The Call of God: Obedience, Love, and God’s Authority according

to Augustine of Hippo

A once common criticism of Augustine is that he compromises New

Testament agape by interpreting Christian life according to the

philosophical terminology of eudemonia. In effect Augustine is

accused of turning agape into eros and Christianity into a form of

philosophical perfectionism. Although it is true that the neo-

Platonic account of love and happiness is an important element of

Augustine’s work, John Rist, Thomas Osborne, and others have

shown that Augustine’s version of eudemonism emphasizes love of

God over self. The desire of the restless heart for God is not

only, or even primarily, about satisfying the soul. Augustine’s

appropriation of classical philosophy does not compromise the

integrity of Christianity, but employs the spoils of Egypt — so

to speak — in order to craft a specifically Christian account of

happiness. Nevertheless, I think the defense of Augustine’s

doctrine can be taken a step further. Augustine not only revises

classical notions of happiness, but complements this perspective

with an important emphasis on duty. This additional perspective

1

does not exclude the importance of happiness, but provides

balance and greater depth.

In this essay I shall argue that the Augustinian ethos

emphasizes the relationship between Creator and creature. In this

context happiness is a consequence of fidelity, but it is not the

regulative norm of what should or should not be done. Rather the

value of actions is based on the Creator-creation relationship.

As such the Augustinian ethos includes a deontological emphasis

and an important role for divine commands. In order to defend

this interpretation of Augustine I will examine texts from

Augustine’s De Libero, Enchiridon, and De Civitate Dei. In these texts,

Augustine makes it clear that God’s first call on our lives is a

call to the obedience owed to the Creator by the creature. God’s

authority as Creator and consequently His laws have a greater

normative priority than the happiness of individuals.

De Libero III

Throughout De Libero III, Augustine labors to demonstrate the

compatibility of God’s goodness and omnipotence with the

existence of evil in the world. This problematic is focused by

2

two questions. First, whether the existence of unrepentant

sinners is compatible with the goodness of God. Second, whether

it would have been better if God created the universe without

unrepentant sinners?1

In response to the first question, Augustine argues that the

existence of unrepentant sinners is compatible with the goodness

of God, for unrepentant sinners enjoy the goods of existence and

rationality. It is true that being an unrepentant sinner is worse

than being a holy angel or a repentant sinner, but it does not

follow that unrepentant sinners lack goodness entirely. Even

unrepentant sinners enjoy the goodness of existence and

rationality; they may have less goods than others, but they

possess real goods.2 Furthermore, Augustine argues that even the

sins of unrepentant sinners do not besmirch the goodness of the

Creator, for the evil of sin is remedied through the good of just

punishment. God's goodness is vindicated by his punishment of the

wicked. God's goodness triumphs over evil because it is good for

unrepentant sinners to be punished. Similarly, in responding to

1 Augustine, De Libero, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. T. Williams (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 3.1, p. 71. and 3.5, p. 79. 2 ibid., 3.5, p. 78-79

3

the question of whether the universe would be better without

unrepentant sinners, Augustine insists that creation is not less

good than it could be because of sin, for punishment remedies the

evil of sin, such that creation as a whole is not lessened by the

corruption and punishment of a part. The misery — even the

ultimate misery — of unrepentant sinners in no way detracts from

the goodness of the universe. Augustine's austere defense of

God's goodness comes down to this: God's goodness is not impugned

by the occurrence of sin because God punishes the sin. Of course

this defense presupposes that it is right and good for the

Creator to punish.3

In book III Augustine explicitly grounds what should or

should not be done in the Creator-creature relationship. God the

Creator has given everything to human beings: existence,

rationality, and even will. Indeed he says that every good is

from God. It follows that we owe everything back to God. We are

in debt to God for everything good, including our existence,

rationality, and will. Thus Augustine says that rational

creatures, possessing a will, owe it to God to will to act

3 3.5-7, pp. 80-85.

4

rightly. We pay the debt of having a will by doing what we ought.

