This textual analysis aims to identify and explore liberating, indecent, and anthropological un­derstandings of the sinner in Lutheran interpretations of the doctrine of justification. The un­derlying assumptions and the themes discernible within the works of Martin Luther are exam­ined along with “traditional,” and contemporary radical, queer interpretations of Lutheran jus­tification. The ways in which points of intersection between these interpretations and queer theological critique may contribute toward a more liberating and inclusive understanding of Lutheran justification are discussed. Several perspectives presented by queer theology, are ap­plied to the material under examination.

The results of the analysis confirm the existence of queer openings with liberating potential within established, “traditional” Lutheran theology. These openings are further explored by fusing different queer concepts presented in the radical and queer parts of the material. Also, support for the queer emphasis on corporeality, without making essentialist assumptions, can be found in established Lutheran holistic anthropology. The concept of subject positions is in­troduced as a relational, queer, and inclusive alternative, favouring an understanding of the effects of sin and God’s justification respectively as an altering of positions in relation to other beings. To be liberating, theology must consider the whole, holistic body, and include the in­decent “Other.” In relation to justification, this “Other” is understood as the ignored human experience of sin as something which causes the holistic body harm and suffering. This results in a relational understanding of sin where being a sinner means both affecting and being af­fected. The potential of Lutheran theology is thus found in its ability to challenge the normative hegemony, to include the experiences otherwise exiled to the theological periphery, and to make the centre uncomfortable.

The effects of physical, mental, and spiritual trauma caused to the body by violence are the same as the Lutheran understanding of sin, as primarily expressed through human unbelief. It is therefore argued that it ought to be included in the definitions of sin and the sinner, and taken into consideration when doctrines of justification and salvation are formulated. This conclusion is supported by the co-alignment of the queer acknowledgement of multiplicity and simulta­neity, with the Lutheran characteristic of bi-duality that is most clearly expressed in the concept of simul iustus et peccator. Thus, the conclusion must be that excluding the effects caused to bodies by sin cannot only be construed as being consciously limiting and oppressive but that it is, in fact, in conflict with the holistic Lutheran anthropology and the historical emphasis within Lutheran theology on simultaneity.