Full text loading...
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.