Weaver - Self Love and Christian Ethics

SELF LOVE AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS
Self love is an inescapable problem for ethics, yet much of

contemporary ethics is reluctant to offer any normative moral
anthropologies. Instead, secular ethics and contemporary
culture promote a norm of self-realization which is subjective
and uncritical. Christian ethics also fails to provide easy or
direct resources to address this problem, because it tends to
investigate self love with respect to conicts between the self s
interests and those of her neighbors. Self Love and Christian
Ethics explicates and defends right self love by casting it as
a problem of proper self-relation that intersects with love
for God and love for neighbor. This book argues that right
self love entails a true self-understanding that is embodied
in the persons concrete acts and relations. In making this
argument, it calls ethics to revisit ontological accounts of the
self and to devote more attention to particular moral acts.
darlene fozard weaver is Assistant Professor of Theology at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies,
Villanova University. She has written for The Journal of Religious Ethics and Religious Studies Review.
new studies in christian ethics

General Editor
Robin Gill
Editorial Board
Stephen R. L. Clark, Stanley Hauerwas, Robin W. Lovin
Christian ethics has increasingly assumed a central place within academic
theology. At the same time the growing power and ambiguity of modern
science and the rising dissatisfaction within the social sciences about claims
to value-neutrality have prompted renewed interest in ethics within the
secular academic world. There is, therefore, a need for studies in Christian
ethics which, as well as being concerned with the relevance of Christian
ethics to the present-day secular debate, are well informed about parallel
discussions in recent philosophy, science or social science. New Studies in
Christian Ethics aims to provide books that do this at the highest intellectual level and demonstrate that Christian ethics can make a distinctive
contribution to this debate either in moral substance or in terms of
underlying moral justications.
Titles published in the series:
1. Rights and Christian Ethics Kieran Cronin
2. Biblical Interpretation and Christian Ethics Ian McDonald
3. Power and Christian Ethics James Mackey
4. Plurality and Christian Ethics Ian S. Markham
5. Moral Action and Christian Ethics Jean Porter
6. Responsibility and Christian Ethics William Schweiker
7. Justice and Christian Ethics E. Clinton Gardner
8. Feminism and Christian Ethics Susan Parsons
9. Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics Lisa Sowle Cahill
10. The Environment and Christian Ethics Michael S. Northcott
11. Concepts of Person and Christian Ethics Stanley Rudman
12. Priorities and Christian Ethics Garth Hallett
13. Community, Liberalism and Christian Ethics David Fergusson
14. The Market Economy and Christian Ethics Peter Sedgwick
15. Churchgoing and Christian Ethics Robin Gill
16. Inequality and Christian Ethics Douglas Hicks
17. Biology and Christian Ethics Stephen Clark
18. Altruism and Christian Ethics Colin Grant
19. The Public Forum and Christian Ethics Robert Gascoigne
20. Evil and Christian Ethics Gordon Graham
21. Living Together and Christian Ethics Adrian Thatcher
22. The Common Good and Christian Ethics David Hollenbach, S. J.
23. Self Love and Christian Ethics Darlene Fozard Weaver
SELF LOVE AND

CHRISTIAN ETHICS
DARLENE FOZARD WEAVER
cambridge university press

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, So Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, United Kingdom
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521817813
Darlene Fozard Weaver 2002
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2002
isbn-13
isbn-13 978-0-511-06124-00 eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn-10
isbn-10 0-511-06124-22 eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn-13
isbn-13 978-0-521-81781-33 hardback
isbn-10
isbn-10 0-521-81781-11 hardback
isbn-13
isbn-13 978-0-521-52097-33 paperback
isbn-10
isbn-10 0-521-52097-55 paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
John Clayton Fozard

19301980
how is one to put off/encounter except by puzzling the terms of
encounter/past inquiry
Evasive Actions, A. R. Ammons
Contents
General editors preface

Acknowledgments
page ix
xi
1 The contemporary problem of self love
2 Self love in Christian ethics
44
3 A hermeneutical account of self-relation
81
4 Right self love
131
5 Self love and moral action
167
6 Self love, religion, and morality
208
Bibliography
Index
251
264
vii
This book is the twenty-third in the series New Studies in Christian

Ethics. It shows extensive points of contact and critical dialogue
with other books in the series. Darlene Weaver uses the inuential
framework provided by Susan Parsons in her Feminism and Christian
Ethics for analyzing differing accounts of feminist ethics. She also
has signicant points in common with Jean Porters Moral Action and
Christian Ethics and with Lisa Cahills Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics.
However it is Stanley Rudmans Concepts of Persons and Christian
Ethics and William Schweikers Responsibility and Christian Ethics that
provide her with the most sustained dialogue partners.
Both Darlene Weaver and Stanley Rudman argue that many
recent philosophical understandings of selfhood are too limited.
Indeed, Weaver suggests that they truncate the self. Both authors
are convinced that a notion of self-in-relation-to-God offers a much
richer account of selfhood and personhood than any secular understanding. For Weaver it is the belief that the person is created to
love God that is fundamental to this richer account. In the process
of arguing this, both authors have kept carefully to the two key
aims of the series as a whole namely to promote monographs
in Christian ethics which engage centrally with the present secular
moral debate at the highest possible intellectual level and, secondly,
to encourage contributors to demonstrate that Christian ethics can
make a distinctive contribution to this debate.
The original feature of this particular book is that it explores
and defends the notion of self love. Properly understood, Darlene
Weaver maintains, self love is reexive, embodied, and interpretive.
This sophisticated understanding quite different from shallow
modern notions of self-realization or autonomy owes much
ix
to William Schweiker. Like him she attempts to show that a rich

theological vein running through Augustine and Aquinas is still
able to challenge modern assumptions. Both authors are also
aware of the social dimensions of their respective understandings
of responsibility and self love. In addition, there is an extended,
albeit critical, debt to the theological writings of Karl Rahner and
Paul Tillich running through the later chapters of Weavers book.
Clearly any serious defense of self love today needs to engage
in a considerable amount of intellectual clarication. The notion
is vulnerable to attacks from philosophers and social scientists as
well as from theologians. It can all too easily be misunderstood. Yet
this book challenges the reader to make careful distinctions and to
think more clearly about what love entails in a perplexing world.
An extended defense of self love is welcome and overdue.
robin gill
Acknowledgments
This book is, most directly, the fruit of instruction, guidance, and
support I received at Yale Divinity School and the University of
Chicago Divinity School. Less directly, it is the fruit of a range of
signicant experiences and relationships from my childhood to the
present. It is a joy (sometimes bittersweet) and an honor (ever that)
for me to see traces of these environments, lessons, events, and
persons on these pages.
Gene Outka introduced me to Christian ethical debates about
love. In doing so he gave me the gift of a set of questions with which
and conversation partners with whom I think about things that
matter most to me. Margaret Farley introduced me to the theology
of Karl Rahner and taught me a great deal about contemporary
Roman Catholic moral theology. Both encouraged me with their
patience, condence, and kindness. At the University of Chicago
Divinity School I received instruction and support from faculty, administrators, and fellow students. I thank especially my dissertation
committee, Kathryn Tanner, David Tracy, and William Schweiker.
I hope these revisions do more justice to what they taught me. The
then-called Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion provided
nancial support, and my fellow Institute members as well as my
dissertation group offered comments on early versions of my argument. Don Browning, Anne Carr, Franklin Gamwell, and Rick
Rosengarten extended their expertise and kindness to me. I owe
special thanks to William Schweiker. I beneted enormously from
his erudition, his commitment to students, and his gratuitous condence in and support for me. He showed me that Christian ethics
can be a vocation. It is one he carries out with brilliance, energy,
wit, and integrity. It is a privilege to learn from and work with him.
xi
xii
Acknowledgments
I began revising the dissertation while working at the Theology

Department of Georgetown University. My colleagues there encouraged me during this process. Theresa Sanders read and commented on an early version of the prospectus. Vince Miller offered
his wit and counsel on a variety of matters. Tod Linafelt held
my hand during the submission process; I will regard this as
altruistic even though a wager on the books publication gave him
a monetary incentive. Diane M. Yeager provided comments on
some of the material when I shared it with her in another form. I
have learned, though not well enough, from her editorial acumen
and from her character. I had the privilege of learning from
my Georgetown students as well. In particular, I enjoyed many
conversations with my research assistant Elizabeth Sweeny about
the material treated in Chapter Five. She shares with me one of the
best blessings of academic life, a teacherstudent relationship that
blossoms into a friendship.
I continued to work on the book once I joined the Department
of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University. It is
a privilege to work with my colleagues here as well as with my
students. They have welcomed me and supported my work in and
outside the classroom. I look forward to many years as one of their
number.
In and through these institutional settings, a number of conversation partners and friends afforded me stimulating exchanges,
diversions, and support. In particular, I thank Pia Altieri, Reverend
Mark Begly, Louis Faassen, and Heidi Gehman. They are friends,
teachers, and blessings. I owe a special debt of thanks to Charles
Mathewes and to William Werpehowski. Chuck Mathewes has
seen this project evolve from its earliest stages as a dissertation
proposal to its present form. I thank him for his critical feedback,
assistance with the publishing process, wit and, above all, friendship. Bill Werpehowski read and commented on the manuscript
in its entirety. His feedback has been most helpful.
I also owe a special debt to two anonymous reviewers for their
comments and to Robin Gill and Kevin Taylor for their commitment to the project as I struggled to transform the manuscript from
a dissertation into a book. I may have been less successful at this
than they (and I) had hoped.
Acknowledgments
xiii
I could not have written this book without the help of my family.
In particular, my sister Rachel Fozard and my brother-in-law Peter
Kepperling (and soon my god-child, who is on the way!) share with
me the many goods of family life and friendship. Their affection
and humor, generosity and sacrice delight and humble me. The
same is true of my mother, Mary Ann Fozard, and exponentially
so. When she rst saw my dissertation, she said, These are your
words. It is clearer to me now that that they are ours. My mother
models the good of embodied integrity, and the words I use here
to describe it reect the words and the Word by which she lives
with strength, delity, grit, and beauty. It is an honor to offer this
book as a testament to the life she lives and as a thanks to the life
she gives me. My husband, Sean Weaver, gives me countless gifts,
including the material support that enabled me to pursue graduate
work, an astonishing readiness to subordinate his professional life
to mine, the preparation of the index, as well as his forbearance,
encouragement, and friendship. I thank him for the life we make
together.
I dedicate this book to my father because it is undeniably an
expression (however convoluted and over-intellectualized) of a life
lived in the wake of his death. His legacy to me seems, more often than not, a series of misplaced attempts to understand and to
compensate for the loss of him. Granted, his absence makes for a
kind of presence, but in this presence, he remains absent. I hope to
learn to recognize and welcome him in this life, and I pray that I
may rejoice with him in the next.
chapter 1
The contemporary problem of self love
Within our (post) modern milieu lurks the problem of self love. Self
love is an inescapable problem for ethics, secular, religious, and
Christian, because ethics involves claims about human beings, that
is, moral anthropologies. Self love is not only a local problem in
ethics, it riddles (post) modern culture as a whole. Because ethics
arises in response to the demand to orient and guide human life, it
must nally be adequate to such a life. Ethics manifests a dialectical
relation between human being and thinking about our being in
the world and with others. This book explicates and structurally
instantiates this dialectic of moral being and moral thinking. It
crafts a moral anthropology in response to the practical moral
problem of how to love oneself rightly, and argues that right self love
designates a particular form of self-relation in which we understand
ourselves truly and embody this in our acts and relations.
This project faces several obstacles from the outset. It is increasingly difcult in ethics to offer a normative account of selfhood.
In part this is because a going currency, the language of authenticity, has become tired from over-use. Given the surge of self-help
programs and products, and the growing tendency to cast religious belief and spirituality strictly in terms of self-fulllment, the
prospect of an adequate theoretical account of the self is undermined by trite exaltations and ideals of self-realization. What seems
necessary, some argue, is not an argument on behalf of self love, but
one that deates our ballooning sense of our selves. Others, however, recognize that self-abnegation continues to be a problem for
many, one reinforced by religious, especially Christian, suspicion of
the self. What appears to be egoism and selshness is often a desperate grasp for self-worth. Many feminists have noted as well that
1
Self Love and Christian Ethics
women too often fail to assert themselves, instead allowing their relations with others to dene them. Moreover, women continue to
be oppressed by supposedly universal accounts of womens nature
that are employed to warrant gender-based inequities and injustice.
What we require, from this perspective, is a rejection of selessness,
sacrice, and obedience as moral ideals, along with the accounts of
human nature that are used to apply these norms disproportionately between the sexes. Still others offer a more radical version
of this challenge to normative accounts of the self, noting that the
social construction of selves involves more than gender socialization. Increasingly, the notion of an authentic self is being replaced
by the insight that identities are constructed socially and linguistically. For some this de-centering of identity requires resistance
to hegemonic systems; it offers a liberating opportunity to choose
and change identities, to experiment with various forms of presenting and locating oneself socially. For others it embodies the
lamentable fragmentation of contemporary society, as well as our
increasing capacity to separate ourselves from one another and
from ourselves through the manipulation afforded by communications and Internet media, psycho-pharmacology, cosmetic surgery,
and genetic technology.
Thus the complex theoretical accounts of the self that might
deate our ballooning self-estimation and lend substance to ideals
of self-realization are widely thought to be philosophically untenable and morally suspect. Indeed, moral anthropological thinking
has shifted in recent decades from ontological analyses to epistemological ones. And those epistemological analyses in large part
concern the limitations of human knowledge. The general result
in ethics is the rise of what I call the norm of self-realization.
This norm refers to the dominant subjectivism of recent work in
ethics in particular and contemporary culture in general, a shift toward voluntaristic and intuitionistic understandings of the moral
good, in which moral values are primarily matters of personal or
communal choice and moral obligations are taken to be largely
situation-specic.
These challenges to normative accounts of the self, which I will
treat in greater detail below, manifest and reinforce a basic moral
anthropological problem: how to be a coherent self. This chapter
argues that this dilemma is nothing other than the problem of self
love. We require a moral anthropology that illuminates the relation
between moral being and moral thinking and orients us practically,
but does so in a way consonant with the insights of such challenges
and free from their shortcomings. This book offers an account of
self love toward that end. This chapter charts contemporary secular (academic and cultural) schizophrenia about the self and shows
the need for a theological moral anthropology as the basis for a
norm of right self love. First, let us turn to a constellation of problems that isolate the basic moral problem of how to be a coherent
self.
the breakdown of the love synthesis
While classical accounts of the divinehuman relation are varied
and sometimes stand in tension with one another, nevertheless they
agree on the commensurability of love for self and love for God.
Classical accounts shared the claim that God is the highest good and
the good of the human as such; this claim weds individual human
ourishing to the self s relation with God. Proper self-relation and
proper God-relation coincide. Classical theological ethics could be
read as a kind of theological ethical egoism; notwithstanding the
realities of pride and concupiscence, the self legitimately pursues
her own happiness in her pursuit of God. Although a considerable
amount of classical theology denigrates the self, this traditional link
between the divine good and the self s good, mediated in the world,
designates an idea of right self love.1
1
The connection between denigration of the self and human ourishing is complex. In
certain forms such as asceticism, for example, denigration of the self provides an instrument
that contributes to the humans spiritual perfection. The connection between denigration
and ourishing would be misunderstood were the two made patently incommensurable
or if a causal relationship between them were naively construed. The connection touches
on complicated questions about the place of sacrice in the Christian (good) life, as well as
long-standing conceptions of good selves and bad selves, debates about the relation of the
individual to community, and the goodness of creation. For treatments of the relationship
between asceticism and spiritual ourishing see Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and
Holy Fast: the Religious Signicance of Food to Medieval Women (Berkeley, ca: University of
California Press, 1987); Maureen H. Tilly and Susan A. Ross, eds., Broken and Whole: Essays
on Religion and the Body (Lanham, md: University Press of America Inc., 1994); Peter Brown,
The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1988).
At the risk of over-simplifying matters, it may be said that the

classical Roman Catholic coordination of self love with love for
God was unalterably challenged by Reformation theology.2 But
to argue that, historically speaking, the Christian tradition shifted
from a favorable regard for self love to a negative attitude would be
to read history reductively. For instance, while Protestant emphases
on self-sacrice are taken to exhibit a denigration of the self, we
should note that such emphases are rooted in the ascetic spiritual
thinking and practices of Catholicism.3 To be sure, both Catholics
and Protestants would only approve of right self love; the differences
lie in whether such a love is thought possible and if so, in what
it consists. Thus, it is more accurate to note that the differences
between Protestant and Catholic attitudes toward self love concern
the interpretation and weight given to pertinent theological claims,
particularly with respect to creation, sin, and redemption.
As I noted earlier, central to traditional accounts of the divine
human relation is the claim that God is the highest good and the
good of the human as such. Such accounts often opposed a concupiscible self love with caritas, Gods love given to the self, by which
the self properly loves God and others. In caritas, the human is
given her highest good.4 Thus, the human endeavor to love God
is simultaneously the pursuit of her own good. This link receded
as distinctly theological claims about the gratuity of grace and the
sovereignty of God became more pronounced; while theological
anthropological claims about the utter depravity of the human
were by no means new, theologians re-asserted them vigorously in
2
For a helpful comparative study of Protestant and Roman Catholic ethics, see James
M. Gustafson, Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics: Prospects for Rapprochement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978). Gustafson argues that the major difference between the
two traditions historically has been the place of Scripture in ethical thought.
For a historical study of Roman Catholic moral theology see John A. Gallagher, Time
Past, Time Future: a Historical Study of Catholic Moral Theology (New York: Paulist, 1990).
See also John Mahoney, The Making of Moral Theology: a Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
The work of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas is paradigmatic of this point. An insightful and subtle analysis of Augustines thinking on this matter can be found in Oliver
ODonovans The Problem of Self-Love in Augustine (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1980). See especially chapter six, in which ODonovan touches upon Catholic
Protestant differences in the evaluation of self love and its relation to eudaimonism. See
also Gerald W. Schlabach, For the Joy Set Before Us: Augustine and Self-Denying Love (Notre
Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001).
conjunction with reformation claims about grace and freedom in

such a way as to free the self from anxiety over its salvation. In
light of reformation theology, portions of classical and medieval
Catholic theology appeared to exalt the self unduly, such that the
self s pursuit of its own beatitude instrumentalized both God and
neighbor and obscured the inevitability of sin and gratuity of grace.
In short, the erotic tenor of classical and medieval accounts of
the divinehuman relation shifted in the Reformation to an emphasis on Gods agape and subsequently, to agape as the norm for
Christian life. The agapic love of God manifested in the Christ
became the Christian love par excellence.5 It differs radically from
eros, the love of something for the sake of ones self, rather than for
its own sake. The sovereign grace of God manifest in Christs saving
work prompted reformation theologians to separate the moral life
from the persons status before God. Salvation and eternal happiness, while never purely a matter of ones own agency, were
no longer thought to be formed through love.6 Proper relation
to others arose from the self s relation to God, no longer conceived in terms of love so much as faith. So the shift from erotic to
agapic emphases accompanied, perhaps induced, another change:
self love began to be considered not with respect to love for God, but
with respect to love for the neighbor. While contemporary Catholic
5
In making this claim I differ from Denis de Rougemont, who argues that Christian love
prior to the Reformation was dominated by the idea of agape. See his Love in the Western
World, trans. Montgomery Belgion (Garden City, ny: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1957). His reading of history ignores the role caritas and eros have played. For a critique
of de Rougemont on this count, see M. C. DArcy, The Mind and Heart of Love (New York:
Meridian Books, 1959).
For a historical study of love, see Irving Singer, The Nature of Love, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). See especially volume 1. In my judgment, Singer misreads
Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther and does all three a disservice. Indeed, his antimetaphysical and atheistic commitments effect a reductive and biased reading of religious
ideas of love. Nevertheless, the trilogy provides a helpful historical survey and an important
analytic framework for love as a psychological state in terms of the appraisal or bestowal
of value. See also Robert Hazo, The Idea of Love (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967);
Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (London: S.P.C.K., 1957); DArcy,
The Mind and Heart of Love ; C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960); Alan
Soble, The Structure of Love (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990). As will
be made clear shortly, this book moves away from an analysis of love in terms of motifs
or types, and instead explores self love by means of an account of the lover, the self who
is to love herself. In doing so I suggest an account of (self ) love as a hermeneutical or
interpretive activity/process.
accounts of love still tend to construe love as mutuality, and often

draw upon Trinitarian accounts of God (versus the Christological/
soteriological emphases of Protestant accounts of love), it is fair to
say that the Protestant approach largely determined the landscape
for a contemporary Christian ethical inquiry into self love, and that
Protestant critiques of the Catholic coordination of self love and
love for God remain insights with which a contemporary account
of self love must contend.
However, many contemporary ethicists, theological and philosophical, have problems with traditional accounts of the divine
human relationship. These difculties can be schematized along
theological, anthropological, and meta-ethical lines. First, theological questions challenge classical accounts of the divinehuman
relation and raise the problem of God. How can we know God?
What is the nature of God? How can (and ought) we to speak about
God? Classical mythic-agential theories of the divine have given
way to highly de-anthropomorphized understandings of God,
for example as absolute mystery or being-itself.7 While Christian
theology historically encompasses a variety of arguments about
Gods relation to the world, specically, epistemic and agential
questions raised by modernity now set the parameters within
which such inquiry typically occurs. These questions do not permit
any nave return to traditional divinehuman accounts. Love for
God, then, along with an idea of proper self love in terms of love
for God, are problematic ideas at best, and for many, altogether
meaningless.
Second, shifts within moral anthropological thinking displace
any general consensus regarding human nature and raise the problem of the self. Historical consciousness and the modern methodological posture of doubt moves thinkers to question radically any
account of the human that claims to be universal. Appeals to abstract qualities in the human such as reason or freedom as potential
foundations for ethics or for visions of human ourishing fail to
satisfy many contemporary thinkers. Instead, they stress the specicity of the person as one who occupies a particular culture during
7
For a recent treatment of personal language for God, see Vincent Brummer, Speaking of
a Personal God: an Essay in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992).
a particular historical period, with a particular ethnic and racial

background, family unit, sexual orientation, and so on.8 Or they
focus on how the human subject is constructed and determined by
various systems of power.9 I will consider these alternatives more
carefully in what follows. For now, note that questioning the existence and character of some universal human nature prompts
thinkers to revise or reject traditional claims (e.g., the human is the
imago dei ). It is difcult not only to conceive of something universal
in humans which provides a point of departure for a theory of self
love; the very idea of a self is in question.
Finally, for many thinkers it is unclear whether God is necessary
for an ethics. Thinkers such as Iris Murdoch, for instance, develop
religious ethics without traditional theism.10 Others argue that religion and the religious actually impair morality. It is unclear how
religion and morality are or should be related. Does religion have
some place in the good life? Does morality have anything to do
with ones religious standing before God? Is morality restricted,
for instance, to the sphere of human interpersonal relations? Some
thinkers do exclude the religious relation between God and the
human from the domain of ethics. Granted, for many, religion and
morality have some relation, even if only a conventional, historical association, and, moreover, the character of that relation has
long been a problem within ethics. But, the challenges put to traditional accounts of the divinehuman relation not only serve to
compartmentalize or neglect the religious dimension of the human
and of the moral life, but, as Nietzsche, Freud, and others charge,
contribute to an overmoralizing of the self. Thus, contemporary
ethics grapples with the problem of God, the problem of the self,
and the problem of how religion and morality are or should be
8
10
Thinkers who stress this insight do so, of course, in varying degrees. Some simply emphasize that persons are embodied while others contend that our particularity disallows
commonality altogether. See for example, respectively, Mark Johnson, The Body in the
Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1988); Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York
and London: Routledge, 1990).
Texts which advance some version of this claim are manifold. For some representative
works which make such an argument, see Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: an
Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Random House, 1978); Judith Butler, Gender
Trouble.
See Iris Murdoch, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals (New York: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993).
related.11 If classical theological ethics stressed the commensurability of love for God and self love, the contemporary moral outlook
asks if they are related at all. And as the two previous points suggest,
the content given to each of those loves is debated.
In response to the breakdown of the love synthesis, this book
will argue that love for God, self, and neighbor are dynamically
inter-related. The costs of failing to note these inter-relations are
high. Unduly separating them risks misconstruing them as competing objects of love. This error in turn threatens to undermine
the legitimacy of love for self by fostering negative valuations of it.
Further, it may encourage the self s obeisance to the divine quite
apart from questions whether the object or form of that relation
is morally good; that is, it threatens tyrannous or false devotion to
the divine. Moreover, it may encourage unmitigated sacrice on
behalf of the neighbor, a sacrice that mutilates the identity of the
person and does a disservice to the neighbor as well. As a contemporary account of self love makes clear, to construe God, self, and
neighbor as competing objects of love establishes false oppositions
among them.
I do not deny that love for God, self, and neighbor can stand
in tension with one another. Clearly, love for anything or anyone
can become distorted and can encroach upon other morally obligatory loves. Since St. Paul lamented his divided will and Augustine
complained that the loves of his heart outnumbered the hairs on
his head, Christian thinkers have wrestled with the problem of
how properly to order loves (the ordo amoris). This problem taps
11
We can note a few distinctively modern (theological) ethical responses to these challenges
to traditional theism. These responses include apologetic efforts which, for example, appeal to the functional value of Christian beliefs and symbols, or its metaphorical veracity.
Many contemporary theologians and ethicists sift through Christian theology as an unparalleled set of resources, or as a kind of talk, for claims and symbols to re-appropriate.
See, for example, Sallie McFague, Models of God (Philadelphia, pa: Fortress, 1987). Some
responses to the deconstruction of human nature have emphasized basic, common goods
and needs which all humans share, such as the need for shelter and nourishment, the
(admittedly varied) kinship structures which accompany human communities, and so
on. See, for example, Lisa Sowle Cahill, Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996), especially 4672, and Charles E. Larmore, Patterns of
Moral Complexity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Or, alternatively, they
look to language and stress the conditions for communication in order to locate regulative
norms for human interaction. See, for example, Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender,
Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992).
into the deepest currents and concerns of human life. The moral
life transpires in the ongoing give and take of duties and desires,
commitments and changes. As I will suggest later in this chapter,
this plurality indelibly marks contemporary moral experience and
raises the basic moral question of how to be a coherent self. Here
I argue that love for God, self, and neighbor are distinct though
mutually entailing. The mutual entailment of love for God, self, and
neighbor avoids positing a false opposition among them. But it does
so without obfuscating the ongoing tension among those loves. Put
differently, love for God, self, and neighbor are dialectically related
to one another. Because these loves are distinct, though mutually
entailing, the persons endeavor to enact them all will necessarily
be a dynamic, lifelong enterprise. Because love for God, self, and
neighbor are distinct, there are duties proper to each. This point is
important to my argument in two respects. First, it drives my claim
that although self love is actualized in love for the neighbor, it is not
exhausted by it. Some argue that any good that accrues to the self
in her neighbor love is to be regarded as a side effect or derivative
of her basic task of love. Others suggest that any satisfaction the self
experiences in her neighbor love pollutes that love; the self must love
the neighbor disinterestedly. Both kinds of thinking assume a false
opposition of self and neighbor and devalue the goods of reciprocity
and mutuality in love. I will say more about this later. Second, the
claim that love for God, self, and neighbor entail respective duties
also drives the argument I make in Chapter Six about the relation
between religion and morality. Briey, I will argue that although
self-relation is mediated in our relation to the divine, and that right
self love is a response of love to Gods self-offer, love for God demands a deliberate, self-conscious (though not necessarily explicitly
theistic) self-disposal. That is, love for God requires the self to orient herself around that love, to strive to establish it as the central
commitment that harmonizes her self-understanding and her acting in the world. Right self love designates a form of self-relation
in which the self knows and accepts herself in the divine. In this
manner, then, this book seeks to retrieve and update the classical
love synthesis. Its account of the dynamic inter-relations of love for
God, self, and neighbor offers a contemporary ordo amoris, one predicated not on a supposed competition but on dialectical tensions.
10
What we have, then, is a complex array of claims and counterclaims, both descriptive and evaluative, about the nature of the
self, the self s relation to the divine, and the self s good or ourishing. As I noted earlier, differences between Roman Catholic and
Protestant accounts of self love isolate a difculty which contributes
to the contemporary problem of self love, namely, the separation
of ones religious relation to God and ones moral life. There are
important theological reasons for such a separation, but the link
between the religious relation to God and the moral life must be
reasserted and rethought. There are two reasons why this must be
done. First, the contemporary norm of self-realization is not critically assessed; because it is not assessed, we are unable to identify
and argue against forms of self-relation that are destructive. Second,
the separation of religious relation to God and ones moral life also
fails to assess morally ones relation to God. It leaves unasked the
question whether a particular form of relation to God is morally
unacceptable. Granted, both the academy and popular culture offer moral criticisms of particular images of and beliefs about God,
but they pay less moral attention to forms of the divinehuman
relation. These two reasons comprise an urgent ethical problem,
both for the discipline of ethics and for human existence itself.
Within this modern milieu of the rejection and retrieval of traditional Christian theology lurks the problem of self love. Indeed,
while the challenges posed to traditional links between the divine
and the self s good receded in part because of a humane concern
for the self, these challenges incur signicant costs for the dignity
and coherence of the self. Let me explore, then, several strands in
the contemporary moral outlook which extend modern critiques
of this traditional account and which are particularly salient to the
problem of self love.
the self as problem
Modern roots
The social and intellectual changes wrought by the Reformation
aided and abetted, and were aided and abetted by, the intellectual,
11
social, and cultural changes of modernity, strands of which some

argue continue and intensify in post-modernity.12 The nominalism of
the Reformation era asserted the priority of real, particular persons
over and against universal concepts like humanity. It challenged the
medieval moral emphasis (found paradigmatically in Aquinas) on
living according to nature. The ourishing mysticism of the sixteenth
century stressed the possibility of immediate experience of God,
thereby qualifying the church as a mediator between the person
and God and subordinating its authority to that of individual experience. This religious individualism increased given Protestant
rejections of Catholic hierarchy and Protestant emphases on the
individuals capacity to understand scripture and to encounter
in the Word an invitation to a personal relation with God. The
humanism of the Reformation era contributed optimism in the capacities of human beings to solve personal and social ills while
political and economic changes dissolved the rigid socio-political hierarchies of feudalism and at least promised a more egalitarian social
order.13 These and other changes set the stage for the modern turn
to the subject. The self achieved philosophical and cultural prominence thanks to the work of thinkers like Descartes, Locke, Hume,
Kant, and Hegel. Their respective ways of turning to the subject
initiated an epistemological revolution that placed everything else
in question, while later thinkers like Nietzsche, Weber, Marx, and
Freud questioned the modern subject.
A brief look at some modern conceptions of the self can surface
several important themes and problems that gure prominently in
contemporary approaches to the self.14 These themes constellate in
a problem that we cannot address adequately without a theological
anthropology.
Rene Descartes (15961650) continued the introspective turn
that St. Augustine initiated centuries earlier. Descartes insisted
that mind/soul is distinct from body and from the material world.
12
13
14
Stanley Rudman Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997), 81.
See Steven E. Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975); Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (London: Penguin; Owen Chadwick,
1972); John Bossy, Christianity in the West, 14001700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press;
John Bossy, 1985).
For an excellent historical treatment see Charles Taylor Sources of the Self: The Making of
the Modern Identity (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1989).
12
The self is essentially mind; of course Descartes then encountered

difculties accounting for sensations and feelings. The mind/body
split with which Descartes wrestled remains today. Ironically, he
wanted to replace speculative philosophy with practical philosophy,
but this mindbody dualism deects attention from the concrete
and social conditions in which the self works out her self-relation.
Moreover, the identication of self and mind eclipses the import
of embodiment for moral knowledge and neglects the fact that
the self posits her self-relation in and through her actions in the
world.
The mind/body split intersects with the problem of the self s
continuity. John Locke (16321704) cast the issue of identity in terms
of temporal continuity. As Stanley Rudman notes, Lockes distinction between man and person proved particularly important.15
For Locke, mans identity consists in the material continuity of
the body, whereas he denes a persons identity with respect
to rationality and self-consciousness.16 What is important about
Lockes approach to the self is the link he establishes between
self-consciousness, moral responsibility and personal identity. Selfconsciousness grounds the persons responsibility for her actions,
and comprises the continuity of personal identity. Charles Taylor
says of the Lockean self, the disengagement both from the activities of thought and from our unreecting desires and tastes allows
us to see ourselves as objects of far-reaching reformation. Rational
control can extend to the re-creation of our habits, and hence of
ourselves.17 This rationalist conception of the self contrasts David
Humes (171176) argument that the self is a bundle of perceptions. He raises thereby the questions whether there is a relatively
stable human nature and, with Locke, what the conditions of human agency
might be. Hume rejected the idea of a simple, identical self, and
argued instead that a human being consists in a rapid succession
of perceptions. Accordingly, Hume understood ethics in aesthetic
and passional terms. Reason, argued Hume, is not practical; that
is, it cannot move or restrain us from acting. Morality is rooted
15
16
17
Rudman Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics, 8184.

