We are moving into the sixties, at least in respect to Luther’s 97:

54-59   – Luther pursued the issue of the grace of God, not as a character quality, but as a spiritual presence.  Either we are self-determined individuals, or we function by the presence or absence of grace.  It is too easy, and natural, for us to preach the Bible in such a way as to make demands of listeners that pressure them to perform.  In preaching moralistically we deny the very core of the gospel itself.

(60-)62. And that therefore he who is outside the grace of God sins incessantly, even when he does not kill, commit adultery, or become angry.

Luther takes aim again at the desire to combine law and grace.  That is our human default so we need to think before dismissing him here.  Outside the grace of God we sin incessantly?  What about my upstanding neighbour?  While there are some non-Christians that have better morals than some who identify themselves with Christ, this is not the point.  Apart from me you can do nothing.  We have to watch our tendency to equate external morality with spirituality.

63. But it follows that he sins because he does not spiritually fulfill the law.

So someone may do the right thing, but not from the heart, not spiritually.  Preachers will always be tempted to preach toward the shortcut of behavioural compliance.  It is not a shortcut to anywhere good.

64. Spiritually that person does not kill, does not do evil, does not become enraged when he neither becomes angry nor lusts.

Luther is one of those people in church history who views the affections as the source of action.  If you chase others who thought the same, you end up with quite a hall of fame!

(65)-66 It is the righteousness of the hypocrite actually and outwardly not to kill, do evil, etc.

Choosing to not “do” a sin can be an expression of corrupt affections.  This is a warning to us preachers who might be tempted to settle for a compliant congregation who do not do wrong.  It is possible to fill a church with people who do the right thing, but do so from a hypocritical heart.  Is that the legacy we want?

67. It is by the grace of God that one does not lust or become enraged.

Hence we must preach Christ and him crucified, not moral codes and humans pressurized.

If you want to see Luther’s lesser known list of theses, click here.  Let’s keep pondering their value for us as preachers:

Theses 13-15 – Luther goes on to underline the propensity to evil found in natural condition humanity.  He even questions whether genuine love is possible, certainly with respect to God.  So the will is free only in the sense that it will conform to erroneous and incorrect teaching.  Within that realm, the will appears free because the dictator within lives in that darkness.  How often do preachers pile on the pressure when the listeners are incapable of responding with better morality – they may shift their actions, but will continue to be in that earthly realm that is totally other than God’s goodness.

16. One ought rather to conclude: since erring man is able to love the creature it is impossible for him to love God.

While we may not be familiar with the juxtaposition Luther gives here, it shouldn’t be unfamiliar to us.  Think of Jesus’ words, that it is not possible to serve two masters, you will either love one and hate the other, or serve the one and despise the other.  Perhaps we need to ponder the mutual exclusivity of affection when we preach to people (since our tendency is to be “both/and” in our thinking).

17. Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God.

I hope you didn’t leave before this one!  This is vitally important.  Humans do not want God to be God, but we consistently vote for another candidate – ourselves.  The influence of the Lie in Genesis 3 is so pervasive we can easily miss it, like the water the goldfish is swimming in.  So as preachers, are we trying to encourage morality and goodness without addressing the real issue?  I can convince people to help older folk across the road, but superficial morality in no way addresses the core “me for president of the universe” political inclination of the human heart (and we all know presidential candidates like to be seen to do good!)

18. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious term, a chimera, as it were. This is contrary to common teaching.

So the great commandment is impossible for a fallen humanity.  People will not love God, so what do we do?  Do we command it?  Or do we prayerfully present the self-revelation of God’s heart in His Word, pointing to the Word incarnate, and invite people to look to Him?  More on this to come . . .

Continuing my pondering of Luther’s less famous 97 Theses and what difference they might make to our preaching:

5. It is false to state that man’s inclination is free to choose between either of two opposites. Indeed, the inclination is not free, but captive. This is said in opposition to common opinion.

Everyone assumes they are self-moved and free to choose in any situation.  Luther argues that this is not the case.  The will is not free, but captive.  So as a preacher, I need to ponder deeply what the state of the human will actually is.  If it is free then that will result in one approach to ministry.  If it is not free, then that will result in another approach.  As humans, we make choices all the time.  We can call that liberty of choice.  But those choices are not made by a free will, but by a will held captive.

6. It is false to state that the will can by nature conform to correct precept. This is said in opposition to Scotus and Gabriel.

Luther reinforces the point by denying that human wills will obey clear and compelling application by their own nature.  So when we preach, are we indulging in an exercise to convince people to move themselves to what is right?  Luther says no.

Theses 7-9 – The will may be neutral in itself, but it is captive to a non-neutral dictator.  God’s grace is needed so that the will can do anything other than always choose evil.  When we preach, we aren’t speaking to neutral folk, but to a captive set of wills.  Lest you assume some sort of heavenly puppeteering here, let me tip you off that Luther is not saying the will is captive to God’s direct control.

Theses 10-12 – Just because we proclaim that something is good does not mean that people will strive in that direction.  It would be good to ask Luther what he thinks of moralistic preaching, for instance.  Is our role as preachers to call everyone to live in a godly way?  Seems slightly misdirected if no natural will is able or free to strive toward what we declare to be good.