1. The Law is not being preached as if I can do it (wrongly).
2. The Law is not being preached so as to condemnsme (rightly).
Hence, it is not even preached a.) wrongly, or b.) rightly at all.
That is a problem.
If you do not see I problem with that, I certainly do, because there is nothing for Christ to die for.
From BoC, SD V.
And the Apology says: To a true and salutary repentance the preaching of the Law
alone is not sufficient, but the Gospel should be added thereto. Therefore the
two doctrines belong together, and should also be urged by the side of each
other, but in a definite order and with a proper distinction; and the
Antinomians or assailants of the Law are justly condemned, who abolish the
preaching of the Law from the Church, and wish sins to be reproved, and
repentance and sorrow to be taught, not from the Law, but from the Gospel.
I am skeptical of Walther's thesis when he says in (p. 25) Treasury of CF W Walther, Vol. III that the Gospel should predominate in the preaching. Some pastors, because they are Walther fans, implement this to the point that the Law is subtly heard or not even heard at all, or hurriedly hushed away. But what do you expect? That is what you get as an effect of UOJ.
I disagree with Walther, for the BoC says the Law and Gospel should be urged side by side, hence equally.