And what ought we to do, but obey the commands and laws of the

Creator. We owe everything back to God, including the free

acquiescence of our will to His will. In sum, we ought to do what

is commanded by God's laws because we ought to obey God, and we

ought to obey God because we ought to give everything to God and

we ought to give everything to God because we owe everything to

God the Creator.4

For Augustine, the creature's debt of justice and gratitude

to the Creator is the foundation of rightness. It is right to give

all to God and it is wrong to refuse anything. Within this

perspective, if we refuse to give anything back to God it is

right that God takes it back through punishment. As Augustine puts

it, "Every soul must pay back what it owes, either by using well

what it received, or by losing what it was unwilling to use well.

If it does not pay its debt by doing justice, it will pay its

debt by suffering misery ... If it does not pay its debt by doing

what it ought, it will pay its debt by suffering what it ought."5

In this way Augustine establishes rightness on a foundation other

4 3.15-16, pp. 100-105 and 3.18, pp. 105-106. 5 On Free Choice of the Will, III.15, p. 101.

5

than the consequences or happiness of the creature. Ultimately,

the suffering and misery of unrepentant sinners is right because

of the creature's absolute obligation to the Creature. This

obligation is neither a function of the creature's happiness nor

foreseen consequences. It is an obligation owed to the Creator,

as such, regardless of consequences and circumstances. In other

words, it is the duty of the creature to the Creator. What should

or should not be done is defined first and foremost according to

what we owe to God rather than what is beneficial or beatifying

for us. A similar schema may be found in Augustine's Enchiridion. 6

Enchiridion (421)

As is well known the Enchiridion was composed by Augustine

around 421 as a basic handbook or catechism. As such, it is

valuable for determining what Augustine saw as the most

foundational tenets of Christian faith, among which he includes

belief in the Creator. "When, then, it is asked what a man should

believe in regard to religion, there is no need to pry into the

nature of things, as was done by the Greeks ... For a Christian

6 ibid.,

6

it is enough to believe that the cause of created things, whether

on earth or in heaven, whether visible or invisible, is nothing

other than the goodness of the Creator, who is God, one and

true."7 In connection with this belief, Augustine affirms God's

goodness, the goodness of creation, and that God is the cause of

all good things in the universe.8 But if all of this is true, why

is there evil in the world? Augustine responds that evil is the

result of the voluntary departure from God by rational creatures.

Although removed from the composition of the De Libero by more than

20 years, Augustine remains committed to defending the goodness

of God despite the presence of evil in the world, and does so by

placing the problem within the Creator-creature context. This is

the same strategy pursued in the De Libero but with important

additions.

According to Augustine, rational creatures voluntarily

depart from God by misusing our nature.9 To misuse our nature is

a departure from God because God is the author and Creator of

nature. In this context misusing nature is tantamount to a

7 Enchiridion, 3.9, p. 375.8 Enchiridion, 3.9-11, 4.12, 8.23. 9 Ibid., 8.23.

7

rejection of God’s design and will in creation. Hence, Augustine

describes the misuse of nature as disobeying the command of the

Creator. In this way mankind broke off from what Augustine

describes as “wholesome servitude” under God’s laws.10 This

creates an unjust break in the just relationship between Creator

and creature, which consists in the “duty” of the creature to

obey the laws of the Creator. Thus Augustine argues that God

justly punishes rational creatures for disobedience and that it

would have been just for disobedient men “altogether and forever”

to be consigned to eternal punishment.11

In the Enchiridion Augustine’s account of the normativity of

the Creator-creature relationship is compressed compared to the

De Libero, but it still provides the minimal elements required for

a deontological foundation for what should or should not be done.

What is good and right is defined in terms of the Creator-

creature relationship. What is right is for the creature to obey

the Creator by the “right use of nature,” which is defined by

God’s laws. Obedience is right, disobedience is wrong, and it is

10 Ibid., 8.27. 11 Ibid., 8.27.

8

rightly punished by God.12 In this perspective “right” is defined

in relation to obedience.

