The ethical implications of the cross are significant and numerous. Jesus modeled giving oneself for others and responding to violence not with more violence but with forgiveness. This article explores the ethical import of the saving work of the cross and resurrection of Jesus.
Atonement in the Old Testament The atonement has ethical implications even when its meaning is stated simply as forgiveness of sin and restoration of relationship with God. When God gave the law to the people of Israel, it included instruction on what to do when they broke the commandments. So too, biblical ethics today must address the issue of failing or falling short. The law, however, included sacrifices as a means of atonement not just to liberate from guilt and shame but also to restore relationship with God. Human alienation from God is the fundamental cause and result of sinful actions. To restore that relationship is therefore central to enabling ethical living.
To understand the full depth of atonement in the OT, and thus in the NT as well, it must be placed within the context of God’s covenants with Adam, Abraham, and Israel through Moses. A covenant is a formal arrangement of mutual loyalty between two parties that states the nature and purpose of the covenant, the obligations of the parties, and consequences for failure to meet those obligations. Covenants were common in the ancient Near East at all levels, from covenants between nations to familial covenants. God’s covenants in the OT had both formal and familial characteristics. Within a covenantal context people are not considered just or righteous based on an abstract standard or legal code; they are considered just or righteous if they are faithful to their covenantal obligations to other people and to God. In this covenantal context law and justice have a strong relational character. For instance, when one commits a wrong against another, the offender does not simply pay a fine or a penalty but makes a payment of restitution to the victim as a step toward renewing the relationship (e.g., Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-10).
God provided Israel instruction for sacrifices for a variety of purposes, including cleansing, purifying, and removing guilt. Placing them all in their covenantal context brings to light important observations. Fundamentally, the purpose of sacrifice was not to placate God but to restore broken covenantal relationships. Integral to the sacrificial act was an attitude of repentance and obedience, identifying with the animal and offering oneself to God (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:4; 6-7; 17; Ps. 32; Isa. 6:1-8). Through the prophets God communicated strong displeasure with sacrifices not linked with changed ethical behavior (Isa. 1; Amos 5:21-24). Atonement was not a matter of God’s simply overlooking the sin because of the sacrifice;
rather, an actual restoration of interpersonal covenant relationships took place.
Atonement in the New Testament The OT provides key observations for understanding atonement in the NT. Atonement is real change, from alienation to restored relationship. Biblical justice and ethics are relational, horizontal and vertical, individual and corporate, and restorative rather than retaliatory. Through the lens of God’s covenants with Adam, Abraham, and Israel, God proves to be a just God by working to bring salvation and thus be faithful to covenant commitments. On the human side, Jesus, in a substitutionary way, both suffers the covenantal sanction that Israel deserves and fulfills covenant obligation by living faithfully in ways Israel has failed. Jesus thus “enables a new objective situation, namely, the end of exile and the construction of a new kind of temple, indwelt by God’s own Spirit” (Vanhoozer 400).
The atonement is foundational to ethical behavior through liberating from guilt and shame, restoring relationship with God, and giving the church the same Spirit who enabled Jesus to lay down his life for others. It is a mistake, however, to see the atonement only as precursor to ethics. To empty the atonement of its ethical character would potentially weaken an individual’s and a church’s concept of Christian ethics. If proclamation of salvation through the cross does not include an ethical dimension, it is too easy to see ethical living as a second step, or even an optional appendix, to the core message of Christianity. For this reason, it is imperative to allow the covenantal character described above to shape one’s understanding of the atonement and to follow the NT in using a diversity of imagery to communicate various aspects of the saving significance of the cross. We will look at some of that imagery, highlighting its ethical import.
Imagery of redemption and ransom implies liberation from enslavement or captivity (e.g., Mark 10:45; Rom. 3:24; Gal. 3:13; Col. 1:13-14; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:18). The ethical dimension of the Christian life is strengthened through following the NT writers in proclaiming atonement not just as liberation from sin and death but also as liberation for righteous living (Rom. 6:18). God “has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). Peter reminds his readers that they were ransomed from their futile ways and exhorts them to therefore rid themselves of all malice, guile, insincerity, envy, and slander (1 Pet. 1:18; 2:1).
