Armchair Book Review: The Freedom of the Christian [Abridged Version]

Freedom of the Christian - if you haven't read it yet, do it! 

Thanks to the generosity of the folks at 1517 Publishing, I've received an opportunity to read and review some more books for them. The first of which is that which is (as far as this Lutheran is concerned) Luther's greatest theological work. The Freedom of a Christian changed my entire view of grace, and I tell people that it is a work that every Lutheran needs to read. Really every Christian needs to read - because it touches on the most fundamental of Christian truths - justification of the sinner on account of Christ and what that means for the Christian and the life the Christian lives. So when I saw that 1517 had published an edition I had to see it.

Freedom of a Christian, an overview

For those unfamiliar with the work, here is a little background: Published in one of Luther's most essential years (1520) in advance of his trial at the Diet of Worms, Luther publishes a series of works (often referred to as the three great treatises) that essentially rob from the church to give to the Christian. Address to the German Nobility chips away papal authority, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church undermines the sacramental scheme - especially the reliance on penance, and Freedom of the Christian underscores the doctrinal shift that becomes the hallmark of the European Reformation. It also reinforces the message of the previous works (the spiritual equality of the laity and freedom from the system that has burdened them). 

This short work focuses on two theses put forth by Luther: 1) The Christian is perfectly free from all, subject to no one. And, 2) The Christian is perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all. With these Luther asserts how Christ accomplishes everything for the Christian, truly freeing him from everything. But also how the Christian is not merely free from but free for the neighbor. It is focused on the most important issue of the Reformation: justification, and how that relates to good works. 

Luther brilliantly and succinctly demonstrates the Christian's relationship to God through Christ. Here we get Luther's happy (or as this translation renders it "joyous") exchange theology that Christ takes all of the sinner and the sinner receives all of Christ. Therefore the Christian becomes a spiritual king and priest. All this happens by faith not works. The good tree makes the good fruit, not the other way around. 

The outer man, as Luther puts it, is to then be put into sync with the inner person, the soul which has already been justified. Since the sinner will want the outer person to run amok. It is this sinful inclination that still exists that makes it clear one cannot trust in their own works. Here we also see Luther's law and gospel hermeneutic laid out. The law, he says, shows what to do but cannot do it. Most importantly, once the Christian is freed from its demands, he can live for its purpose - to benefit the neighbor. 

This was the first major theological work I had encountered, and it still stands out after so many which have come after it. I recall reading this my freshman year in college and thinking, "I have completely misunderstood and undersold grace." That may have been the first time I truly thought like a Lutheran, and I owe it to this work. As such, I hold it in the highest regard and cannot speak highly enough about it.

Regarding 1517's Edition

Now let us look at this specific version, since this is not the only English version available. I believe this is the 5th version to come into my library. As far as the physical book itself, 1517's compares or excels against most of the competition as it maintains it's convenient small size in both page size and book thickness, making it an easy fit on most any shelf and in most any library and travels easily if it were brought to a class or book group. The cover material they use is their very fine quality soft cover. The color/cover art leaves a bit to be wanting to some other versions. The text is in a very reader friendly size/spacing without being "large print".

My biggest hang-up - and as petty as it sounds it really did get to me - is the title. The name of this blog reveals my issue: it really should (but doesn't) say "Abridged Version" in the title or on the cover. One can discover this easy enough from the words about the translation on the back and in the book's introduction. But as a consumer who already has a familiarity with the work (and a love for it), when I see the title I don't even think to read the back because I think I already know what I am getting. But this edition is abridged. I could tell reading it (although not to what extent it was abridged as it still covered the general treatise pretty fully). Though the book size is comparable to many complete editions, the translation is noticeably shorter once you get into it (more on why that is in a second). For someone like me, that makes a big difference. There is a place for an abridged version, especially those less inclined to some of the features of a 16th century theological treatise. The introduction even acknowledges this, putting in the introduction, "While an accurate translation, it is not an academic one. Our intention was to simply make one of Luther's great works available for attendants of Here We Still Stand 2020." While that appeals less to someone like me it also can be very appealing to many others. And as one who wants every Christian to read this work, emphasizing the uniqueness of this edition in the title could help its appeal. Something like The Freedom of The Christian: An Abridged and Easy-to-Read Translation or the like. As both a warning to more scholastically interested Lutheran readers like myself and as an appeal to more casual readers more clarity in the title/cover could go a long way in improving this book (since let's face it, we do often judge a book by its cover).