John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. with a forword by Peter H. Nidditch
(Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), ii.xxvii.6.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self the making of Modern Identity, 171.
13
in feelings that respond to useful or agreeable qualities because

of our natural propensity for sympathy. A system of justice and
general rules regulates this process and protects us and the moral
enterprise as a whole when particular actions do not appear to
be useful. Despite the differences among modern positions, such
philosophical inquiry into what the self is occurs with and through
ontology and epistemology and for the sake of orienting human
life, disclosing the intimate and dynamic connections among ethics,
anthropology and beliefs about reality.
Particularly important for the contemporary problem of self
love is Immanuel Kant (17241804). He distinguished knowledge
of things in themselves (noumena) from knowledge of things as
they appear (phenomena). Kants inuence can be discerned today in the contemporary abandonment of ontology as the basis
for determining the nature of human personhood.18 He stressed
the character of freedom particularly in relation to desire. His account of
the person centered on rationality, and his account of morality centered on the good will. Rational beings alone, said Kant, have the
capacity to act according to principles (that is, have a will). Kant argued that nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even
out of it, which can be called good without qualication, except a
good will.19 As we will see, Kants insistence that the autonomous
will is inviolable and his emphasis on universalizability as a moral
criterion create problems for self love. They, with his rejection of
ontology, undermine our moral assessment of the choices through
which we take up relation to ourselves and others. They also make
for an ironic egocentrism.
Several propositions about duty underlie Kants claim for the
wills goodness. First, Kant proposed that moral worth be accorded
to acts that are performed not because of inclination but because of
duty. In this manner, Kant based morality not on the caprice and
prejudice of human affection but the will. Kants second proposition is simply that a universal moral law cannot have a telos as its
content; put differently, the moral law cannot be dened in terms
18
19
Ray S. Anderson, On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Grand Rapids, mi:
William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 5.
Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Thomas K. Abbott
(New York: Macmillan, 1949), 11.
14
of some object of desire or state of affairs. Kant did grant that ones
duty can simultaneously be an object of desire, but its desirability
cannot ground its moral character. In other words, a good will is
objectively determined by law. Kants third proposition introduces
respect into this formulation of duty. Dutiful obedience to the law
entails respect for the law, such that obedience arises solely from
this respect and excludes all inclinations and objects. A good will
is subjectively determined by respect for the law.
According to Kant, the moral law can be derived from the a
priori presuppositions of practical (pure) reason. One such supposition is freedom. Kant contends that a moral principle follows
from the general concept of rational being, from the very character of rational freedom.20 By rejecting traditional metaphysics,
Kant required the determination of moral worth independent of
any ends, because any claim about the worth of some things cannot be logically necessary. Human subjectivity alone can specify the
moral worth of an action. And since human subjectivity (i.e., practical reason) is concerned with the question of freedom, the moral
principle derived from subjectivity will express the very character
of freedom. This line of reasoning allowed Kant to argue that,
because the moral principle issues from and expresses subjectivity
and because subjectivity has universal characteristics, it must be
universalizable. Hence, Kant offered the rst formulation of the
moral principle: Never so act that thy maxim should not be willed
as a universal law.21
Kants understanding of the scope of human reason bears upon
the way he conceives the human will. Kant understands the will
as self-legislative freedom. Because the moral principle issues from
subjectivity and concerns freedom as an a priori presupposition of
subjectivity, the moral principle must be rationally necessary. That
is, it must bind the will categorically. Human reasoning about possible desired ends cannot bind the will categorically because the
worth of those ends has a logically contingent, hypothetical status. This means that moral reason operates independent of desire.
Any choice, however, includes some understanding of human freedom. The rst formulation of the categorical imperative suggests,
then, that the will is categorically bound by rational freedom. But
20
Ibid., 19.
21
Ibid., 29.
15
because reason gives this principle to itself, the will is self-legislative.

This means that the will, though rationally bound, remains free or
autonomous.
Because the moral principle must be an a priori categorical moral
imperative, Kant sought to specify just what principle could bind
the will irrespective of choice. As I have suggested, for Kant that
principle must express the character of rational freedom. According
to Kant, the structure of rational freedom is rational freedom. Thus,
rational freedom is an end in itself. Kant formulated his moral
principle in a second way: So act as to treat humanity, whether in
thine own person or in that of any other always as an end withal and
never as a means.22 Humanity, or rational freedom, is for Kant
an idea. If freedom is only an idea, what enabled Kant to give
some content to the moral law? The autonomous will (freedom) is
that against which we cannot act. Kant formulated the categorical
imperative in a third fashion to express this: Act only on those
maxims which have as their objects themselves as universal laws of
nature.23 Thus, the autonomous will gives negative content to the
moral law.
The fact that the moral law has only negative content raises
several problems for Kants relation of reason and desire. What exactly are we not to do so as not to act against freedom? Any action
seems at least to limit the choices available to others, and thereby,
to constrain their freedom. But for Kant this is morally irrelevant
since the choices available to anyone have no moral worth. The
sheer demand that a choice be universalizable does not itself distinguish among choices as right or wrong. Kant thus arrives at the
conception of a law that determines the will, the supreme principle
of morality, which Kant identied as the categorical imperative:
the moral project is one of making oneself worthy of happiness.
While one can only accomplish this through respect for persons,
the fact is that the persons responsibility is not to promote the good
of others but the goodness of ones will.24
Hegel (17701831) called attention to the historical character of
thinking, which prompted him to counter the Kantian account
of freedom as autonomy. The opposition of noumenal and
22
24
23 Ibid., 56.
Ibid., 54.
William Schweiker, Responsibility and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), 82.
16
phenomenal worlds is overcome, not by cosmic absorption or

reductionism, however, but by the self-realisation of absolute reason
in nite human spirits, who retain their rational individuality and
existence. This emphasized the signicance of self-consciousness in
the concept of person.25 Hegel recognized that freedom is shaped
communally and historically. Real freedom requires us to recognize
this inuence and to realize our rational natures by building with
others a rational community. Such a community reconciles selfinterest and duty. The Hegelian and Kantian traditions differ in the
relation between the person and value. As I noted above, Kant (and his
heirs) depict the self as unencumbered, as one who constitutes her
world through her choices and actions. Goodness designates a quality of the will rather than an external, objective order. Hegel and
heirs depict the self as situated in history and society, which means
that the self is shaped by these particulars and that value is in some
measure socially constructed.
There were other important counters to Kantian thought. Some
thinkers reacted against the rationalism of modernity with naturalist accounts of morality. Sigmund Freud, for instance emphasized
the deception of reason and its vulnerability to natural, unconscious impulses. Versions of Marxism (in Friedrich Engels and in
Lenin) have (respectively) pronounced emphases on natural laws
and correspondence theories of knowledge respectively. Friedrich
Nietzsche (18441900) offered an aesthetic existentialism in contrast to the smug rationality of modernity and in response to the
wane of religious and metaphysical systems. Nietzsche joins the
company of thinkers who nd metaphysics untenable in religious
and secular forms. Nietzsche argues that human thought is interpretive and perspectival. We cannot know things in themselves
because there is no true world of being. There is only the ceaseless
tumult of forces arranging and re-arranging themselves in power
relations. There is no order or telos to this process. Nietzsche described it as the will to power. Nietzsches anti-ontologism, however,
should not lead to nihilism. Indeed, Nietzsches point was to afrm
life without resort to ctions like God or ontological categories.
The issue is how best to interpret and assess experience. Nietzsche
25
Rudman, Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics, 95.
17
called for a revaluation of received values in light of the will to

power. It shows that most moral and religious thought reects the
all-too-human, fosters weakness, and stunts creativity. Nietzsche
contrasted such slave or herd moralities with a master morality, one
that enables greater independence and creativity, the maximization
of the will to power, and the emergence of a higher humanity of
supermen.
It might seem that an argument for self love would nd an ally
in Nietzsche, and in fact there are aspects of his thought that prove
helpful. Nietzsche draws our attention to the activities of interpretation and evaluation as exercises of power. And he notes rightly
that moralities, as such interpretive and evaluative exercises, ought
to enhance human life. In fact Nietzsche poses a two-fold challenge that shows the requirements an ethics of self love must meet.
There is, rst, Nietzsches anti-ontologism, which places him in
a large and generally esteemed company. The second prong of
Nietzsches challenge is the import of the will to power for an argument against slave moralities. Nietzsche seems to trap us into
showing him to be right. An unadulterated argument for self love
seems to exemplify the will to power (even if it proves inadequate
to the task of fostering a life that maximizes the will to power).
An argument against self love, or ones for it that construe it as an
indirect result of or precondition for loving ones neighbor seem to
be slave moralities, deployed by the masses to defend themselves
against the strong. For a Christian ethics of self love to nd a way
out from under Nietzsches challenge it must differ from a simple
endorsement or instantiation of the will to power by directing self
love to love for God and neighbor in the world. But it must do
this without endorsing values that diminish human life and without nave dependence on the ctions and constructs of religious
and metaphysical thought. It must afrm with Nietzsche the interpretive and perspectival character of human thought and share
his conviction that morality should enhance human life. How can
it accomplish all this without exemplifying, explicitly or implicitly,
the will to power?
Might the very metaphysical frameworks Nietzsche and others
reject as constructs have a heuristic value? The issue is whether
they help us to see what sort of person the human is. This question
18
keeps us from dumbly re-asserting the modern self after Nietzsches

devastating critique of it. It also keeps us from concluding too
quickly that this critique of the modern self is simultaneously a
critique of all ontologically indebted accounts of the self.26
This admittedly rough identication of various modern conceptions of the self isolates some important problems that contemporary inquiry into the self confronts: the mindbody relation, the temporal
continuity of identity, the question of some relatively stable human nature, the
character of freedom and its relation to desire, the conditions of moral agency, and
the relation between the person and value. In varied ways, modern thinkers
reconceive the relations among ontology, anthropology, and morality. Charles Taylor notes of modernity and its legacy that selfhood
and the good, or in another way selfhood and morality, turn out to
be inextricably intertwined themes.27
Given the relation between anthropology and ethics, being and
our thinking about it, one way we can gain some purchase on
secular ethical treatments of the self is to consider how the self is
related to the object of ethics. Disparate ethical appraisals constellate around the insistence that the self is not the object of ethics.
Utilitarian ethics for instance aims not at the development of
persons but some state of affairs, the maximization of utility for the
greatest number of people. Marxist theories endeavor to show the
economic and conictual character of social relations. The ethics
of some analytic philosophy takes the meaning and operation of
moral terms as its object. This is not to say that such positions lack
moral anthropologies; indeed, they entail quite important claims
about human beings. The utilitarian self is a producer and consumer of utility, a rational calculator of ends but not a unique
and particular center of value. Marxist theories include some accounts of truly human activity in contrast to the alienation caused
by disassociation from the means of production and the ideological fog of bourgeoisie values. Analytic philosophy construes
the self as an agent capable of choosing within some world of
facts.
26
27
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, 2nd edn (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1984).
Taylor, Sources of the Self, 3.
19
The point is that these positions do not take the self as the aim of
ethics. But, in other positions the self is the object of ethics. Virtue
and narrative ethics are clear examples of this. Virtue ethics stresses
the self s ourishing and the importance of her dispositions and capacities. Narrative ethicists argue that narrative is a constitutive
feature of selfhood. According to Paul Ricoeur, the idea of gathering together ones life in the form of a narrative is destined to serve
as a basis for the aim of good life.28 Some liberation ethics, various feminist ethics for example, take the self as their object as well.
In different ways and for different reasons these ethics aim at the
ourishing of the self. Others construe ethics as the task of showing
there is no self, at least not in the sense of a sovereign, unied essentialist agent. Especially problematic for these ethics, and for many
of the above, is a self dened in substantialist terms. Deconstructing
and de-centering the self is an ethical task because it liberates us
from the denitions imposed on us by others. Sometimes this is
construed as a post-moral task, since ethics itself is considered a
weapon of control. But the task of showing that there is no self
given this liberatory aim also has the self s good in view. Hence,
Foucault deconstructs the traditional metaphysical subject in the
service of an ethics of care for the self.
Enamored by autonomy: the self as free agent
The modern legacy is obvious in contemporary Western culture.
Autonomy ranks as a chief good and echoes in a number of central cultural values and in legal, social, and economic systems and
practices. Even a brief sampling of advertising shows this: as I write
the radio blares public service announcements concerning the deregulation of electricity utilities, and commercials for bank services,
sport utility vehicles, and allergy medications. They all tout freedom
as an unqualied good. But, the idea of freedom that contemporary Western societies inherit from modernity is largely a negative
freedom, a freedom dened chiey as the absence of constraints.
28
Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, trans. Kathleen Blamey (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1992), 158.
20
This negative freedom belongs to a complex of values like selfsufciency, independence and self-determination. In other words,
in autonomy, negative freedom meets the power of self-denition.
The tension inherent to this union spawns a confusing mentality in which the power to dene and determine oneself through
ones choices and pursuits requires a new and, paradoxically, freedom from those very commitments. This means that the value
of autonomy confers on the self a certain sovereignty and reality
prior to and independent from her choices and pursuits even as the
meaning of autonomy is indexed to the capacity to dene or locate
oneself in her choices and pursuits. To borrow from the world of
professional sports, the self is a free agent, loosely and provisionally tied to a team, ready and willing to afliate itself with another
one should the terms be and remain to its liking.
There are other reasons in addition to this confusion why the
contemporary exaltation of autonomy is problematic for self love.
The negative freedom entailed in autonomy is an impoverished
account of freedom. By treating freedom largely as the absence of
external constraints, it neglects various internal conditions for and
impediments to freedom. It becomes difcult to account for the
ways prejudice, habit, convention, and experience can limit freedom even in the absence of external constraints. Negative freedom
ignores the multiplicity and conictual character of human motives
and implies instead a relatively unied will. It misses the ways culture and consumerism circumscribe freedom under the guise of
enlarging it by directing freedom to fairly pre-packaged identities
and lifestyles. The uncritical endorsement of autonomy reinforces
a sense of entitlement. This sense of entitlement is stoked by capitalism though it has more salutary roots in a modern discourse
of individual rights. It insulates the autonomous self from duty to
others and from criticism. An uncritical autonomy also threatens
to collapse authority into authoritarianism. All of these difculties
contribute to the individualism that autonomy encourages. In sum,
an uncritical exaltation of autonomy is descriptively inadequate to
persons and normatively problematic.
Of course, this ongoing love affair is now curiously related to
a contemporary permutation of determinism, the culture of victimization. Consider the rising number of disorders included in
21
psychiatric encyclopedias; they indicate a readiness to compartmentalize facets of ourselves.29 They raise once again the question
of where the self is located. How is our identity connected to forces
that determine us? The insight of this culture is that we are profoundly relational. But the culture of victimization does not really
offer an alternative to autonomy, for it is about throwing off responsibility. By claiming to be determined by others we manage to
remove the burden of self-determination, and in that respect, we
become free by being determined.
A contemporary ethics of self love requires an appropriate emphasis on autonomy. Autonomy denotes the independent value of
the self and, among other things, the need to identify and resist
tyrannous and oppressive systems and gures. But, as I will argue,
a contemporary ethics of self love must note that human freedom is not reducible to freedom of choice. Ultimately in all the
self s disparate choices she constitutes her self; her freedom has a
unity and continuity as a condition for the possibility of her selfrelation. Further, a contemporary ethics of self love recognizes that
human freedom is more than freedom from various constraints
it is freedom for self-commitment.
A Christian ethics of self love resists the reduction and distortion
of freedom so characteristic of our contemporary Western outlook.
When we recognize that the freedom for self-determination is only
one aspect of the freedom of and for self-relation we begin to see
that we can only know the depth and range of freedom, its power
and meaning, its promise and its frailty in relation to a source of
value that establishes freedom and a real good that beckons it.
Put theologically, we know the meaning of freedom in relation to
God. Reckoning with our status as creatures of a God who has in
Jesus Christ revealed the divine self as one who acts on our behalf
shows the limitations and illusions of autonomy. Freedom is not a
capacity for self-denition but for self-disposal or self-commitment.
And this commitment is not that of a sovereign, prior self. Rather,
the self comes to itself as such in her commitment to some other.
The meaning and value of her choices are not determined by her
29
See Peter D. Kramer, Listening to Prozac: a Psychiatrist Explores Antidepressant Drugs and the
Remaking of the Self (New York: Viking, 1993).
22
having chosen them. Rather they express her free relation to or

against objective goods and ultimately to or against the source of
all value.
Deconstructing the self: the self as POW
From the 1930s through the 1960s a range of thinkers in the social
sciences and philosophy explored the concept of the self and the relations and tensions between self and society. Just as contemporary
discussions of the self both celebrate its liberation or bemoan its
endangerment, this literature happily describes the self s excision
from restrictive roles or worriedly reports the effects social changes
like urbanization had on the self.30 In the latter half of the twentieth
century attention to the self took two (not unrelated) directions.
The selfsociety tension that occupied the rst half of the century
spawned individualist and social/collective approaches to the self.
On the one hand, a signicant array of arguments and cultural
phenomena continued to treat selfhood in more individual and interior fashions. Although social forces and institutions impinge on it,
selfhood is located interiorly (for some, given the subconscious, selfhood is not only inner but secret); even construals of selfhood which
cast it more supercially and externally still stress the individuals
self-fashioning through pursuits and acquisitions (be they material
or even more ephemeral adoptions of particular values), and often
conceive this self-fashioning as a process of discovering the real
me. Psychologists and sociologists formulated theories of the self s
development. Some theories offer various accounts of the obstacles
or threats to selfhood, or focus on the experiences or needs constitutive of selfhood.31 Still others describe the self s own construction
30
31
See for instance George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1934); Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York:
Doubleday, 1959); Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced
Industrial Society (Boston, ma: Beacon, 1964); R. D. Laing, The Divided Self: an Existential Study
in Sanity and Madness (Baltimore, md: Penguin, 1965). See also Sigmund Freud, Civilization
and its Discontents (New York: Norton, 1930), Erich Fromm, Man for Himself: an Inquiry into
the Psychology of Ethics (New York: Rinehart, 1947) and Erik Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis
(New York: Norton, 1968). I am indebted to the very nice literature review by Joseph
E. Davis Identity and Social Change: a Short Review. It belongs to the equally nice
interdisciplinary journal, The Hedgehog Review 1 (Fall 1999): 95102.
See Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American
Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1985) and Christopher Lasch, The Minimal Self: Psychic
23
of itself.32 And yet another strand of literature places an interesting

twist on the argument that social forces impact the shape or experience of consciousness by looking at the effects of technology
and psycho-pharmacology.33 This work suggests that a distinctively
postmodern self has emerged.34 On the other hand, and in contrast to such treatments of the individual (though socially shaped)
self, other thinkers have offered more resolutely social constructionist versions of the self. From communitarian thought in social/
political philosophy and Christian ethics (as found in the work
of Amitai Etzioni and Michael Walzer, for instance, and, for a
theological version of communitarianism, Stanley Hauerwas) to
identity politics and postmodernism, selfhood is inscribed in collective, political identity.35 Underlying both individual and collective
32
33
34
35
Survival in Troubled Times (New York: Norton, 1984). In the eld of psychology, some
important feminist reformulations of Freudian theory and Lawrence Kohlbergs theory of
human development emerged in object-relations theorists and the work of Carol Gilligan,
respectively. For an example of object-relations approaches in psychology, see Nancy
Chodorow, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
See Carol Gilligans In a Different Voice (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1982).
Gilligans feminist response to Kohlbergs cognitive theory of development arguably
represents an attempt to make cognitive approaches more responsive to psycho-social
factors.
See Daniel Yankelovich, New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulllment in a World Turned Upside
Down (New York: Random House, 1981) and John P. Hewitt, Dilemmas of the American Self
(Philadelphia, pa: Temple University Press, 1989).
I will treat this in more detail next. See Joshua Meyrowitz, No Sense of Place: The Impact of
Electronic Media on Social Behavior (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985); Kenneth J.
Gergen, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life (New York: Basic, 1991);
Peter D. Kramer, Listening to Prozac.
The works by Lasch and Bellah and colleagues make this argument by taking up individualism. For different accounts of the sources and character of the distinctive ( post)modern
self see Philip Reiff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New York:
Harper and Row, 1966); Nathan Adler, The Underground Stream: New Life Styles and the Antinomian Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 1972); Louis A. Zurcher, Jr., The Mutable
Self: a Self-Concept for Social Change (Beverly Hills, ca: Sage, 1977); Louis A. Zurcher, Jr.
and Michael R. Wood, The Development of a Postmodern Self: a Computer-Assisted Comparative
Analysis of Personal Documents (New York: Greenwood, 1988); Robert Jay Lifton, The
Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation (New York: Basic, 1993). For arguments which attribute this distinctive self to capitalism see Daniel Bell, The Cultural
Contradictions of Capitalism (New York: Basic, 1976) and Richard Sennet, The Fall of Public
Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism (New York: Knopf, 1977).
See for example Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic, 1983); Stanley
Hauerwas, A Community of Character (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press,
1987); Amitai Etzioni, The Spirit of Community (New York: Crown, 1993). For a helpful collection of essays on the recent turn to narrative, see Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory
Jones, eds., Why Narrative?: Readings in Narrative Theology (Grand Rapids, mi: W. B.
Eerdmans, 1989). For examples of social constructionist/identity politics see Etienne
24
approaches to selfhood is the problem of locating the self in the

give and take between the self s location of itself and its location by
others. As I noted above, among these various approaches to the
self are camps which applaud these arguments and phenomena as
prospects for liberation and others which bemoan them as indicators of social and moral deterioration and the endangerment of the
self.
In an essay titled The Self and its Discontents Paul Lauritzen
plots recent accounts of the self along two coordinates.36 One axis is
that of unity/fragmentation. Lauritzen notes that thinkers like Richard
Rorty identify and celebrate the self as decentered and fragmented.
Similarly, Iris Marion Young says that the subject is a heterogeneous presence. By this she means that the subject is not a unity,
it cannot be present to itself, know itself. I do not always know what
I mean, need, want, desire because these do not arise from some
ego origin . . . Consequently, any individual subject is a play of differences that cannot be comprehended.37 Young claims that the
logic of identity seeks to bring everything under control, to eliminate uncertainty and unpredictability, to spiritualize the bodily
fact of sensuous immersion in a world that out-runs the subject,
to eliminate otherness.38 To do this the subject is conceived as
a pure transcendental origin: it has no foundation outside itself,
it is self-generating and autonomous, yet this project inevitably
fails because the totalizing movement always leaves a remainder
which is then schematized into dichotomous, hierarchical oppositions like good/bad, normal/deviant.39 Others, like Paul Ricoeur
and Charles Taylor insist that the self is sovereign and unied. The
self is coherent and because of this we can speak meaningfully of
36
37
38
39
Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities (London: Verso,
1991) and Manuel Castels, The Power of Identity, vol. 2, The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture (Malden, ma: Blackwell, 1997), Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities:
Reections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd edn (New York: Verso, 1991) and Mary
Waters, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America (Berkeley, ca: University of California
Press, 1990).
Paul Lauritzen, The Self and its Discontents, Journal of Religious Ethics 22:1 (1994),
189210.
Iris Young, The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference, Social Theory and
Practice 12.1 (Spring 1986), 10.
Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, nj; Princeton University
Press, 1990), 9899.
Ibid., 99.
25
the self s freedom and responsibility. Nevertheless, the self s unity

does not consist in some metaphysical, substantial nature. Calvin
Schrag argues that postmodern arguments for the fragmented
self are decisive enough that after postmodernity we should not
inquire into what the self is, but who the self is. The presence
of the who is not that of a self-identical monad, mute and selfenclosed, changeless and secured prior to the events of speaking.
The presence at issue is localized neither metaphysically in a xed,
underlying substratum nor epistemologically in a prelinguistic,
zero-point center of consciousness.40 Instead, the self s unity is
fundamentally a narrative unity. Schrag draws on Ricoeurs distinction between idem-identity (identity as sameness, like the kind
found in substance metaphysics) and ipse-identity (identity as selfhood).41 Ricoeur argues that selfhood consists in a dialectic between
ipse-identity over the idem-identity; this becomes apparent when we
recognize that personal identity is narrative identity.
The second axis along which we can plot recent approaches to
the self is that of the disengaged vs. engaged/sedimented self. The disengaged self is the modern self, particularly the Lockean self. It
is a self who can distance herself from the particularities of her
existence, objectify and refashion her self. But growing dissatisfaction with such an account of the self and of moral reasoning
leads many thinkers to focus on the particularities of the self. The
Enlightenment moral thinker is disembodied and individualistic
and thus an inadequate picture of the human.42
The modern problem of the self rests on an insight into the embeddedness of the self and arose out of a new attention to the social
and historical character and of moral values.43 Accompanying and
intensifying this heightened awareness of the self s social and historical character is an analysis of the constructive mechanisms of
40
41
42
43
Calvin O. Schrag, The Self After Postmodernity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997), 33.
Ricoeur, Oneself as Another.
For helpful treatments of the emergence of postmodern critiques of modernity, see
Frederick B. Burnham, ed., Postmodern Theology: Christian Faith in a Pluralist World (New
York: Harper and Row, 1989) and David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: an Enquiry
into the Origins of Cultural Change (Oxford and Cambridge, ma: Basil Blackwell, 1989).
For a recent example of such a study see Elaine Graham, Making the Difference: Gender,
Personhood and Theology (Minneapolis, mn: Fortress, 1996).
26
culture. It extends insight into the fundamentally social character

of the self into an assessment of the institutions, power relations,
and cultural ideologies that create the arena for that sociality. For
this reason, the problem of the self is tied closely to social critique; as the self came to be seen as constructed, the structures and
institutions of society were deconstructed and demystied.44 For
many thinkers, the purpose of such deconstruction is reconstruction; to unravel the ways in which the self is constructed is to open a
space for critique aimed at more authentic selfhood.45 Critiques of
the modern self provided opportunities to re-envision not only the
self, but the self s ourishing.46 Yet, other thinkers insist that such
visions of the authentic self or an alternative society are themselves
constructs and therefore arbitrary. These thinkers do social analysis with a hermeneutics of suspicion, a sense of contingency, and
mindful of the brute fact of plurality. In this light self-realization
ethics provide arbitrary descriptions of human ourishing; persons
and groups in dominant positions promulgate them in order to
control others.47 Here the self looks less like a free agent and more
like a POW.
Insight into the ways systems of power construct the self extends to an analysis of language. Language is a medium that posits
44
45
46
47
See for example the work of Karl Marx, Max Horkheimer, and Max Weber. More
recently, see the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jurgen Habermas.
The concern for authentic selfhood has been closely associated in contemporary Western
culture with an individualistic ethics of self-fulllment, and a moral relativism which
protects individual subjective accounts of the kind of life in which such fulllment consists.
For criticisms of such cultural ethics, see Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism:
American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (New York: Norton, 1979). For an insightful
critique of this individualism, but one which seeks to recognize and advance the moral
insights which underlie it, see Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, ma:
Harvard University Press, 1992).
See Juliet Mitchell, Womens Estate (New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 1973).
See Rebecca Chopp, The Power to Speak: Feminism, Language and God (New York: Crossroad,
1989) and Sheila Greave Devaney, Problems with Feminist Theory: Historicity and the
Search for Sure Foundations, in Embodied Love: Sensuality and Relationship as Feminist Values,
eds., Paula M. Cooey, Sharon A. Farmer, and Mary Ellen Ross (San Francisco, ca: Harper
and Row, 1987). Both thinkers criticize other feminists for appealing to some consensus
or ideal vision of womens ourishing. They claim that accounts of authentic selfhood are
arbitrary and tyrannous often foster a self-realization ethics which is subjective and antirealist. As I noted at the outset of this chapter, when the forms of self-realization are not
critically assessed, the person cannot assess what attempts at self-fulllment might actually
harm herself. What is needed is an account of right self love which recognizes the self as
situated but not entirely constructed or absorbed, and which also avoids the subjectivism
and anti-realism which characterizes many contemporary ethics of self-realization.
27
and sustains evaluations and relations. Because many thinkers no

longer consider particular signiers to represent reality, linguistic
realism gives way to a view of language systems as arbitrary and
provisional. The assembly and interaction of words into propositions constitutes coercive, yet conventional exercises of power.48
While such an analysis contributes to a view of the self as a
meaning-maker, as one who creates value, it also contributes to
a view of the self as constructed by language. Indeed, for some
thinkers the self is the site of the interacting, conicting, multiple discourses that vie for ascendancy in some description of the
self:
There is no core, or essence, or nature of the human person either lying
behind the structures, against which these can be measured as adequate,
or transcending the structures as a free, thoughtful agent. Instead, the
human person is newly understood as a network of various strands of
social discourses and practices, intersecting with one another in differing
patterns.49
Stressing the constructed character of selfhood raises the problem of agency, as Seyla Benhabib shows. Benhabib notes both a
weak and a strong version of the thesis that the modern subject has
died.
The weak version of this thesis would situate the subject in the context
of various social, linguistic and discursive practices. This view would by
no means question the desirability and theoretical necessity of articulating a more adequate, less deluded and less mystied version of subjectivity than those provided by the concepts of the Cartesian cogito,
the transcendental unity of apperception, Geist and consciousness,
or das Man, (the they). The traditional attributes of the philosophical
subject of the West, like self-reexivity, the capacity for acting on principles, rational accountability for ones actions and the ability to project a
life-plan into the future, in short, some form of autonomy and rationality,
could then be reformulated by taking account of the radical situatedness
of the subject.50
48
49
50
I have in mind the work of thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Jean-Francois Lyotard.
Susan Frank Parsons, Feminism and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 99. See also Rosalind Coward, Patriarchal Precedents: Sexuality and Social Relations
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983).
Benhabib, Situating the Self, 214.
28
In the strong version