The Pauline proclamation of salvation coming through union with Jesus has a similar dynamic—saved from, saved for. Through Adam came death and sin; through Christ came life and righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21). Paul portrays righteous ethical living not only as a result of the atonement but also as its means. Cohering with the covenantal dynamic observed above, salvation comes through Jesus’ faithful obedience. He lives justly in our place, and through union with him we are justified.
Justification in a covenantal biblical context means not only to be declared free from guilt but also to be restored to right relationship. To be justified has ethical import through addressing the root cause of sin by healing our broken relationship with God. Through the covenantal lens justification also has a social dimension. To be restored in covenant relation to God also brings one into relationship with others—the covenant people of God. This social dimension is evident in that in the letters where Paul uses justification imagery, Galatians and Romans, he is addressing Christian communities struggling with questions of ethnic tension and identity. Who belongs, and on what basis do they belong? To use justification imagery to proclaim the saving significance of the cross reminds us of the central role of justice, right relationships, in Scripture. It also reminds us that restored relationship with God includes incorporation into the people of God. An expectation of ethical obligations to others within this community flows from this imagery.
Reconciliation imagery of the atonement also has vertical and horizontal dimensions with ethical implications. It is not God who needs to be reconciled to humans, but humans who need to be reconciled to God. Yet God takes the initiative and works through the cross and resurrection to make friends out of enemies (Rom. 5:10). Once again we see the “saved from, saved for” dynamic. “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). It is not only through the cross that God models the same thing that Jesus and NT writers call us to do—love our enemies (Matt. 5:44; Rom. 12:14-21; 1 Pet. 2:21-23). Horizontal reconciliation, making peace between alienated people, is integral to and enabled by the atonement. The author of Ephesians, referring to the division between gentiles and Israel, writes that Christ “is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Eph. 2:14). Jesus takes two peacemaking initiatives: he tears down the barrier of division, and he creates people with a new identity. He brings interethnic peace through the cross by creating in himself “one new humanity,” members together of the “household of God” (Eph. 2:11-22). Thus we are called to live out this reality and to follow his peacemaking example.
The NT provides rich and diverse atonement imagery. A weakness, however, of limiting thinking about and proclamation of the atonement to this imagery is that it too easily isolates the atonement from the life Jesus lived. Jesus’ crucifixion was the consequence of a life in the service of God’s purpose and in opposition to competing social, political, and religious powers. For instance, Luke’s theology of the atonement is communicated not through a collection of images but rather through a lived-out drama of salvation. Ethics, a way of life, is central to the drama.
Jesus embodied the fullness of salvation interpreted as status reversal; his death was the center point of the divine-human struggle over how life is to be lived, in humility or self-glorification. Though anointed by God, though righteous before God, though innocent, he is put to death. Rejected by people, he is raised up by God—and with him the least, the lost, the left out are also raised. In his death, and in consequence of his resurrection by God, the way of salvation is exemplified and made accessible to all those who will follow. (Green and Baker 77)
Luke’s theology of the atonement enriches our understanding of the ethical character of other NT imagery. For instance, it adds concreteness to the imagery that through the cross God “disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2:15). Through the saving work of the cross and resurrection we are freed from the enslaving powers of death and alienation of “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4). Some of these powers are the same that Jesus faced, such as mammon, ethnic prejudice, economic and political oppression, cultural practices that define some people as of greater value and status than others, and a religiosity of exclusion. Other powers are more contemporary, such as consumerism and technology. The cross and resurrection free us to follow the ways of the kingdom of God and to obey God without fear of the consequences of disobeying these powers. They have been exposed. Jesus repeatedly confronted a religiosity of exclusion, climaxing at the cross. God, through the resurrection, validated Jesus’ stance against the alienating power of religion. The ethics of the kingdom does not have a bounded character that creates a community of exclusion. The purpose of this ethics is not to define who is “in” and who is “out” but rather to challenge and guide people brought together through their covenant relation with God to more fully walk in the way of Jesus and be the people and community that God created them to be.