The other reason a title change might add to the genuineness and uniqueness of this book is that a significant portion of it is made up of material other than Luther's treatise. Whereas Luther's work takes up 36 pages, you also have an 8-page introduction, a 3-page concluding remarks by the translator, and an 18-page essay on Christian freedom by Scott Keith (oddly noted on the back of the book as a "brief essay" when it makes up nearly a third of the book). All of these pieces are meant in their own way to help make clear the points Luther is making. That extra material makes up such a significant enough amount of the book its thickness matches that of non-abridged versions. But these again add to the reader friendly quality of the book that are under-utilized as a selling point. 

The translation is noticeably smooth and easy to read. Adam Francisco deserves credit for the work in both his bringing the German (this is a translation of the German not Latin edition of the work) to English and in his seamless abridgement that would not be noticeable to one new to Freedom of The Christian and still able to capture most of the key points. The layout of sentences and paragraphs is also good. I am sad that my favorite quote from the work appears to have not made it in this abridgement. 

Scott Keith's essay was a solid contribution, but I do wish it were more directly connected to Freedom of The Christian. While discussing the same topic, and the final section of his essay a wonderful addition as it takes us more into Luther's concept of vocations as God-pleasing, the work as a whole stands alone instead of communicates with and builds from Luther's treatise. The essay's references to theologians of my seminary - James Nestigan and Gerhard Forde - definitely win brownie points with me (even if he had no idea he'd be sucking up to me by referencing them, LOL). 

Conclusion

Overall this book was a fast, easy read of one of the greatest theological works ever written. And while for someone like me it would not be my first choice edition, props should be given for its accessibility. It really is a shame this was not made clear in the title/cover to both capitalize and clarify its unique place among American translations of this great work. 1517 put in every effort to make the concept of Christian freedom clear.

Armchair Grade: B

To buy your copy of Freedom of the Christian click here

Covid vaccine: Why I will not sign a religious exemption

The discussion has already begun around increased mandates towards the Covid-19 vaccine. Some of it appears to be various employers making the leap, some of it is clearly governmental pressure, and more may be on the way. Typically, people have had the opportunity to opt out of such requirements on two grounds: medical reasons (per the ADA) or religious ones. Of the many people unvaccinated in this country, very few will qualify for a medical one. Concerns about the medical science behind the vaccine do not qualify, you have to have a medical condition that precludes you from taking the vaccine. 

Thus enters the religious exemption. Some of my colleagues have already been approached about signing off on this, as employers can - if they have reason to question the sincerity of the claim - request the exemption be validated by that person's religious leader/clergy. Thus I have had to think in the last week about the real possibility that I may be approached to sign a religious exemption. 

And I don't intend to do it. It makes me dread all of this, because I am sure if someone comes to me they will expect I will have no problem signing this for them. But it would be a *wink wink* signature and a total abuse of my power as a pastor to do so. What bothers me most is that the person will probably then simply cut ties with my church for another that will. But as a pastor, I cannot let that destroy the integrity of the office or coerce me into signing. 