[t]he subject thus dissolves into the chain of signications of which it was
supposed to be the initiator. Along with this dissolution of the subject
into yet another position in language disappear of course concepts of
intentionality, accountability, self-reexivity and autonomy. The subject
that is but another position in language can no longer master and create
that distance between itself and the chain of signications in which it is
immersed such that it can reect upon them and creatively alter them.51
Strong versions intensify insight into the embeddedness of the self

into the claim that there is no self. This claim provides a form of resistance against those hegemonic, unifying systems that constitute
the self. The debate rages whether there is any subject behind the
discourses that constitute its identity, some subject that precedes its
construction. In order to assign any agency to the self, it appears
necessary to locate some self outside of the systems and forces that
construct it. Some thinkers reject the notion that such a prediscursive self exists, while others such as Benhabib argue that the
processes of signication and constitution do not explain how the
self is socialized and individualized. Benhabib notes that the self
may be constituted by discourse but need not be determined by
it.52 Whether or not one posits a self, the subject is absorbed into
the systems and relations that constitute it.
Some attempts to reckon with the embeddedness of the self take
two pernicious forms. The rst form absolutizes the situatedness
of the self into an individualism run rampant. The other form is
simply the inverse claim that the situatedness of the self reduces the
self to systems or the intersection of determining forces. As I noted
earlier, such reductionism and determinism also make it difcult to
speak of the self s agency. Such positions threaten the dignity of the
self insofar as they do not permit a proper self-determination and,
thus, fail to address the problem of conformity, a problem which
often aficts women and minorities. Benhabib, for instance, rejects
attempts to replace the vision of an autonomous and engendered subject
with that of a fractured, opaque self; the deed without the doer becomes
the paradigm of subversive activity for selves who joyfully deny their
own coherence and relish their opacity and multiplicity . . . But precisely
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid., 218.
29
because womens stories have so often been written for them by others,
precisely because their own sense of self has been so fragile, and their
ability to assert control over the conditions of their existence so rare, this
vision of the self appears to me to be making a virtue out of necessity.53
Of course not only women are denied the conditions for proper
self-determination. Indeed, theories that deny agency and fracture subjectivity ignore the obvious fact that people, regardless of
gender, struggle to make sense out of their lives. In other words,
they seek coherence. If the insight into the self s embeddedness
denies the self that is to resist hegemonic discourses, this trajectory
undermines the projects of social critique and reconstruction out
of which it arose. It is true that notions of authentic selfhood which
might undergird a theory of self love are themselves constructs.
But to recognize this does not prohibit their potential veracity or
helpfulness. The problem of the self indicates that a contemporary
theory of self love requires a complex account of the self who loves
herself, one which allows for the self s determination and freedom,
particularity and self-transcendence.
The self is a problem beyond such scholarly debates. These debates express and reinforce an important characteristic of moral
experience. Consider, for example, that our contemporary moral
situation includes increased exposure to other cultures which makes
us aware of our specicity; developments in disciplines like psychology and sociology make us aware of how we are determined
by various forces and systems; our technological capacity to alter our environment, indeed our selves, has reached unparalleled
heights; electronic communication media allow us to construct and
manipulate our self-expression, even to disassociate ourselves from
our own communication. All of these factors can make our own
complexity morally problematic. We experience our plurality, the
agency we have which allows us to fashion and communicate ourselves, as well as the constraints of our nitude and the contingency
of our particularity. Our contradictory experiences of freedom and
53
Ibid., 1516. See also Taylor, Ethics of Authenticity. Benhabib notes here the deep connection
between life and thought, our being and our thinking about it. Indeed, at the crux of the
contemporary problem of self love is the insight that conceptions of selfhood impact in
a profound way the forms selfhood takes. In light of this deep connection, the persons
capacity to reect on her life, to engage in moral self-evaluation, is itself basic to what it
means to be a person.
30
determination are made more acute by a daily barrage of images

which depict the good life, which pander to our insecurities and
center our fulllment in certain possessions and activities.
Self-understanding, then, seems to be either a voluntaristic, nonbinding election of identity or the hegemonic imposition of arbitrarily intersecting systems. Regardless, the persons self-understanding
has become increasingly bifurcated from her embodied actions
and relations. Right self love is an urgent contemporary problem
because there is no consensus regarding what it means to be a
self. Theoretical treatments of the self in contemporary ethics develop insights into the way the self is situated and constituted; when
these accounts of the self meet with the plurality and complexity
of our experience, the crucial moral question becomes how to be
a coherent agent. Thus, the problem of the self indicates the urgency with which contemporary thinkers seek to articulate some
understanding of the self s ourishing.
Yet deconstruction of the self, along with other features I note
here, make it difcult to speak about the ourishing of the self except in terms of self-realization and autonomy. We can see this in
popular culture and in ethical theory as the recent explosion of
the language of authenticity, or, the inability to speak about the
self at all. This latter reluctance is simply incoherent and, literally,
self-defeating. Thinkers who celebrate the fragmentation or decentering of the self, who deny human agency and any attempt to
lend coherence to the self encounter, ironically, deep self-referential
problems. Contemporary ethics of self-realization that arise out of
feminist critiques and debates about the self, then, too often fail
to specify criteria by which to judge whether the self harms itself
in her attempts of realization. Self love constitutes a contemporary
problem because the norm of self-realization, which so permeates
contemporary culture and ethics, is not itself critically assessed.
We can take the situatedness of the self seriously, yet avoid such
reductionism and determinism by appealing to the persons capacity for self-transcendence as it is evinced in the basic activity
of self-understanding. The self-transcendence that occurs through
self-understanding is dialectically related to the persons relations
with others and her acting in the world. So the dialectical relation
between being and thinking that I noted at the outset of this chapter
31
both requires a recognition of the embeddedness of the self as well

as a rejection of positions that deny agency or the self. I will argue
in Chapter Two that this recognition and rejection can be accomplished in a retrieval of ontological frameworks for selfhood, and
will offer such a retrieval through my engagement of Karl Rahner
and Paul Tillich.
Renewing the mind/body split in the cult of self-creation:
the self as MIA
Wendell Berry notes, novelty is a new kind of loneliness.54 He
recognizes aptly that our sense of security and fulllment are in
many respects ensured by continuity, stability, order. If loneliness,
whether accompanied by actual alone-ness or experienced in the
company of others, is a kind of disconnect which sets us at sea,
leaves us feeling bereft, and activates our longing for communion
(with others or of the kind that solitude provides), Berry has captured only one way of experiencing disconnect. Above I hinted at
another kind of disconnect, one called by self-described and closet
postmodernists alike as liberating, joyful, a relief. Both of these
experiences of disconnect feed and are fed by contemporary technology, economic consumption, and hosts of social, economic, scientic practices like cosmetic surgery, mood-control through drugs
and herbal cocktails, and the like. These increasing capacities for
self-creation also contribute to the contemporary problem of self
love, raising in very practical ways questions of where or in what
the self resides. Advertisements tell me that a new hair color is
me, or that a particular refrigerator suits my lifestyle. My true or
best self is something elusive, but in reach. Indeed, she resides at
the shopping mall. Or at the spa/retreat center. Or at the gym, or
the new workplace. More radically, though still quite commonly,
I can undergo surgery to mold and shape my body into a new me
(though my novel self is one had through conformity to cultural
standards of beauty). Herbs and drugs can make me feel more
like myself. Paradoxically, then, authenticity is available through
self-alteration.
54
Wendell Berry, Healing, What Are People For? (New York: North Point Press, 1990), 9.
The piece includes a refrain of Order is the only possibility of rest.
32
Sherry Turkles study of identity and Internet technology illustrates this facet of the problem of self love. Turkle perceives the
connections between postmodern theory and Internet technology.
As players participate, they become authors not only of the text but
of themselves, constructing new selves through social interaction.
One player says, You are the character and you are not the character, both at the same time. Another says, You are who you pretend
to be.55 One college junior Turkle interviewed spoke about using
multiple windows to inhabit multiple MUDs (multi-user domains,
like chat rooms and games). He touted his increasing capacity to
compartmentalize these roles/activities:
I split my mind. Im getting better at it. I can see myself as being two or
three or more. And I just turn on one part of my mind and then another
when I go from window to window. Im in some kind of argument in one
window and trying to come on to a girl in a MUD in another, and another
window might be running a spreadsheet program or some other technical
thing for school . . . And then Ill get a real-time message [a message that
ashes on the screen as soon as it is sent from another system user], and
I guess thats RL [real life]. Its just one more window.
RL is just one more window, he goes on to say, and its not

usually my best one.56
I noted above that postmodern theory debunks the unitary
self and views of language as referring to some reality; according to Turkle computer technology closes the gap between lived
experiences and just those illusions postmodern theory debunks.
Traditional ideas about identity have been tied to a notion of authenticity that such virtual experiences actively subvert. When each
player can create many characters and participate in many games,
the self is not only decentered but multiplied without limit.57
Turkle notes that we have become accustomed to opaque technology, which in turn prompts us to take things at interface value; we
are moving into a culture of simulation and are comfortable with
representations of reality. The rise of psycho-pharmacology and
the mapping of the human genome are other examples of our embrace of the opaque, because they encourage the view that we are
55
56
Sherry Turkle, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (New York: Simon and
Schuster, Turkle 1995) 12.
57 Ibid., 185.
Ibid., 13.
33
programmable, that new and improved selves can be assembled

genetically, chemically, cosmetically and surgically, and textually.
Turkle is receptive to the positive possibilities that computer technology in general and the Internet in particular offer. But she is wary
of cycling through so many personas. The slippage between
real life and our Internet relationships, personae, communities, and
roles can have destructive psychological and interpersonal effects.
One way Turkle indicates the positive psychological value of such
identity experimentation is by appealing to Erik Eriksons description of adolescence as a moratorium, a period during which society
grants tacit permission for adolescents to experiment. Computers
dont just do things for us, they do things to us, including our ways
of thinking about ourselves and other people.58 So technology
can provide a moratorium still needed in adulthood, a space for
refreshment, self-repair, release, self-mastery.59 The computer can
be . . . experienced as an object on the border between self and notself. Or, in a new variant on the story of Narcissus, people are able
to fall in love with the articial worlds that they have created or
that have been built for them by others. People are able to see
themselves in the computer.60
The opportunity to adopt new identities in cyberspace renews
the mind/body split. The more time one spends in virtual spaces
the more real those spaces seem to be. After all, says one dedicated MUD player . . . , why grant such superior status to the self
that has the body when the selves that dont have bodies are able
to have different kinds of experiences? When people can play at
having different genders and different lives, it isnt surprising that
for some this play has become as real as what we conventionally
think of as their real lives, although for them this is no longer a
valid distinction.61 Certainly the Internet allows people to dene
themselves through their self-presentation, in contrast to a selfdenition that reacts to others projections onto them. One MUD
player reported to Turkle, You can be whoever you want to be.
You can completely redene yourself if you want. You can be the
opposite sex. You can be more talkative. You can be less talkative.
Whatever. You can just be whoever you want, really, whoever you
58
Ibid., 26.
59
Ibid., 204.
60
Ibid., 30.
61
Ibid., 14.
34
have the capacity to be. You dont have to worry about the slots
other people put you in as much. Its easier to change the way people
perceive you, because all theyve got is what you show them. They
dont look at your body and make assumptions. They dont hear
your accent and make assumptions. All they see is your words.62
The virtuality of cyberspace permits all of this freedom and experimentation because it seems to insure anonymity and, importantly,
because it is possible to log off. The capacity to disengage oneself from virtual reality, to exit cyberspace, makes that space seem
consequence-free. Ones agency can fracture in such a way that
her activities in cyberspace and her transactions with others seem
conned to that space, or trivial. They are not means by which one
constitutes oneself. Indeed, these activities have no lasting effect at
all. For example, Turkle reports the volatile and confusing matter
of a cyber-rape. In an Internet game room, or MUD, one player
seized control of another players character and raped it. He defended his action by claiming that it was within a game, that the
rape was not real because it was done only with words. Similarly
confusing and painful issues arise when one spouse learns another
is having cyber-sex with someone else: do such exchanges amount
to real indelity? Do they allow some release that helps to prevent indelity in real life? Or do they make real life indelity
seem more appealing and more possible?
Confusion about what and who the self is arises via attempts to
discern and fashion where the self is; it is not limited to cyberspace.
And the temptation to regard ones concrete actions as of little
consequence for ones identity is reinforced in other contexts. One
of my students remarked perceptively that his Spring Break trip
to Mexico was presented in just this fashion; the prevailing slogan
among business proprietors and students alike was, What goes on
in Cancun stays in Cancun. Despite the fact that the de-centering
of the self captures our experiences of multiplicity and provides
a way to resist others attempts to inscribe and circumscribe our
identities, it renews the mindbody split in troubling ways. The cult
of self-creation disregards and devalues the body or alternatively
exalts it. It indexes authenticity to our agency, in particular our
62
Ibid., 184.
35
agency as consumers or personas. Yet it also severs identity from

our acting insofar as in our self-fashioning we remain ever free to
create ourselves anew, to locate our true selves in some other facet
or role of our lives. Thus, it becomes difcult to evaluate morally
the means by which we try to realize ourselves.
Given Christian theological ambivalence about the body, a
Christian ethics of self love seems ill-equipped for addressing contemporary versions of the mind-body split. And some Christian
ethics monger guilt and judgment, and insist on static norms
freighted with distortions like sexism and wielded in social and
ecclesial self-interest, so that a Christian ethics of self love seems
restrictive and demoralizing in contrast to the freedom of the marketplace and of cyberspace. The novel yet true self that we pursue,
or craft, or nd in these places is not a prisoner of war but missing in
action. She remains one purchase or Botox-injection ahead of us,
or ever in need of an upgrade, never improved so much that we can
be nished. She dodges our introspective grasps and wanders the
space between mind and body, between the versions of ourselves
we fashion or that are imputed to us by others and the concrete acts
and relations we forge and undergo. She seems, quite falsely, to be
free from any and all of the old selves that are not to our liking,
and free from the standards and preferences of others. She seems
to be free, nally, to love herself. But this freedom is predicated on a
kind of self-loathing from which there is no rest, because it centers
on improving or xing oneself. So, not only is it difcult to evaluate morally the means by which we try to realize ourselves, our
very attempts at self-realization trap us in an ironic self-relation
that simultaneously yokes our identity to our agency and severs
the two.
A Christian ethics of self love can locate the self in a personal
history that connects agency and identity in a way that overcomes
this irony. In Christ the self becomes a new creation. As a new
creation the newness is not utterly novel. The self is already a creature, part of a creation God sees as good. This means that the new
self is not of ones own making. It means that the newness consists
not in an obliteration of the old, but its perfection. One encounters
ones true self not via self-alteration, but a forgiving and sanctifying revelation. Self-loathing gives way to self-acceptance. To be a
36
new creation means that the self s authenticity is not indexed to

ones own activity or to the determinations of other creatures, but
to ones creatureliness as established, sustained, and redeemed by
God. That creatureliness does not consist in a static nature. The
self becomes a new creation in Christ. This means her identity is
dynamic and relational. Though it is not a matter of her own making, it unfolds responsively. Newness in Christ vivies and reorients
her agency. Freedom is set free for commitment, knowledge is illuminated in the light of faith, desire is redirected to the good. Her
agency becomes less a matter of consuming or grasping and more
participatory. She constitutes herself in her acting, but the meaning
of those acts and the identity of the agent are shown and kept in
play as she grows in a personal relation with Christ. Christs own
self-disposal in love shows the meaning of being human, and offers
us the possibility to be more truly and particularly so. This is because Christ shows that human beings are creatures who are called
to love. This point brings us to the problem of desire.
The problem of desire
Here I dene desire broadly as a response to value. Human beings
have desires, in positive forms of attraction and negative forms of
aversion. Human beings also are desire, creatures who live by devotion or faith (St. Paul), or servitude or love (St. Augustine) or concern
(Paul Tillich), whose identity is conferred in relation to some dominant care, cause, or commitment. These various ways of putting
the matter highlight important experiential and theoretical differences, but the basic point is that the human condition of desiring
(which has psychic and physical dimensions), manifests itself for
better or worse in particular desires. Desire includes more than lack
and vulnerability; it also includes ecstasy or self-communication
and therefore power. Desire is a mode of separation and connection. To inquire into the problem of desire, then, is to investigate
moral problems of acting, feeling, and choosing in the service of
transforming our way of being in the world.
Desire is problematic for self love in a number of ways. Here are
three of them. Desire is problematic, rst, insofar as moral condemnations of self love tend to reduce self love morally to vices of
37
selshness and acquisitiveness. The next chapter will consider this

difculty especially as it is handled among Christian moral thinkers.
Desire is problematic, second, with respect to moral ourishing.
This is apparent in eudaimonistic ethics and the perennial philosophical problem of how virtue and happiness are (not) related.63
Can we sustain the claim that all persons seek happiness (whether
or not this is a synonym for human ourishing)? How then do we
make sense of self-destructive courses of behavior? Is it satisfactory
to resort to the claim that these are irrational? And does this move
cripple us in the face of a growing culture of victimization? Can we
identify some actions and relations as incompatible with ourishing
even when those engaged in them testify that those actions and relations fulll and satisfy them? If we emphasize human ourishing
as the moral project, or at least as the inevitable side-effect of some
other conception of the moral project, can we answer adequately
the post-moral question: why be moral? And if we try to answer
this question by appealing to the claim that our fulllment (here the
language of ourishing seems contrived at best) lies in self-sacrice
can we do so without valorizing patently self-destructive or even
indirectly self-aggrandizing lifestyles? Can we do so in a way that
avoids wielding this claim to justify and sustain the oppression and
misery of others?
This question leads ineluctably to the third respect in which
desire is problematic, namely, with regard to moral justication.
Specically, desire in secular academic arguments and in Western
culture has become increasingly privatized and immunized. It is
important to spend some time with this difculty because it helps
us to make sense of and respond to the previous two. For a variety of
reasons, contemporary thinkers generally hold that no consensus
about the good can be achieved. Desire in turn becomes privatized
and rendered idiosyncratic in a to each his own mentality. It is
increasingly exempt from moral and social criticism. The heart
wants what it wants, and the best we can do is adopt a norm of
nonmalecence to govern its exercise and a procedure of tolerance
to adjudicate our respective pursuits. It becomes difcult to order
63
See Ilham Dilman, Raskolnikovs Rebirth: Psychology and the Understanding of Good and Evil
(Chicago and La Salle: Open Court, 2000).
38
love except on its own grounds, i.e., according to its own capriciousness. This in turn makes it difcult to determine whether desires
objects and pursuits are worthy ones, as well as why that which
is unworthy or undesirable can still attract while what is worthy
can repel.64 The privatization and immunization of desire has its
roots in modernitys separation of fact and value. Sometimes, as in
Kant, value is squired away from the realm of morality, not permitted to pollute the good will. Sometimes, as in poststructuralist
theory, value is said to be produced by socio-linguistic systems. In
either case, one desired effect of the distinction between fact and
value is the segregation or liberation of the will. The will as the
carrier of value is detached from the ordinary factual world.65
The separation of fact and value contributes to the disenchantment of the world; comprehensive teleologies (theistic and secular)
fall away and the world appears, as in existentialist thought, as a
neutral space into which individuals are thrown and left with the
burden of making meaning, of creating value where there is none.
In other words, the privatization of desire is fed by and feeds moral
relativism and subjectivism. Moral relativism refers to the belief
that moral values are matters of personal preference. Of course,
a moral relativist might feel very strongly about her own (or her
communitys) moral code. But she cannot provide reasons for it on
grounds other than preference or custom or expediency. In moral
subjectivism the maxim that the heart wants what it wants meets
the injunction to love and do what you will. Thus, implicit in subjectivist attitudes toward desire is a schizophrenia in which desires
rule denies our agency (we cannot alter what we desire or bring ourselves to desire) and in which desire functions as a hallmark for our
sovereign and unfettered will (we are malleable enough to adopt
and exchange pursuits, loyalties, and goods according to fancy and
expediency).
The dilemmas of desire indicate once again that the selfrealization which contemporary culture urges entails dual tasks of
self-determination and self-denition. Yet the grounds on which we
might morally evaluate particular forms of self-relation are eroding.
64
65
William Ian Miller considers briey the way that desire depends on disgust. See his
provocative book The Anatomy of Disgust (Cambridge, ma, and London: Harvard University Press, 1997) especially 11219.
Murdoch, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, 52.
39
A Christian ethics of self love speaks to the problem of desire

because it afrms God as the source of value. This point is important for the problems of moral justication that desire raises.
Our experiences of conferring value and of being confronted by
it become intelligible in light of the afrmations that God endows
creation with goodness and that we are co-creators with God. A
Christian ethics of self love also afrms God as the highest good.
This does not mean that God sits at the top of a worldly scale of
goods; this claim denies Gods transcendence, which is precisely
what we mean to afrm when we say that God is the highest good.
An ethics of self love that centers on God as the self s highest good
aims at enhancing the self. Because it views the self as a creature,
this enhancement is indexed not to the wills creation of value in
acts of power but to goods encountered in creaturely life, and to a
source of value that transcends and establishes these goods. Also,
the enhancement of the self is not over and against others. The
goods discovered in creaturely life comprise objective reference
points and situate the self in a world and in relation to others. This
is not a neutral space but one the self encounters and in which
she moves through interpretive and evaluative activities. Nor is it
a space of value that is somehow contained or domestic. God and
not the will to power effects the revaluation of values that directs
human constructs and projects. And this in turn indicates that the
problem of self love is more basic than one of selshness. It concerns
proper self-relation. We only identify pride as problematic because
we recognize it as a distorted or false form of self-relation. This is
why the cluster of problems explored above pose the contemporary
problem of self love; each makes it more difcult for us to evaluate
morally the concrete acts and relations through which the self takes
up her self-relation in the world, with others, and before God.
the norm of self-reali zati on
I want to characterize our moral situation, with all its promise,
tensions, and contradictions, as one which gives rise to the norm
of self-realization. The norm of self-realization captures the constellation of problems I note above. It obliges us in the absence of
consensus about what the self is that is to be realized. In this manner, it expresses subjectivism and risks voluntarism on the one hand
40
and collectivism on the other. By subjectivism I mean the tendency

to treat appeals to desires, wants, and personal experience as unassailable and morally sufcient grounds to legitimate a course of
action or a relationship. This subjectivism neglects or absolutizes
the communal shaping of desire (which is especially problematic in
a consumerist culture), nds expression in voluntarism, intuitionism, uncritical appeals to projects of self-realization and ideals of
authenticity, and it risks complacency and self-indulgence in the
moral life. It also enervates practical moral decision-making insofar as competing and conicting desires are not adjudicated as
possible motives for acting, and the collective wisdom embodied in
authoritative resources is subordinated to the primacy of an agents
subjective preferences. Voluntarism suggests that the human capacity for self-determination is essentially unfettered and, further, that
we are who we decide ourselves to be. Voluntarism isolates the
agent from any signicant determination by others and the world
and from our bodies. It prizes human autonomy to the exclusion
of other values and privileges the will over reason. It suggests the
world is a neutral place, a canvas onto which we project our valuations and the meaning of which we determine for ourselves and
can alter at will. Voluntarism implies a theory of value, then, that
is reductive, and is at odds with some aspects of our experience. It
cannot account for the way we are confronted by value or for the
experience of moral obligation. The experience of moral obligation
suggests that something or someone worthy elicits and/or places
constraints on our acting. It testies thereby to values independence from the self. The norm of self-realization also threatens collectivism to the extent that it erodes the grounds for moral and social
criticism and insofar as arguments against substance-metaphysics
versions of the self subsume the self into linguistic or socio-economic
systems.
Secular approaches to the self in the academy and culture at large
re-cast rather than resolve the problem of self love. It is not simply a
matter of enervating confusion about the self. Rather, many available secular approaches to the self are reluctant to develop normative anthropologies and lack the resources with which to do
so adequately. This book seeks to develop an account of self love
that can incorporate and extend modern criticisms of traditional
41
Christian ethical accounts of the divinehuman relation, yet can

also offset their difculties by retrieving certain insights and claims
from the tradition.
th e need for theologi cal moral anth rop ol ogy
It should be clear by now that even though I think the postmodern
deconstruction of the self rests on legitimate concerns and offers indispensable insights, I join thinkers like Iris Murdoch and Charles
Taylor in recognizing the deep connections between moral ontologies, moral anthropologies, and theories of value, or axiologies.
I also join thinkers like Stanley Rudman and Calvin Schrag in recognizing the importance of identifying the self in its praxis. Says
Rudman, the Christian faith need not be tied to a substance metaphysic. In fact, it is important that the Christian faith should be free
to pursue the search for truth in this area as in any other. Aristotelian
or Thomist ideas of substance are not an essential part of Christian
truth, and there may be better ways of expressing this truth.66
Schrag thinks postmodernists have decisively jettisoned classical
substantialist and modern foundationalist views of the self, but he
argues that a meaningful sense of self can emerge after these devastating critiques, a praxis-oriented self, understanding, representing
and fashioning herself in discourse, action, community, and in transcendence.67
While I share with these largely secular (though religiously sympathetic) arguments an approach to the self that stresses selfunderstanding and praxis, I depart from them by arguing that
theological anthropologies that are indebted to conceptual frameworks of being yield important insights into self-relation, especially
given the contemporary problem of self love. A theological account
of self-relation makes more sense of our moral experience because it
has the linguistic and symbolic resources to articulate it and because
it is an exercise of practical reason. In other words, a theological
account of self-relation does more than speculate on or describe our
being in the world; it orients our acting and relations with others
and in the world. As Schrag and Rudman note, Christian theology
66
67
Rudman, Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics, 17374.

Schrag, Self After Postmodernity.
42
need not employ arguments indebted to substance metaphysics.

Conceptual frameworks of being, or ontological accounts of the
self encounter problems, as trenchant critics of them rightly note.
But they also offer insights, and given the inescapably historical
character of our thinking, attempts to rework and redeem them
are exercises in self-understanding. Ontology helps us attend to
our creatureliness, while a hermeneutical approach to that creatureliness keeps us mindful of this attention as an interpretive and
evaluative activity. A theological approach brings out the best of
these two and offsets their difculties. A hermeneutical theological method prevents us from reifying ontological categories, something that would entail losing sight of the truth of hermeneutics
and losing sight of Gods relationality and sovereignty. God sets
the hermeneutical criteria, or transvalues our values, by placing
before us the question whether our constructs impel us in love for
others.
So I judge that a theological account of self-relation will be more
adequate a response to the contemporary problem of self love than
the foregoing options are. But, the validity of the theological account I offer must be established dialectically through engagement
with alternative positions. We can note why this is so by appealing
to the very idea of right self love. Why ought I to understand my
good as something different than, not reducible to, my preferences,
cares, etc.? The idea of right self love cannot make sense apart from
some source of value that is independent of us. It designates one
form of self-relation over and against alternative forms and thereby
testies to something that is beyond our individual and communal
ourishing, something that demands our respect and devotion. In
Chapter Three I will develop this argument in conversation with
recent work in philosophical hermeneutics. Briey, I will argue that
contemporary inquiry into the problem of self love ought to explore
the character of self-relation, particularly its reexive, interpretive,
evaluative, and embodied features. Theological accounts fare better than secular accounts because they provide a way to transcend
our own desires and constructs in moral self-criticism but do so in
a way that does not valorize autonomy, subsume the self into the
systems or communities that situate her, or, importantly, exempt
her religious relation with God from moral criticism.
43
conclusion
In this chapter I sketched a broad but inter-related set of changes in
theology, ethics and philosophy, cultural phenomena, and insights
from the social sciences. I suggested that these changes express
and reinforce a distinctive contemporary moral experience. Put
simply, the complexity and fragmentation of our moral situation
requires a contemporary account of right self love. Moreover, a
contemporary account of right self love must be developed out of
a moral anthropology. In the following chapter I argue this point
by noting difculties in available theories of self love and by calling
for a retrieval of ontological frameworks for the self.
I also argued here that the contemporary problem of self love
requires a theological response because of the theoretically faulty
and practically enervating norm of self-realization. Nevertheless, a
theological ethics ought to be warranted on theological grounds.
Moreover, a turn to Christian ethics for this theological account
cannot be easy or direct given Christian traditions ambivalence
about self love and various challenges philosophy has posed for
Christian ethics, especially to Christian moral anthropology. Let us
consider Christian ethical resources for a contemporary account
of right self love.
chapter 2
Self love in Christian ethics
As historians of ethics have noted, since the eighteenth century

theological ethical attention has shifted away from the divine
human relation to interpersonal human relations.1 As the classical
coordination of self love with love for God receded, so, too, did
many resources for thinking about the self s relation to the divine as
the central sphere of moral activity. Rather, concern for the neighbor became the province of ethics. The persons interior life and
religious status before God were disentangled from the persons
relation to others, and were distinguished more sharply from public activity and relations. While an historical and causal account of
this shift lies beyond the scope of this project, we should note several
important aspects of this shift. First, it signaled that the self s relation with God should not instrumentalize the neighbor. Second,
it testies to divine intentions that do not concern and may even
thwart individual human ourishing. Third, and somewhat ironically, it re-cast the self s relation with God in terms of an existential
decision or posture. This reconception of faith is part of a larger
apologetic project which shifted attention away from revealed religion toward forms of natural religion which tended to emphasize
the moral dimensions of Christianity and render faith as an aid to
living well. While positions which exemplify this shift vary considerably, the self s relation to the divine often was re-thought either in
terms of dependence (Schleiermacher) or freedom (Ritschl). That
1
Stephen Post, A Theory of Agape: On the Meaning of Christian Love (Lewisburg, pa: Bucknell
University Press, 1990). In part, this shift constitutes a response to the development
of philosophical ethics and to an increasing distinction between dogmatic and moral
theology. See also Gerard Gilleman, The Primacy of Charity in Moral Theology (Westminster,
md: Newman, 1959).
44
45
is, in classical positions the transcendental conditions of the divine

human relation were understood in terms of love, while in modern
thought dependence or freedom have been taken to be the most
basic transcendental mode of being before God. Moreover, the
self s existential stance often was correlated to service toward the
neighbor, either as its origin or its fruit.
Thus, for several centuries when Western theological ethics
treated self love it generally did so with respect to love for neighbor.
Granted, in most theological ethical inquiries into love, whether
their center of gravity is love for God, neighbor, or self, at least
eeting attention is given to each of the three. But my point is that
this historical shift of emphasis indicates a distinctively modern
perspective or consciousness. For this reason, recent interest in the
ourishing of the self, in the form of virtue ethics, spirituality, etc.,
represents a (post) modern re-appropriation of classical concepts
and tools for thinking about the self s good.2
Meritorious insights underlie this shift from God to neighbor.
And, in any event, modern consciousness does not allow a nave
return to pre-modern classical accounts of the divinehuman relation. Still, the shift incurs certain philosophical and theological costs. The relative silence in contemporary Christian ethics
about love for God yields an anemic theological anthropology. Too
often, the persons self-transcendence is truncated and the religious
dimension of human life is neglected. Perhaps we do not appreciate the costs of this mistake because Christian ethics directs our
attention too quickly past them to the neighbor. By correlating self
love to neighbor love, we forego the opportunity to morally evaluate religious accounts of self love and the divinehuman relation.
We also make self love beholden to neighbor love. Self love becomes, at best, neighbor loves poor sibling. This move denies any
positive content to self love, or it makes self love a precondition
for or remainder of neighbor love. Here again, we relinquish an
2
See, for example, Martha Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic
Ethics (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1994); Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way
of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, ed. and intro., Arnold I. Davidson (Oxford
and Cambridge, ma: Blackwell Publishers, 1995); Diana Fritz Cates, Choosing to Feel: Virtue,
Friendship and Compassion for Friends (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press,
1997) .
46
opportunity to enrich our theological anthropologies. And, ironically, we forego an opportunity for a subtle moral evaluation of self
love. How so? We reduce accounts of the nature of self love to moral
evaluations of it (e.g., self love is always selsh, or self love is simply
the instinct for self-preservation). Moreover, contemporary discussions not only correlate it with neighbor love and neglect love for
God, they tend to begin and proceed according to some account of
love rather than some account of the self who is to love. This adds
to our list of costs by two: (1) either self love becomes divorced from
the concrete relations and bodily specicity of the person, or (2) it is
completely identied with sacricial action on behalf of the other
and thereby potentially mutilates the moral identity of the person.
Cognizance of the former danger is the insight of many postmodern theories; the latter danger has been forcefully and compellingly
protested by many feminist ethicists.3 Nonetheless, feminist challenges to traditional Christian love ethics also tend to explore self
love with respect to love for neighbor and to engage the tradition
with respect to debates about the nature of love.
This chapter will consider available theories of self love and
feminist criticisms of sacricial love ethics. The attitudes toward
and theories of self love presented here are by no means exhaustive,
though they are largely representative. In this chapter I argue that
this prevailing tendency to conceptually correlate self love with
neighbor love and to locate debates about the ethical propriety of
self love around disputes about the nature of love (typically types of
love and their moral status) encounters problems. These problems
mean that although a theological account of self love is required,
there can be no easy or direct turn to Christian ethics to supply one.
A survey of Christian ethical arguments about self love will illustrate
this by showing Christian traditions ambivalence about self love as
well as the way recent arguments for self love are susceptible to the
subjectivism and other difculties that attend secular approaches
to the self.
3
I have in mind thinkers such as Seyla Benhabib, Beverly Harrison, and Judith Plaskow.
Notwithstanding the considerable differences among them, each critiques the way in
which the traditional Christian denigration of self love has been used against women and
minorities to perpetuate oppression.
47
a typology of self love

In recent literature on love among Christian thinkers, self love is
typically regarded in one of four ways.4 First, and most often, self
love is pernicious. Indeed, for thinkers such as Anders Nygren,
self love designates the basic human moral problem. This position
comprises the background over and against which other positions
have developed and thus, re-appears in modied versions in some
of the other options. Second, others take self love to be morally
neutral; neither evil nor good, self love is a natural, reasonable
attitude of the self towards itself. Here self love may refer to a basic
instinct for self-preservation, or to a self-afrmation that is sine qua
non for neighbor love. And, to complete the spectrum, there are
those theologians who insist that self love is a moral duty. Among
these latter thinkers, self love is, third, either a derivative duty,
necessary in order to fulll other, higher moral duties, or, fourth,
an independent duty. As a derivative duty, self love is permitted so
as to enable the agent for agape (Christian love). Paul Ramsey, for
example, as rigorous as his agapic ethics may be, concedes that the
agent must exercise sufcient care for the self so as to free and fortify
the self for works of neighbor love. Others, however, understand
self love as an independent moral duty, for example Gene Outka,
who grounds self love on the same dignity that demands love for
others. Not everyone who represents this fourth option insists that
self love is a positive duty for the same reasons as Outka, but
whether self love is understood in terms of the rewards of neighbor love or is taken to be good on the basis of the person as the
imago Dei, a common thread seems to be that self love is a duty because it coincides with or is subsumed under neighbor love. For this
reason, positions on behalf of self love tend to collapse its nature
and their moral evaluation of it. Still others argue on behalf of self
love as a positive duty; feminists counter the sacricial agape tradition with a redemption of eros or argument for mutuality, while
4
Although I depart from his own position in signicant ways, I am indebted to Gene Outka
for his insightful typology of the literature available on self love. See his Agape: an Ethical
Analysis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), especially 5574 and 28591. See also
Edward Vacek S. J., Love, Human and Divine: the Heart of Christian Ethics (Washington dc:
Georgetown University Press, 1994), 20508.
48
Edward Vacek coordinates self love with love for God in what he
calls an ethics of cooperation. This books argument for self love
seeks to incorporate and amend feminist defenses of self love, and
is one that has much in common with Vaceks position.
While the above typology indicates that Christian ethical attitudes towards self love are not as monolithic as they are often suggested to be, the overwhelming emphasis, in theory and in tenor,
is negative. Let me turn, then, to the so-called sacricial agape
tradition. It encompasses a range of attitudes toward self love. I
will begin with Nygren, who regards self love as entirely pernicious. In doing so, some important considerations will come to
light which will help us gain some purchase on the other available
approaches.
Self love and sacricial agape
Self love as pernicious
Anders Nygren regards self love as entirely pernicious. He differentiates self-interested, erotic love from other-regarding, agapic
love, correlating agape with neighbor love and eros with self love.
Quite simply, this means that agape designates the Christian form
of love while eros refers to the basic religious and moral problem
to be overcome. Nygren contrasts the two loves with characteristic
force:
Eros is acquisitive desire and longing.
Eros is an upward movement.
Eros is mans way to God.
Eros is mans effort: it assumes that
mans salvation is his own work.
Agape is sacricial giving.