In many ways the Enchiridion reiterates and abbreviates the

teaching of De Libero III, but Augustine enriches this teaching

with a variety of psychological and spiritual insights. According

to Augustine, the voluntary departure of men and angels from God

is motivated by pride, impiety (a lack of respect for God) and

self-exaltation.13 Rational creatures disobey God because they

think too much of themselves and too little of God, and in doing

so, reject or deemphasize the Creator-creature relationship. They

come to see something in themselves as good apart from the

Creator, which distorts the Creator-creature relationship. In

truth, the creature is completely dependent on the Creator;

creaturely autonomy is delusional. Augustine contrasts this kind

of pride with the obedience of the loyal angels and most

importantly with the humility of Christ.

Now, when Adam was made, a righteous man, there was no need of a mediator . But when sins had taken the human race far from God, the mediation of Him who alone was born, lived, and was slain without sin was required to reconcile us to God, even to procuring for us the

12 ibid., 10.33, 13.41, 19.70.13 ibid., 8.24.

9

resurrection of the body unto eternal life; and this inorder that human pride might be convicted and healed through the humility of God, and that man might be shown how far he had departed from God when it was through God made flesh thathe was being called back. And this was done also in order that an example of obedience in the person of the God-man might be given to man's stubbornness, and with theonly-begotten taking the form of a servant, a form whichhad no antecedent merit, a source of grace might be opened up... and yet man not be glorified, lest his pride again be born ..."14

The human race departed from God by disobedience rooted in pride.

God counteracted this departure by taking on the form of a sinless

mediator and servant, which made manifest humanity's alienation

from God, convicted human pride and stubbornness, and exemplified

obedience. In condescending to act in this way God was teaching

humanity the character of those who would be redeemed and

reconciled to the Creator: humble, obedient, convicted, and

without stubbornness or self-glorification. In sum, reconciled

humanity is God-centered rather than self-centered, which in

effect restores the right relationship of the creature to the

Creator. This is important for filling out the psychological

context of the Creator-creature relationship; it illustrates the

humble God-centered character proper to the creature and the

14 ibid., 28.108.

10

generous condescension of the Creator. However, even more

importantly it introduces the opposition of two motives of action

that Augustine will fully exploit in the De Civitate Dei, namely, the

opposition between acting for self and acting for God. The

creature departs from God by disobedience coming from pride in

self, self-glorification, and self-exaltation; the creature is

reconciled to God by dutifully obeying God. At this point,

Augustine is taking us beyond the thesis that the rightness of

acts is grounded on the duty to obey the Creator to consider the

motive and character that inspires right action, namely, God-

centeredness. This is an account of right character that is more

deontological than erotic or perfectionist. And for Augustine,

this character is especially evident in Christian hope and

prayer.15

According to Augustine, although Christian hope is closely

connected with faith, it is distinguished as the desire for future

goods that can only be established by God.16 As such, one might

expect that hope would predominantly concern the desire for one's15 Note: one can develop Augustine's ethics along the lines of the two loves, but what really distinguishes the two loves is the rightness and wrongness of the objects. It is right (because it is due) to love God above all things and it is wrong (because it is unjust) to love self above all things. 16 ibid., 2.7-8.

11

own salvation. Of course this is involved, but this perspective

is balanced by what Augustine says about the Lord's Prayer. In

Augustine's interpretation the Lord's prayer is an act of hope

because it concerns future goods, but not all of these goods are

self-directed.17 Among the petitions in the Lord's prayer, three

concern eternal goods and four concern temporal goods. To be

sure, the eternal goods requested in the Lord's prayer are goods

for the human person, but they are God-centered goods. These

goods include the hallowing of God's name, the coming of His

kingdom, and the doing of His will. According to Augustine

Christians may begin to enjoy these goods in this life, but that

they are only perfected in us in eternal life. Essentially we are

asking that we be made complete in adoring God and that God's

rule and will be made complete in us. These are things that

happen to us, but they direct us away from self toward praising

and obeying God. And it is worth noting that these are the goods

that are eternal, these are the goods that Augustine says do not

pass away. In this perspective, our highest hopes center on

giving God praise and acquiescing to His will. To be sure this

17 ibid., 30.114.