Finally, the revelatory aspect of the cross is of both saving and ethical significance. The cross reveals the character and depth of human sin— what we are called to repent of. Jesus’ life and death reveal what it means to live authentically as humans created in the image of God—the life we are called to live. The cross and resurrection reveal that God is a God of radical grace and self-giving love. The ethical direction found in Scripture is an expression of that love.
See also Covenant; Cruciformity; Forgiveness; Judgment; Justice; Peace; Reconciliation; Righteousness
Bibliography
Baker, M., ed. Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross: Contemporary Images of the Atonement. Baker Academic, 2006; Driver, J. Understanding Atonement for the Mission of the Church. Herald Press, 1986; Dunn, J., and A. Sug-gate. The Justice of God: A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith. Eerdmans, 1993; Green, J. B., and M. D. Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. InterVarsity, 2000; Shelton, R. Cross and Covenant: Interpreting the Atonement for 21st Century Mission. Paternoster, 2006; Vanhoozer, K. “The Atonement in Postmodernity: Guilt, Goats and Gifts.” Pages 367—404 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical and Practical Perspectives, ed. C. Hill and F. James III. InterVarsity, 2004; Volf, M. “The Social Meaning of Reconciliation.” Int 54 (2000): 158-72.
Mark D. Baker
Authority and power are connected, contested, controversial concepts. “Power” denotes the energy and effective force residing in a person, role, or institution, while those in “authority” have a rightful charge to decide, to lead, and sometimes to enforce decisions. We speak of “spheres” of authority and “centers” of power, and we think in terms of vertical hierarchies, of being “under” authority or of having authority “over” someone or something.
Authority and power have long been topics of discussion and a locus of struggle in philosophy and theology, but such struggle gained intensity and verve in the twentieth century and continues into the twenty-first. For ethicists, both secular and theological, questions concerning who or what has legitimate authority, including moral authority, loom large. Philosopher Charles Taylor observes that people in modern secularized societies differ from those in earlier contexts—for example, those of the Scriptures and the early church, the medieval church, and even the churches of the Reformation—in the ways people imagine themselves in relation to authority and in the ways we picture what it means to have power or resist it. No longer do people assume that temporal powers directly correspond to supernatural ones, or that earthly power or office signifies divine appointment or delegation.
In every generation there will be voices counseling obedience to authorities, ecclesial and secular. But the more nuanced and interesting stances have come from those in the trajectory of the apostle Peter, who, in the face of imperial prohibition of his teaching ministry, declared, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29). This has been a pivotal question: how do we discern in the moment whose authority is legitimate and when established structures should be resisted or reformed? Moreover, as the Christian gospel has spread around the globe, new voices and perspectives on Christian ethics and scriptural interpretation have entered the conversation. Significant shifts have come from those theorists offering critiques of power and querying dominant authorities. It is beyond the scope of this article to cover the entire global spectrum, but this article does focus on contemporary critical voices, some of them from the “margins.”
Authority and Power in Scripture
The biblical narratives turn time and again to stories of struggle around authority and power. In the biblical witness, God has ultimate authoritative power. In the beginning, God speaks, and the world is created. In relationships with creation and with people, God displays the character of completely legitimate, loving authority graciously wielded. Through steadfast love (hesed) God demonstrates noncoercive exercise of power that is trustworthy and just. The narratives also tell of misused power and illegitimate authority: false prophets and ungodly generals, judges, kings, and priests. In stark contrast, Jesus comes humbly exercising divine power on behalf of others.
Old Testament. In the grand narrative of the OT, God displays authority and power via various roles: father and mother, lawgiver and judge, shepherd and gardener, king, warrior, conqueror, deliverer, authoritative voice. In each role, the distinctive character of God’s authority and power is displayed. The voice of God speaks, and creation responds. As household head, God provides powerful nurturing, blessing, and honor. As judge, God distinguishes the righteous from the unrighteous, the just from unjust, and pronounces consequences for actions. As shepherd, God gives powerful guidance and protection. The military commander God wages war on the unjust, defends the cause of the poor and oppressed, and makes a safe place in which his people may dwell in shalom. The OT God as authorizing power delegates responsibilities to human beings: Adam is empowered to name the animals and to care for the garden; Abraham to father a nation set aside for God; priests to bless and intercede; judges to mediate; kings and governors to rule; military leaders to command; prophets to speak.
