Simul Luther et Anti-Semite

I talked at length on Sunday on the subject of examples, and I'd like to do so a bit more here, because I think it's important.  You see, on the internet (that medium through which you are experiencing my words right now), there is a fun argumentative tool that goes as follows:

Reductio ad Hitlerium.

i.e. if an argument goes on long enough on the internet, it will eventually have Adolf Hitler dragged into it.  Someone will use him to make a point, usually by comparing their adversary in said argument to the aforementioned Nazi.  And this happens seriously all the time.  If you haven't noticed it, then you haven't been paying attention.

But a curious subset of this argumentative strategem is the attempt to fool other people into agreeing with Hitler.  This is something that comes up all the time, and is used by both sides in a great many debates, including but not limited to religious debates.  The argument usually goes as follows:

Subject A posts this quote:

Spock? Your national socialism is illogical.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

Subject  B reads the quote, and thinks to himself 'gosh, that sounds reasonable.  I agree with and identify with that statement.

Subject A then drops the bombshell - that quote was by ADOLF HITLER!  YOU AGREE WITH HITLER!  CLOSET NAZI!

Subject B then realizes that his views on faith are identical with those of Adolf Hitler, loses his faith, then goes and joins the merchant marines.

Or that's how it's supposed to go.  And this argument goes both ways.  Often, that quote above is sneakily snuck into conversations to undermine your religious beliefs.  i.e. if Hitler was religious, heck, even potentially Christian, what does that say about YOU?  But in the other sense, people bring up parts of the Bible, or quotations from otherwise famous Christians, and use them as fodder against those of us in the pew.  They bring up the fact that St. John Chrysostom was an horrendous anti-semite, or that Paul was a misogynist.  Or, for those of us who are in the Lutheran faith, they bring up a curious pamphlet that Martin Luther wrote, called 'on the Jews and their lies.'

Oh boy oh boy. This one's fun.  Because, you see, as Lutherans, we believe in what Martin Luther set down in the Lutheran confessions, found in the Book of Concord.  The large and small catechisms, the Smalcald Articles, the Formula of Concord, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something here.  That's all well and good.  We hold fast to these things because they are a correct and true exposition of the word of God.  But this good stuff was written by a guy who penned an incredibly anti-semitic pamphlet.  How can we believe in and hold fast to the teachings of someone who was able to speak plainly about justification by grace through faith, but at the same time was writing horrendous anti-semitic screeds?

Welp, I would have you know, as Lutheran Christians reading this, that the original Lutheran, the reformer himself, was a bit anti-semitic.  But that doesn't mean that YOU have to be.

Crazily enough, and please brace yourselves for this, Luther himself may have been a sinner.  He may have been an anti-semite.  And that's not okay.  And I happily condemn his antisemitism in the strongest possible terms, because I find it to be unacceptable, and in violation of several of the commandments.  And yet I remain a Lutheran.

How?  How can I hitch my wagon to this guy whose views on several points I radically disagree with? Well, it's actually astonishingly simple.  It works because I do with Luther what most of us say we would do with sinful people in general.  I understand that he has been forgiven for his sins, however grievous they may have been.

Martin Luther doesn't get a free pass on everything he ever said just because he happened to say some stuff that was wildly controversial and bad.  But how do you as a Lutheran Christian (and believe me, I happen to be well aware that most of you are not Lutheran, and perhaps not Christian either.  But pretend that you are, or better yet, convert for the sake of this conversation), how do you deal with Luther's whopping great antisemitism?  Do you say:
a) Luther's antisemitism was just a product of his times, and people were all sorts of racist back then, so how was he to know any different?
b) Pretend that it was ghost written by Melancthon, Elvis, or Francis Bacon.
c) Blissfully go back to ignoring that it ever existed in the first place.
d) Agree with him on the topic (author's note: don't do this one)
or e) Apply his own words to himself, the way you apply his words to you so easily.

'Simul justus et peccator.'  A fancy Latin term for saint and sinner at the same time.  Which is what Luther was.  Which is what you are.  When confronted with the dreadful antisemitism of Luther, the cowardice of Peter, the wrath of James and John, the doubt of Thomas, the drunkenness of Noah, the incest of Lot, and the adultery of David, what do you do?  Do you explain it away as you would your own sin, as a product of the time, or not really that important, or not enough to outweigh all the good things they did, or do you do what you ought to do.  Do you look at these people as examples, good and bad.  As examples for us, as Paul says.

"Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our 

instruction, on whom the end of ages has come.  Therefore, let anyone

who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.  No temptation has overtaken you that is 

not common to man.  God is faithful, and he will not let you 

be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation, he will also

provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."

1 Corinthians  10:11-13

Everyone in the scriptures is an example, both positive and negative.  Moses was an amazing spokesman for his people, led the Israelites out of slavery and into the promised land.  He was also a murderer who buried his victim, and a doubter of God's promises which led to him dying outside the promised land.  Was he a saint, or a sinner?  Or was he both?  Just like you?  You can learn from everything these people do and say.  The Bible presents to you real people, not characters in a book who are either good or bad.  The Bible presents to you real human beings, and the story of their interactions with God and with each other.  They have examples of righteousness, and examples of sin. Just like everyone else.  Just like you.

The only exception to that is Jesus Christ.  And thanks be to God himself, that Martin Luther is not Jesus.  His words are good and solid, but they aren't all perfect.  We can hold fast to the words of the catechism, and reject the words of 'on the Jews and their lies,' and it doesn't denigrate the one or elevate the other.  Because he's a saint and a sinner at the same time.  Like you.  And the same robe of righteousness, the perfection of Christ, applies to Luther the same way as it does to us.  If you're looking for someone perfect, don't look to Luther, don't look in the mirror, don't look anywhere but in the pages of the New Testament, to the person of Christ.  And thank him that his righteousness applies to you now as well.  That you can be a saint even in the midst of your sin, that no matter how ridiculous the things you say and do, that you are a saint even while you are a sinner.

Simul Justus et Peccator.  Saint and Sinner all at the same time.

PJ.