But allow me to explain in a few points why I won't be signing:

1. We have no religious exemption. Really, it's as simple as this. Our church body has not come out against the vaccines. My individual congregations have not come out against the vaccine. I, as a religious leader, have not come out against the vaccine. I myself am vaccinated. We lauded their implementation and the positive effect they have for our church. I do not think they should be mandated (a bit more on that later), but I have no religious grounds to sign an exemption. To do so would be unethical. I find it interesting that the religious exemption will almost certainly be used more than the medical one. Why? Because there is a unified code of ethics and oversight over practitioners of medicine. And by and large they know it would be unethical to sign off a medical exemption if there is not one and do violate that ethic could have repercussions. Because our religions have various bodies of oversight, some very congregational, and many that will not impose any discipline for signing off on a false religious exemption it will be easier to find clergy persons to sign off. And because government, for fear of First Amendment violations, has generally been very hands off in religious oversight of such claims (or at the least there is a perception of such) it is hard for there to be any accountability. We within our religion need to speak about the ethics of all this and have some level of expectation and accountability. No one else may. And if others have to because we abuse our power it could be bad for us (more on that later). But simply put, if our church has no religious grounds how can I in good faith sign one? On what grounds can I sign that with integrity? What does that do to our mission? I want to be helpful, and a part of me did consider whether it would be right to do it if mandates became law and one considered the law unjust, but that is a slippery slope. And while I have concerns about the such mandates, I don't about ultimately getting the vaccine. And I have concerns about signing it if we have no true exemption. I don't see how the act benefits my neighbor enough to go against my (religious) obligation to the state. To be clear, some religions/denominations may have cause for the exemption, but mine does not.
2. I'm not convinced most of the people seeking exemptions truly have religious reasons. Yes, we are individualized spiritually. Yes, I believe religion should and does inform much of our lives, even implicitly. But if I'm honest, no one has ever cited religious concerns once to me as reason why they don't want the vaccine. It usually is tied to some rumor about fertility, someone dying after taking the vaccine, it altering their DNA, simply concern that it is so new, having already caught the virus and therefore having antibodies, or disbelief that Covid-19 truly warrants or requires one. To be sure, some of these concerns have religious implications if one believes them. But never does the religious concern, the concept that to do so would violate their place in their religion or put them at odds with the Almighty, never once has the religious concern ever come up. Religious morals and theistic beliefs have never been shared with me. They may be out there, but of the large number of people I have encountered who have stated their resistance to the vaccine it is anecdotally absent. Why are they asking for religious exemptions then? The answer is that they are being told it is one of the only grounds for being exempt. While your employer may not care to or even ought to judge whether your reason is truly religious, your religious leader absolutely should if s/he is being asked to sign off on it. Part of this post is to say, if you are opposed to getting the vaccine please don't use the religious exemption just because you can. That's not what it's there for. It's there so you never have to make a decision between being a Christian/Muslim/Hindi/Jew and a citizen or employee. We don't expect our doctors to falsify medical documents to meet individual needs, we should not expect religious leaders to either. The closest thing I have seen to a religious cause is the fact that abortive cells were used in the research of some of the vaccines. But I actually know that from a statement from the Catholic church not from individuals talking about avoiding the vaccine, and even that statement was not a repudiation of the vaccines but a word on which ones to seek out if one has a choice between vaccines (and allowing those who did not have a choice to receive even the ones who were developed in amoral manners for the sake of charity and preservation of life). And not only has it not been a major theme I've encountered among anti-vaxers, it would not in our church be grounds to avoid the shot. 