Agape comes down.
Agape is Gods way to man.
Agape is Gods grace: salvation is the
work of Divine love.
Eros is egocentric love, a form of

self-assertion of the highest,
noblest, sublimest kind.
Agape is unselsh love, it seeketh not

its own, it gives itself away.
Eros seeks to gain its life, a life divine,

immortalised.
Agape lives the life of God, therefore

dares to lose it.
Eros is the will to get and possess

which depends on want and need.
Agape is freedom in giving, which

depends on wealth and plenty.
49
Eros is primarily mans love; God is

the object of Eros. Even when it is
attributed to God, Eros is
patterned on human love.
Agape is primarily Gods love; God is

Agape. Even when it is attributed
to man, Agape is patterned on
Divine love.
Eros is determined by the quality, the

beauty and worth, of its object; it
is not spontaneous, but evoked,
motivated.
Agape is sovereign in relation to its

object, and is directed to both
the evil and the good; it is
spontaneous, overowing,
unmotivated.
Eros recognises value in its object and

loves it.
Agape loves and creates value in its

object.5
Agape designates love for the neighbor as such; it is both universal

in scope and independent of any merit or change in the neighbor.
Agape loves the neighbor in her particularity; but it is at the same
time ignorant of distinctions between neighbors insofar as they
might be conditions for agape. Every neighbor, as neighbor, is to
be loved equally, though the way particular neighbors are treated
might not be identical. Any love based on preference or partiality
is for Nygren only self love. The person loves that other because of
whatever goods the neighbor adduces to the self.
Nygrens position may presuppose psychological egoism. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory about human motivation.
It is not simply the claim that self-interested, acquisitive self love
can be discerned throughout human history, but rather that selfinterest comprises the sole motive or spring of human behavior in
every person throughout history. While psychological egoism has
several variations,
the underlying thesis is that acquisitive self-love constitutes de facto the
sole spring of behavior, identical for every man. Men pursue their own
individual and private satisfaction and they cannot help pursuing it. If
their behavior at times seems ostensibly altruistic, this is only disguised
acquisitiveness. Their conscious aims, if other-regarding, are never their
real and determinative ones. At the deepest level, all aims are genetically
derived from one and may be reductively analyzed into one and only
one.6
5
6
Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (London: S.P.C.K., 1957), 210.
Outka, Agape, 60.
50
Nygren, for example, writes,

does there indeed exist any other love than that which builds on the
foundation of self-love? Is it conceivable or possible in human life as
human life is at present constituted? . . . The fact is that the resources of
natural human life are exhausted in and with egocentric love. There is
nothing in the life and activity of the natural man which does not bear
the marks of . . . seeking its own. It is therefore wholly under the dominion
of sin, and on that basis there is no possibility of manifesting love in the
Christian sense of the word, a love that seeketh not its own, but loves God
with all its heart and its neighbor as itself.7
Nygren paints such a grim picture that the only hope of Christian
love rests on God as the primary agent in agape. For Nygren, agape
is invasive; the Christian is merely the tube, the channel through
which Gods love ows.8 Thus, the person exercises no agency
whatsoever in either love for neighbor or love for God. Because
the pursuit of the self s good is by denition sinful, and because
the person cannot possibly do anything to be properly related to
God or neighbor, Nygrens position does not admit any notion of
right self love. His account of the nature of self love and his moral
evaluation of it are identical.
Notwithstanding its difculties, Nygrens position bequeaths several insights important to a contemporary theory of right self
love. First, Nygren articulated forcefully the basic claim that improper self-relation presents an obstacle to proper God-relation and
proper neighbor-relation. Second, his insight into the wily character of improper self love suggests that a theory of right self love must
entail some element of renunciation or discipline. This point is important given the privatization and immunization of desire that
I noted in the last chapter. Sacrice belongs as part of self love not
simply to insure that one prefers others to oneself in cases of conict; sacrice requires us to transcend desire sufciently to gauge
the correspondence (or lack thereof ) between desire and ones basic
moral commitments, to reform desire (to the extent one can do so)
through such reection, attention and prayer. This point will prove
important later, when I assess feminist criticisms of Nygrenesque
agape. Whatever difculties such a negative appraisal of self love
7
Nygren, Agape and Eros, 72223.
Ibid., 735.
51
might present, Nygren shows that improper self love cannot simply
be given a corrective ethics of self-realization. Rather, third, an
adequate account of proper self-relation must be advanced under
the criteria of proper God-relation and proper neighbor-relation.
In Nygren the weight of these criteria disallowed a fuller analysis
of proper self-relation. But by constructing an account of self love
on the basis of the self, we can develop Nygrens insight into the
dependency of proper self-relation on proper God- and neighborrelation in a way that maintains the controlling criteria of love for
God and for neighbor.
Nygrens argument displays important features of any position on
self love. To note these will lend some comparative clarity to the remaining positions on self love. I nd three particular features. First,
each account of self love includes some claims about the springs of
human action, that is, descriptive judgments about what attitudes,
wants, intentions, etc., normally enter into moral action, as well
as normative judgments about how those ought to be congured.
The general consensus is that self love comes rather naturally to
the person.9 We will see that some thinkers, such as Paul Ramsey,
admit that one can be morally culpable for failing to exercise basic
responsibility for the self even if only because this impairs one from
serving the neighbor; but by and large even those for whom self
love is a positive moral obligation are more concerned with the
danger of inordinate self love. As we will see, it is a testament to
the feminist critique of Christian accounts of self love that in more
recent literature the failure to establish oneself as a self has come
to be regarded as a roughly equivalent danger.
Second, each option also includes some sense of how the three
loves of self, neighbor, and God are related or ought to be related.
For example, questions arise such as whether there is substantive
overlap among any or all of the loves, or whether any of them
are always or potentially in conict. Because Nygren denes self
love in opposition to love for the neighbor, the two inevitably conict. A recurrent question in the literature is how to interpret the
as yourself of the love command, that is, to ask whether and how
9
Self love can be attributed either to the persons created nature, or to his fallen state.
52
self love is paradigmatic for neighbor love and if self love has some
positive moral status independent of neighbor love. I specify the
relation of love for God, self, and neighbor in a different way than
the available positions do by arguing that right self love consists in
a response to God (love for God) that is actualized and assessed in
love for the neighbor.
Third, and nally, each assessment of self love includes some basic understanding of love in general. That is, the available theories
of self love tend to be determined by an analysis of love rather than
the lover. This more fundamental understanding of love is often differentiated into types of love (e.g., agape, eros, philia, among others),
and one of these types is often taken to be the form of Christian
love (usually, agape). Sometimes the nature of love is understood
as some complex of them wherein basic experiences of bestowing
or apprehending value, of (re)unication, or of participation comprise the central character of love.10 The differentiation of love into
types helps to render the complex variants and modulations of love
relations, and for this reason these types remain helpful, though
insufcient for the contemporary problem of self love.
Self love as natural and morally neutral
Some thinkers regard self love as natural, and, moreover, morally
neutral in character. This may be because they conne the moral
life to interpersonal actions and relations; that is, the self s relation
to itself is for thinkers like Timothy OConnell outside the scope
of morality.11 Presumably, self love belongs to the province of other
disciplines like spirituality or psychology. This moral indifference
to self love begs the question of loving oneself rightly when people
obviously encounter grave difculties in doing so. For others, self
love, while itself morally neutral, may bear upon specically moral
loves. It may be that self love, as the persons quest for happiness,
or as a more or less conscious pursuit of self-interest, is prior to love
for others. For example, Margaret Farley suggests that one must
10
11
For an account of love as bestowal and appraisal, see Irving Singer, The Nature of Love,
3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). For an account of love as reunication,
see Paul Tillich, Love, Power and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954). For an
account of love as participation, see Vacek, Love, Human and Divine.
See Timothy OConnell, Principles for a Catholic Morality, rev. edn (San Francisco, ca:
HarperSanFrancisco), 111.
53
love oneself in order to love others insofar as love for others entails
some afrmation of the self as worthy of giving to another.12 The
psychological egoism found in Nygrens account can reappear here
as a morally neutral factor. Self love is then an ineradicable, but not
morally culpable, feature of all human activity.13 Or self love may
be a fruit of neighbor love. In loving the neighbor rightly, some
goods (e.g., satisfaction, moral habituation, discipline) may accrue
to the self organically or indirectly. Or self love is paradigmatic for
neighbor love; the as yourself of the golden rule implies as much.
The upshot of all this is that we need not worry over self love.
But the argument that self love is natural and morally neutral is
not really a stable or independent position. If its moral neutrality
is really one of moral indifference, we ignore the serious problem
of self love or relocate it to areas that are insufciently equipped to
address it. If the moral neutrality of self love rests on claims that self
love is a pre-condition for, by-product of, or paradigm for neighbor
love, we gloss conicts between self love and neighbor love in a way
that evacuates self love of its independent positive content.
The argument that self love is natural and morally neutral is also
unstable because it can pitch toward an endorsement of positive
self love, but in a way that keeps it beholden to neighbor love. Gene
Outkas Agape: an Ethical Analysis illustrates this. In a more recent
12
13
See Margaret Farley, Personal Commitments: Beginning, Keeping, Changing (San Francisco, ca:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1986).
There were also a number of thinkers who began to argue that self love was natural
and is morally permissible or even a foundation of morality. Joseph Butler argued that
self love, as the general desire for our happiness, entails an intrinsic positive regard
for various particular objects of desire. Self love is an intermediate principle between
desire and conscience, as is benevolence. Self love and benevolence organize desires and
are ordered by conscience. Butler, then, refutes egoism on the grounds that desire is
intrinsically other-regarding, that benevolence (and not only self love) can motivate us,
and because conscience is a faculty that can examine actions and motives disinterestedly.
And yet, Butler argued that conscience and self love are ultimately in harmony; virtue and
rectitude are not contrary to happiness. See his Five Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel: and
a Dissertation upon the Nature of Virtue, Introduction by Stuart M. Brown (New York: Liberal
Arts, 1950). In contrast to Butlers rationalism, Jonathan Edwards offered a moral sense
theory; the springs of human action lie in our affections, directed toward perceived
goods. He distinguishes two forms of morality. The lower form, restricted benevolence,
is a natural human morality grounded in self love. The higher form, what Edwards
identied as true virtue, embraces more than these partial objects. It is a consent to and
love for being in general. This true benevolence does not conict with natural morality
because it is love for God and all things in God. See his On the Nature of True Virtue,
foreward by William K. Frankena (Ann Arbor, mi: University of Michigan, 1960).
54
essay, Outka argues more directly and fully that self love is a positive
obligation, and I will consider this position later. But Agape helps us
to see the difculties of natural and neutral self love.
In Agape Outka rejects psychological egoism, and, thereby,
Nygrens agapeeros dichotomy. In doing so, he transforms the link
between self love and human nature from a nefarious acquisitiveness to a reasonable vitality. Outka describes self love as a natural
energy or vitality, as epithymia. He qualies the positive assessment
which epithymia designates for some:
The unavoidable element of self-love I now have in mind . . . has minimally to do with a certain unreective and vital energy which the agent
brings . . . One might formally regard it as part of the spontaneous self-love
which is not blameworthy but not particularly praiseworthy . . . Natural vitality easily becomes inordinate and destructive. Agape ought to remain
the controlling criterion for epithymia, so as to guard the integrity of the
other person against violation and abuse.14
Outka further acknowledges that some thinkers for whom self love
is reasonable and prudent understand self love not as the unreective attachment of epithymia, but as a more conscious selfafrmation. For them, self love coincides with neighbor love either
because it must be sequentially prior to or at least must accompany
agape. Outka does not adopt any one of these options, but simply
notes that, unlike psychological egoism, the agapist may hold them
without inconsistency.
Of course, claiming that some account of self love in relation to
neighbor love can be consistent with agape is not the same thing
as claiming that self love is reasonable and prudent. To be fair,
Outkas task in Agape is not to forward a constructive account of
agape, but, rather, to analyze the uses and theories of agape in
contemporary Christian thought. The text, however, may indicate
that Outka prefers an account of self love as natural and morally
neutral.15 Outka appears to endorse self love as a basic, natural
self-regard for two reasons. First, the self may be loved for the
14
15
Outka, Agape, 28788.

Barbara Hilkert Andolsen notes this. See her Agape in Feminist Ethics, in Feminist
Theological Ethics: a Reader, ed., Lois K. Daly (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox,
1994).
55
same reasons that the neighbor is loved. The agents basic selfregard, then, ought not to be simply dependent on the number of
his achievements or the extent to which he is found likable, but
on his being as well a man of esh and blood and a creature of
God, a person who is more than a means to some other end.16
This basic self-regard is warranted by ones creatureliness. It
does not mean that self love has an independent, positive content;
rather, the contrast Outka draws between self-interest and otherregard ought not to require the self to be exploited by the neighbor.
He calls this the question of whether to issue to the neighbor a
blank check.17 For Outka, the principal reason for refusing the blank
check is because it is inconsistent with agape. Outka contends that
agape is universal in scope and has equal regard for neighbors
at its center. He, too, distinguishes equal regard from identical
treatment. Note that concern for the neighbor rather than concern
for the self prohibits the self from allowing herself to be exploited
(e.g., sometimes the neighbors good must be achieved by working
against the neighbors weakness). For Outka the blank check can
also be refused out of some basic self-regard. Just as the neighbor
must be regarded as a human being prior to a particular human
being, so even the self must value itself in the same way.18 Here,
too, self love (basic self-regard) lacks independent positive content.
At the very moment that self love is being said to set some limit on
love for the neighbor, love for neighbor is made the paradigm and
warrant for doing so. And, not allowing oneself to be exploited begs
the question whether self love entails particular duties and goods
in its own right.
Second, Outka seems to endorse self love as natural and morally
neutral when he claims that, structurally speaking, only the self
can take responsibility for itself. Another cannot realize its projects,
develop its capacities, or exercise its freedom.19 We can consider
this responsibility as a reasonable, prudent exercise of self love.
Here again the position slides towards an endorsement of positive
self love. But because Outka is wary of the ease with which natural
16
17
18
19
Ibid., 291.
Outkas position displays some afnities with Kierkegaard on this point. See Agape, 2124.
Here Outka exhibits the inuence of Kant. See Agape, 23.
Ibid., 305.
56
self-assertion may become inordinate and destructive, he subjects

self love to the criterion of agape. Indeed, for Outka self love, as
this responsibility for the self, leads him to an account of agentstringency. The evaluative principle of agent-stringency requires
the agent to hold herself to a higher standard of other-regarding
accountability than that to which she holds others. In sum, Outka
grounds self love on the same basis as love for neighbor and assesses
self love with respect to neighbor love as its criterion, and perhaps
even as its end. His description seems to subsume self love under
neighbor love (the self as neighbor to herself ) and to suggest that
self love, while distinct, is ordered to neighbor love rather than
independently allowed.
While I want to argue that self love constitutes an independent,
positive moral obligation, I share two convictions with Outkas
position here, two convictions which come to play a larger part in
Outkas recent thinking, wherein he commends self love directly.
First, when Outka seems to ground self love on the same basis as
love for neighbor, he argues that this basic self-regard depends on
ones being a creature of God. While I would not warrant self love
on the basis of the self as neighbor to oneself, I do contend that
self love constitutes an obligation for the self because the self, like
the neighbor, has been created to love God. Second, the structural
reasons for self love also factor into the theory of self love which
I forward. They help to explain the categorical self-relation of the
person and can perhaps provide a way to think about the persons
transcendental self-relation (e.g., a person is ultimately responsible
for her response to God). Moreover, the structural necessity of self
love offers a way to develop the feminist insight into the sin of failing
to establish oneself as a self. I will return to this later.
Self love as a derivative obligation
For some thinkers self love is a secondary moral obligation when
it is derived from the primary obligation of neighbor love. Paul
Ramsey argues this. His position shows afnities with the rst two
even as he makes a distinctive argument for self love. On the one
hand, for Ramsey the as yourself found in the golden rule does
not constitute a command to love oneself, but rather suggests that
self love is paradigmatic for neighbor love. Self love is paradigmatic
57
because it endures apart from merit; its constancy toward its object
provides a model for how the Christian ought to love the neighbor.20
On the other hand, Ramsey understands self love as acquisitive.
Indeed, he claims that the love command presupposes self love
in order to wrench one away from it.21 Christian love is always
disinterested and diffusive, while self love is acquisitive and selsh.
As acquisitive, self love is compatible with various objects.22 In other
words, both neighbor and God can be loved acquisitively. Thus,
for Ramsey, the nature of self love is not determined by its object,
but rather by the type of love it instantiates erotic selshness. For
this reason, Ramsey opposes self love to obedient love, the former
being a teleological pursuit of the self s good (whether that good
is conceived to lie in some base object or even beatitude itself ),
the latter being a deontological love for the neighbor as such. Any
good that might accrue to the self thereby would be a completely
unintended consequence. Thus, the Christian must be converted
from self love.23 Indeed, Christian love is self love inverted.24
Because the very nature of self love is opposed to Christian or
obedient love, Ramsey considers two traditions in ethics which
commend self love, one in terms of an enlightened selshness, the
other through a mutual love between self and neighbor. Enlightened selshness designates the pursuit of superior values for the
self s sake (such as beatitude) or even the simple hope that ones
love be requited. Because Christian love is not a matter of its object
but rather its quality or type, enlightened selshness is reducible to
self love. The intentional pursuit of self-realization, which Ramsey
calls philosophical idealism, is also self love. In fact, according to
Ramsey, philosophical idealism is the chief rival to Christian love,
because what idealism calls the good Christian ethics calls sin or
idolatry.25 Idolatry has two moods to which the modern person
20
21
22
23
24
25
Paul Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics ( Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1950), 233.
Ibid., 102. Ramsey agrees with Kierkegaard on this point.
Ibid., 148.
Ibid., 189. It is important to note that for Ramsey derivative self love is not a precondition
for loving the neighbor in the sense that one must love herself before she can love another.
See 105.
Ibid., 100.
Ibid., 30102. Philosophical idealism includes the pursuit of self-realization through selfgiving. Ramsey does not deny that some good might accrue to the self through Christian
love; the point is that the Christian can never intend any good for herself. What is loved
58
is susceptible: he rst despairs over mans littleness, his limitation

by physical necessity and death, and in despair he is unwilling to
be himself the creature of dust he knows he is. At the same time
he despairingly and deantly wills to be himself in the guise of
some god, some deied program or institution whose creatureliness he refuses to acknowledge.26 Ramsey is unclear as to whether
the person is equally susceptible to each mood, but the point to be
taken is that the failure of the self to be itself is an instance of idolatrous self love.27 Unwillingness to be oneself is not corrected by positive self love, but, rather, by a simple willingness to be oneself, by a
self-acceptance which is divested of any self love, a self-acceptance
that frees the self from concern for itself and for love for the
neighbor.28
This same subconscious egoism prevails in accounts that extol
mutual love relations. For Ramsey, when the self identies itself with
some other, or with some common good, the self only relates itself to
itself. This not only instrumentalizes the proximate object of love,
for example the neighbor, but also constitutes an absolutization
of the nite. Even the common pursuit of superior values such as
beatitude is an idolatrous instantiation of self love.
Given Ramseys contrast between enlightened selshness and
obedient love, or philosophical idealism and Christian love, no
more disastrous mistake can be made than to admit self-love onto
the ground oor of Christian ethics as a basic part of Christian
obligation, however much concern for self-improvement, for example, may later come to be a secondary, though entirely essential
aspect of Christian vocation.29 Neighbor love, however, requires
26
27
28
29
is not as morally salient for Ramsey as how it is loved; since one is clearly obligated to
love the neighbor, the moral issue is the kind of love in which neighbor love consists.
Ibid., 29798.
Such a point offers an interesting response to feminist critiques of the traditional Christian
emphasis on pride as the basic sin. Judith Plaskow, for instance, argues that pride does
not adequately convey the sin of many women, which, rather than self-assertion, is the
failure to establish oneself as a self. But on Ramseys account, self love is so pervasive
that this failure ought to be understood as the self s attempt to escape being for another.
Here he agrees with Kierkegaard. See ibid., 29798, and Judith Plaskow, Sex, Sin and
Grace: Womens Experience and the Theologies of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich (Lanham, md:
University Press of America, 1980).
Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics, 10405.
Ibid., 101. Given the universal scope of neighbor love, some theologians used the idea
of vocation to make sense out of how one might actually serve their neighbor. See for
59
the self to be itself, to accept itself and to develop itself as the

vocation of neighbor love requires.30 In enlightened selshness and
mutual love, duties which might appear to be duties to the other
are really performed for the self; but, in Christian vocation, duties
toward the self are really duties of neighbor love, duties to the
neighbor performed rst upon the self.31
Self love has no independent legitimacy. It is justied only as a
secondary dimension of neighbor love. This means that Ramsey is
unable to make sense of any duties to the self that might arise out of
love for God and/or traditional Christian claims about God as the
good of the human as such. Ramsey misses a profound theological
anthropological insight on this count; he seems to understand the
capacity for human self-transcendence as an overwhelming proclivity to idolatry.32 While, empirically speaking, we might nd some
evidence for this, Ramsey is so wary that he may suggest a version
of psychological egoism reminiscent of Nygren: At all times and
places men worship idols, i.e., themselves, and not just under certain
variable conditions.33 According to Ramsey, to live outside this
idolatrous self love is an ideal possibility, actualized through Christs
love. Ramsey is correct, but he understands the nature of self love
too narrowly. Insofar as the nature of self love rests on this descriptive anthropological claim, Ramsey fails to take seriously the way
in which the human is created to love God.34 It is unclear why a
purely responsive love for God cannot include, in fact ought not to
include this claim about the human for it is not at odds with the
insistence that God loves rst, nor does it require a synergism in
which our answer of love secures Gods continuing love.
Despite these difculties in Ramseys account of self love,
there are several insights in his position that are important to a
contemporary theory of right self love. First, his critique of enlightened selshness and philosophical idealism provide helpful and
incisive checks to amorphous self-realization ethics. An adequate
account of right self love must remain cognizant of the dangers
entailed in self-realization. These dangers include more than a
30
31
34
example Gilbert Meilaender, Friendship (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press,
1981).
Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics, 16162.
32 Ibid., 297.
33 Ibid.
Ibid., 163.
Ramsey places greater emphasis on the fall than on creation.
60
propensity to instrumentalize others in the pursuit of ones own interest. As he shows, even the earnest pursuit of religious and moral
ourishing can be the locus of self-deception and idolatry. I adopt
this insight in order to argue that the persons religious relation to
God, then, is subject to moral evaluation. Second, he understands
the roughly equivalent danger of failing to establish oneself as a
self in terms of selshness. Rather than explain such a failing as the
result of being victimized by forces and relations, Ramseys assessment of this failure makes sense of the persons responsibility for
such a failure and indicates that proper self-relation has the character of a task or demand. While some feminists would maintain that
some persons exhibit this failure precisely because they are victims
(say of abuse), Ramseys assessment can help a theory of right self
love do justice to the complex ways in which the persons capacities
for proper self-relation are both shaped by relations, institutions,
and systems, and yet remain a matter of personal responsibility.
Finally, Ramsey understands proper self-relation to consist in an
acceptance of ones creaturehood, a willingness to be oneself before
God in gratitude and faith. The way in which he identies proper
self love with an acceptance of ones status as a creature of God
complements my own attempt to analyze self love on the basis of
the lover.
Self love as an independent moral obligation
There are at least four reasons why some thinkers argue that self
love is a denite, independent moral obligation.35 First, thinkers
who represent this option seem to nd that the descriptive claim
that the human has an unreective self-attachment or even a basic
acquisitiveness is not complex enough. It recognizes dangers such
as pride and selshness, but neglects the roughly equivalent dangers
of excessive self-sacrice or the failure to establish oneself as a self.36
Second, a self love that is derived from and devoted to neighbor love
excludes a number of duties the self has toward itself. That is, self
love encompasses some attitudes and actions, particularly a kind of
stewardship that the self exercises with respect to itself, which is not
35
36
Here I follow the analysis provided in Outka, Agape, 7074, and 28991.
See footnote 27 of this chapter regarding Ramsey and Plaskow.
61
reducible to other-regard. Moreover, these duties towards the self

might on occasion trump duties towards others. Third, self love is
not an alternative to neighbor love, but, rather, is correlative with
it. Self love and neighbor love are temporally coincident (and not
only eschatologically commensurable), such that conicts between
them are either only apparent, or are ordered to the self s good.
This argument takes on different variations: sometimes thinkers
stress that the self is realized in regard for the other, or that selfsacrice is its own reward. Finally, self love is deemed a denite
obligation because the self ought to be valued for the same reasons
as one ought to value others.
Let me consider defenses of self love that run along two different,
though not incompatible lines. My own defense of self love borrows
from both and endeavors to address their respective difculties. Like
the previous arguments about self love, these defenses are driven
largely by accounts of love rather than accounts of the self.
The feminist critique of traditional Christian accounts of self love
Modern theological ethical thinkers note that the idea that selfsacrice begets some goods to the self, at least spiritual, eschatological goods, is often employed to console or manipulate individuals
and groups into accepting their station in life. Many feminist
thinkers advance this criticism forcefully and compellingly. Feminists take issue not only with the emphasis on sacrice found in
much agapic love ethics, but also with the denigration of the self,
creation, and mutuality they nd in traditional accounts of the
divinehuman relation. Let me detail some of the features of this
challenge.
To begin, some feminists criticize the understanding of agape in
terms of sacrice and the denigration of self love (eros) that typically
accompanies it. Eros is prideful self-assertion, the quintessence of
self love. Feminists charge, however, that such an account is dangerous. Their reasons are two-fold. First, while sinful self-assertion,
the primary obstacle to agape, may represent the experience many
men have had throughout the Christian tradition, it fails to account
for womens experience. Often the tradition collapses self love with
the sin of pride, thereby making self love the primary human sin.
From the nineteenth century on, feminists began to note that the
62
claim that self love designates the basic moral problem excludes
the experience of women, whose failing can be characterized not
as prideful self-assertion, but as excessive self-abnegation. Second,
feminists noted that the traditional Christian injunction against self
love and the sacricial ethics that served as its corrective have been
used to oppress and control women. Let me consider each of these
criticisms in turn.
The sacricial agapic ethics presupposes an account of sin which
is inadequate to womens experience. A number of feminists raise
this charge, and their arguments have proved so compelling that
many recent writers on agape at least acknowledge that prideful
self-assertion is accompanied by a roughly equivalent danger
of excessive self-abnegation. This sin, argue feminists, has been
largely the sin of women. Some characterize it as sloth, others as
the lack of an organizing center.37 Women have a tendency to
give themselves over to others to such an extent that they lose
themselves. Thus they squander their distinctive personal abilities.
The virtues which theologians should be urging upon women are
autonomy and self-realization. What many male theologians are
offering instead is a one-sided call to a self-sacrice which may
ironically reinforce womens sins.38
Judith Plaskow elaborates this sin of self-abnegation in a study
of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich. She understands womens
sin as the failure to take responsibility for self-actualization.39
Plaskows study focuses on the inter-relation of cultural (male)
denitions of femininity and expectations for women, and their
internalization by women. Plaskow points out that the traditional
understanding of sin as prideful self-absorption ignores the fact
that Womens sin is precisely the failure to turn toward the self.
The sin which involves God-forgetfulness and self-forgetfulness is
not properly called pride, even where the word is used in its religious sense.40 Moreover, when sin is so understood, virtue, by
37
38
39
Valerie Saiving Goldstein, The Human Situation: a Feminine View, in Womanspirit

Rising: a Feminist Reader in Religion, eds., Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow (San Francisco,
ca: HarperSanFrancisco; Christ and Plaskow, 1979), 2542. See 37.
Andolsen, Agape in Feminist Ethics, 151.
40 Ibid., 151.
Plaskow, Sex, Sin and Grace, 3.
63
contrast, becomes self-sacrice and self-denial. Plaskow argues that

the virtue of sacrice became linked closely to cultural denitions
of femininity which women have internalized to such an extent
that self-abnegation has become basic to womens experience. This
association and internalization can be explained in terms of the division between public and private spheres; the fact that women
are associated with the private, domestic sphere, where sacrice
is deemed more appropriate and necessary, means that women
are socialized to practice this Christian virtue to their detriment.
Plaskow maintains that the link between womens nature and the
virtue of sacrice has been supported by the myth of the eternal
feminine nature of women, their passivity and closeness to nature.
Thus, the feminist critique of a sacricial agapic ethics is closely
inter-related to criticism of the denigration of nature and the body
found in some Christian thinkers (which I will address next) and
criticisms of any claims about what is essential to the nature of
women.
The argument that an agapic ethics is theoretically inadequate
given womens experience is typically accompanied by the claim
that it is dangerous and that its practice can mutilate the identity
of and oppress women. Historically, femininity was identied with
nature whereas masculinity was identied with spirit or culture.
Ironically, this means both that women are deemed naturally more
virtuous (because they are more passive and nurturing) and that
women are devalued, even associated with evil. Thus womens sexuality, when linked to motherhood, is understood to make women
more inclined to self-giving and care, while womens sexuality,
when divorced from reproduction, is often rendered as seductive,
manipulative, and, therefore, evil. This dualism need not be rehearsed here, but it is valuable to note the deep ambivalence within
the Christian tradition regarding the essential nature of women.41
Plaskow points out that womens sin is in large measure a product
of social, cultural forces. While each woman has to dene her own
relation to her cultures expectations and in this sense may be said
41
Rosemary Radford Reuthers, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston, ma:
Beacon, 1983) remains a good resource for this point. See especially chapter 7. See also
Karl Stern, The Flight from Woman (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1965).
64
to freely afrm her cultural destiny, the horizon of her struggle with
social expectations is set by her society; it provides a xed range of
choices.42 For women within the Christian tradition, this horizon
includes negative valuations of the self, the body, and nature. Moreover, when sin is understood as prideful self-assertion and virtue as
self-sacrice, and when such thinking has been the reasoning of
male theologians, the sacricial ethics which follows allows those
in positions of power to oppress women and minorities.
Similarly, Beverly Wildung Harrison critiques the dualisms that
have permeated the Christian tradition because they pose exclusive
alternatives for moral behavior.43 The opposition of self love and
love for others, or pride and self-sacrice, extends beyond a particular norm applicable to particular moral cases; as Harrison notes,
the opposition correlates to the whole of Christian existence. While
some feminists criticize the denigration of the self which lies at the
heart of such a synecdoche but still allow an appropriate place for
sacrice in the moral life, others reject the virtue of sacrice altogether. Harrison writes, for instance, in a critique of divine command ethics, it is time to insist that the notion of obedience itself is
simply antithetical to what we mean by ethics or the moral point of
view.44 Thus, she lodges the criticism of sacricial agape within an
overarching criticism of attitudes toward and valuations of the self.
Too many Christians, even of the progressive sort, still believe, in accord
with male-stream Christian teaching, that an irresolvable theological and
moral tension exists between self-assertive or self-interested acts (that is,
those involved in the struggle for our/my liberation) and loving and
good Christian acts. Nevertheless, we feminists maintain that radical
Christian theology should be predicated on the assumption that there is
no ontological split between self/other; there is no monolithic polarity
of self-interested action versus other-regardingness. All people each
of us-in-relation-to-all have a mandate, rooted in God, to the sort of
self-assertion that grounds and conrms our dignity in relationship.
42
43
44
Plaskow, Sex, Sin and Grace, 167. Plaskow is careful to note that sinful self-denial is not a
aw inherent in women by treating it as an aspect of womens experience as social experience, one constituted by the internalization of and reaction to and against denitions
of femininity.
Beverly Wildung Harrison, Sexism and the Language of Christian Ethics, in Making
the Connections: Essays in Feminist Social Ethics, ed., Carol S. Robb (Boston, ma: Beacon,
1985), 28.
Ibid., 38.
65
Self-assertion is basic to our moral well-being. The human struggle for

liberation is precisely the struggle to create material, spatial, and temporal
conditions for all to enjoy centered, self-determined social existence.45
Harrison notes that Christian theological esteem for sacrice

is grounded on Christological formulations that she regards as
masochistic; Jesus self-immolation to please the Father set the
paradigm for the Christians response to Jesus.46 She offers an alternative Christology wherein Jesus accepted sacrice for the sake
of radical love. The crucixion of Jesus demonstrates that Jesus intended to make and sustain right relationships, even if the price for
such reciprocity was his own life. Such radical love sets an example
of solidarity and mutuality that requires a giving and receiving that
masculinist Christianity does not teach. Harrison is emphatic:
Mark the point well: We are not called to practice the virtue of sacrice.
We are called to express, embody, share and celebrate the gift of life, and
to pass it on! We are called to reach out, to deepen relationship, or to right
wrong relations those that deny, distort, or prevent human dignity from
arising as we recall each other into the power of personhood.47
Harrison notes, for example, that both otherworldly and worlddenying spiritualities ought to be rejected as incompatible with
womens experience. Women, she claims, are less cut off from the
real than many in the Christian tradition would claim or wish. This
connection indicates that women have been and are those who hold
the power to build up persons and community. This power is rooted
in embodiment. Harrison opposes the disinterested, detached, disembodied love ethics found in much of Christianity with a bodymediated, sensual, mutual understanding of love. A self-sacricial
understanding of agape has been understood as the pinnacle of
Christian love, but such a reading of Christianity ignores a parallel
emphasis in the tradition on mutuality and solidarity.
Rather than the passive, self-effacing love many Christian ethicists have urged, Harrison enjoins us to understand love as a mode
of action. We do not yet have a moral theology that teaches us the
45
46
47
Beverly Wildung Harrison, Theological Reection in the Struggle for Liberation, in

