This is the danger of falling too far into the hole of a "Canon within a Canon", i.e., Paul's writings to the exclusion of the Gospels. There is a tension to be sure, but we have to embrace that, not pretend that it doesn't exist.

Quite the contrary! Paul has law all over the darn place. There is certainly no doubt in Paul's mind that repentance, under the just condemnation of the law, is everyone's fate, and from which we are rescued by the proclamation of the gospel. I used the quote from Mark for its shortness and neatness in making the point, but even a "canon within a canon" cannot deny repentance as part of the gospel without the most egregious distortion of the texts.

Excellent point, Sarah!

But, when you speak of gospel, are you talking about gospel in the narrow sense of the term (God's gracious will), or the broad sense (meaning both Law and Gospel). I'm guessing that you mean the latter. But failure to discriminate between the two only adds to the confustion.

Sadly, too many members of the ELCA, as did the antinomians of yore, feel that it is words of grace which bring about "repentence." They demonize any word of Law prior to Gospel as being "legalistic." Repentence is a "work", don't you know!

Hence, a gospel first, law second approach has taken over. Every catechumin should know that law precedes gospel. Imagine my shock when I read the ELCA’s second working draft on sexuality: “This church’s ‘Confession of Faith’ begins with the Gospel, instead of the sequence implied in the phrase ‘Law and Gospel’. . .” (Human Sexuality, Working Draft: a Possible Social Statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, October 1994). To our shame, this statement has never been repudiated. . .

I've sat through countless sermons in the ELCA that proclaimed that it is God's "Amazing Grace" that breaks down the barriers of our hearts. One memorable bible study I attended told of Christ declaring Zacchaeus the tax collector "righteous" while he was in the act of being a self-righteous sinner. For him, as with us, it was explained that it is this word of "grace" which bring about repentence. Our congregation even got rid of the word "repentence" in its bylaws on who can attend communion. That's because repentence was felt to be a condition on unconditional love, don't you know! Now forgiveness can come to everyone at the altar without the nasty encumbrance of repentence standing in the way!

My experience has been that God's righteous will always takes a back seat to his gracious will within the ELCA. Sadly, the Law/Gospel inversion used by many within the ELCA simply destroys the conscience. As you say, repentence cannot happen without identifying sin: yet far too often, the church becomes the great enabler as the hearers of this new "gospel" are turned into psychopaths!

Sarah, I, too, would ask you wheher you meant the "Gospel in the broad sense or the more narrow sense. You quoted, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Thank you, by the way, for going to Scripture.

But then you added, "Repentance is, and always has been, and always will be, part and parcel of the gospel." I wish you had documented that thought, or at least given us some cross-references to examine. If we define "Gospel" as the "good news" (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, how, then, is repentance (metanoia) "part and parcel of the gospel?" Does it not PREPARE our hearts for the Gospel?

A yellow traffic light prepares me to stop, yet it is not part of the red traffic light. But they do work together. While repentance is necessary, then, and works hand in hand with the Gospel, is it really correct to say the one is part of the other?Is repentance part of confession or absolution? We often tend to see confession as our work and absolution as God's work, but can we really genuinely confess our sins to God in anticipation of his absolution without God first giving us the faith to repent?
If I didn't think God could or would forgive me, why would I repent? Why would I plead His forgiveness?

The Law shows us our sin. God uses it to convict us. How can we be moved to repent if we are not aware of our need to repent? The Law shows us that we fall short of the mark(hamartia, sin). God desires perfection, yet we fail Him time after time in our sins of comission and omission. Even our righteous acts are discribed as "filthy rags."

"Metanoia" has been described in the back of the Greek New Testament (American Bible Society, 3rd ed.) as, "repentance, change of heart, turning from one's sins, change of way." Natural man since the fall of our parents, Adam and Eve, have been spiritually blind. spiritually dead, and at enmity (enemies) with God. On our own, we wouldn't even desire a right relationship with God. Adam, himself, attempted to hide in the garden, and rather than openly confessing his sin to God, God had to drag it out of him. Adam & Eve invented the Blame Game. Only the Spirit of God can grant man a change of heart. God uses his law to create regret and sorrow in one's heart, and knits a desire there to change his/her mind. God, in fact, brings that spiritually dead person to life. For believers it is the indwelling Christ who gives us the power to repent, as it is "no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me." (Gal. 2:19b-20a NRSV). The Gospel, then, shows us our Savior, and lifts us from the pit of despair to the pinacles of peace and true joy. God has removed our sin "as far as the east is from the west" (Ps. 103:12) and will remember it (hold us accountable for it) no more (Heb 8:12). "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:1 KJV "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do(in that it was weakened by the sinful nature), God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. (Rom 8:2-3a NIV, parentheses mine).

I didn't intend this to become a major treatise on repentance, but my short response is: repentance is part of the gospel because the ability to confess sins, rather than hide them, is part of the gift given to us in justification through Christ. This is no more a "work" than faith itself is a "work," for both come only by the Holy Spirit. My point was to address the work of preachers. The Holy Spirit does the work of justification through the means of word and sacraments, so it matters very much whether preachers are lending their tongues to the right preaching of the word.

I find it revealing that the risen Christ while opening his disciples' minds to the Scriptures makes special mention of repentance and forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:45-48).

Sarah,
Your 3/29/09 commentary says, "I take the subtext to be that we can disagree about matters of sexual morality because we share common beliefs...".
There is no disagreement about whether homosexual relationship is right or wrong, ie whether it is God's Will or not. Church leaders seeking to normalize homosexual relationship use amorality as a subtle, yet very effective slight of hand. That is, their voluminous study and rationale to normalize such behaviour constantly implies that it is Good, ie homosexual relationship is God's Will; But they never say it. They never come out and clearly state their opinion that homosexual relationship is Good, ie God's Will. As such their postion is amoral. Sadly then the current debate is between those who have an opinion and those who only imply one. There can be no real debate in such an arrangement.