Moses preeminently embodies God-given authority characterized by several of these key roles: he is a shepherd, lawgiver, mediator, judge, general, and prophet. As the narrative progresses, questions arise: shall the people of God have a temporal king? How will the power of an unjust or ungodly king be confronted and circumscribed? There is perennial strife between priestly temple authorities and other temporal structures. More prophets arise, and while the false ones coddle ungodly rulers, godly prophets speak truth to power and to the people. Thus, the prophetic voice becomes an authoritative channel of divine correction and guidance. Throughout the grand narrative God’s steadfast love (hesed) remains a major OT theme, the prevailing character of God’s power and authority. That power is displayed as God liberates his people from bondage, and continues as God announces and demonstrates his purpose to heal the nations, to re-create and redeem humankind and indeed all of creation.
New Testament. Jesus is the Lord (kyrios, “ruler”), the king, the new Moses—both prophet and priest. He wields Spirit-authorized power (dy-namis, “power”) as he confronts earthly and cosmic powers. His healing ministry displays authority over material and spiritual powers and restores marginalized individuals to honorable places in their families and communities. Thus familial structures are recast, tyrannical political power is defanged or relativized, and oppressive religious authorities are confronted (Luke 20:45-21:4). A question arises: by what authority (exousia, “authority”) is Jesus doing these things (Mark 11:28)? In the process of making disciples, Jesus models authoritative, gentle shepherding of God’s people. He displays noncoercive power and authority that invites and does not force, that frees and then empowers. New associations are formed, and new power and authority structures are built, as the new family of God is to be governed by love that is self-giving (agape) and fraternal (Philadelphia).
The NT Epistles evidence struggles among early Christians regarding how to define and exercise their new power and authority within the church, in the face of established temporal authorities (temple and empire), and in a world full of spiritual “authorities” and “powers.” Paul’s teaching that Christ’s rule is total and preeminent (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16) fits the ancient Near Eastern conceptual world, in which earthly authorities correspond to—mirror and express—cosmic, supernatural powers (Eph. 1:21; 2:2; 6:12). In his character and message, the apostle Paul follows Jesus’ example of self-giving leadership and of empowering the lowly (1 Cor. 1:26b—29). Paul urges believers to rely on the power of God (en dynamei theou [1 Cor. 2:5]); on this power the church is founded. And Paul wishes to pattern his own ministry and the shape of the church on the example of Jesus Christ’s humble obedience (Phil. 2:5-11).
Authority and Power in Contemporary Ethics In twentieth-century Christian ethics, authority and power came to be seen as matters of personal and group identity and agency strongly flavored by sociopolitical and economic factors, and Scripture often was interpreted in that light as well. Social analysts noticed effects of domina-tive power—“power-over”—but they also pointed to its transformative capacity, and in ethics these social theories, especially conflict theories, shaped the focal moral questions. Accordingly, the next sections review some key secular theories, then trace their influence in contemporary Christian ethics of power and authority Readers desiring to move beyond the thumbnail sketches provided here would do well to consult Comprehending Power in Christian Social Ethics, Christian social ethicist Christine Firer Hinze’s more complete survey and assessment.
Influential social theories. The vision that philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx (1818-83) had of ideal society implies a normative judgment that dominative power over others is illegitimate and ultimately will wane as the people find and assert their collective power. Marx’s penetrating critiques of oppressive power-over, especially in capitalist systems, so focused attention on the systemic social and economic aspects of power that today the concepts of power and authority are almost invariably framed in those terms, even by non-Marxist thinkers.