Making the Connections, 241.
Ibid., 262.
Beverly Wildung Harrison, The Power of Anger in the Work of Love, in Making the
Connections, 1920.
66
awe-full, awe-some truth that we have the power through acts of

love or lovelessness literally to create one another.48 For Harrison
love is the power to act-each-other-into-well-being.49 In this regard, Harrison offers a representative feminist understanding of
love as mutuality. Such an account is more compatible with the
relationality and contextuality of the self and provides a vision of
human ourishing which does not threaten to mutilate the self s
identity. Harrison and Plaskow are both sensitive to the way a love
ethics can commend a lifestyle in which the self dissipates itself into
relations, roles, and commitments.
Difculties in feminist approaches to self love
Theological ethical approaches to love have shifted in keeping with
larger changes in Christian ethics, away from the divinehuman
relation and toward interpersonal relations. Along with this shift,
Christian love ethics focus more on the nature of love than on theological moral anthropology. Feminist criticisms of the tradition
replicate this focus; typically they offer either a redemption of eros
or an alternative account of love, generally as mutuality. As a result,
such feminist positions in fact reinforce the dichotomy established
by the tradition between a self-sacricing, disinterested love and a
love that seeks reciprocity and the self s fulllment thereby. Like
other literature on self love, feminist treatments encounter problems because of their methodological focus on the nature of love
and their conceptual correlation of self love with neighbor love
rather than love for God. Moreover, these problems subsequently
account for much of the literatures substance. Here I argue that
the very concerns and features that mark feminist love ethics are
undermined by this substantive and methodological focus on love
rather than the lover. Specically, this debates methodological and
substantive focus on love eclipses matters of moral anthropological import, and when coupled with false modesty about normative
anthropologies, severs the question of how the self can love itself
from the question of whether her acts and relations appropriately
embody (or not) her desires, motives, and commitments. Let me
48
Ibid., 11.
49
Ibid.
67
note briey several of those concerns and the way each stands in
tension with the focus on love.
As we have seen, feminist love ethics reject the denigration of
selves found in much of the tradition. It is the source of much
self-loathing and of estrangement between human beings and creation, and those individuals who have been associated with creation
(persons of color and women). Because this estrangement is often
coupled with and warranted by accounts of human nature and ontological and moral dualisms, feminists countered it with versions
of self-realization ethics that seek to liberate women (and for some,
men as well) from such relations of domination and subjugation.
Some feminists do so by emphasizing distinctly feminine virtues,
such as care. Radical versions of this counter call women toward
gender separatism, the formation of women-only communities and
the creation of non-sexist customs, relations, and practices. Others
argue that this amounts to a reversal (and therefore replication) of
patterns of domination and subjugation. Regardless, feminist ethics
share an appreciation for autonomous self-determination. Although some conservative feminists continue to look toward rather
traditional understandings of womens nature, these essentialist
ethics are outnumbered by, and themselves give some heed to,
principled suspicion of such accounts. The result is that feminist
emphases on self-determination are generally accompanied and
furthered by the argument that no universal account of selfhood
can be forwarded.
Thus, it seems that the liberation of women requires a certain
moral subjectivism. This charge is important and merits some
consideration. Susan Frank Parsons helpfully maps feminist ethics
according to three paradigms, a liberal paradigm that takes its bearings from the Enlightenment, a social constructionist paradigm that
includes both Marxist and postmodern varieties, and a naturalist
paradigm. Parsons identies a set of concerns that cut across all
three paradigms, specically, the problem of universalism in ethics,
an emphasis on community as the site for redemptive relationships,
and the question whether a gender-sensitive natural law ethics is
possible. These concerns provide points of contact between secular
and Christian feminists and, Parsons argues, can be furthered by
68
work in Christian ethics. Parsons recognizes the special import of

the universalism problem, especially as it is raised in debate over
the relationship between feminism and postmodernism. Parsons
notes that postmodernitys iconoclasm and its emphasis on the
sheer diversity and particularity of persons simultaneously relativize ethical categories and initiate a properly moral prohibition
of idolatry. Does an ethics of deconstruction leave us without any
frameworks, categories, and theories? What then becomes of ethics?
Is it reduced to moral triage? Parsons asks whether women may do
without some generalisations about themselves and their situations,
and a framework in which these may be discussed, distinguished
from one another, and evaluated. Without some theoretical perspective, and indeed some meta-narrative of justice, it is difcult
to understand how conicting interests can be balanced and alternative possibilities considered.50 It is precisely because feminists
set for themselves critical and reconstructive tasks that they must
defend the possibility of ethics. And yet their hermeneutics of suspicion subordinates ethics to the sort of post-moral freedom to which
Christ calls persons.
For this reason Parsons seems to favor a nonfoundational realism that consists in ongoing participation in political and moral
debate.51 The conversation itself becomes redemptive and its continued development helps to debunk potentially coercive pictures
of community while (indeed by) allowing different voices to express
themselves. Since the feminist quest for an appropriate universalism means that feminists are unwilling to abandon altogether the
possibility of ethics, feminists remain committed to reection on human ourishing. Yet, there lie within feminist writings deep-seated
suspicions about descriptions of human nature, of the meaning
of the human body, and of the fulllment for which humanity
is intended.52 This is because, as Nieztsche and Foucault argue,
attempts to identify some origin or basis for identity fail to see
that identity is created by institutions, discourses, and relations.
On this count, the project of feminism seems to be the radical
50
51
Susan Frank Parsons, Feminism and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 195.
52 Ibid., 225.
Ibid., 215.
69
deconstruction of normative accounts of human nature. As Lisa

Cahill puts it, in brief, we must liberate without saying what counts
as liberation.53 Cahill goes on to say that the rhetoric of difference, when elevated to the level of a philosophical principle, can
devitalize the cause of justice on behalf of those whom it was initially
aimed to serve. It threatens to place the different beyond the scope
of ones own moral comprehension, concern and responsibility.54
Given this risk, this deconstructive project may reintroduce a mind
body dualism by rooting resistance in some basic desire.55 To be
sure, feminist ethics appeal, often, to experience as a source and
criterion for ethics. But increasing recognition of the particularity
of experience across class, racial, and ethnic backgrounds makes
experience less a substantive norm than a regulative one. That
is, it is precisely because experiences are so particular that their
normative weight demands cognizance of and respect for experiences that differ. Appeals to authenticity, to ones true identity
become ever more immune from criticism when we eschew supposedly untenable and potentially tyrannous accounts of selfhood and
celebrate the self s desire, often quite apart from asking whether
certain forms, objects, or expressions of desire must be subject to
ethical criticism. In this way, we undermine the concern to liberate
selves. Desire is formed and shaped culturally, and particularly in a
consumerist society is not always (or even often) an infallible compass for nding oneself or a surere means for self-realization.
Indeed, as Nygrens rigorous agapic ethics shows, and as Outka
remains aware, persons have an inexhaustible capacity for selfdeception. So we cannot correct the traditions denigration of the
self and of eros with a norm of self-realization, be it under the
banner of a celebrated eros or of mutuality. Granted, the feminist
critique of sacricial agape contributes the crucial insight that one
can sin by failing to establish oneself as a self. But it does not follow
that all efforts at self-realization are morally equal. Put differently, in
their wariness of normative accounts of the self, feminist love ethics
do not develop adequately criteria by which to evaluate morally
53
54
Lisa Sowle Cahill, Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 28.
55 Parsons, Feminism and Christian Ethics, 232.
Ibid.
70
forms of self-realization, nor do they call into question the norm of

self-realization itself.
In addition to afrming the self and advocating autonomous
self-determination, many feminist ethicists seek to redene love as
reciprocal or mutual. Rather than require persons to love disinterestedly, feminist love ethics claim that a shared love promotes
the good of both persons and realizes thereby the fullness of love.
In fact the celebration of disinterested love is predicated on a false
opposition between the self and other. Persons really are so interrelated that the good of one includes that of others. And yet, this
properly anthropological claim stands in tension with the feminist
focus on providing an alternative account of love. The opposition of agape and mutuality continues to posit false oppositions
between God, self, and neighbor. In part, this is because love for
God is left out of the selfneighbor equation. But it is also true
that continued attention to the nature of love obscures the need
for more anthropologically based analysis of the inter-relation of
God, self, and neighbor. Moreover, both the redemption of eros
and the replacement of sacricial agape with mutuality reductively
analyze love. Recall Beverly Harrisons emphatic opposition of mutuality and sacrice. Just as a norm of sacricial agape erroneously
disregards the good of reciprocity as part of the fullness of love,
mutuality likewise threatens to eclipse the role sacrice plays. This
becomes particularly risky, given the subjectivism of much feminist
love ethics; if the norm of self-realization is to be replaced by a
norm of right self love, the projects, pursuits, loves, and relations
through which the self seeks to realize itself must be subject to moral
evaluation.
I judge that feminist critiques often reductively analyze Christian
love into either the sacricial ethics which they reject, or into an
ethics of mutuality which is itself problematic. When an ethics of
mutuality is commended as a corrective to a sacricial love ethics,
and self-determination as a corrective to self-abnegation, several
possible dangers ensue: (1) such an ethics might exclude anything
that smacks of self-denial, sacrice, or obedience even though these
may be legitimate, even essential, elements of proper self-relation;
(2) such an ethics might fail to grapple with the risk of idolatry,
the wily character of self-deception, and the potential for efforts
71
of self-realization actually to harm the self; and (3) such ethics err
if they conne relation with God to a moment within or fruit of
proper self-relation. That is, in the rightful concern to celebrate the
concreteness of human embodiment, in their suspicion of eschatological escape-clauses or consolations, such ethics might neglect or
reject the divinehuman relation altogether, or conne it to some
fruit of the struggle for justice or some resource for a this-worldly
self-realization. In doing so they truncate the self by ignoring or
diminishing the human capacity for self-transcendence.
This brings me to the nal feature of feminist love ethics that
I want to note, embodiment. Here again, the substantive and
methodological focus on the nature of love thwarts or stands in
tension with this feature. Feminist ethics typically criticize modern
emphases on the rational subject for being disembodied. When
subjectivity is disembodied it is divorced from the particularities of
historical and cultural existence. It also devalues connative forms of
knowledge and can result in or warrant dualisms of mind over body,
male over female, among others. By contrast, an ethics that stresses
embodiment values sensual and emotional forms of knowledge.
Moreover, the feminist emphasis on embodiment calls attention to
the fact that, as it is often put, our bodies are ourselves.
And yet, because of the feminist suspicion of accounts of human
nature, the concern for an embodied ethics is done a disservice. Fear
of falling into physicalism or essentialist ethics has led many feminists towards voluntaristic ethics in which ones intention determines the moral status of an act. The more reticent thinkers become
to morally evaluate specic acts, the more disembodied their ethics
threaten to become. Granted, embodiment ought not to be reduced to distinct biological processes, nor an embodied ethics reduced to the consideration of physical acts. Instead, moral reection
on our embodiment ought to attend to the sources of moral knowledge it yields and the daily practices and activities which comprise
the bulk of our moral lives. But these legitimate concerns should
not obstruct thinking about the relation between intention and the
act itself (classically what is termed the object or matter of the act).
Without due cognizance of this relation, it becomes impossible to
assess if the actions and relations one undertakes really are ordered
to the end one intends. Put differently, the persons identity becomes
72
separated from her acting in the world and with others her moral
identity becomes fundamentally a matter of intentions that may or
may not be embodied suitably in her actual conduct.
Self love and self-relation
In his earlier work, Agape, Gene Outka offers two reasons why self
love might be reasonable and prudent. In doing so he helps to show
the instability of arguments that self love is morally neutral and
he lays the groundwork for a later essay in which he commends
self love directly.56 For Outka, love for God, the primary moral
obligation, demands that we love as God loves, universally. This
universal scope includes the self.57
While one can love oneself rightly, Outka tempers this optimism
with a suspicion of the self, an ineradicable unease.58 Outka
writes, I am tempted incurably to make myself the center of
existence, presuming to ignore or out God, and doing injustice to
my neighbors. This temptation is more than a weakness, susceptible to correction by human effort and learning. It is rather always
potentially pernicious, giving no nal peace in this life.59 He adds,
inordinate self-assertion does pose the preeminent threat to the
law of love.60 While Outka contends that universal love is not a
matter of calculation among duties, he nonetheless claims it allows
a practical swerve away from concern for what the self owes itself
and toward what the self owes the neighbor.61
Outkas suspicion of the self, however, is a more complex matter.
In fact, he recognizes two equivalent dangers to which the self is
susceptible; the self is given not only to the inordinate self-assertion
of pride, but also to what Outka designates as sloth. Sloth refers to
56
57
58
59
Gene Outka, Universal Love and Impartiality, in The Love Commandments: Essays in
Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy, eds., Edmund N. Santurri and William Werpehowski
( Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1992).
This does not mean that the self ought to include itself in impartial calculations that seek
to balance neighbor love with self love. Outka explores two sets of reasons why universal
love is not coextensive with impartiality. Although one of the main tasks of the essay is
to distinguish universal love from impartiality, that discussion lies outside the enterprise
of this chapter except for the reason that, structurally speaking, there are some things
which the self can only do for itself; this fact seems to carry some normative weight. I
will take it up more closely in what follows.
See Outka, Universal Love and Impartiality, 8284.
60 Ibid., 83.
61 Ibid., 82.
Ibid., 8283.
73
a range of activities and attitudes, such as torpor, passivity, directionless activity, all of which leave the self as indeterminate.62 Pride
and sloth are both forms of faithlessness to God:
It is faithless for me to suppose in my pride that I objectively matter more
than other persons. . . . It is likewise faithless for me to suppose in my sloth
that God-relatedness obtains only for my neighbors and that I am to
regard my particular life of obedient willing as of no account or to neglect
the manner of existence given distinctly to me.63
In opposition to pride and sloth, to faithlessness, Outka understands

proper self love in terms of obedient willing.64 On Outkas account,
the idea of obedient willing provides an argument on behalf of positive self love with a theocentric control. Obedient willing entails the
surrender of natural self-assertion; the self is thereby transformed,
regained as created and addressed by God.65
Outka commends self love in part because of the basic likeness
the self shares with the neighbor, in part because the self is included
in the scope of universal love, and in part because of what he calls
structural differences between the self and the neighbor. It simply
is the case that, with respect to sheer capabilities, the self must
perform certain duties toward itself. Structural differences
point to an element of subjectivity we cannot eradicate. . . . I must do
justice not only to the temptation to inordinate self-assertion, but also to
the greater control I normally retain over my actions and refusals than I
do over others. To acknowledge that regions of responsibility accordingly
differ is anything but an exercise in self-assertion. Rather, it supports the
exhortation to look rst at the evil within oneself.66
Outka looks to structural differences in order to afrm self love

directly and links these structural differences to love for God. That
is, an analysis of love governed his earlier work; but in this more
recent position he expands and develops his attention to the lover.
62
63
65
While Outka recognizes that both pride and sloth are sins, and that one is not a victim in sloth, but is rather complicit in ones self-evacuation, he nevertheless resists
reducing sloth to a form of pride (as Ramsey may be said to do). For Outka sloth includes distinct activities and attitudes which deserve attention in their own right. See
ibid., 54.
64 Here Outka echoes Ramsey.
Ibid., 56.
66 Ibid., 85.
Outka, University Love and Impartiality, 52.
74
Still, if the human exists in relation to and is created to respond to

God, the nature of self love cannot depend only on structural selfresponsibility, but must factor in theological anthropological claims.
Let us turn, then, to another argument on behalf of positive self
love, found in Edward Vacek, who develops his account of self love
as part of a larger project which stresses the primacy of love for
God.67
Vacek denes self love formally as a matter of how we relate to
ourselves.68 As such, self love is an instance of what Vacek takes
to be the participative character of all love. Self love denotes
intra-individual participation. Right self love, as intra-individual
participation, is a matter of rightly integrating the various dimensions of ones personality, both prepersonal dynamisms such as
biological and psychological processes, and personal acts, which
belong to the self s intellectual and religious dimensions. Self love
is not a matter of importing some external standard of goodness
to hold over against our actual self, but rather the afrmation of
the real self in its movement toward what it is not yet. In our love
for ourselves, we become ever more aware not only of our own
present goodness, but also of our incompleteness we are not
yet what we shall be.69 Thus, even when specied as integration,
Vaceks understanding of self love remains rather formal. While
Vacek does indicate that this task of integration requires the person
to engage her freedom, it is important to note that Vacek connes
self-relation to categorical, or historical, activity. He explores various ways in which the self is related to itself in order to argue that
acts are not selsh simply by virtue of being self-relating acts, and
that the fullness of Christian life thus includes some consideration
of the self. Vacek thereby avoids the earlier problems of collapsing
the nature and moral evaluation of self love because he does not
understand it as pernicious or acquisitive (or good) per denition.
Vacek indicates that there are various forms of self love, each of
which needs to be evaluated in its own right and balanced against
other forms.
Vacek, in fact, identies two basic types of self love: direct and
indirect, or, respectively, agapic and erotic love for the self. In direct,
67
Vacek, Love, Human and Divine.
68
Ibid., 74.
69
Ibid., 38.
75
agapic self love, the self loves itself for its own sake. In indirect,
erotic self love, the self loves others for the sake of the self. Under
these two basic types of self love fall various forms of self love, both
proper and improper. Erotic self love can be an improper form of
self love, or it can be a proper form. Moreover, agapic self love
is not per denition morally legitimate, but can also be morally
culpable. Thus, the categories of agapic and erotic self love remain
rather formal in character. According to Vacek, the moral value
of any particular instance of self love depends upon the conscious
intention of the self. This is because that intention constitutes the
meaning of a self-enacting action. According to Vacek,
consciousness is always intentional, that is (1) someones (2) consciousness of (3) something. Subject and object, or, in personal relations, subject and subject, are essentially related in and through the conscious
act. . . . Subject, object, and conscious act require one another.70
In other words, the same objective act that the self performs toward
itself can be differentiated morally according to the intention of
the agent: a self-interested act could be selsh, or it could be selfafrming.
Having given a formal account of self love, Vacek seeks to
provide right self love with a religious defense based on the basic phenomenological-theological argument which undergirds his
project. According to Vacek, God rst loves us and wants our good.
We respond to God by accepting this love, and this acceptance includes acceptance of ourselves. This participative relation with God
requires our cooperation. We should love ourselves as one way of
cooperating with Gods love for us. Hence, love for God may warrant self love, but self love does not coincide with love for God, i.e.,
Vacek does not say that we love ourselves when we love God.71
This is because for Vacek love consists in existential participation, whereby the lovers achieve a unity-in-difference: their union
in love actually serves to differentiate them. Moreover, love refers
to intentional movement; thus, Vacek rejects understandings of
70
71
Ibid., 43. Vacek is correct to note that the agents intention does impact the meaning of
an act, but we need to remember that the intention does not exhaust the moral character
of an act.
I take it that this is the logic entailed in the classical commensuration of self love and love
for God.
76
love which expand, say, love for a spouse into an afrmation of

being in general. Rather, according to Vacek, love is directed to
some particular object and is affected by it; ones conscious intention shapes the meaning of the love. This means that love for
God and for neighbor cannot be collapsed. Although they are related to and lead to one another, when one loves a neighbor one is
not necessarily intending to love God thereby. Moreover, it means
that there is a distinctive form of Christian love, since the Christian stands within a tradition and intends something quite different than an atheist intends in loving. The religious relation not
only helps us to resee the world; it also adds a new dimension
to what our acts mean. If . . . our acts are ways that we cooperate
with God, then that cooperation is part of the very meaning of our
acts.72
For Vacek love is an emotion, a cognitive act whereby one becomes conscious of value, is affected by it, and responds to it. Thus,
to varying degrees, emotion engages human freedom and subjectivity, and the person can determine herself. Who one is shapes
what one can love, but these loves also constitute who one is, particularly by liberating and expanding ones capacities to love.73 In
order to be conscious of value, affected by it and responsive to it,
one must be open to value or goodness. This openness varies from
one person to another, and one can foster openness or resist it.
Vacek links this openness to value with moving closer to or away
from God.74 The Christian life, Christian love, is a matter of allowing ones relationship with God to become determinative of
ones person.
Given his theory of love as participation, Vacek argues that the
divinehuman relationship has a history wherein both God and the
human are affected; that is, the relationship brings something new
72
73
74
Ibid., 3. Because I construe the structure of understanding differently than Vacek, I

modify the role intention plays in self love. In my account the persons intention does not
constitute love but mediates it. Love for ones spouse for instance can be a categorical
mediation of a more unthematic love for God. Similarly, the intention to cooperate with
God when we act mediates our self-understanding.
Ibid., 6365.
Vacek writes, In this expansion or contraction, people draw near to or they separate
themselves from God. See ibid., 42.
77
into existence. It depends upon both Gods freedom and human

freedom. Though human freedom depends on God, Vacek nevertheless argues that human freedom codetermines Gods involvement in the world.75 Indeed, Vacek is at pains to show that the
individual makes a distinctive, irreplaceable contribution to Gods
scheme of salvation.76 While I do not share the process metaphysics
which underlies Vaceks account, I take it that his position offers an
insight which is crucial to a theory of right self love: if one takes
seriously Gods love for the person, one cannot denigrate the self in
love for God, even though love for God stands as the primary love
command. Put differently, the persons religious relation to God
must be evaluated morally.
Vaceks position helps us to see the merit of turning to the self
for an account of self love. But there are several ways in which his
account fails to meet the needs of the contemporary problem of self
love. Vaceks stress on intention as morally determinative of love
cannot respond adequately to the problem of subjectivism, nor is it
adequate in light of the persons self-relation. Vacek claims that the
persons intention determines the moral character of self love in order to show that self-relation is not sinful per se, because he wants to
understand love as both emotional and cognitive, and because he
wants a divinehuman relation in which both God and the human
are affected. He makes conscious intentions determinative of the
self s moral relation to itself and, thus, determinative of whether it
is a proper or improper self love. Vacek seems to conne the nature
of self love to those conscious intentions; even though his account of
love rests on anthropological claims about love as participative, for
Vacek self love consists in self-referential actions, some of which engage prepersonal dynamisms. That is why he breaks self love down
into direct and indirect forms that are, strictly speaking, both forms
of self-relation. This invites subjectivism and voluntarism and implies that concrete actions and relations are malleable enough to
take their moral meaning from intention alone. Thus, and ironically, self love oats strangely free from the concrete actions and
relations in which the self takes up its relation to itself.
75
Ibid., 26.
76
See ibid., 10405.
78

toward an account of ri ght self l ove
In Chapter One I detailed the complex inter-relations of various

trends and claims in philosophy, theology, ethics, and contemporary culture which comprise challenges to normative accounts of
selfhood. Here I sought to show that the available theories of self
love, for and against, yield many important insights, but nally pose
the contemporary problem of self love as much as speak to it. An
adequate account of self love must begin with the self, that is, with a
moral anthropology. This is best accomplished by reformulating the
very ontological frameworks that our contemporary moral outlook
rejects. To be certain, such reformulations must incorporate and
extend the insights that drive challenges to those conceptual frameworks. These frameworks offer means with which to combat the
subjectivism that attends the norm of self-realization and resources
for developing more sophisticated moral anthropologies; indeed,
they yield anthropologies that are truer. Why? Because morality is
rooted in being and because the parameters of moral choice are
found in the structures of being. This relation is not direct or ahistorical. Rather, the dialectical relation between being and thinking,
which I noted at the outset of this book, means that critical reection on experience can orient thinking by disclosing basic human
needs and aspirations, and goods that correspond to them. Lisa
Sowle Cahill notes that feminist and postmodern deconstructions
allow values like autonomy to slide in as tacit universals, operative
without intercultural nuancing or explicit defense.77 While these
values are important to the experience of being a self, they certainly do not exhaust the experience and value of agency. Cahill
argues for the relative invariance of the body through history and
across cultures and identies a number of shared bodily experiences that offer reliable yet revisable grounds for moral dialogue
and critique. She places herself among other scholars (religious and
philosophical) who appreciate the AristotelianThomistic tradition
and share the conviction that all cultural differentiations have at
their core a shared human way of being in the world, one closely
linked to our bodily nature; to our abilities to reect, to choose, and
77
Cahill, Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics, 2.
79
to love; and to our intrinsic dependence on a community of other

human beings, not only for survival, but also for meaning.78 I join
Cahill and these others but seek to develop the relation between
bodiliness and consciousness at greater length and in the service of
the contemporary need for an account of right self love.
One way to recoup the language of being while avoiding the
difculties of classical and scholastic metaphysical frameworks is to
construe subjectivity hermeneutically. The activity of understanding is central to what it means to be human, and to what it means
to be a moral creature. In light of this insight, the elaborate ontological frameworks crafted by some thinkers are heuristic devices
that fund reection on the relation between being and our thinking
about it. With this in mind, I develop in this book a hermeneutical
account of self-relation by developing the interpretive character of
the conceptual language of being.
It is my basic thesis that right self love designates a mode of being in which the self determines itself in a response to God that is
actualized in but not exhausted by neighbor love. Right self love is
the persons self-determining response to God. This claim retrieves
insights from classical accounts of the divinehuman relation, particularly the claim that God is the highest good and the good of the
human as such. It corrects contemporary ethics which neglect or
deny the religious character of the human and the religious dimension of the moral life, and provides one of two controlling criteria
for self love: love for God. Because self-relation can take proper or
pernicious forms, love for God provides a way to assess morally
the persons self-relation. The persons ourishing resides in a way
of being which is evaluated with reference to something that transcends the self in power, meaning, and worth. In other words, as a
controlling criterion for self love, love for God identies false and
destructive forms of self-relation and lends coherence to the person who loves. However, this response can only be actualized and
assessed in the achievement of identity, that is, in the persons concrete actions and relations. This claim incorporates and extends
feminist and (post) modern critiques of traditional accounts and
provides a second criterion for self love: neighbor love. Self love, as
78
Ibid., 51.
80
a mode of being in relation with God, must be made concrete in the

categorical or historical actions and relations of the person. And the
self can only establish and determine herself as a self in history and
in relations with others. But, self love is not exhausted by neighbor
love. Thus, while self-sacrice has an appropriate place within an
account of both self love and neighbor love, it is not some middle
term which makes the two co-extensive. Self love entails love for
God, but love for God is only assessed in neighbor love; thus the
persons religious relation to God is subject to moral evaluation.
conclusion
This chapter builds on the previous one to show that a contemporary account of self love requires a return to the classical love
synthesis and a retrieval of conceptual frameworks of being. Various
secular, postmodern, and feminist challenges to that synthesis and
those frameworks help to set parameters for a contemporary account of self love, and the available theories of self love help to
identify the needs and concerns a contemporary account of self
love must address. Let us turn, in the following chapter of this book,
to crafting a moral anthropology centered on the dynamic structure
of self-awareness. Such an account does not begin soteriologically
or even theologically, but rather, existentially. This existential starting point will allow me to argue that the persons self-understanding
provides the mediating structure for the divinehuman relation. By
shifting the center of gravity from love, or from God as the lover, to
the person who loves, it will be possible to retrieve classical insights,
extend modern critiques, and amend contemporary self-realization
ethics.
ch apter 3
A hermeneutical account of self-relation
Self love is not rst and foremost about the self s interests vis-à-vis
her neighbors. It is a more fundamental problem of proper selfrelation. An ethics of right self love, then, requires rich normative
anthropologies. Yet as the rst two chapters showed, such anthropologies face important challenges. This chapter begins to argue
for a particular approach to moral anthropology, a hermeneutical account of self-relation. It insists that the basic activity of selfunderstanding or interpretation is central to self-relation. In this
way the approach accommodates and fruitfully relates key insights
of theological and contemporary secular approaches to the self.
Theologically it is faithful to the claim that God is closer to us than
we are to ourselves. Self-relation reverberates within the self s relation to God. Yet a hermeneutical approach also recognizes that
human beings construct systems of meaning to orient themselves
in the world. These systems include claims about God. For this
reason, I begin with some comments about self-understanding and
self-relation and then develop them in a constructive theological
manner by engaging the work of Karl Rahner and Paul Tillich.
Specically, this chapter argues: (1) that the person is created in relation with God, (2) that the persons self-determination constitutes
a response to God, and (3) that this relation and response are best
characterized in terms of love. In doing so this chapter initiates an
interpretive or hermeneutical account of self-relation and argues
that self-relation is reexive, embodied, and interpretive.
By proceeding in this way I do not mean to imply that philosophical anthropology provides the foundation for Christian ethics.
This would deny or compromise the sovereignty of God and the
unique role of Jesus Christ. It also risks the integrity of theological
81
82
discourse, as though theology plays handmaiden to other ways

of describing and explaining reality and has, at best, a utilitarian
value.1 Rather, this way of proceeding honors the Christian claim
that Gods self-disclosure (in Jesus Christ) is not alien to what and
how human beings come to know anything that is true. Put in classical theological language: grace perfects nature. Moreover, the turn
to self-understanding does not make the reality of God something to
be shown or established (although there is no shortage of proofs that
proceed this way). My concern is to take up Augustines insight that
God is more inward than my most inward part and higher than the
highest element within me.2 More intimate than my self-presence
is the presence of God. Hence, as Augustine confessed to God,
what I know of myself I know because you grant me light.3
Still, Charles Taylor notes that for Augustine to focus on my
own thinking activity is to bring to attention not only the order of
things in the cosmos which I seek to nd but also the order which
I make as I struggle to plumb the depths of memory and discern my
true being.4 In this spirit this chapter recasts the problem of self
love more broadly than Christian ethics has been wont to do and
retrieves and reworks ontologically grounded accounts of the self
that philosophical and Christian ethicists alike avoid. The chapter
gives theological and moral content to its hermeneutical account of
self-relation by stressing (in Augustinian and Thomistic style) that
the self is created to love God, to know the truth and to live in
communion with others, and by arguing for embodied integrity as
the good that characterizes right self love.
sel f love and self-understanding
If, as I argued in the previous chapter, a contemporary account of
self love should begin not with love but with the self, this account
1
2
3
4
Alistair McFadyen offers an intriguing argument about the integrity of theology as an