3. We are inviting government involvement in our religion when we abuse its power. The easiest way to invite infringement upon religious liberty is to abuse it. I genuinely fear that if too many people nation-wide cite religious exemption it will invite further investigation. If the major employers or especially the government see mass numbers of people hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid a mandate of vaccines I have no hesitation in thinking it will be responded to. Businesses can claim "undue burden" of religious exemptions, for example, and a fight in court could create new legal precedent around how that is defined. And the more the exemption is used, the more it will be fought. I won't lie, democratic leadership in the white house only increases the likelihood of this. I don't believe Christianity is incompatible with the democratic party, but I do believe religious liberty has not been a priority of theirs. Liberal leaning states have been much harsher and more punitive against both individuals and churches that have clashed with liberal clauses on the grounds of religion (including around the pandemic). President Biden's inability to clamp down on the pandemic with the delta variant spread has only increased his need for wider use of the vaccine. I would not hesitate to believe that he would act against the churches. Not in a Left Behind anti-Christ worst-case-scenario kind of way, but in an effort to limit the ability for religious exemptions to be made in the future or increase legal precedent for governmental oversight of religious exemptions. I believe we could be looking at legal battles that chip away at religious liberty, and all because we deserve it. In this case, we would be abusing our power and demonstrating a need for greater oversight (and by extension, less liberty). Christians need to reckon with the reality that we need to pick our battles. Therefore, if we don't really have a fight in vaccine mandates then we need to stay out of it. At least in regards to religious exemptions. We absolutely should speak out about concerns of such mandates and the absurdity in one of the worst employment crises of modern times to force people to leave essential jobs for ones that won't require vaccines. Suggestions, for example, that the government will pull Medicare funding from skilled nursing facilities that do not vaccinate all employees is a coercion tactic that is leading to a dangerous game of chicken as the industry is already exceptionally short-handed in employees and the unvaccinated make up a not insignificant number of its employees. If this game is played out to its fullest, many facilities will face closure because they cannot staff to state guidelines or they cannot receive the government funds that make up a necessary portion of their income. Such tactics also smear the already debated topic of socialized medicine as it concerns organizations that medical funds will be used as a weapon for policy-making. Our religion's should speak out about these concerns. There is a justice concern when a person has to make a decision not on the grounds of their health but on the grounds of their economic security or when whole portions of the population would then be excluded from certain areas of business. 
4. One of my deeply held religious beliefs is I am pro-life. I am utterly against abortion. I think it violates a God-given right to life, and legalizing it so it is "safely done" is an abhorrent claim (I would never be in favor of letting gang members kill each other in a gladiatorial arena because it would be safer than letting gang wars take place on the streets). Discussions of "quickening" or other such tactics according to the biblical view is an attempt to avoid the science of conception that validates the biblical poetry of being knit together in my mother's womb. Even if there is a legal (and even scientific) battle of when the baby is "alive" it's undisputed that once conception has begun, uninterrupted it should result in life. We should not take efforts, therefore, to interrupt that process (except when the mother faces real peril). Before going on to how this informs my view on the vaccines I will also say a word about abortive cells/tissue used in research. I would never justify murder for the sake of research/medicine. It would not be right to kill an adult to harvest their organs for someone and it is no more right to justify abortion with the research or medical benefits. That said, a person dies (even by murder) and I absolutely support organ transplanting. That saves life. And a baby has been aborted, I still absolutely support saving life through use of the stem cells or research. But also, because not all vaccines were developed the same way, even if one feels a vaccine in which the research that developed it used abortive cells is a fuel of the abortion industry or developed in a way that conflicts with their religious beliefs (although I do ask in what way that differs from transplant of murder victim's organs), one can still receive a vaccine from a different company. A pro-life religious belief does not stop one from receiving the vaccine. Now let me tell you why it causes me to not support efforts to circumvent vaccine initiatives.
   It baffles me, of course, that many pro-lifers do not take that same logic to other areas of politics. Why most pro-lifers are not in favor of governmental services that statistics show reduce abortion is beyond me (since pro-choicers are correct that outlawing abortion does not out and out stop it). I am against the death penalty because of my belief that life is precious, especially when we see that more death row inmates have been wrongly convicted than the general prison population, meaning we have killed innocent people. Our lament of Jesus' innocence on the cross ought to cause that to give us great pause. But it also occurred to me that this is an area where the pro-choice/pro-life beliefs are horribly relevant. It started because when people first talked about fear of mandated vaccines I said "no way". How can the same government that refuses to protect the life of the unborn child on the grounds of the mother's right to make choices about her own health/body justify forcing people to receive a vaccine they are against, many because of personal health