Radix - Volume 51, Issue 3, 2025

Modern religion often shows a lively interest in visual art. As if it presumes art to be more capable of realizing its proper core mission, which is to make people attentive for life’s transcendent dimension. The reason why, in its turn, art frequently shows an interest in religion is similar. Then art considers religion to be more familiar with the ‘irrepresentable’, which turns out to be the ultimate thing that, one way or another, modern visual art works intend to show, to ‘represent’. Yet, what if the link between both, rather than completing one another, consists in using the other’s crisis in order to hide with it the own one? Religion faces a deep crisis, art struggles with its very ‘raison d’être, and each of both projects the answer to the own problem into the other. The crisis of the one covers up the crisis of the other. This essay develops an enquiry into that thesis.

Religion and art were closely linked for centuries. But in the 20th century, religion disappeared from Western art discourse. The majority of the art world endorsed Nietzsche’s declaration of God’s death. Even the minority that wanted to put religion on the agenda in art struggled with the doubt that Nietzsche sowed. In 2025, the shock of Nietzsche’s cultural pessimism seems to have worn off. Religion, devotion, spirituality, mysticism: art’s interest in these subjects is back – in very different ways: diverse, sometimes very personal or autobiographical. Nietzsche seems to have been proven right after all. There is no longer anything supernatural that connects us all. But who still loses sleep over that, who still mourns that? In any case, it no longer stops artists from embracing religion with new vigour.

Despite the increasing secularisation, there is a continuing interest in the performances of Bach’s St Matthew Passion in the Netherlands. Both religious and non-religious concertgoers feel drawn to the music. However, this is not new. From the moment the work after a century was performed again under the direction of Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, the passion found a different audience. Performers and listeners were citizens who thought in the spirit of the Enlightenment. People learned to appreciate the music, but they did not know what to do with the pietistic lyricism. Although people did not always understand the texts anymore, many recognised themselves in the feelings of fear, sorrow, love and longing expressed therein, which they translated into their personal situation. The St Matthew Passion became an An Sich that acquired a socially connecting function through its shared experience outside the church community. This process will continue in the future. A renewed sense of empathy with the original intention of the work is useful. The sometimes maligned lyricist Picander is gaining new appreciation today. Further reflection on the text and its connection with Bach’s setting will be an enrichment in understanding.

This article explores the concept of freedom as articulated by two influential yet seemingly contrasting thinkers: Martin Luther and John Stuart Mill. While Luther grounds his understanding of freedom in theological terms — centering on liberation through faith — Mill approaches it from a liberal-philosophical perspective, focusing on individual liberty, particularly in thought and expression. Drawing on frameworks of positive and negative freedom, as well as distinctions by Berlin, MacCallum, and Swift, the article compares how each thinker conceptualizes individual freedom. Despite their differing contexts, Luther and Mill share striking similarities. Both view the acknowledgement of human imperfection — sinfulness for Luther, fallibility for Mill — as the starting point for true freedom. Moreover, they define freedom not as isolated self-determination but as relational and paradoxical: it includes both autonomy and a form of voluntary submission. For Luther, this means serving others in gratitude; for Mill, it entails openness to dialogue and correction. The comparison challenges the often-assumed opposition between liberalism and Christianity, suggesting that liberal thought may have deeper roots in Christian theology than commonly acknowledged. This insight enriches contemporary discussions on religion and freedom in public life.