explanatory discourse. See his Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust and the Christian Doctrine of Sin
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
St. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991), 43.
Ibid., 182.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, ma: Harvard
University Press, 1989), 141.
83
begins with the fact that human beings ask about the meaning of
their lives and seek to orient and guide them. Self love is more than
an object of ethical inquiry. It captures the breadth and depth of the
moral life. What ought I do? What should I seek? Who am I? Who
do others say that I am? Who do I want to be? These questions
ramify throughout our lives. They cannot be separated from one
another (as much as proceduralist ethicists might wish) nor can they
be conned to spheres of our lives (like our interpersonal, domestic
relations) or to aspects of our selves (e.g., religious beliefs, nicely
segregated from our professional personas). They are variations
on the fundamental question How should I live? This question
presupposes that there are myriad ways of being in the world;
some are more worthy than others; to some extent I am free and
responsible for deciding how to live; how I live at present is in
some respects not right or good. Further, the question How should
I live? is asked (sometimes in despair, sometimes in hope) in light
of a personal history, one given and dictated, also chosen and made,
ever arising in and ever eluding our attempts to make sense of, deny,
or embrace it. The question How should I live? is also asked in
a particular social and historical space, in a web of relations. We
are presented with various ways of being in the world, schooled in
them by parents, teachers, peers, communities, and institutions, by
the arts, popular culture, advertising media. This schooling sends
conicting messages, that some ways of being are better than others
(better meaning anything from more worthy, to more satisfying,
to more fun) and that these various ways are more or less equally
valid and so are matters of personal preference, means, and abilities
(and so better here means better if you so choose.)
Our moral being in the world and our moral thinking are dialectically related. As I argued in the rst chapter, various features
of the contemporary moral outlook prompt the question of how
morally to construe self-relation and how to understand the self
who is to be realized. Signicant contemporary secular accounts
threaten to truncate the self by denying its transcendence or reducing the self into that which determines her. Ethics arises out of
the experience of moral conict, our sense that neither we nor the
world is exactly as it should be. Our lives are marked by plurality and tension, joy and disappointment; we experience our own
84
agency yet experience ourselves as determined and limited by other

people and systems. Indeed, we can experience our own freedom
in the form of self-limitation as we make choices which close off
other possibilities, and do things which, for better or worse, we
cannot undo. In the midst of this we ask about the meaning of
our lives, and struggle to integrate this plurality of goods and ills,
of freedom and determination. Since the aspiration for coherence
entails at least an implicit afrmation of oneself the pressing moral
question is not, as existentialists suggest, how to afrm the value of
life under the threat of its negation but how to be a coherent self.
An adequate account of self love must take seriously the persons
aspirations for coherence, integrity, and identity by constructing a
framework for understanding the self. To recognize these two needs
is to inquire into the relation between moral being and our thinking
about it.5
We can identify the dynamic relations between moral being and
moral thinking and the way self-relation unfolds and is wrought in
relation to something other than the self by turning to recent work
in philosophical hermeneutics and Christian ethics.
Moral being and moral consciousness
Recent work in philosophical hermeneutics provides means with
which to appropriate conceptual frameworks of being (like those
found in Rahner and Tillich) and to respond to the difculties these
5
The structure and method of my argument delve into this relation between moral being
and moral thinking. By beginning an account of self love with an analysis of moral being,
I mean to proceed via a method which the problem itself warrants. At the same time,
however, this book implies a Christian ethical method that applies beyond the problem
of self love. It implies a position about what kind of thinking Christian ethics entails, and,
thereby, suggests in what the discipline of Christian ethics consists. I divide the book into
an examination of self love as a moral problem and as a moral principle. This division
suggests that Christian ethics requires, on the one hand, that we generate normative
accounts of the moral life which are adequate to and build off of an interpretation of
our moral situation and of our selves as moral agents, and, on the other hand, that such
interpretive and normative enterprises must serve and be tested by practical needs and
meta-ethical demands. The division is not meant to suggest that such activities may be
demarcated sharply from one another. Rather, it indicates the circular shape of Christian
ethical thinking: human thinking about our way of being in the world involves us in
thinking about ourselves as beings who can and do engage in such thinking.
85
often entail. Ancient forms of hermeneutics focused on interpretation, especially of written texts, but at least since Schleiermacher
hermeneutics has broadened its scope; contemporary hermeneutics addresses the question of meaning and the shape of historical and linguistic consciousness. As William Schweiker notes,
hermeneutics connects insights from classical practical philosophy with those of reexive thinking found in ancient and modern
thought. As a form of reexive thinking, hermeneutics explicates
the truth of consciousness becoming aware of itself; we are selfinterpreting animals. As a type of practical philosophy, hermeneutics insists that understanding and meaning are bound to action and
practice.6 In contemporary hermeneutics, then, meaning designates an event of connection ideas and experiences interact and
present, as Paul Ricoeur puts it, a world. Against the claims of
some postmodernists, meaning is not reducible to signs or empirical perceptions, though of course these are constitutive features of
meaning. Meaning designates a domain or space, one we inhabit,
into which ( by virtue of our socio-historical location) we are thrown,
but also one we fashion and furnish. We exercise our agency within
such spaces and on them. Hans-Georg Gadamer notes the practical
import of this account of meaning; meaning involves the interaction of self and other in the creation of a space of signicance for the
sake of orienting action. This space of signicance is not neutral;
rather, as Charles Taylor and Iris Murdoch argue, it is a space in
which we make distinctions of worth. Contemporary hermeneutics, then, links moral anthropology to a theory of value (axiology).
Because hermeneutics connects reexive thinking to practical philosophy it is necessary to specify the anthropological-axiological
link in an account of the moral good and an imperative for action
(Chapter Four), to explore the exercise of agency in the choice(s) of
particular goods and vis-à-vis moral norms (Chapter Five), and to
validate these claims (Chapter Six).
Two particular points should be noted. First, we should note
the important hermeneutical insight that the relation of self and
other is inscribed in, indeed, is constitutive of, consciousness. Acts of
6
William Schweiker, Understanding Moral Meanings, in Power, Value and Conviction:

Theological Ethics in the Postmodern Age (Cleveland, oh: Pilgrim, 1998), 76.
86
meaning-making testify to an other that is irreducible and therefore

presents some claim upon the self. Contemporary thinkers identify
this other and this encounter in a variety of ways. My point is
that this hermeneutical claim helps us respond to and offset the
individualism and subjectivism that dog conceptual frameworks
that are indebted to substance metaphysics. It thereby allows us to
appropriate and improve on classical and modern theological and
moral anthropologies.
Second, and related to the inscription of self/other in consciousness, the practical import of a hermeneutical approach suggests
that love for God and neighbor serve as controlling criteria for selfrealization. This chapter will argue that the persons response to
God is best understood as love for God or its opposite. Love for
God is a criterion for self love because the persons ourishing as
such is keyed to right relation to God. The self truly loves herself
when she loves God. Thus, love for God can shed light on what
proper self-relation entails. A second criterion for self-realization
is love for neighbor. As the next chapter will explore, because the
person is fundamentally social and insofar as freedom is correlated
with responsibility, the persons ourishing requires right relation
to other persons.
William Schweiker points at the connection between reexive
thinking and practical philosophy in his ethics of responsibility.
A brief look at his argument will illustrate the contributions philosophical hermeneutics can make to theological anthropology and
suggest the contribution a theological perspective makes to secular ethics. Schweikers use of philosophical hermeneutics prompts
him to describe the moral life in terms of the practice of radical
interpretation. Radical interpretation is reective, critical inquiry
aimed at the question of what has constituted our lives in terms of
what we care about and what ought to guide our lives under the
demand of respect for others. It is the form conscience takes in the
lives of social, linguistic, self-interpreting agents.7 According to
Schweiker, goodness is not perceived in the same way that things
in the world are perceived; rather, we perceive goodness in light of
7

Press, 1995), 176.
87
what endows existence with worth. Further, linguistic and symbolic

resources mediate our sense of the non-instrumental value of the
world, others, and ourselves; they transform our understanding,
confer our identity, and orient our acting.
Schweiker denes radical interpretation as the testing and
transformation of the values and norms a person or community
endorses as important to its life by some event, idea, or symbol
which deepens the sense of responsibility, that is, the sense that the
integrity of life ought to be respected and enhanced.8 Schweikers
theory of radical interpretation involves a modication of Charles
Taylors claim that strong evaluation is constitutive of being a moral
agent. He supplements Taylors emphasis on evaluation by insisting
on the importance of interpretation, that is, the need to explicate
the relation between self and other. This expands the moral life beyond private decisions about what to care about because moral selfcriticism is demanded of us and empowered by something other
than us. Interpretation binds our cares to respect for others as
such. Moreover, radical interpretation ought to employ theological
claims, because the name of God symbolizes the transvaluation
of ultimate power in an afrmation of the worth of nite reality.
Understanding ourselves through the name of God has the
effect . . . of binding our power as self-understanding agents to specic norms that concern the recognition, respect, and well-being of
nite life.9 So, the knowledge of the worth and dignity of others
and ourselves is grasped through an interpretive act of understanding life from a theological perspective.10 Schweiker argues that
radical interpretation binds us towards acting in ways that respect
others and the world. He may seem a bit too sanguine on this point.
Why such a sure link between understanding and action? Radical
interpretation identies the springs of moral action not in terms of
our interests or evaluations, but understanding. Radical interpretation is an act of self-criticism that transforms a condition for acting
(what we care about) through recognizing a good that grounds the
moral life and ought to be respected in all our actions.11 The identication of non-instrumental value issues in an imperative for acting.
8
10
9 Schweiker, Understanding Moral Meanings, 96.

Ibid., 159.
11
Ibid.
Ibid., 101.
88
A contemporary ethics of self love requires some amendments of

Schweikers theory of radical interpretation, in large part because
an ethics of self love amplies certain aspects of moral anthropology
and certain questions in moral theory beyond Schweikers consideration of them. Thus, for a contemporary ethics of self love,
one difculty with radical interpretation is its relatively disembodied character. To be fair, Schweiker builds the theory out of an
anthropological-axiological argument that identies bodily, social
and reective dimensions of human existence. Human needs and
goods that correspond to them are basic to our apprehension of
value. Yet radical interpretation seems to be a rather cerebral praxis
issuing in an affective transformation and orienting future action.
The practice of radical interpretation could be described in more
embodied and social forms. Schweiker argues that care and respect
are both morally basic, but the account of radical interpretation
at least makes reection prior to affection. His theory could provide further for the cognitive import of our emotions. Further, the
practical character of radical interpretation could be specied not
only in terms of orienting future action, but reckoning with the empirical, historical, and moral signicance of past action. Christian
ethics has construed conscience as antecedent and consequent to
acting. Admittedly, a misdeed or event could prompt the practice of
radical interpretation, but what is missing from Schweikers theory
is fuller recognition that this practice is undertaken by embodied
agents. This would mean that radical interpretation affects not only
ones present identity and orients future action but that it reworks
the meaning of ones personal history as well. For example, radical
interpretation can illuminate the truth of our past; we may come
to see that our account of a failed relationship was self-serving, or
that we have been in denial about an addiction, or blind to our own
talents and aspirations. This is why right self love is characterized
by embodied integrity. We take up our self-relation in our concrete
acts and relations. These can spark the practice of radical interpretation, can be objects of it, and can provide insight that informs it.
I will return to this argument in the following chapters but some of
these points can be noted now with a look at how some Christian
ethicists explore the dialectical relation of being and thinking under
the rubric of practical reason.
89
Self love and practical reason

Various theories of practical reason indicate the profound interrelation of moral anthropology, axiologies, and concepts of morality
or ethics. Lisa Cahill seeks to renew the AristotelianThomistic
account of practical reason along more embodied, social, and historically sensitive lines. She argues that practice yields knowledge,
knowledge that can bridge moral concepts/claims and concrete
experiences, needs, and goods. Practical reason can facilitate the
move from theoretical equality or universality to the concrete, effective means necessary to equalize social participation.12 Jean Porter
argues that like most empirical concepts, morality can only be understood in terms of a formal element that is revealed by reecting
on paradigmatic examples of morality. Basic moral notions emerge
and exemplify morality as a general concept. Yet, our understanding of such concepts is not exclusively verbal it is also manifest in
appropriate action with respect to that which a given concept designates. For instance, Porter notes that she may be unable to dene
a tree in precise scientic terms, but her knowledge of what a tree is
is nonetheless evident in the fact that she waters and fertilizes them.
Hence, for Porter, practical reason provides a way beyond moral
skepticism and anti-realism, but also a way to recover the place of
human ourishing in ethics against ongoing moral attempts to excise it. Drawing on Thomas Aquinas, Porter identies the proper
functioning of practical reason as the virtue of prudence, which
is part of a set of virtues that offer a program for action for all
those who want to grow in personal goodness. It offers a criterion for truly virtuous action, and it suggests a way of reecting on
our acts in the light of the context set by the ordered ideals of the
cardinal virtues. This process, in turn, sets up its own dialectic of
action and reection, which is self-corrective and expansive . . . the
person of prudence is someone whose life displays this pattern of
self-corrective reection. 13 Porter notes rightly that this implies a
12
13
Lisa Sowle Cahill, Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 39.
Jean Porter, Moral Action and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995), 165. See also Jean Porter, The Recovery of Virtue (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John
Knox, 1990).
90
theory of action whereby good human actions perfect the agents

powers and capacities and are performed in accordance with right
reason.
John Finnis offers a different account of practical reason. Finnis
wants to clarify the way(s) in which ethics is practical. In an obvious, pedestrian sense ethics is practical because it concerns human
actions. But the primary and crucial way that ethics is practical
is because my choosing and acting and living in a certain sort
of way (and thus my becoming a certain sort of person . . . ) is not
a secondary (albeit inseparable and welcome) objective and sideeffect of success in the intellectual enterprise; rather it is the very
objective primarily envisaged as well as the subject-matter about which
I hope to be able to afrm true propositions.14 Finniss thesis is
that ones primary understanding of human good, and of what it
is worthwhile for human beings to seek to do, to get, to have and
to be, is attained when one is considering what it would be good,
worthwhile to do, to get, to have and to be i.e., by denition, when
one is thinking practically.15 Practical reason is practical because
it identies actions or objects as good, as desirable to get, have, do,
or be. It does so as a prelude to pursuing these actions or objects.
The point of practical reason is to pursue them intelligently. Thus,
says Finnis, if one is asked to provide reasons for a particular action,
implicitly or explicitly an intelligible answer to the question What
for? displays ones action as a participation in, a way of realizing,
one of the basic goods of human existence.16
All three accounts of practical reason respond to skepticism
about human ourishing attempts to remove it from the domain
of ethics (i.e., to demarcate the domain of ethics more narrowly), to
denials of any historical and cultural stability that grounds a picture
of human ourishing in any foundational sense. Finniss argument
moves in the reverse direction of Cahills and Porters. Cahill begins with critical reection on bodily experiences, needs and corresponding goods. This provides a relatively stable basis from which
we can form judgments about human ourishing and on which we
can ground moral arguments. Porter begins with the social praxis
of practical reason; the use of moral concepts in discourse and in
14
15
John Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics (Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1983), 3.
16 Ibid., 36.
Ibid., 12.
91
action depends on some consensus about them, which can help to

guide us through disagreements and in making moral decisions.
This dialectic of action and reection ought to be self-corrective
and ought to characterize our lives. Finnis, however, begins with
an account of practical reason and from this identies the goods of
human existence, an idea of human nature that accords with them
and with the good of practical reasonableness.
I am not interested in adjudicating these theories of practical reason. They are offered in the service of argumentative agendas to
which I cannot here attend.17 But they do contribute insights into
the dialectical relation of being and thinking that are important for
a contemporary ethics of self love. Porter and Schweiker point to the
social, linguistic and historical mediation of self-relation and of the
self s encounter with others in the world. Cahill stresses the embodied character of these encounters and relations. Finnis emphasizes
the participative character of thinking about and making moral
choices. And Porter notes the analogical character of moral concepts given the dialectical relation of action and reection. These
insights echo in an account of self-relation as reexive, embodied,
and interpretive.
the self
My thesis is that right self love designates a morally proper form of
self-relation characterized by the moral good of embodied integrity
and governed by the moral norms of love for God and neighbor.
Integrity consists in a true self-understanding embodied in ones
acts and relations with others and in the world. Right self love will
look different in particular lives because of the particularity of persons. We can say, however, that this true self-understanding will
include honesty about ones strengths and talents, ones vices and
faults, ones needs and wounds and cares. Right self love includes a
strong sense of oneself that in its very strength is vulnerable; it is a
self-acceptance which is not exculpatory or conditioned on becoming better, which takes the courageous risk of being oneself without
recourse to self-justication or self-congratulation, a willingness to
17
For example Finnis argues against the so-called proportionalists among Roman Catholic
ethicists.
92
venture oneself knowing that one will get it wrong, hoping and
trusting that the venture itself is an act of love. One embodies
this true self-understanding in acts and relations that do not evade
the risk, dull the pain, or underestimate the joy of being oneself,
acts and relations that are ordered to and expressive of the self s
inherent, non-instrumental goodness as a creature loved by and
made to love God, acts and relations undertaken and characterized
by care and respect for others, justice and honesty, mercy and peaceableness. Since the moral good is embodied integrity, accounts of self
love in particular and moral anthropology in general must provide
for the moral evaluation of particular acts and relations. This does
not deny the appropriate place and status of the affections or emotions; it afrms their cognitive import but also links them to concrete
actions and relations. Unless we can identify whether particular acts
and relations are incompatible with our authentic good, right self
love is impossible. Moreover, love for God and neighbor are likewise
threatened. To speak of an authentic human good no doubt sets
off various alarms. Who is to determine in what the human good
consists? How will such accounts be used? What power relations
will they effect? These are legitimate and indispensable questions.
Any account of the human good must reckon with its cultural and
historical character and its uses must be subject to criticism. But,
false modesty in this regard can do more harm than good.18 This
in turn allows us to explore a set of questions that center on the
status of explicit faith in self love and in (Christian) ethics more
generally.
The very fact that self love is an object of moral and ethical
reection provides direction for an account of the self who is to
love herself. To begin, ethical inquiry into self love indicates the
basic fact that human beings are self-interpreting creatures. What
we undertake and undergo affects our self-understanding. In turn,
how we understand ourselves in the world orients our acting in
it. Human beings ask about the meaning of their lives and seek
to orient them around various needs and goods, obligations, and
commitments. So an account of right self love can take direction
from the fact that we are creatures capable of thinking about our
18
Given my sympathies with natural law, I judge that critical reection on basic human
needs and the goods that correspond to them can fund an account of the human good.
93
selves and about what we care about. Indeed, such thinking points
to the deep connections between our cognitive and connative dimensions. From the beginning, then, before we need concern ourselves with selshness or selessness, the very fact that we can think
about self love brings to the fore the possibility of various forms of
self-relation and the central role our self-interpretation plays with
respect to them. 19
Self-interpretation, then, provides a key to self-relation. To be
sure, there are more and less elaborate forms of self-interpretation,
activities of navel-gazing as might be found in the practices of
journal-keeping, therapy, even new years resolutions. These all involve some deliberate reection on the life the self wishes to live, the
self she wishes to be, in contrast with what is. In less explicit ways,
we interpret the events around us, even the minutiae of our lives
and world, in simple decision-making. By claiming, however, that
self-relation is understood helpfully in terms of self-interpretation,
I do not mean to suggest that our self-relation (whether praise- or
blame-worthy) is reducible to how we feel about ourselves, though
of course self-relation has affective dimensions. Admittedly, an emphasis on self-interpretation seems to invite dreadful I gotta be
me forms of self-rationalization. But the connection between selfrelation and relation to God means that a realist ethics of self love is
necessary, and the self s inter-subjectivity means that ethics cannot
allow for such privatized appeals. Given all this, I want to consider
19
My point is not only that we can be related to ourselves in better and worse forms but
that we have a certain versatility in this regard. In other words, if we are to speak of self
love not simply as a moral problem to be overcome (and overcome only by grace) but
as a moral ideal to be lived (and lived only by grace) we must allow the possibility of
moral change and development. We reect morally on self love because we are capable
of understanding ourselves, of revising our self-understanding, and of being in the world
differently thereby. Put differently, in our self-interpretation we can transcend our selves
and our environment and consider alternative ways of being in the world. Indeed, the
very fact of self-relation hinges on the human capacity for self-transcendence we can
transcend ourselves morally to the extent that we can subject ourselves, subject even our
self-awareness, to our own critical reection. Thinkers differ wildly over the possibility
and potential degree of moral change, as well as the role human effort can or cannot play
in effecting such change. To some extent, differences can be characterized along Roman
Catholic and Protestant lines. My argument in Chapter Five bears on the problem of
moral change because it couples an appreciation for human agency with an emphasis
on self-acceptance in the divine. This self-acceptance is, to use Paul Tillichs words, the
acceptance that we have been accepted though we are unacceptable. See Tillichs Morality
and Beyond (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1995).
94
the import of three modest claims about self-relation that it is

reexive, embodied, and interpretive.
Many thinkers have noted that our self-awareness discloses an
awareness of what is other than us. Some thinkers explore the
connections between knowledge of self and knowledge of God by
means of transcendental reection or ontological analysis. Karl
Rahner claims that the person is a question to herself; in asking
about herself she already knows something of the answer. Indeed, in
our acts of knowledge and especially in our experiences of freedom
and love, we afrm more than the object of our knowledge or
love we afrm the horizon that encompasses both knower and
known, lover and beloved. We call this horizon God. Because God
is the condition for the possibility of our freedom and love, and is
the horizon that gives intelligibility to everything that is, we know
ourselves and everything else in the divine. Paul Tillich also
claimed that our self-awareness points to that which exceeds it in
power and meaning. Man is the question he asks about himself,
before any question has been formulated. . . . Being human means
asking the questions of ones own being and living under the impact
of the answers given to this question. And, conversely, being human
means receiving answers to the question of ones own being and
asking questions under the impact of the answers.20 The human
participates in the structure of being, like everything else that is,
but unlike other beings he is immediately aware of the structure.
Tillich designates this structure as self and world the persons
self-relation is mediated through his world, and yet, as a self, he
can transcend environment and have a world.
Other thinkers explore the connections between knowledge of
self and knowledge of God not by considering the conditions for
the possibility of reason, but the centrality of value to our experience of ourselves.21 As we have seen, several contemporary philosophers do this. Iris Murdoch insists that ethics requires empiricism
in addition to metaphysics because our immediate moral instincts
cannot be altogether encapsulated in abstract formulations.22 For
20
21
22
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 195163), vol. 1, 62.
It would be interesting to revisit classical and medieval debates about the priority of being
or good in light of these options.
See Iris Murdoch, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals (New York: Allen Lane/Penguin Press,
1993).
95
Murdoch consciousness is a moral domain and as such is central

to what it means to be human; consciousness perceives and makes
discriminations among value according to the principle/reality of
Good. Harry Frankfurt argues that second-order desires and volitions constitute the self; they are the desires and volitions that
we want to dene us.23 Similarly, Charles Taylor argues that such a
radical evaluation shows that we are valuing and self-interpreting
creatures.24 Schweiker offers a theological response to and reformulation of these positions in his approach to conscience as radical
interpretation.
Because these thinkers note the dynamic relation between knowledge of ourselves and knowledge of an other the ground of
being, the source of value they join thinkers throughout the
Christian tradition, including Augustine, Calvin, Kierkegaard and
Schleiermacher, who recognize that subjectivity is reexive. Put
theologically, to endeavor to understand ourselves is to grasp ourselves in relation to the divine. Therefore, to inquire into the problem of proper self-relation is simultaneously to inquire into the
problem of proper relation to God. This point is important because it means that self-realization is not reducible to the self s
subjective preferences. Of course, thinkers like Freud, Nietzsche,
Marx, and Derrida express suspicion of this reexive turn, and
rightly so. The connection between self-awareness and awareness
of God is neither immediate nor free of distortions. For this reason,
I will argue that right self love encompasses both truthfulness in
self-understanding and the coherence of our actions and relations
with this truth (i.e., embodied integrity). To make this argument
brings me to the embodied character of self-relation.
Recognizing the embodied character of self-relation brings two
important points to the fore. Embodiment captures both the bodily location of the self and the social-historical-cultural-discursive
location and formation of the self. These points may seem fairly
obvious, though they have been and are contested by some. Recall the comments of those who claim the personas and lives they
assume in cyberspace are more real than real life. Consider the
23
24
Harry Frankfurt, The Importance of what We Care About (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988).
See Taylor, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modern Identity.
96
uniform, interchangeable self that is implied in some versions of

liberalism and utilitarianism. It is worth reecting, then, on the
import of embodiment. Let me consider rst the bodily location of
selves.
Mark Johnson notes that we encounter others and the world
only through embodied structures of understanding.25 This point
provides an important qualication to the foregoing stress on consciousness, one that counters temptations toward voluntarism, intuitionism, or singularly rational approaches in ethics. Of course,
what embodiment designates and what role it should play in ethics
is debated. For my purposes, it may prove helpful to distinguish
(though not separate) having a body and being a body. Having a
body means, among other things, that the self is more than the
body she has. This more allows and requires a critical approach to
the ways bodies are dened and evaluated, the moral status of biological features and bodily experiences, the social construction of
gender, and social institutions like marriage and kinship. A variety
of positions and schools of thought are available on such matters.
Forms of biological determinism and essentialism continue, for
example, in the eld of sociobiology, in emerging work in and attitudes about genetics, and in varieties of feminism (sometimes called
new or post feminism) that tout womens liberation and fulllment through an embrace of traditional virtues, values, and social
venues. These attempts to ground social differences in biology compete with social constructionist positions. Tamer versions of social
constructionism may treat the body as elementary material onto
which social constructions like gender are added. Other social constructionist theories reject the notion that the body, biologically understood, is somehow prior to social construction. Indeed, stronger
versions of social constructionism assert that the body has a history,
that it is so enmeshed in other aspects of culture that only by thoroughly contextualizing examinations of bodily representations and
practices can it be possible to grasp its full signicance.26 Michel
Foucault argues that bodies are texts, inscribed and proscribed
25
26
Mark Johnson, The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
Elaine Graham, Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood and Theology (Minneapolis, mn:
Fortress, 1996), 126.
97
by hegemonic systems and discourses.27 Recent work by French

feminists and psychoanalysts construe the body as a site of resistance; by writing the feminine body, they assert their specic
experiences in contrast to the prevailing masculine discourse of
the body.28 These rival attempts to elide, recover, and rewrite the
body fail to satisfy insofar as they make the body irrelevant or
all-determining. Elaine Graham makes this point, suggesting that
bodies might be conceived as being both artifacts or fabrications of culture; but also genuine vantage points for renewed
creative agency and transformative practice.29 These issues are
profoundly important for other moral questions, like the relations
among the body, personhood, and human nature. Stanley Rudman
notes that persons have been variously dened in terms of material
criteria (e.g., body, brain), mental criteria (e.g., self-consciousness,
rationality, intentionality), moral criteria (e.g., rights), and religious
criteria (e.g., soul).30 The term person is often associated with (sometimes made synonymous with) human being, though the two are at
least logically distinct. There is much at stake, then, in specifying
the criteria for personhood. Rudman notes that part of the confusion that ensues arises from a failure to see that the designation
human being often functions as more than a biological category;
it, like person, has evaluative and moral content.
Being a body means, among other things, that our bodies locate
our way of being in the world. Being a body grounds my experience and sense of value, identity, and power. Sensory experiences
of pleasure and pain provide initial encounters with value. My experience of physical wants and needs and their fulllment fund
and sometimes accompany my experience and sense of other, for
example emotional, needs. Being a body provides an initial and
ongoing sense of my identity through my capacities to relate to
others, to nd myself related (You dont choose your family), to
isolate myself from the material world and social relations. Being
27
28
29
30
See, for instance, Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: an Introduction, trans. Robert
Hurley (New York: Random House, 1978) and Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison,
trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977).
See for instance the work of Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray.
Graham, Making the Difference, 145.
Stanley Rudman, Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997), 3.
98
a body initiates my experience of power as well, given my bodily

vulnerability and control. My vulnerability is apparent in infancy
and early childhood, of course, but continues in my need for protective clothing, in the fragile susceptibility of my plans, my mood,
my sense of myself and the world to the simple onset of a cold or an
irritable bowel. My control, my capacity to exert power is apparent
in my physical mobility, my physical action upon or manipulation
of the material world or others, in the physiological benets I reap
through exercise and a healthy diet.
My body marks the boundary between aspects of my identity
that seem inward my thoughts and feelings, for example and
those that seem external my physical actions, those characteristics
and roles attributed to me by others and those I attempt to project.
The boundary character of the body asserts itself in involuntary
and unconscious physical manifestations. I may blush or speak in a
slightly higher register when I lie, experience feelings of arousal at
inopportune moments or in response to a person who in every other
respect I nd unattractive, or develop physiological manifestations
of emotions or stress, e.g., fatigue.
Cahill identies the following transcultural bodily experiences:
being one in many, as mind or spirit and body, as bodily parts in
a whole, and as qualied by identity and change over time; sexual
differentiation (malefemale); sexuality, kinship, both vertical and
lateral; birth; infancy; aging; eating; need for shelter; need for protective clothing; autonomous mobility; physical action upon the
environment, physical skill; sensuality (ve senses); pleasure and
pain; communication (expressiveness and receptivity); emotions;
mind-altering states of the body and bodily states caused by the
mind; sleep and dreams; health and illness; inicted injury, up to
and including killing; death, being a corpse, decay.31 These experiences are had only within cultural systems that elaborate their
meanings, socially differentiate their forms and signicance, and
ritualize them. But bodily transactions with the world and others matter and last. They ground moral conversation, contribute
to our common humanity, constitute our relations, and set some
parameters for moral deliberation.
31
Cahill, Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics, 78.
99
My specic concern here is not to allow the social and cultural

mediation of and reection on having a body to displace from normative consideration (and quite ironically so) what being a body
means. Margaret Farley notes that being a body means that women
can reclaim their bodies from male control.32 Her point deserves
attention, but it captures only part of the normative signicance of
being a body. Another (certainly not the last) normative implication of being a body is that ethics must assess the moral goodness
and rightness of concrete acts and relations. This may seem an
odd claim; after all, ethics grapples with topics like capital punishment, economic relations, hosts of problems in bioethics and
so forth. What I mean might be claried by the problem some,
especially Roman Catholic, ethicists consider under the rubric of
intrinsically evil acts. Are there some acts which, notwithstanding a good intention and apart from at least some of the relevant
circumstances, are always wrong? An afrmative answer typically
requires some claim about the fundamental disorder between certain acts and the authentic human good. What intention or circumstances, for instance, could possibly morally redeem rape? This
question entails theories of action and identity that cannot be offered here. Moreover, due attention to human historicity might
make an account of embodied freedom a more promising tool
than the concept of intrinsically evil acts. But the basic point is that
our actions and relations both express and determine our relation to
our selves, others and the divine. Insofar as the beliefs, values and
commitments we have serve as conditions for the possibility of interacting with the world and with others, our actions and relations
will disclose or express them. Yet self-relation and relation to God
and to neighbor are also activated and shaped in our concrete endeavors. We do indeed fashion our selves and to some extent can
elect to be differently; we cannot separate who we are from what
we do, or from the relations these actions effect and affect. We may
be more than the sum total of our actions and relations but we are
not nally other than them. In them we approximate or betray our
good and therefore take up some relation to ourselves, to the divine
32
Margaret Farley, Feminist Theology and Bioethics, in Feminist Theological Ethics, ed.,
Lois K. Daly (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 200.
100
and to others. This is a crucial point if ones moral identity is to

be anchored in anything other than subjective intention. Embodiment, then, requires a moral lectio of the body as a text produced
by others and as a symbol, a medium of my self-enactment.
Given all of the above, to do justice to the reexive and embodied
character of self-relation, it is important to recognize that our selfrelation and our relation to God are mediated in two respects, via
linguistic and symbolic systems and via our cares and commitments.
Put differently, a third feature of self-relation is that it is interpretive,
both in its cognitive and connative dimensions. As Schweiker notes,
In understanding, knowing and valuing interact for the sake of
orienting human life; exploring the act of understanding is then the
crucial clue for grasping our distinctively human way of existing in
the world.33 The practical character and import of understanding
is important for the claim that self-relation is embodied and for my
call for more attention in ethics to particular acts and relations.
But for the moment let me remain with this two-fold mediation of
self-relation. It suggests several things.
First, the mediation of our self-relation and our relation to God
through linguistic, cultural, and symbolic systems raises the problem of truthfulness in self-understanding. The linguistic, cultural,
and symbolic systems that mediate consciousness are not utterly
self-referential in meaning. The claim that subjectivity is reexive
implies that meaning is the self-transcendence of the linguistic code. To understand something as meaningful is to grasp how
some medium of communication (paradigmatically, language) intends what is other than itself and to understand oneself in that
space of otherness.34 This means that the linguistic, cultural, and
symbolic resources that mediate consciousness must be subject to
criticism and revision. This point bears on current debates in ethics
over realism and anti-realism.35 It also bears on moral psychological
problems of identity, self-deception and the extent to which high
degrees of reectiveness are or are not necessary for a morally good
33
34
35
Schweiker, Understanding Moral Meanings, in Power, Value and Conviction, 79.