concerns (even if I don't really agree with the pseudo-science/logic behind those concerns)? I found it interesting that a very pro-choice president is so anti-choice in regards to vaccines. All of the sudden the life of another matters more than the health/choices of the individual? But as I posed that absurdity, I realized my own contradiction. Wasn't I, who did not favor mandatory vaccination, now saying the government has no right to force a treatment on a person for the sake of another? Isn't that the very foundation of wanting abortion banned? And isn't a vaccine far less invasive on a person than carrying a child to birth? How am I loving my neighbor? I realized that, while my concern about forcing vaccines did involve justice and was because I felt it did not curb the culture of suspicion around vaccines and Covid-19 in general, it was inconsistent with my beliefs about life. I do think banning abortion is not enough because we do need to fight the culture of abortion, both the cultural belief that it is an ethical decision and the societal circumstances that make people feel it is the best option. I do think that it is unfair that a woman has to carry the burden, even unjust in some circumstances - especially rape. But I have always felt the right to life and the need to protect that right supersedes all of these. It is too fundamental a gift, and therefore the greatest imperative of love. For the same reason therefore, though I have real concerns about mandatory vaccines, it is consistent with the religious imperative to love your neighbor as yourself. That is the royal law of scripture (James 2:8). So no, I will not allow somebody to step to the other side of the road to avoid the neighbor's need. Not with my help and my signature at least. 
5. It sends the wrong message about the role of religion in your life. One of the things I must constantly fight against is the sense that Christianity is just some people's opinions set to paper. Religion as a whole often encompasses spiritual experience, but Christianity in particular is about a contact not only with the spiritual realities but contact with the living Christ. Jesus says we are the branches while he is the vine. That is more than a set of ideas or opinions. To be a Christian is not to have simply a philosophy about life. It is at its heart this living, breathing connection to Jesus. Religious exemption must be about the things that would be so contrary to that connection that they would threaten it, that to choose it would be to turn away from him and his connection. It must dwell in the realm of where "We must obey God rather than any human authority" (Acts 5:29) or where Christian freedom is so twisted or opposed it becomes as Paul warns the Galatians "Christ will be of no benefit to you" (Gal 5:2). But as I noted in point two, the reasons why people are avoiding the vaccines have by and large been out of other concerns. If I were to sign off on the religious exemption, not only am I using it wrongly, but I am suggesting the religion is about validating and protecting views/opinions. Rather religion often must challenge our views and opinions. It is not about being a shelter to protect them it is about the self being exposed to Christ. I am not the Lord of my religion, I am a servant of Christ Jesus. I do not get to use the office to whatever suits my needs or the needs of the congregation. I must use it according to the commission I have received. It's why when I perform marriages I lay out for couples expectations - Christian expectations. For example, even if the wedding is for family/friend I make clear the ceremony expectations are just the same as if I performed it in my church for a parishioner. My ability to perform a wedding is rooted in my call as a pastor and not just something I can use to marry whomever I'd like however I'd like. I am bound to my living Savior. Religion is not a place to express views under constitutional protection, it is a chance to come under the authority of the living God. It's not merely freedom from, it's freedom towards. Christianity is not a tool for exemption because you don't want the vaccine, it is a personal encounter with the living voice of God. The church is the body of Christ and must be used ultimately to his purposes. I didn't start this church any more than the apostles did. God did when he raised Jesus from the dead, when Christ went to those he had chosen, and commissioned them to proclaim the good news to all the world.

I know this message may be disappointing for some. I know some may have hoped I would help, and I certainly hate not doing that. But the simple fact is I cannot. Even if it is upsetting, the job has never been about people-pleasing (Gal 1:10). The more I have thought about and looked at this, it strikes me as being for the pleasure of displeased people, and not consistent with the legal exemption's purpose or consistent with our religion. Whether or not one believes the vaccine is right for them does not mean they have a religious reason to abstain from it. That doesn't mean we can't try to stop mandatory vaccinations in workplaces or society as a whole (though my pro-life position has definitely softened my view regarding whether or not we should stop it), but those efforts to stop it need to be sought through some other means. Just because there are not proper grounds here does not automatically mean there are not elsewhere in US law. Just because the religious exemption seems a convenient choice, that doesn't mean it's the right one. And I won't have a part in it.