12

may result in happiness, but Christian hope according to

Augustine is really focused on God. The rightness and definition

of Christian character is function of what is owed to God first

and foremost. Augustine's emphasis on the rightness of desire and

character is expanded and deepened in book XIV of De Civitate Dei.

De Civitate Dei XIV

In De Civitate Dei, Augustine develops the Creator-creature

relationship and the opposition of God-centeredness and self-

centeredness within the context of his famous division of the

city of God and the city of man.18 This division is based on the

norm or criteria by which men choose to live. Those who occupy

the city of God "live according to God," whereas the city of man

is occupied by those who live "according to the flesh." This

means that relationship or alienation from God depends upon

practical criteria and character. As we shall see this does not

exclude deontology, but shifts the emphasis from the deontology

of right action to the deontology of right character.

18 Augustine, The City of God, Books VIII-XVI, trans. G Walsh and G. Monahan (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1952), 14.1.

13

Augustine defines living according to the flesh in Biblical

terms rather than the terms of classical philosophy as one might

have expected. Augustine bases his interpretation of the flesh on

Galatians chapter 5:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are : immorality, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, jealousies, anger, quarrels, faction, parties, envies, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and such like. And concerning these I warn you, as I have warned you, that they who do such things will not attain the kingdom of God.

According to Augustine living according to the flesh is not

primarily or exclusively about living according to the body and

it does not exclusively concern bodily forms of sin. In fact, he

clearly argues that although the body is a source of corruption

and difficulty, the body is not the source of human sinfulness.

Rather the body was corrupted by the sinful soul. The source of

our corruption is within our own psyche. The body is more the

victim of a wicked soul than vice-versa.19

According to Augustine the works of the flesh are the

actions typical of a self-centered life. Living according to the

flesh means living according to self rather than God. In this way

19 The City of God, 14.3.

14

humanity imitates the devil. And this is so because men and women

who live according to self and the devil are animated by the same

vicious character traits. The self-centered character of the

devil and sinners is rooted in pride, which turns the rational

creature away from the Creator.20

When a man lives 'according to man' and not 'according to God; he is like the Devil. ... So, then, when a man lives according to truth, he lives not according to himself, but according to God. For it was God who said:'I am truth.'21

When man lives according to himself, that is to say, according to human ways and not according to God's will, then surely he lives according to falsehood. Man himself, of course, is not a lie, since God who is his Author and Creator could not be the Author and Creator of a lie. Rather, man has been so constituted in truth that he was meant to live not according to himself but to Him who make him — that is he was made to do the will of God rather than his own. It is a lie not to live as man was created to live.22

In this passage living according to truth or living according to

a lie is defined in terms of creation. To live dishonestly is to

live in a way that is contrary to the way we were created and

instead to live according to self. To live according to truth is

living in a way that is consistent with our status as creatures

20 ibid., 14.3. 21 ibid., 14.4.22 ibid.

15

and Augustine clearly explains that this means obeying the will of

the Creator. By contrast pride replaces the Creator with self as

the ultimate criteria of action, practically denying the Creator

and divinizing the self. The result of doing so is disobedience

in the works of the flesh. Pride is evil because it disposes us

to neglect our duty to obey the Creator. The same line of

argument is found in Augustine's account of the fall of Adam and

Eve.

In chapter 13, Book XIV, Augustine teaches that the

disobedience of Adam and Eve was preceded by an interior fall

into pride.