Ibid., 81.
See Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, ed., Essays on Moral Realism (Ithaca, ny and London: Cornell
University Press, 1988).
101
life.36 By claiming that truthfulness in self-understanding is part of

the moral good of integrity I mean to combat subjectivism in ethics,
capture the theological perspective that the meaning of life is found
in relation to God and suggest that right self love requires ongoing self-criticism as well as criticism of others representations and
evaluations of our selves. Notwithstanding the provisional character of these representations and evaluations, their socio-historical
contingency and their inexhaustible and largely impenetrable psychosocial depths, right self love demands that in some measure we
know and accept the truth about ourselves. Second, the mediation
of self-relation via our cares and commitments requires us to afrm
the importance of intuitions, desires, aspirations and emotions as
they inform us about and congure our relations to others and
the world. It suggests that agency is grounded more deeply than
choice indeed it suggests that our self-relation (in both its praiseand blame-worthy respects) is in large measure constituted by the
relations, commitments and communities that situate and shape us.
While I cannot offer a theory of emotions here, some clarication
of the status of emotions is in order.37 Emotions involve cognitive,
motivational, and evaluative states. It is important not to neglect
any of these aspects in order to render the complexity of emotions
well. For example, too heavy an emphasis on the cognitive character
of emotions could ignore the fact that the same perceived state of
affairs can elicit different emotional reactions in different people. In
addition to cognitive, motivational, and evaluative states, emotions
sometimes include physiological changes. There is no necessary
relation between a given emotion and a particular physiological
change my pulse quickens when I am gripped by fear or by
desire. Emotions are private and social experiences. Emotions
seem to be inward experiences. A person can sometimes conceal
them, can sift through them, attend to one emotion and repress
36
37
See Owen Flanagan, Varieties of Moral Personality: Ethics and Psychological Realism (Cambridge,
ma: Harvard University Press, 1991), especially chapters 6 and 15, and Owen Flanagan
and Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, eds., Identity, Character and Morality: Essays in Moral Psychology
(Cambridge, ma: MIT Press, 1990), especially chapter 2 which treats Frankfurt and Taylor.
See the entry Emotions and feelings by Jane OGrady in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed., Ted Honderich (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) for a
succinct survey of theories of emotions and a number of the issues I raise here.
102
or deny another one. Yet emotions arise in our transactions with

others in the world. As inward as they seem, one can sometimes
detect the emotions of another even when he cannot. The very
fact that persons and groups share words that designate emotions
suggests the social character of emotions not only access to those
of others, but the exegesis of our own inner lives with an emotional
concordance.
Emotions illuminate our agency as well and disclose our relation to values. Emotions are states we undergo, reactions to others,
events, states of affairs. The responsive character of emotions afrms the reality and priority of value. We nd it in the world. It
confronts us. But emotions are also part of our experience of being agents. They can be springs of action. We invest emotionally
in a person, object, place, or idea. We confer value, for better or
worse. Beverly Harrison suggests these two points. Harrison says
that without feelings our power to image the world and act into
it is destroyed and our rationality is impaired. But it is not merely
the power to conceive the world that is lost. Our power to value
the world gives way as well.38 And yet she also says There are
no right and wrong feelings. Moral quality is a property of acts,
not feelings, and our feelings arise in action. The moral question is
not what do I feel? but rather what do I do with what I feel?39
Here Harrison exempts emotions from moral criticism. Instead,
she accords them a role in moral criticism. The matter at hand
is epistemological and axiological. Emotions can open reason to
value, to perceptions, to what is true and real and good. But emotions can also distort reason and blind it. Emotions can act as a
moral compass, but they can also be random, and they are almost
surely deeply psychologically seated. So emotions are ambiguous.
They need to be educated and ordered. Yet this askesis should be
undertaken with a hermeneutics of charity as much as one of suspicion, with reverence for and acceptance of emotions, remembering
that we and our relations are more than our emotions.
The two-fold mediation of subjectivity points to the profound
connections between the cognitive and connative dimensions of
38
39
Beverly Wildung Harrison, The Power of Anger in the Work of Love, in Making the
Connections, ed., Carol S. Robb (Boston, ma: Beacon, 1985), 13.
Ibid., 14.
103
self-relation and the moral life. To note these connections is, I

judge, to accept in qualied ways both feminist accounts of embodied selves and the epistemologies that often accompany them
as well as the rational accounts which feminists and others (e.g.,
communitarians) have criticized. By moving self-relation to the
methodological and substantive center of moral anthropology and
casting the problem of self love in terms of identity, meaning, and
action we tap into and speak to debates in ethics over questions of
the right versus questions of the good, public versus communally
specic moral arguments, and the relative moral importance of acts
versus feelings/intentions. More immediately we avoid reductionistic accounts of the self and the moral life.
Let me note some basic concepts I employ to capture these
features of self-relation.
Person, identity, and integrity
There are three concepts that are basic to my argument. First,
person refers to the double reexive dynamic of the self, wherein
ones self-awareness unfolds in an awareness of the divine. Second,
identity refers to the socio-historical specicity of the person, as well
as the relations, commitments and roles that constitute the texture
and shape of the particular persons moral life. I do not conne
moral goodness to some quality, faculty, or activity of the person,
but, rather, coordinate it to the ourishing or perfection of the
person. Thus, identity encompasses both particular facts and characteristics about a given person, but also has reference to Gods will
for that person. Because all persons are created to respond to God,
there will be some substantial, universal aspects of identity which
belong to all persons, but the term, per denition, also suggests
that identity is a highly individual matter. This leads me, third,
to the concept of integrity, a moral ideal for all persons; integrity
provides a way to retrieve traditional concepts of moral failing and
perfection, for example, concupiscence. Because self-relation can
take various forms, some of which are morally legitimate and some
of which are pernicious, it is necessary to distinguish the unity of
person and identity in self love per se (be it proper or pernicious
self love) and the unity of person and identity in right self love. The
104
concept identity, then, is a descriptive concept that encompasses

the persons particularity; in order to designate the particular form
of self-relation entailed in the idea of right self love, I will use the
term integrity. Integrity, it will be seen, denotes a distinctive way
of being in which the dignity and coherence of the persons life are
known in relation to the divine and embodied in her actions and
relations.
a return to being
Chapter One suggested that (post) modern rejections of ontological frameworks for the self contribute to the various features of our
contemporary moral outlook that pose the problem of self love.
Can we recoup these frameworks? Why should we want to rework
them? They counter the subjectivism and relativism of contemporary moral arguments with moral realism. Further, they can help
us to take seriously our embodiment and the integrity of the natural world, though they need to be critically appropriated for this
task. What follows provides theological content to the hermeneutical account of self-relation I just initiated and begins to show that
this account is a tool for reworking ontological frameworks for the
self. Most generally, it can activate some good will toward such
positions without sacricing critical rigor by divesting us of a suspicion that may blind us to their insights. Hermeneutical approaches
spark a dialectical process of reasoning in which arguments are
read against each other as a way to think through aporias, and
they place this process in the service of critical, inductive reection
on experience. Despite the fact that thinkers reject ontologies as
static and ahistorical, they can be rendered more dynamically and
historically and in this way help us to make sense of experience and
agency.
Both Rahner and Tillich react against old-style metaphysics
and physicalism, yet appropriate the conceptual language of being in different ways. Rahner understands being in terms of an
AristotelianThomistic model of causality that he transforms transcendentally. In doing so he applies classical conceptual language
of causality to epistemic acts. Tillich understands being in terms
105
of the basic ontological structure of subject and object, or self and

world. Tillich sought to avoid the reduction of philosophy to the
epistemic; he offers an ontology of freedom. While there are considerable points of substantive similarity, Rahner offers a causal and
Tillich a bi-polar account of being. Tillichs bi-polar framework
stresses the power of being over non-being. According to Tillich,
the human struggles against the threat of non-being to establish
herself as a person. Self-relation is characterized by centeredness;
it is the actualization of the structures of self-relatedness in obedience to the will of God. Tillich does understand the self as a
multi-dimensional unity; to interpret being in static terms would
do a disservice to his thought. Unbalance among the dimensions
of the self begets disruption, destruction, nonbeing. Being before
God, then, is a matter of actualization and integration, of centered
participation in the power of being. Rahner appropriates and transforms Thomistic causality so that his analysis of being, like that of
Aquinas, delves into the act of being, what it means to be coming
into and remaining in existence. For Rahner the persons transcendental exercise of freedom, her self-engagement, is a dialogical capacity for love. To become before God is to grow asymptotically in
self-acceptance in a denitive stance before the horizon of absolute
mystery. Each account brings something distinctive and valuable to
the idea of right self love. Actually, their similarities (the inuence
of existentialism and German idealism, their contemporary lifespans and German heritage) help us to appreciate what different
frameworks, metaphors and methods can contribute to the task
of moral anthropology. What is lost in starkness is compensated
for with nuance. For instance, Tillich contributes the importance
of integration, and thereby speaks to the fragmentation and compartmentalization which can afict the self, while Rahners appeal
to mystery can offset tendencies towards systematization and the
glorication of our power for its own sake.
Neither Rahner nor Tillich developed an account of self love;
Tillich even states in several places that the concept of self love is
problematic. Moreover, neither Tillich nor Rahner are typically
labeled ethicists, which is odd, considering the number of works
in ethics each produced; both understood that Christian theology
106
pushes organically to ethics, to the question of how we ought to live

before the divine. Each has been variously described as a systematic
and dogmatic theologian, as a pastoral thinker and philosopher of
religion. Both thinkers amassed many admirers and critics. Some
criticisms are vehement, others simply regard Rahner and Tillich,
important in their own time, as tired and passe. There are several
important criticisms which have been advanced against both of
them, and which suggest that Rahner and Tillich do not serve my
project well.
The rst set of objections center on the relation between human
nature and the divine. I cast this set broadly so as to include charges
of anthropocentrism, monism, and equivocation on the relation of
nature and grace. These various critiques can be grouped together
because each concerns the issue of difference between God and the
person. For various reasons and under various labels, both Rahner
and Tillich are said to undermine the difference between Creator
and creature. For instance, some critics contend that Rahners anthropocentrism constricts the divine reality within human limits
and ignores the import of revelation for an adequate understanding of the human. Some thinkers charge that Tillichs ontological
analysis of being effects a monism whereby the persons essential
nature is identical with Gods.40 Second, both Rahner and Tillich
are said to neglect the inter-personal character of the person, to
isolate self-relation from the embodied and social conditions of
the person. This charge of individualism appears to place Rahner
and Tillich at odds with my claim that self love is only actualized
and assessed in neighbor love. Third, the ethical writings of both
are criticized for courting subjectivism. Rahners transcendental
Thomism emphasizes the persons self-determination through a
fundamental choice; it risks a voluntarism in which the self s moral
identity is chiey a matter of her will. Her concrete acts and relations have a subordinate role, and their value is determined by
her. Tillichs ontology prompts him to describe conscience as the
silent call of being; it risks an intuitionism in which subjective wants
and experiences provide sufcient moral warrants and the moral
40
See Glenn Graber, The Metaethics of Paul Tillich, The Journal of Religious Ethics 1
(1973), 11333. See 12526. Graber goes so far as to say Ones essential nature = the
essential nature of other persons = God, 125. Graber has misread Tillich on this score.
107
emphasis falls on an authenticity that is determined individually

rather than indexed to concrete, objective acts and relations. Thus,
both threaten a subjectivism that reduces values to matters of personal choice and renders moral obligations as situation-specic.
If this charge is correct, then, their positions would not promise
much that could be used to critique the norm of self-realization.
Finally, readers of Rahner and Tillich struggle with how to adjudicate the normativity of their Christian commitments and their
foundational, universal claims about the person.
These particular criticisms are important to the problem of right
self love. To stress the self s difference from God, for instance, is
to argue that self-relation nds its source and power in the divine
other; the self cannot aim directly at her ourishing, but achieves it
by going out of herself. To stress the social character of the self is to
offset the solipsism that might attend an account of self love. The
risk of subjectivism raises the issue of how to evaluate morally the
self s relation to God. Put differently, what form of moral thinking
arises from the self s relation to the divine? Finally, the tension
between normative Christian commitments and a general account
of moral existence indicates the need to specify the role between
faith and self-relation, or the connection between particular forms
of discourse and the self s understanding of itself.
In sum, Rahners and Tillichs respective metaphysics make for
bloated anthropologies that constrict revelation and drag our attention away from our social and historical location, construction
and concerns. Moreover, Rahners voluntarism and Tillichs intuitionism invite a moral subjectivism that contributes to rather than
addresses the contemporary norm of self-realization. Reading their
arguments with a hermeneutical account of self-relation can offset
these difculties while retaining the theological and moral insights
of their respective metaphysics. Doing so also provides a way to develop a positive theological anthropology and a (Christian) account
of right self love.
th e sel f as created in and for relation w it h god
God made us to love him. In his creative love, God establishes and
sustains our being at every moment. In the intimacy of self-presence
108
we experience a dependence in freedom vis-à-vis some other who

both transcends it and whose very proximity makes possible a mutual in-dwelling of creator and creature. We can parse the reexive
character of self-relation in good theological fashion, then, by reecting on the self as question, as creature, and as free.
The self as question
Rahner and Tillich provide two models of understanding. Both
emerge from human questioning the meaning of existence. Rahner
may not employ the language of self-interpretation but he clearly
nds asking about the meaning of existence to be more than one
activity alongside others. Such questions tap into and disclose something about the human as questioner they indicate and constitute an openness to an (the) answer. Rahner hits on the so-called
hermeneutical circle: the question posed by the human creates
the condition for really hearing, and only the answer brings the
question to its reexive self-presence.41 The person not only asks
about the meaning of her existence, she experiences herself as that
question. This question may be ignored or repressed or neglected,
but it cannot be escaped, for it exists and has nothing outside itself
which could be the answer. It is the question which is its own answer
when it is accepted in love. Rahner goes on to say, Man is moved
by this absolute question. If he enters into this movement, which
is the movement of the world and of the spirit, he really comes
to himself for the rst time, and comes to God and to his goal,
the goal in which the absolute beginning itself in its immediacy is
41
Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: an Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans.
William Dych, (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 11. Rahners endeavor to give an introduction to the Idea of Christianity is simultaneously an inquiry into the totality of
Christian existence. The fact that Rahner species his anthropological starting points in
human knowing and freedom ts the dialectic of being and thinking, or anthropology
and epistemology which runs throughout this book. Not all scholars of Rahner recognize
the importance of his analysis of freedom, but instead conne his starting point to his
metaphysics of knowledge. Such approaches inate the importance of Rahners early
works, Spirit in the World and Hearers of the Word. I draw upon Rahners later work. See
Spirit in the World, trans. William Dych (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968) and Hearers
of the Word, trans. Michael Richards (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969). For a helpful
introductory treatment of Rahners thought which is structured according to Foundations,
see Leo J. ODonovan, ed., A World of Grace: an Introduction to the Themes and Foundations of
Karl Rahners Theology (New York: Seabury, 1980).
109
our goal.42 Because one cannot ask about something about which
one does not already know something, Rahner argues that the answer to human questioning is entailed in the question itself. Thus,
if the human is that question, the answer is something in which
the human already participates. Rahner speaks of the dynamism
of knowledge as having a Vorgriff, a pre-apprehension of meaning.
The Vorgriff means that human knowing occurs within a horizon
which encompasses the knowing subject and the object of knowledge and which directs this knowing beyond the nite, particular
object. This means that when we ask about ourselves we (1) experience our transcendence; (2) disclose our openness to its horizon
(what Rahner terms absolute mystery); and (3) afrm this horizon
as the condition for its possibility.
Rahner explores this connection between the persons questioning and her orientation towards mystery by analyzing human
knowledge and experience. He designates the reexive character
of subjectivity as transcendental experience.43 Human knowledge
manifests this experience because the object of knowledge is always
co-known with the subjects awareness of its knowledge.44 This
awareness of ones own subjectivity, this transcendence, constitutes
an unthematic openness to being as such. It is a necessary, though
not always self-conscious afrmation of being.45 In this openness,
this orientation to mystery, the person possesses an unthematic
knowledge of God.46 The reexive character of self-awareness has
a doubleness, because it unfolds in an awareness of God. Still, the
persons transcendental relation to God is not an unambiguous object of reection. Because God is both the power of transcendental
movement and the goal, reection on transcendence will be an interpretation of the human vis-à-vis this horizon. As Rahner puts it,
the unthematic awareness of God becomes thematized though not
42
43
44
45
46
Rahner, Foundations, 192.

See ibid., 3135 and 5771. See also James J. Bacik, Apologetics and the Eclipse of Mystery:
Mystagogy According to Karl Rahner (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980).
Ibid., 69. Hence, he can say that anthropology is theology and vice versa. Rahner goes
so far as to say that anthropology is Christology.
This transcendental knowledge of God is a posteriori insofar as subjectivity is always
situated in an encounter with the world and with other people (see ibid., 5152). Thus,
speaking and thinking about God points to the transcendental experience and knowledge
of God, but does not exhaust or completely objectify this experience and knowledge.
110
necessarily in explicitly theistic terms. This transcendental method

is a valuable resource for crafting an account of self-relation and
is amenable to a hermeneutical account in particular because the
claims Rahner makes remind us that our self-interpretation and our
acts of meaning-making are responsive and responsible to something we have not created.
While Rahner describes understanding with what we can call
a model of thematization, Tillich employs a correlational model
of question and answer.47 According to Tillich, reason in both its
objective and subjective structures points to something which appears in these structures but which transcends them in power and
meaning.48 Reason has the dimension of depth, such that it points
to truth, beauty, justice, and love, but this depth is hidden under
the conditions of existence. Under the conditions of existence the
depth of reason expresses itself in myth and cults. These myths and
cults formulate the question which the human is and suggest the
interpretive character of self-relation. 49 Because the answer to the
questions implied in existence cannot be derived from existence,
but must be given, they are answered by revelation. The ecstatic reception of revelation does not destroy reason, but opens it to a new
dimension, thereby disclosing something valid about the relation
between the human and the ground of reason and the mysterious
47
48
49
As with Rahner, the very character of Tillichs systematic project discloses its suitability.
Tillichs Systematic Theology is structured by creation and salvation. Insofar as mans
existence has the character of self-contradiction or estrangement, a double consideration
is demanded, one side dealing with what he essentially is (and ought to be) and the
other dealing with what he is in his self-estranged existence (and should not be). Tillich,
Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 66. The various parts of Tillichs Systematic Theology move from
essential being to estranged existence to ambiguous life, each of which Tillich speaks
of in terms of different symbols and concepts and according to a Trinitarian structure.
Being raises the question of God, existence quests for the Christ, and life quests for the
Spirit; the chief symbols are respectively God, New Being, and Spiritual Presence. For
methodological reasons, the system is framed by a treatment of reason and its quest for
revelation, and history and the Kingdom of God. For a discussion of Tillichs theological
method see Uwe C. Scharf, Dogmatics between the Poles of the Sacred and the Profane:
an Essay in Theological Methodology, Encounter 55 (1994), 26986, especially 26977.
For a discussion of the relation between religious symbols and interpretation, see Donald
F. Dreisbach, Paul Tillichs Hermeneutic, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 43
(1975), 8494, especially 9193, which takes up Tillichs method of correlation.
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 79. See Robert C. Coburn, The Idea of Transcendence, Philosophical Investigations 13 (1990), 32237.
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 62.
111
abyss to which reason is driven.50 In other words, the basic question of being and nonbeing, the question which the human is, is
answered when reason is grasped ecstatically by the ground of reason, by God. In this way, Tillich makes the double reexive move
which Rahner made, showing thereby that in the very structure of
subjectivity the self experiences itself (however non-theistically) as
related to the divine. Thus, Tillichs ontological analysis offers a
different account of and framework for the same insight that I said
Rahner helps us to court: that self-interpretation and meaningmaking are responsive and responsible to something we (to borrow
from Paul Ricoeur) do not invent but discover.51
The question implied by human being, then, is asked by the
human and can be answered by her because she experiences the
ontological structure of this answer immediately and directly in
her own self-awareness. Recall that Tillich designates this structure as self and world. As a self, the human is separated from
everything else but at the same time is aware of belonging to that
from which she is separated. For this reason, the self transcends
her environment, and thus, has a world. The world includes and
transcends all possible environments; it is the structure by which
the self grasps and shapes her environment. The world allows the
self to encounter herself.52 The self-world ontological structure,
then, is the existential correlate to the subjectobject character of
reason. In this way, Tillich parallels the epistemological and ontological polarities of reason/revelation and being/God. Indeed,
Tillich explicates the self-world structure in terms of different symbols and concepts which correlate to different analyses of human
being, (e.g., he species the meaning of being as power, freedom,
and love).
50
51
52
Ibid., 113. Tillich speaks about the questions of being and nonbeing as one of ontological
shock. This shock is preserved yet overcome in ecstasy.
Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, tx:
Texas Christian University, 1976.) Of course, philosophically speaking, Tillichs ontological approach may appear just as unpromising as Rahners transcendental Thomism.
Certainly, it seems incommensurable with non-substantialist metaphysics like those found
in Eastern approaches. Engagement with those projects lies well beyond my expertise.
A helpful book, however, is Joan Stambaugh, The Formless Self (Albany, ny: SUNY, 1999).
Stambaugh explores several Japanese Buddhists. See especially 5597 in which she
explores Tillichs dialogues with Shinichi Hisamatsu.
See Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 16871.
112
In contrast to the thematization and correlational models of

understanding that Rahner and Tillich employ, a hermeneutical
approach models understanding as an event. As I noted earlier in
this chapter, events of understanding connect knowing and valuing,
the knowing entailed in sensory perception and in praxis, and the
value that confronts us and that we bestow. This model is more basic than Rahners and Tillichs and can accommodate them both.
Rahners thematization model, for instance, suggests that understanding is a process whereby the real arises in beliefs, symbols,
practices, while Tillichs correlational model suggests a process of
being grasped. Recognizing that understanding is an event emphasizes human agency in the constitution of meaning but does not
render the agent as a singular source of value. In this way we can
reckon with the particularity and contingency of knowledge without doing so at the expense of realism. Moreover, recognizing that
understanding is an event highlights the fact that the self comes to
itself under the demand to recognize what is other. Yet, importantly,
the self s awareness of the other is not free of distortions, prejudice,
and callousness. Love for self and others entails the purication of
and sensitization of our moral affections as part of the task of knowing oneself and others truly and for discerning what concrete acts
and relations embody that love suitably. Growth in love enables us
to see clearly, to know as we are known. (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12) The
completion of knowledge expresses itself in what love does and how
love does it. Knowledge of oneself becomes complete as we abide
in love, and the fullness and clarity of this knowledge expresses itself
in the work of love, especially as it rescues our efforts and acts,
rescues our very selves, from nothingness.
The self as creature
Rahner and Tillich begin with knowledge/reason because they
want to respond to the epistemic revolution of modernity as part
of their respective ontologies. At stake is the connection between
knowledge (of oneself ) and knowledge of God. This properly epistemological question brings us to the theological anthropological
claims that accompany it. For Rahner, to be human is to be able to
respond to God (because creation is always already graced) and so
113
to be oriented to God. For Tillich, to be human is to participate in

being and nonbeing and so to be ultimately concerned about what
determines our being or nonbeing. We can note the way their respective models of understanding inuence their analyses of being
and of the divinehuman relation in particular.
According to Rahner, the persons orientation to God is grace,
and it is an inescapable existential of mans whole being even
when he closes himself to it freely by rejecting it.53 That is to say,
God has given Gods self to the person as an offer such that the
divinehuman relation, prior to the persons exercise of freedom
in response to that offer, has become constitutive of the person.
Rahner captures this claim in the concept of the supernatural existential. The supernatural existential designates prevenient grace
as an abiding existential of the person.54 It is precisely because of
such claims that some critics fault Rahners understanding of nature and grace for undermining the difference between God and
creature.55 Because creation is always already graced, Rahner calls
nature a remainder concept in order to refer to what creation
would have been like apart from grace.56 In other words, there is
nothing about the human which demands or requires Gods selfcommunication. Rather, God freely offers Gods self.57 Because
53
54
55
56
57
Rahner, Foundations, 57. See Rahner, Concerning the Relationship Between Nature and
Grace, in Theological Investigations, vol. 1. See Theological Investigations, vols. 114 (vols. 16,
Baltimore, ma: Helicon; vols. 710, New York: Herder and Herder; vols. 1114, New York:
Seabury; 19611976).
See William Dych, Karl Rahner (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992) especially chapter 3;
J. Cawte, Karl Rahners Conception of Gods Self-Communication to Man, Heythrop
Journal 25:3 (1984), 26071. See also Richard J. Beauchesne, The Supernatural Exis
tential as Desire: Karl Rahner and Emmanuel Levinas Revisited, Eglise
et Theologie 23
(1992), 22139, especially 32439. Beauchesne draws on Levinass category of Desire as
a way to preserve the difference of God from the person.
See W. Hill, Uncreated Grace A Critique of Karl Rahner, Thomist 27 (1963), 33356.
Hill argues that Rahners doctrine of grace must involve either an unthinkable fusion
of God with creature, or a transformation of the creature into the divine by way of
hypostatic union or glorious vision. See 356.
Rahner also says that Gods self-communication presupposes creation as its decient
mode. See Rahner, Foundations, 122. Rahner does not want to deny the freedom of the
Incarnation, so he insists that there could have been humans without the Logos having
become human. Nevertheless, by calling human creatureliness the decient modality of
Gods self-communication, Rahner means to claim that the possibility of there being
humans is grounded in the greater possibility that God could express Gods self in the
Logos which becomes a human. See ibid., 223.
As will become clear in Chapter Six this understanding of the relation of nature and
grace proves important for the question whether there is a distinctive Christian ethics.
114
there is nothing about the person which demands grace, but the
person has been created so as to be capable of receiving grace,
Rahner speaks of obediential potency, or the potentia obedientalis.58
The concept of obediential potency suggests the commensurability between human being as such and relation to the divine. To be
sure, Gods offer is the condition for the possibility of and bears the
persons response, but the distinction is necessary in order to preserve the gratuity of Gods grace. God remains free in Gods offer,
and Gods offer empowers the person in knowledge, freedom, and
love to transcend the particular toward the divine horizon which
gives value and coherence to the particular.
For Tillich man is nitude that is aware of itself as such, and
therefore experiences the threat of nonbeing as anxiety.59 Finite
freedom is what makes the transition from being to existence possible. In essential being, the ontological elements that constitute the
basic structure of self and world are organized in balanced polarities; individuation is balanced by participation, dynamics by form,
freedom by destiny.60 But nitude transforms these polarities into
tensions and threatens to disrupt the balance. If one of the polar
elements is lost, the self faces disintegration. For example, when
freedom loses its polarity with destiny, it ceases to be freedom and
becomes arbitrariness. Because nonbeing is a threat but not a necessity, the human asks the question of God, the question of what can
conquer nonbeing. The question of God is implied in the structure of being, then, and is present in the humans awareness of
her nitude. Put differently, nitude drives being to the question
of God.61 Tillich speaks of the question which nitude poses as
the humans ultimate concern. One is concerned ultimately about
that which determines ones being or nonbeing. Tillich argues that
one cannot be concerned about something which one does not
encounter concretely, that is, something that is not real. Yet, neither can one be concerned ultimately with something that does
not transcend preliminary nite concerns.62 God is the name for
58
59
62
See Rahner, Concerning the Relationship Between Nature and Grace. See also Rahner,
Foundations, 132 and 218.
60 See ibid., 17486.
61 Ibid., 166.
Of course, Tillich grants that such nite concerns can be attributed an ultimacy which
does not belong to them; this is the force of his analysis of idolatry and the demonic.
115
that which concerns the human ultimately. God is absolute and

ultimate because God is the power of being, and God is concrete
and personal because God is the ground and aim of being.63
Each approach expresses and illumines some features of experience and neglects others. Each implies (as we will see) different
pictures of self-determination and of redemption. Importantly, each
ontology connects epistemologies and axiologies in a version of the
basic claim that God has created us, and that our creaturehood
entails differentiation from and belonging to God. The language
of creaturehood places the self within an antecedent order of value.
Substance metaphysics may construe this order statically and may
neglect the role interpretation plays in identifying and responding to value. Yet it also afrms the value of the natural world and
the goodness of existence even in the face of evidence to the contrary. By bringing hermeneutical theory to bear on Rahners and
Tillichs anthropologies we can re-cast their respective accounts of
being from attempts to specify from a theological perspective the
essence or nature of the self to claims about the meaning of
existence. The self as question is always already set within a domain
of value. The self as creature arises in acts of knowledge and concern, suggesting that creaturehood refers not to some substratum
but to the praxis of understanding oneself in a world.
As I noted in Chapter One, the self may become a new creation. She lives by another and in another because she lives for
another. Her loves animate her. She participates in, becomes like
the object of her love. The question is, for whom does she live? This
brings us to the self as free.
The self as free
Setting self-relation in a theistic ontology counters the dominant reduction of freedom to autonomy that Chapter One noted.
Freedom is the mode of our creatureliness, our capacity for
63
See Donald F. Driesbach, Symbols and Salvation: Paul Tillichs Doctrine of Religious Symbols
and his Interpretation of the Symbols of the Christian Tradition (Lanham, md: University Press of
America, 1993), 11.
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 211. See also Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1957). For God as absolute and ultimate see Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 230
and for God as concrete and personal, see 245.
116
self-determination in relation to God and others and in the world.

This is not the hermetically sealed autonomy that modernity so
prizes. Freedom has conditions. Some of these conditions consist
in freedoms situation, historically and socially, its psychological and
appetitive conditioning and so forth. Within this situation, freedom
nds a more basic condition, that for which freedom is created.
According to Rahner, freedom is neither an individual human
power alongside others which can be observed empirically, nor
is it neutral. The persons transcendence is opened and borne by
absolute mystery and thus is not at the persons disposal; it is because
of this, perhaps ironically, that the person experiences herself as, and
really is, free to decide, and responsible for deciding, her posture
toward this horizon. As will become clearer later, Rahner ties such
self-actualization (the exercise of transcendental freedom) to selfacceptance, which is thematized in the self s categorical acts; in my
judgment he thereby opens the door to a picture of self-relation in
terms of a self-interpretation which is mediated in the self s moral
and religious activity.
Rahner wants to avoid some conception of transcendental freedom as layered onto or extrinsic to its categorical objectications.
He argues that transcendental freedom is always situated categorically, that is, historically and socially. Indeed, it is only because
the person experiences his historical conditioning that he can be
condent that he also transcends such determination. Historicity
and sociality are not qualities of the person alongside her freedom,
but rather provide the arena for freedom.64 Thus, being situated is
constitutive of the person as such and indicates that man even as
doer and maker is still receiving and being made.65 Thus, the persons capacity to respond to God is situated and embedded within
a history which co-determines it as guilt.66 Rahner maintains that
guilt and redemption need not be understood as temporally sequential. In fact, if the cosmos is always already graced by God,
the saving self-communication of God precedes the determination
of freedom in guilt. For this reason guilt and forgiveness need to be
understood in light of one another. Guilt is closing oneself to this
64
66
65 Ibid., 43.
See, for example, Rahners Does Traditional Theology Represent Guilt as Innocuous
as a Factor in Human Life? in Theological Investigations, vol. 13.
117
offer of Gods absolute self-communication and yet, the enduring

validity of this offer in Christ discloses Gods self-communication as
forgiving.67 Accordingly, Rahner appropriates the doctrine of original sin to express the historical origin of the present, universal and
ineradicable situation of our freedom as co-determined by guilt
and claims the possibility of sin is an existential of the person.68
Yet Rahner in effect contextualizes sin within claims about Gods
antecedent relation to the person, to the cosmos, in grace. Because
freedom is situated yet open to further determination, the person
experiences her freedom in ambiguity and as hidden. Her exercise
of freedom cannot be brought to reection completely.69 Rahners
description of freedom as transcendental and categorical has some
fans and many critics. The two insights behind it are rst, that
freedom is exercised in categorical choices but also in the choice
of oneself and second, that freedom is the mode not only of our
difference from everything else, our separation, but our relationality. This is the point of speaking of freedoms horizon and of its
co-determination by guilt.
Tillich picks up these points as well in his description of the
transition from being to existence. The transition from essence to
existence is possible because of nite freedom. Tillich argues that
man is free in so far as he has the power of contradicting himself
and his essential nature. Man is free even from his freedom; that
is, he can surrender his humanity.70 According to Tillich, as compared to existence, essential being is best understood in terms of
dreaming innocence, a state of non-actualized potentiality. Essential being cannot be understood as perfection because otherwise
the Fall is unintelligible. Rather, it must be that essential freedom
is uncontested, undecided freedom, and thus, that it must be actualized. Given this, Tillich argues that in freedom creation and the
fall coincide because
being a creature means both to be rooted in the creative ground of the
divine life and to actualize ones self through freedom. Creation is fullled
in the creaturely self-realization which simultaneously is freedom and
destiny. But it is fullled through separation from the creative ground
67
70
68 Ibid., 114. See also, 104.

