Since Dr. Becker has resurrected his swipe at Murray's book, it seemed only proper that somewhere Dr. Murray be given equal time in response. Unfortunately when someone regularly blogs, those to whom they refer are not afforded the opportunity for rebuttal. The venue may or may not be widely read, and thus the subject of a post may not even know he or she became the center of a discussion. For those who may have picked up on Becker's argument and would like to hear the "other side" of the issue, may I propose a good response from Murray's own pen? If you are so inclined I would suggest reading his paper "The Third Use of the Law: The Author Responds to His Critics," which was published in CTQ, vol. 72, 2008. Dr. Murray does a masterful job at examining not just the concerns of his critics, but the reason why some are so negatively inclined toward the subject of the third use of the law in the first place. One would think, from Becker's scathing review of Murray's book, Law, Life, and the Living God (CPH, 2002), that the reactions to this work are all negative. However, as happens with any book, the reviews were predictably mixed, representing polar opposites in some cases. Obviously this subject still generates heat, and when it comes to the interpretation of history, especially the history of the LCMS in the darker days of the mid-70's, many have a horse in the race. To gain a better understanding of this aspect of the debate I would recommend Dr. Lawrence Rast's brief article "The Third Use of the Law: Keeping Up to Date with an Old Issue" (CTQ, vol. 69, 2005).
O.k., I feel better now. But does anyone really care? :)