love is not pity, it is not a pious sense of “feeling sorry” for someone.  It is not any kind of conditional love, it is not loving them so long as they repent of their sin.  It is a genuine concern for their well-being.  It is an extension of God’s love for them.  It is sharing life with them.

One concluding question that I have for Wesley is: “Why not talk about the role of the Holy Spirit in convicting and convincing people of their sin?”  This seems like a pretty major oversight to remain missing from these sermons.  My hunch is that Wesley would affirm that it is only the work of the Holy Spirit that ultimately convicts people.  Any words or deeds that we might offer toward such an end are only effective as the Holy Spirit addresses them to the hearts and souls of the receiver.

What do you think?  Do you agree that we ought to “preach law” today?  If so, how would you “preach law” in ways that might be healthy?