German lawyer, political economist, and sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) raised questions about the nature of social power and of the place of the individual agent in the modern rationalized, “disenchanted” world that has undergone “demag-icalization.” For him, rationalization itself is the greatest force shaping life in the modern world— the force that dictates that the norms for actions will be based on measurability, systematicity, and effectiveness. Many Christian ethicists work with or adapt Weber’s taxonomy of social authority, which identifies certain ideal types categorized according to their spheres of authority.
Political philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-75) distinguished between authority and power and saw legitimate, positive power in the human capacity to “act in concert” rather than via coercive command and lockstep obedience (Arendt 143). Arendt thus departed from the Western philosophical tradition, which she thought framed power as rule, hierarchical power-over. Arendt grounded her view of authority in the ancient Roman concept of auctoritas, authority foundational to a community and arising out of character, wisdom, and skill rather than relying on coercion or persuasion (Hinze 140). As Arendt critiqued contemporary society, she saw almost no structures operating in the public sphere with noncoercive authority.
French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-84) shifted analyses of power away from the market and property metaphors, by which it was viewed as a substance of measurable and exchangeable commodity (Hinze 113). By contrast, Foucault pointed to “power relations,” dynamic and multifaceted forces that operate in human societies, with potential for positive transformative impact. He saw power as operant in human relations at a personal level but even more significantly at systemic, social, and political structural levels, where it manages to subjugate and direct people’s actions. Foucault thought that freedom from repressive and abusive power relationships comes only via awareness and resistance.
Power and authority in twentieth-century Christian ethics. Twentieth-century Christian ethicists and theologians interacted with these and other secular sociopolitical theories to develop Christian perspectives on the roles of individual agents in communities and in the political arena. Analyses of power relations and the nature of legitimate authority were key topics.
In the 1930s, French Roman Catholic neo-Thomist and personalist philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), whose ideas became influential especially in Latin America, developed
a distinctively Christian vision of the common
good created when power and authority structures enable whole persons—spiritual and material beings with relationships to God—to flourish. In his vision, power-over can be beneficent when authorities recognize the sovereignty of God and adhere to proper norms, and in that case they have a right to be obeyed. When political authorities become oppressive or self-serving, they fail to fulfill their proper, essential roles and are rendered illegitimate.
The emergence of fascism in Europe presented exactly the kind of challenge that Maritain’s ethic attempted to address. The divine command ethic of Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (18861968) was forged and tempered in that context as well. The Barmen Declaration, which Barth drafted, declares Jesus Lord (“Fuhrer”), pointedly rejecting “other lords.” German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45), a student of Barth, wrestled with how to maintain a faithful church even in Nazi Germany. He thought it important to distinguish between spheres of authority, to separate the church from the world. While Bonhoef-fer strove against the secular kingdom in which he lived, he prized and cultivated the life of the Confessing Church, within whose fellowship he counseled humility and gentleness. Bonhoeffer acted on his convictions as he chose to participate in a plot to assassinate Hitler, for which the Third Reich executed him.
In the wake of World War II, Christian theologians assessed the churches’ roles in the buildup of the Third Reich and the execution of that conflict. German theologian Dorothee Solle said that it was no longer appropriate to found a Christian ethic on the concept of obedience to authority and asked, “Is it possible to imagine a moral philosopher or theologian who would use the word ‘obedience’ as if nothing had happened? . . . The dangers of the religious ideology of obedience do not end when religion itself loses its spell and binding power. The Nazi ideology with its antireligious leanings proves the point that after disenchantment of the world, to use Max Weber’s phrase, there is still domination and unquestioned authority and obedience” (Solle x, xiii). Solle called for a historically aware, contextualized theological ethic of power and authority grounded in Jesus’ example of the self-aware yet selfless human being free to live for others.
For German American Protestant theologian Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the concept of power is linked with core theological issues of the nature of human identity (imago Dei) and the nature of reality itself (ontology). Love and justice are foundational relations, and both are fundamental to redemptive power. Beginning with the Genesis story of the fall of humankind, Tillich sees a human tendency toward conflict and abuse of power resulting from the estrangement accompanying the exposure of our finitude, our lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Tillich critiqued other Christian ethicists for missing the relationship between power and love; he envisioned “creative justice” issuing from a collective life where in particular situations love, power, and formal justice were applied, symbolized by the (transhistorical, immanent) kingdom of God. Still, he recognized a tragic necessity in human life for hierarchies and social structures that will at times be coercive (Hinze 202-3). Tillich’s analysis of power and authority was influential in the work of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr., and it has traces in the thought of some Christian feminists.
American Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) saw political will to power as both pervasive and potentially malevolent, rooted in human pride and ego assertion. As with Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr’s model for Christian participation in the sociopolitical arena was colored by a Lutheran two-kingdoms theology in which there is unavoidable tension between life in the secular world and life in the kingdom of God. He saw God’s spirit working within history but cautioned that progress toward realization of the kingdom would be slow. Niebuhr spoke of kingdom ethics as an “impossible possibility” (Niebuhr 2:246-47).
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-68) wrote, “Power, properly understood, is the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political, or economic changes. In this sense power is not only desirable but necessary in order to implement the demands of love and justice” (King 37). Grounding his call for social justice in scriptural mandates and images, and steeped in personalist theology and the thought of Tillich and Niebuhr, King articulated a version of Black Power that critiqued both “immoral power” and “powerless morality.” Properly fused, power, love, and justice could be transformative.
Liberation perspectives on power and authority. The final three decades of the twentieth century witnessed the development of liberation theologies in response to oppressive social and political conditions and structures. These theologies from the “underside” focus attention on concrete social, economic, cultural, and relational contexts and seek to critique the power relations operative in each sphere. For liberationists, the central moral problem is systemic oppression in its particular local form, not a formal, theoretical problem or difficulty with belief in the modern era, as it was for Tillich and Niebuhr.
For Peruvian Dominican priest and theologian Gustavo Gutierrez (b. 1928), biblical grounding for the call to liberation is deep in the exodus story and the kingdom of God, which Jesus announced and ushered in. God is on the side of the poor, working for their liberation, and Christians are accordingly called to solidarity with and action on behalf of the oppressed. The crisis of oppression has spiritual, institutional, and historical dimensions, and the liberating solidarity and praxis called for will also need to address each of those spheres. Similarly, Argentine Methodist theologian Jose Miguez Bonino speaks of “the active solidarity of love” that empowers the oppressed to break free from dominative and dependent social, economic, and political arrangements. Cuban American ethicist Miguel De La Torre says, “Solidarity that comes from making an option for the poor is crucial not because Christ is with the marginalized but, rather, Christ is the marginalized. In the words of the Apostle Paul, ‘Remember the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ who for [our] sake, although rich became poor, so that [we] might become rich through the poverty of that One’ (2 Cor. 8:9)” (De La Torre 57).
In the vision of Christian feminist ethicists, the notion of authority is revised and recast. Patriarchal and sexist authority structures and assumptions of power are rejected in favor of egalitarian models. For American Baptist wom-anist ethicist Emilie Townes (b. 1955), “The concept of power that comes from decision and responsibility is one that entails the ability to effect change and to work with others. This power requires openness, vulnerability, and readiness to change” (Townes 86). Letty Russell (1930-2007) wrote of empowerment of individuals in concert with others and of power that authorizes legitimate power: “Authority might be understood as legitimate power only when it opens the way to inclusiveness and wholeness in the household of faith” (Russell 61). Moreover, willingness “to work for God’s covenant purpose of justice, shalom” is what qualifies people for inclusion in the power circle (Russell 36). Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (b. 1938) moves the description and discussion of power beyond power-over associated with empire to “power for,” affecting transformation. Beverly Harrison (b. 1932), influenced by her teacher Reinhold Niebuhr, offered a Christian feminist power analysis: “Evil is the consequence of disparities of power because where disparity of power is great, violence or control by coercion is the dominant mode of social interaction. Evil, on this reading, is the active or passive effort to deny or suppress another’s power-of-being-in-relation. When power disparities are great, those ‘in charge’ cease to have to be accountable to those less powerful for what they do. Societies in which . . . some groups have vast and unchecked power and others are denied even the power of survival, are unjust societies” (Harrison 154-55). Harrison cautioned, “We act together and find our good in each other and in God, and our power grows together, or we deny our relation and reproduce a violent world where no one experiences holy power” (Harrison 41).