Moreover, our first parents only fell openly into the sin of disobedience, because, secretly they had begun to be guilty. Actually, their bad deed could not have been done had not bad will preceded it; what is more, the root of their bad will was nothing else than pride.... And what is pride but an appetite for inordinate exaltation? Now, exaltation is inordinate when the soulcuts itself off from the very Source to which it should keep close and somehow makes itself and becomes an end in itself.23

Prior to the first act of disobedience, there was a turning in on

self and simultaneous turning away from humanity's "very Source,"

that is, the Creator. Augustine seems to see this in terms of an 23 14.13.

16

exclusive disjunctive proposition. Either one turns towards self

or towards God. To turn towards self is necessarily turning away

from the Creator. This is so because Augustine is talking out the

ultimate criteria of action. Either our ultimate norm is to

please God or please self. There can only be one definitive norm.

As in Augustine's interpretation of Galatians 5, pride exalts

self by replacing the Creator with self as the ultimate criteria

of action. Pleasing self became humanity’s ultimate goal rather

than pleasing God because Adam and Eve "imagined in their pride

that they were themselves the source of their being."24 As in the

Enchiridion, Augustine goes on to contrast the pride of Adam and

Eve with the obedience of the loyal angels and the humility of

Christ. In sum, the sin of Adam and Eve consisted in an act of

disobedience, but it was based on a matter of the heart. In their

pride, our first parents practically reversed the Creator-

creature relationship; they prioritized pleasing self over

pleasing the Creator.

All of this is dramatically summarized in the final chapter

of book XIV. In this famous Augustine returns to the image of the

24 ibid., 14.13, p. 383.

17

two cities, which he contrasts in the very strongest terms. The

worldly city is animated by "selfish love" based on pride; it

despises God and boasts of its self-sufficiency, whereas the

"communion of saints," rooted in humility, loves God, tramples

self, and glories in God. The alienation of the worldly city from

God is so profound that it even corrupts those philosophers who

knew something about God. Employing the language of Romans 1:21-

25, Augustine states that although the wise in the worldly city

knew God, they did not glorify Him, but rather became "vain in

their reasonings" and "worshipped and served the creature rather

than the Creator." Pride leads to self-love which leads to vain

reasoning and ends in worshiping and serving the creature rather

than the Creator.25 This development inverts the Creator-creature

relationship and dramatically illustrates the degree to which the

worldly city has departed from the Creator. Rather than

worshiping the Creator, we worship the creature. This final

inversion of the Creator-creature relationship dramatically

illustrates the way that pride subverts and inverts the Creator-

creature relationship.

25 ibid., 14.28, p. 410-411.

18

19

Conclusion

Augustine's interpretation of God's call on our lives is rich and

multilayered and for this reason it is helpful to distinguish two

perspectives: the psychological and the normative. In the various

texts examined in this paper, Augustine seems committed to the

thesis that God's foundational call on our lives is that of the

Creator calling on the obedience of the creature. This call is

deontological, normative, and foundational. Obedience is owed to

the Creator; it is a duty. The duty to obey the Creator

determines what should and should not be done; so it is

normative. And the duty to obey the Creator is based not on any

resulting benefit, but solely on the Creator-creature

relationship. Rather acts and desires are evaluated in relation

to our duty to God. As such, the duty to obey God is

foundational.

The normative perspective on our duty to God is

significantly enriched by Augustine's psychological insights.

Even if defining "rightness" is a matter of duty, acting rightly

or wrongly is a matter of the heart. For Augustine, disobedience

is rooted in pride, which exalts the self and inverts the

20

Creator-creature by making self the criteria of life. This leads

to self-love, which in turn leads to all the vices that

characterize the worldly city. By contrast, obedience is rooted

in humility, which "tramples" self and loves God. Accordingly it

is possible to see the division of the two cities from two

perspectives; the normative perspective of obedience and the

psychological perspective of humility, but in neither case is

personal happiness the defining element. To be sure, the saints

rejoice in God. But the rightness of the saints is defined by duty

and the character of the saints is built on humility. The saints

are not righteous because they are happy; they are happy because

they are righteous.

21