Why I've abandoned law/gospel preaching

Recently I was in an interview with a Lutheran radio host. He brought up law/gospel in relation to liberal theology. I thought and still think that all those terms are tired.

For one, a lot of liberation theology gets lumped in with liberal theology, and unfairly. Where liberal theology elevates experience (along the lines of the epigones of Schleiermacher), and rightly puts experience higher in the pantheon of resources for theological reflection (although with the needed corrective of Barth and others who warn of the dangers of elevating experience above Scripture and tradition), liberation theology only elevates experience for one thing in particular: an emphasis on God's preferential option for the poor. God is on the side of the oppressed.

Furthermore, liberation theology formulates this theology not out of experience per se, but in continuity with the Biblical tradition itself, and then in conversation with the experience of those seeking liberation in solidarity both with Scripture, God, and the poor.

So, going back to law/gospel preaching, I guess I just find it tired and tiresome. It's too "white." It assumes pristine conditions. Similarly, I find the Lutheran doctrine around orders of creation equally tiresome. In fact that one I find creepily false and philosophically bankrupt.

So then, what do I have against law/gospel preaching.

My first thought was this: law/gospel is such a narrow, idiosyncratic concept that 99% of Christians think never at all about it, and it isn't a very useful concept on that level. In addition, I think it is tiresome. Basically, you're supposed to identify the law (that which orders society, first use, or that which convicts of sin, second use, perhaps with a third Christian use thrown in), and then you're supposed to save yourself from the trouble you've gotten yourself in preaching the law by then preaching the gospel. 

Somewhere in there you're supposed to disambiguate doing the right thing by following the law from the idea that one can be saved though adherence to the law. All in twelve minutes. As if most of life or any of Scripture can be split so cleanly.

That formula is tired, problematic, and more.

Finally, I just don't think about the law in those terms anymore. I think of it in a much more organic, covenantal, and robust way. Probably more along the lines of Luther's commentary in Genesis. In communitarian terms, I guess. Certainly not in the pristine fashion I was presented it in seminary education.

Somehow law/gospel stuff in Lutheran tradition has separated itself from the messiness of the cross. Perhaps it has stopped being a resource for analysis, and instead offers itself either as formula, or even dogma. I don't find this helpful in the slightest.

How about you?