See also Autonomy; Conquest; Egalitarianism; Equality; Liberation; Liberationist Ethics; Powers and Principalities; Resistance Movements; Submission and Subordination; Tyranny
Bibliography
Arendt, H. Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, Civil Disobedience, On Violence, Thoughts on Politics and Revolution. Harcourt Brace, 1969; De La Torre, M. Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins. Orbis, 2004; Harrison, B. Making the Connections: Essays in Feminist Social Ethics. Ed. Carol Robb. Beacon Press, 1985; Hinze, C. Comprehending Power in Christian Social Ethics. AARAS 93. Scholars Press, 1995; King, M. L., Jr. Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? Beacon Press, 1967; Niebuhr, R. The Nature and Destiny of Man: An Interpretation. 2 vols. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1941-43; Russell, L. Household of Freedom: Authority in Feminist Theology. Westminster, 1987; Solle, D. Creative Disobedience. Trans. L. Denef. Pilgrim Press, 1995; Townes, E. A Troubling in My Soul: Womanist Perspectives on Evil and Suffering. Orbis, 1993.
Bonnie Howe
The term autonomy, from the Greek auto (“self”) and nomos (“law”), refers to the right of selfdirection. It requires agency (the capacity to act
as one intends) and liberty (freedom from external control). Originally a political term applied to selfgoverning nations, autonomy now more commonly applies to an institution or individual following a self-chosen plan. The autonomy of ethics indicates the independence of moral thinking from other influences, such as religion, culture, and tradition.
Ethicists as early as Aristotle addressed the political autonomy of the city-state; individual autonomy gained prominence much later, in the work of Immanuel Kant. Kant defined autonomy as the capacity to make moral decisions based on universalized maxims, without regard to external circumstances, potential outcomes, or personal desire.
Since Kant, the concept of autonomy has been applied in practical ways. In the helping professions, carefully crafted policies protect patient autonomy, preserving human dignity and preventing abuse where imbalance of power exists. In healthcare ethics, for example, informed consent protects patients’ rights to make decisions about their own health. In business and legal ethics, practices such as performance reviews and judicial action hold individuals and institutions accountable and assume the ability to self-regulate behavior. Politically, acknowledging self-government means rejecting paternalism.
Despite the importance of autonomy to contemporary ethics, however, theological ethicists caution that overemphasis on autonomy may lead to unchecked individualism, reduce human relationships to contractual obligations, and especially undermine human dependence on God.
Extending autonomy to the point of individualism is a modern Western tendency, whereas many other cultures subordinate the autonomy of the individual to the well-being of the community. This may create tension when, for example, Western healthcare ethics emphasizes patient autonomy to the extent that it disregards practices of corporate decision-making (common in many Latin American cultures) or protecting patients from the gravity of their situation (as in some Asian cultures).
Scripture affirms individual autonomy but also values community. The divine image and likeness of God in human beings (Gen. 1:26-27) bestows human dignity and demands our honor and respect for self and others. At the same time, human beings exist in community with God and with other persons. Only God has absolute autonomy in the sense of being free from all authority; human autonomy is always in the context of appropriate submission to God and to human authorities (Matt. 9:8; Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Thess. 4:8).
Indeed, Scripture always speaks of human autonomy against the background of our total dependence on God. The Bible also has much to say about how we use our freedom and toward what end. Romans 6 equates freedom from sin with freedom for righteousness, for example. The author of 1 Cor. 9 says that he is free but makes himself slave to all. Autonomy that is consistent with Scripture is not freedom to indulge one’s selfinterests, but rather freedom from all that hinders one’s service to God and other persons.
See also Freedom; Healthcare Ethics; Image of God; Individualism; Moral Agency; Self
Bibliography
Beauchamp, T. L., and J. F. Childress. “Respect for Autonomy.” Pages 99-148 in Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2009; Kant, I. Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. M. Gregor. Cambridge University Press, 1996; Schneewind, J. The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Amy Renee Wagner