69
See ibid., 97.
118
through a break between existence and essence. Creaturely freedom is

the point at which creation and the fall coincide.71
Despite the fact that creation and the fall coincide, and thus, the
human makes the transition from essential unity with being to
estrangement from it, estrangement is not a structural necessity.72
It is a universal fact but it is also a personal act. In existence,
the individuals freedom is embedded in a universal condition of
estrangement, but does not thereby cease to be a matter of personal
responsibility and guilt.
Freedoms co-determination by guilt means, from a hermeneutical perspective, that the self understands herself in a situation and
with resources that are not of her own making, that include distortions and blindness and violence and despair. It is not simply that
our acting implicates us in a world marked by sin, but that in the
very springs of our own agency, we are not alone, nor are we our
own. If we live by and in something other than our selves because
we become selves by living for some other, our self-relation is always
a matter of loves and loyalties that animate us. Yet our freedom is
also the mode of our difference from everything else, which allows
for and requires our responsible self-determination.
self-determination before god
Freedom relates closely to the persons capacity for selftranscendence. So freedom might seem to be the capacity for selfalteration, and as I noted in Chapter One, this picture of freedom
is offered in many quarters today. Freedom, in this view, is unfettered. It is the power of self-determination and it is exercised in
a neutral space. Freedom is severed from, takes no direction or
content from the agent who exercises it. Freedom is the capacity
to escape its own conditions. But if freedom always operates in a
space of value, and if in its very depths it is shaped by desire, then
freedom is fundamentally responsive. So freedom cannot be the
71
72
Ibid., 256. See Peter Slater, Tillich on the Fall and the Temptation of Goodness, Journal
of Religion 65 (1985), 196207, especially 205. See also Donald F. Dreisbach, Essence,
Existence, and the Fall: Paul Tillichs Analysis of Existence, Harvard Theological Review
73 (1980), 52138.
For this reason, Tillich speaks of the transition in terms of a leap. See Tillich, Systematic
Theology, vol. 2, 44.
119
capacity to escape its own conditions. Rather, freedom resides in

the conguration of those conditions. Rahner helps us to grasp this
point. God, as the condition for freedoms possibility and as the
providential and saving agent who recongures freedom, sets our
freedom free. Lest this seem to distance freedom from its material,
social, and cultural location, Tillich gives us some purchase on the
intersubjective and material arena of freedom. Freedom is not the
absence of all determination. Rather, it is a capacity to actualize
oneself within ones material specicity. If freedom is the capacity for self-actualization (in particular choices and as the choice of
oneself in those choices), then to be free is to be what one is created to be, to actualize ones potentialities, to enjoy the conditions
for human ourishing, to choose and act in accordance with the
human good.
For Rahner, freedom is both a capacity and a task, a possibility
and a demand. According to Rahner it is because freedom is situated and co-determined, that is, because the person experiences
herself as a product not at her own disposal, that freedom is not
so much the exercise of some faculty as it is the achievement of
her self. In real freedom the subject always intends himself, understands and posits himself. Ultimately he does not do something,
but does himself.73 Rahner writes elsewhere, although it exists in
time and in history, freedom has a single, unique act, namely, the
self-actualization of the single subject himself. The subjects individual acts must always and everywhere be mediated objectively in
the world and in history, but he intends one thing and he actualizes
one thing: the single subject in the unique totality of his history.74
Freedom so conceived is not a capacity for arbitrary choices which
can be made and then changed. It is the capacity for something
nal and denitive.75
For Rahner the question about personal existence is a question
about salvation. Salvation is a matter of the nal and denitive validity of a persons true self-understanding and true self-realization
in freedom before God by the fact that he accepts his own self as
73
74
75
Rahner, Foundations, 94. See Andrew Tallon, Personal Becoming, Thomist 43 (1979),
177, especially 12933 on this point.
Rahner, Foundations, 95. See also 38, and Rahner, Theology of Freedom, Theological
Investigations, vol. 6, 182.
See Rahner, Theology of Freedom, 179.
120
it is disclosed and offered to him in the choice of transcendence

as interpreted in freedom.76 The exercise of freedom is a practical self-interpretation; we realize and understand ourselves truly
as we respond to Gods self-offer. This relation between Gods selfcommunication and human freedom can be explained by means
of the metaphysical principle of causality.77
Rahner adopts and transcendentally modies the Aristotelian
Thomistic model of causality. His account is certainly not the
only resource for construing the divinehuman relation, though
it has some merits. As a heuristic device it can bring into relief
and fund thinking about nature and grace, divine and human
agency, freedom as determined and as open to determination.
Rahner uses efcient causality to speak about creatureliness and
formal causality (sometimes called quasi-formal causality) to speak
of Gods self-communication to the human.78 Efcient causality explains creation as the free establishment by God of what is other
precisely as other but it does not explain or require Gods selfcommunication to that created existent.79 Formal causality, however, designates Gods self-communication to the creature wherein
God becomes a constitutive principle for the created existent yet
remains free and completely intact.80
As a heuristic device the model of causation turns on a more
basic theological claim about how and why the person has been
created, a claim about what is most essential to the person, namely
that freedom has grace as its condition of possibility and that the
actualization of freedom is itself an event of grace. The full and
nal actualization of freedom constitutes a response to that offer.
The persons self-determination does not simply coincide with a
76
77
78
79

The metaphysical principle of causality is not an extrapolation from the causal thinking
that we use in everyday affairs. It is grounded rather in the transcendental experience
of the relationship between transcendence and its term . . . it only points to the transcendental experience in which the relationship between something conditioned and
nite and its incomprehensible source is immediately present, and through its presence
is experienced (ibid., 70).
The nature of the spiritual creature consists in the fact that that which is innermost
to it, that whence, to which and through which it is, is precisely not an element of this
essence and this nature which belongs to it (Rahner, Immanent and Transcendent
Consummation of the World, Theological Investigations, vol. 10, 281). See Paul de Letter,
Divine Quasi-Formal Causality, Irish Theological Quarterly 27 (1960), 22128.
80 Ibid., 121.
121
response to God. But the persons self-determination has God as

both its origin and its telos. Freedom is set free by God for God.81
Thus self-relation nds its source and power in something other
than oneself which transcends the self, and moreover, the meaning of life is found in relation to the divine. This claim provides
an important moral critique of self-realization ethics which tend
toward egoism or which dene fulllment with respect to nite
goods or projects. God is the primary agent within the persons
self-determining exercise of freedom.
This construal of freedom shows that we cannot understand selfrelation descriptively or normatively apart from the basic claim that
we are created by God for God. Just as a yes to Gods offer of grace
is itself an instance of grace, a no to Gods offer also depends upon
this antecedent relation of grace in order to be a no.82 Although
the character of freedom is such that its fulllment is in God, selfdetermination constitutes a response to God, whether that response
is a yes or a no. Rahner maintains that freedom requires us to hold
that a no, a personal decision against God, is a real possibility.
However, given the character of freedom, a yes to God and a no to
God are not parallel possibilities. Rahner writes,
since freedoms no to God is based on a transcendental and necessary
yes to God in transcendence and otherwise could not take place, and
hence since it entails a free self-destruction of the subject in an intrinsic contradiction in his act, for this reason then this no must never be
understood as an existential-ontological parallel possibility of freedom
alongside of the possibility of a yes to God. This no is one of freedoms possibilities, but this possibility of freedom is always at the same
time something abortive, something which miscarries and fails, something
which is self-destructive and self-contradictory.83
All of this intimates how Rahner recoups the classical claim that
God is the good of the human as such, that is, how Rahner commensurates the being and ourishing of the person with her relation
to God.
81
83
82 See ibid., 118. See also 97106.

See ibid., 79.
Ibid., 102. See also Rahner, Theology of Freedom, 18182. Some thinkers contend that
Rahners understanding of sin as a free and denitive no to God is inconsistent. See for
example Ron Higheld, The Freedom to Say No? Karl Rahners Doctrine of Sin,
Theological Studies 56 (1995), 485505. Higheld, like other critics of Rahner, charges that
Rahner eclipses the difference between God and the person. See 504.
122
Rahners construal of self-determination as self-disposal ts

his thematization model of understanding and transcendentalcausal analysis of being. Tillichs correlational model of understanding and bipolar analysis of being shape his account of selfdetermination. Tillich speaks of self-determination as centeredness
and integration. The self, like all beings, drives toward its actualization and toward reunion with essential being. Nevertheless, a special dimension of life, the dimension which is particularly human,
is the dimension of spirit.84 Spirit, divine and human, is the unity of
power and meaning; it includes awareness and intentionality, eros
and reason. Tillich argues that spirit has three functions: religion,
culture, and morality. Because the dimension of spirit is particularly
human, the functions of spirit are constitutive for human life. To
describe the self-actualization of life under the dimension of spirit,
Tillich correlates self-integration with morality, self-creativity with
culture, and self-transcendence with religion.
Self-integration depends upon the polarity of individuation and
participation. An individuated self is a centered self.85 Yet, the centered self, by virtue of being separate from her world, is capable
of relating herself to it. Centeredness is both a reality and a task.86
Centeredness is given in essential being, but it is not actually given
until man actualizes it in freedom and through destiny. The act
in which man actualizes his essential centeredness is the moral
act. . . . Morality is the function of life in which the centered self
constitutes itself as a person.87 The actualization of centeredness
is a moral act under the norm of essential being; this is Tillichs
concept of theonomy.
Theonomy means that ones essential being constitutes a moral
imperative which is experienced as categorically binding within the
ambiguities of life.88 To disobey the moral imperative is to live in
fundamental self-contradiction.
Man is able to respond to these commands and . . . this ability is what
makes him responsible. Every moral act is a responsible act, a response
84
87
88
85 Ibid., 3238.
86 Ibid., 30.
Ibid., 38.
The moral imperative is valid because it represents our essential being over against our
state of existential estrangement (ibid., 44). See Charles J. Sabatino, An Interpretation
of the Signicance of Theonomy within Tillichs Theology, Encounter 45 (1984), 2338.
123
to a valid command, but man can refuse to respond. If he refuses, he

gives way to the forces of moral disintegration; he acts against the spirit
in the power of the spirit. For he can never get rid of himself as spirit. He
constitutes himself as a completely centered self even in his anti-essential,
antimoral actions. These actions express moral centeredness even while
they tend to dissolve the moral center.89
What Tillich recognizes here is that self-relation can take a variety of forms, some of which are destructive and morally invalid.
Thus, for Tillich, as for Rahner, disobedience or resistance to the
persons primordial relation with God depends upon this very relation. Later I will argue that Tillich does not provide adequately for
moral differentiation among forms of self-relation. These norms
are experienced in the persons encounter with other persons. The
centeredness of the other person, their inviolability as such, places
a limit on the self s attempt to integrate everything into itself.90
The person responds to God in her self-actualization; this process
of centering is a moral process.
Self-integration is a matter of establishing self-identity, but a crucial aspect to this process is self-alteration or self-creativity. The
function of self-creativity depends upon the polarity of dynamics and form. Self-creativity is actualized under the dimension of
spirit in the function of culture. In culture, the human creates the
new by the basic functions of language and technology. The self
is determined by others and determines others, even as genuine
self-determination occurs. Thus, self-creativity is always ambiguous. Self-transcendence denotes the persons quest for unambiguous life, the persons reach beyond herself and beyond nite life.
Tillich argues that the human begins the quest for unambiguous
life in religion and that it is in religion that the human receives the
answer.91 The person can reach for unambiguous life but cannot
grasp it. Rather, she must be grasped by it.
89
90
91
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 39. See also ibid., vol. 1, 284 where Tillich writes,
A nite being can be separated from God; it can indenitely resist reunion; it can be
thrown into self-destruction and utter despair; but even this is the work of the divine
love. . . . Hell has being only in so far as it stands in the unity of the divine love. It is
not the limit of the divine love. The only preliminary limit is the resistance of the nite
creature.
See M. W. Sinnett, The Primacy of Relation in Paul Tillichs Theology of Correlation:
a Reply to the Critique of Charles Hartshorne, Religious Studies 27 (1991), 54157.
124
For Tillich, as for Rahner, self-determination depends upon God

even though the exercise of human freedom within it is and must
be genuine. Moreover, for Tillich, as for Rahner, the persons selfdetermining response to God is clearly religious in character. The
act of faith and the act of accepting the moral imperatives unconditional character are one and the same act.92 Tillich speaks of
participation in New Being as faith. But faith leads him to love, for
in relation to God the distinction between faith and love disappears. Being grasped by God in faith and adhering to him in love
is one and the same state of creaturely life. It is participation in the
transcendent unity of unambiguous life.93
Self-determination before God stands in marked contrast to
the norm of self-realization. It shifts us away from an ethics of
success and it emphasizes human agency without valorizing the
power to act or the will to power. Moreover, given the responsive and responsible character of self-determination, the particular
concrete acts and relations by which the self determines itself and
the symbolic and linguistic resources through which she understands herself need to be evaluated morally. The moral import of
our creatureliness is that we evaluate these acts, relations, and resources in light of some account of what the person is created to be.
As we have already seen, attempts to specify some human nature
or essence confront a number of challenges. And it is here that
Rahners and Tillichs attempts to rework conceptual frameworks
of being in light of modern criticisms of them seem to retain some
of the difculties they sought to avoid. A hermeneutical approach
to self-relation, however, promises a way to develop an account of
what the person is created to be, and on its very terms demands and
allows for the ongoing criticism and revision of such an account.
In a hermeneutical account the claim that the self is known in God
does not require a single and static nature, but articulates the truth
about the person in a way that orients her practically. It does not end
the question of what the self is created to be by supplying a tidy answer that is supposedly applicable in all times and places. Instead
it enjoins a critical and collective process of self-understanding.
The conceptual language of being here becomes a means to index
92
Ibid., 159.
93
Ibid., 138.
125
self-interpretation to the material conditions in which we live and

to our ourishing as bodily, social, and reective creatures. This
materiality funds and can correct self-interpretation, even as the
interpretive process prohibits nave movements from our embodiment to prescriptive moral claims.
l ove and moral being
If we ought to understand self-relation with reference to relation to
God, why is it appropriate to speak of this intersection in terms of
love? Why does this properly religious response to God comprise
a moral obligation? Christian theologians claim that God is love.
The divine self-disclosure is also a self-offering. Gods creativity
establishes what is other but does so for the sake of relationship
with it. Nowhere is the divine self-offer more concrete than in
the person of Christ. Gods self-offer in Jesus Christ suggests a
different account of love than Nygren thinks it does. To be sure, to
make a gift of oneself may require the sacrice of certain pursuits,
interests, and possibilities. But it does not suggest the violent and
denigrating connotations self-sacrice could carry, nor does it imply
the juridical and hierarchical relations that self-sacrice can. Love
as a gift of self expresses more positively the self s coming to be in
relation to another and as gift. It afrms simultaneously the self s
freedom and individuation, as well as that of the other. So, the point
here is not why this portrait of self-relation is a love relation, but
what it shows lovers to do. A lover knows and accepts the truth about
the beloved, afrms the value of the beloved (by acknowledging it
as already there and/or by bestowing it) and acts for, on, and with
the beloved toward her good and in a manner faithful and tting
to her truth and value. This is what God does in loving us.
The contemporary problem of self love is one of identity, of
meaning, in which aversion to and skepticism about normative anthropologies create various practical dangers insofar as it becomes
difcult to identify concrete actions and relations as incompatible
with the self s ourishing. As both Rahner and Tillich recognize,
self-determination is ambiguous. The persons self-relation can take
a number of forms, some of which are morally invalid. This is why
the persons self-determining response to God is a moral obligation.
126
As it began to become clear in the previous section, the persons

self-determining response to God is a matter of love for her self and
for God because of the commensurability between her own ourishing and the acceptance of Gods self-offer to her. The character
of this response will be considered in detail in Chapter Four. Selfdetermination is not a crass ethical egoism in which the self afrms
God in order to pursue her own interest. Instead, her synthetic character demands that the person establish herself as such, thereby
differentiating herself from God who creates and sustains that
difference.
Rahner maintains that man is responsible, that he is accountable, that at least in certain dimensions of his existence he has the
experience of being able to come and of actually coming into conict with himself and his original self-understanding.94 The experience of such contradiction and ambiguity, like the experience of
a particular moral demand, is indicative of human transcendence
and its term in God; according to Rahner specic moral laws and
specic values point to the absolute value of freedom, and, therefore, to the dignity of the person.95 Because freedom is a task and
a demand, it comprises a personal ought, a moral obligation.
Morality is the free personal acceptance of ones own pre-established
nature, condently coming to grips with ones own dynamic reality in all
its united though multiple dimensions and precisely coming to grips also
with that nature which realizes itself only when it turns lovingly to another
person and when it accepts its own nature as the nature of the mystery of
love.96
Rahner insists that the ight from freedoms task is immoral. The
persons responsibility for her freedom is a moral demand.
On Tillichs account, while self love and love for God are united
in essential being, separated in existence, and mixed with un-love
94
95
96
See Rahner, Foundations, 9192.

Rahner, The Dignity and Freedom of Man, Theological Investigations vol. 2, 249.
Rahner, The Commandment of Love in Relation to the Other Commandments,
Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 441. Note how similar Rahners denition of morality
is to his denition of salvation as the nal and denitive validity of a persons true
self-understanding and true self-realization in freedom before God by the fact that he
accepts his own self as it is disclosed and offered to him in the choice of transcendence as
interpreted in freedom, Rahner, Foundations, 39. See Ronald Modras, Implications of
Rahners Anthropology for Fundamental Moral Theology, Horizons 12 (Spring 1985),
7090, especially 7273.
127
in actual life, their reunion remains a norm for the person. The
persons response to God is a matter of her own self-determination
because love involves the whole beings movement toward another being to overcome existential separation. As such it includes
a volitional element under the dimension of self-awareness, i.e., the
will to unite. Such a will is essential in every love relation, because
the wall of separation could not be pierced without it.97 Tillich
calls love the most radical concern. Recall that a concern must
have something concrete as its object. As the most radical concern,
loves object must be the completely concrete being, the person.98
This claim indicates the deep connection in Tillichs thought between love and the moral act of establishing oneself as a person
and comprises the moral imperative. Tillich coordinates morality,
the persons self-relation, and the persons response to God because
love, as faith, is a state of the whole person.99
It is important to emphasize the purely responsive character of
the persons self-determination. Proper relation to God and proper
self-relation are only enjoyed by grace. The absolute need for grace
does not make self love morally irrelevant. It accounts for the intimate connection between self-relation and relation to God. The
following chapter will explore the relation of self love to love for
God and neighbor.
We can already note the ways a reappropriation of transcendentally/ontologically grounded anthropologies enables us to respond
to contemporary demands for an account of self love. Rahner and
Tillich share an awareness of the embeddedness and embodiedness
of the self. Rahner, for instance, points out that the person experiences herself as a product. He even argues that some aspects of the
person are not at the persons own disposal. Tillich takes up the
persons creation of and shaping by technology and language in his
analysis of culture. Both recognize that freedom is situated historically and therefore socially. Tillich calls the situatedness of freedom
destiny while Rahner speaks of freedom as categorically objectied.
Freedom determines itself vis-à-vis its own prior self-determination
and the self-determination of other persons. The situated or categorical character of the persons free response to God points to
97
98
Ibid., vol. 1, 211.
99
Ibid., vol. 3, 137.
128
the unity of person and identity. To the extent that Rahner and
Tillich insist that the persons ourishing as such requires her selfdetermination, they accommodate the concern that inordinate self
love is accompanied by a roughly equivalent danger of the self s
failure to establish itself as a self. In the following chapter, however, I
will show that the character of self-determination may include some
elements which seem at odds with such a positive endorsement of
self-determination, elements like surrender and sacrice. For the
moment, however, their anthropologies at least promise to provide
resources to address the concern that the self achieve a proper selfrealization. Each thinker resolutely maintains that certain things
can be predicated of the person as such; neither is bashful about
specifying some account of human nature. Furthermore, each
thinker insists that the person exceeds the sum total of characteristics which can be empirically observed. This stands to reason, given
the mysterious horizon (Rahner) and holy abyss (Tillich) to which
subjectivity points, and it indicates that both thinkers would reject
positions which extend insight into the specicity of the individual
to a denial of the self.
Does this mean philosophical hermeneutics is a legitimate resource for Christian ethics? As Schweiker notes, Christian ethics
should provide properly theological reasons for employing philosophical resources. These reasons also suggest how Christian ethics
can contribute to secular ethics because theological discourse
shapes consciousness in light of the afrmation that God establishes
and afrms the value of creation. Consider, for instance, some of
what is implied by the claim that (as Rahner and Tillich stress) creation entails the differentiation of the Creator and creature. This
may seem to be an obvious claim for all but a committed pantheist, but the import of the claim should not be overlooked. This
differentiation means that while the persons fulllment as such is
in God, the self is not dissipated into God. Gods love unites the
person with Gods self but does not obliterate the person; rather,
God thereby creates the person and enables her to establish herself as such. Moreover, Gods creative differentiation indicates that
classical concepts such as imago Dei and imitatio Christi do not denigrate the creature. That is to say, while such concepts have been
understood to locate human goodness in the soul or mind and
129
thereby to devalue the embodied self, Gods creative differentiation

afrms the humans created goodness. Essential being is experienced
in existence as a moral imperative, moral goodness is a matter of
self-acceptance because in this God-relation lies the good of the
human as such. Creative differentiation also points to the tension
between what one is and what one ought to be. That is, it has
experiential resonance. And nally, even as it expresses Gods creative and saving activity, it preserves human freedom. The persons
differentiation from God does not thwart relation to God but is a
necessary condition for it; this claim is important morally for the
criticism of forms of religious activity and thought which denigrate
the self or dissolve the self into God.
conclusi on
To recognize the unity of person and identity is to recognize that the
self who exists before God has the determination of her religious
existence as a moral obligation. Such a claim does not deny the
gratuity of grace or obscure the pervasiveness of sin, but, rather,
points to the intersection of the religious and moral dimensions of
the person in the realities of grace, freedom and love.
The insight that the person is created to love God opens and
normatively directs theoretical reection on the self. Moreover, it
speaks to the deepest longings of the human heart, our most profound aspirations for meaning and our relentless drive for unity
and wholeness. This insight resonates with the resilience of the human spirit our instinct for self-preservation as well as our desire
to ourish. And it resonates with our smallness, our sense of contingency and helplessness in the face of suffering, the acuteness of
our limitations and failings. It resonates with our wonder at and
gratitude for the goodness of life and it sparks a proper anger and
indignation when that goodness is denied or violated. The theological insight that we are created to love God makes sense of the fact
that we encounter ourselves as something given to us, determined
by others, not entirely at our disposal. But it also speaks to the fact
that we experience our agency, freedom, and self-transcendence.
The insight that we are created to love God suggests that the project
of our selfhood has its origin and term in the divine. And this in
130
turn reveals something about the divine: the God for whom we
have been created gives Gods very self to us for our fulllment. We
realize ourselves in our participation in (Tillich) and acceptance of
(Rahner) Gods offer of relation. Human being is fundamentally
moral and religious being. Because right self love is a mode of being in which the person actualizes herself in a response to God, the
moral life is a distinctively religious one. This moves us from the
account of self-relation offered in this chapter to the next, where I
consider right self love as the morally proper form of self-relation.
chapter 4
Right self love
An adequate account of right self love must begin with an analysis

of the self who is to love herself because the moral life is not simply a matter of doing good, but of being and becoming good.1
Chapter Three argued that as the person takes up her self-relation
she responds to Gods offer of the divine self. Self love can be rightly
or wrongly enacted. Right self love, then, designates the morally
proper form of self-relation. This chapter (1) explores the relation
of self love and love for God; (2) argues that right self love is only
actualized and assessed socially and historically, and, accordingly,
explores the relation between self love and love for neighbor, and
between self love and social justice; (3) and argues that self love is
actualized and assessed in ones concrete acts and relations, such
that right self love consists in the moral good of embodied integrity.
This chapter continues reading Rahner and Tillich hermeneutically. By thinking with them we arrive at two insights into moral
goodness. First, we see how the very structure of the persons experience of herself, mediated through what is other, arises in her
asking about herself: the person comes to herself by understanding
herself in relation to her world and to others. The mediated character of self-relation offsets solipsism and subjectivism, because the
1
Much of contemporary ethics draws a distinction between questions of the right and
questions of the good, and, moreover, connes ethics to the former. Given the epistemic
difculties entailed in specifying some universal account of the good, many thinkers, especially in the Kantian tradition, argue that ethics should specify duties to be performed
rather than goods to be sought. Such positions can fail to realize that deontological prescriptions nonetheless imply some desirable state of affairs to be realized or respected.
Questions of the right imply questions of the good. When deontological and teleological
dimensions of ethics are severed from one another ethics become internally inconsistent
and promote anemic moral anthropologies.
131
132
self s relation to itself can only be evaluated morally in terms of her

acting in the world, and, specically, in her relations with others.
The person comes to be a person in her interpersonal encounters,
and moreover, the moral quality of her self-relation is wrought and
assessed in these encounters. Put differently, this chapter suggests
that the obligation to love God and neighbor resonates bindingly
in the self s experience of herself.
The second insight into moral goodness can be gleaned from
the fact that both Rahner and Tillich consider the persons selfconstitution under the threat of its negation. Rahner constructs a
theology of death whereby the nality and meaning of the persons
freedom is achieved in her death; when the person befriends her
death she surrenders or abandons herself to the horizon of mystery.
Tillich speaks of the persons self-determination in terms of a selfafrmation which is coupled with self-acceptance, that is, with the
faith which accepts that one has been accepted. Rahner and Tillich
thus indicate that at bottom the moral good is a matter of faith, of
trust, and of hope. This act of faith actualizes a distinctive way of
being, one which afrms the goodness of life and of oneself despite
evidence to the contrary, one which enacts the meaning of life
not in a self-mastery which makes sense of everything, but in an
embrace of the plurality, complexity, and nal incomprehensibility
of life. I marshal Rahner and Tillich to address a contemporary
version of the threat of negation, namely the absorption of the self
into relations and systems. Both thinkers open up the persons selfdetermination as it is tied to her self-understanding, though neither
develops this insight into the fundamentally interpretive character
of self-relation. By thinking beyond Rahner and Tillich toward such
an interpretive account of self-relation, we can discern how the very
conceptual frameworks which foster these insights also encourage
voluntaristic and intuitionistic pictures of self-relation.
self love and love for god
I have been arguing that Christian ethics needs to recoup classical
connections between self love and love for God and that doing
so speaks to problems that attend the contemporary norm of selfrealization. Here I specify the relation of the two loves and afrm
Right self love
133
their difference. I argue that love for God is a norm for self love,
and that self love bears normatively on love for God.
Love for God is a norm for self love. As Stephen Pope, working
from the Thomistic perspective, insists, true self-love and neighbor
love are possible only to the extent that we love God above all.2
But too often this appears to mean little more than that love for
God prohibits idolatry and pride; it then seems that love for God
sets negative boundaries for self love, or that it prohibits self love
altogether. But love for God can actually contribute some positive
content to a proper conception of self love. To begin, the person
loves herself when she loves God. Thomas Aquinas argued this
because the person loves God as the principle of good and loves
oneself as a partaker of this good.3 Sren Kierkegaard argued that
to love God is true self love; he makes this claim in the context of
arguing that God teaches that the content of love is self-sacrice.4
Edward Vacek argues that through love for God we come to love
and hate, in our nite and differentiated way, what God loves and
hates and in accord with the preferential order of Gods loves and
hates.5 A number of relevant theological and moral claims operate
here. The person loves herself that is, she is rightly related to
herself when she lives and loves as she was created to do, when
she is faithful to Gods purposes for her, when her concrete acts
and relations and her dispositions and affections are ordered to
her good, who is God. The person loves herself when she orients
and offers herself not around some future object or concern, but
in response to a transcendent, sovereign God who surpasses and
relativizes all such objects and concerns, including that of her own
well-being. The person loves herself when she participates in Gods
life and love for the world.
If God is the highest good of the person, love for God is in
some measure constitutive of self love. Yet if love for God is not
a component or feature of self love but is in fact a norm for it,
2
3
4
5
Stephen Pope, Expressive Individualism and True Self-Love: a Thomistic Perspective,

The Journal of Religion 71 ( July 1991), 38499, 399.
See his Summa Theologia ii ii Q. 26 art. 4.
Sren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, eds. and trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong
with introduction and notes (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1995), 107.
Edward Vacek S. J., Love, Human and Divine: the Heart of Christian Ethics (Washington dc:
Georgetown University Press, 1994), 133.
134
in what might love for God consist? It is not rst and foremost a
matter of religious observances and practices, though these have
an important place as expressions and embodiments of love. Love
for God is a relationship of profound personal intimacy. Like all
relationships, it consists in a particular history seasons of sweetness
and of difculty, movements into deeper intimacy and evasions of
it. Because the persons relationship is with a living God, love for
God has an open-ended character.6 In love for God the person
ventures her very self.
Man is . . . obliged to love God with his whole heart. This one heart which
man has to engage the innermost centre of his person (and on this basis
also everything else found in the individual) is something unique: what it
contains within its uniqueness, what is engaged and given gratuitously in
this love, is known only once it has been done, when the person has really
caught up with himself and hence begins to know what is in him and who he
is in the concrete. By this love, therefore, man embarks on the adventure
of his own reality, all of which is at rst veiled from him. He cannot
comprehend and evaluate from the very start what is actually demanded
of him. He is demanded, he himself is staked in the concreteness of his
heart and of his life lying still before him as an unknown future and
revealing once it has been accomplished and only then what is this
heart which had to wager and expend itself during this life.7
Love for God asks and exacts everything, calls one into question,
challenges ones understandings and loyalties. Love for God
continually discloses the person to herself in all her poverty, discloses the futility of her attempts to justify or secure herself or to do
so through some nite object or pursuit. H. Richard Niebuhr argued that God is the enemy of all our causes, and the opponent
of all our gods, the slayer of that with which we separate ourselves
from God.8 In this way God shows the divine self to be our friend.
6
Kathryn Tanner notes that Gods transcendence does not counter but makes possible
Gods immediacy and intimate presence. See her God and Creation in Christian Theology
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1988), 46.
Karl Rahner, The Commandment of Love, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 453.
See Theological Investigations, vols. 114 (vols. 16, Baltimore, md: Helicon; vols. 710, New
York: Herder and Herder; vols. 1114, New York: Seabury, 19611976).
H. Richard Niebuhr, Faith in God and in Gods, Radical Monotheism and Western
Culture, With Supplementary Essays, foreword by James M. Gustafson (Louisville, ky:
Westminster/John Knox, 1960), 122.
Right self love
135
Christian ethics cannot separate the open-ended character of

love for God from Gods self-disclosure in the person, work, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Particular love relations with God
nd shape and life in the concrete response of discipleship and
in ecclesial life.9 In an encounter with the totality of Jesus word,
life, and death, God becomes present in an offer of forgiveness.
Moreover, this offer in Jesus is nal and irrevocable. The person
understands herself most properly when she realizes that she has
been created, disposed of, and forgiven, when she accepts herself
as one not wholly at her own disposal. Such a self-acceptance constitutes a surrender to God. Jesus Christ is the model for such a
surrender; Jesus reveals that the person really achieves herself when
she exercises her freedom in an act of denitive self-disposal.10 But
only Jesus of Nazareth has surrendered his existence to God absolutely and unconditionally. On Rahners account the persons
encounter with Jesus mediates the immediate, unthematic offer
God has made always already. A personal relationship with Jesus
constitutes, then, mediated immediacy.11 This mediated immediacy
indicates that for Rahner salvation does not mean a reied state of
affairs, but rather a personal and ontological reality. . . . This takes
place in and through an abiding personal relationship to the God
Man in whom and in whom alone immediacy to God is reached
now and forever.12 The loss or gain of God unfolds in the persons
experience, changing her, yielding the abundant life Christ brings
( John 10:10). Similarly, for Tillich one can be certain that in Jesus
as the Christ the conditions of existence have been conquered because this faith is based on the experience of the conquest itself.
The experience of New Being grounds faith in New Being, but
the experience need not be an explicit experience of Jesus Christ.
Tillich denies the claim that there is no salvation apart from Christ.
Rather, the uniqueness and universality of the Christ event indicate
9
10
11
12
See, for example, Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: toward a Constructive Christian
Social Ethic (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981) and Charles Curran,
The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: a Synthesis (Washington dc: Georgetown University Press,
1999).
Rahner links this act to the persons death.
Note that the encounter with Jesus, then, need not occur in an explicitly religious act.
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: an Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William
Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 309.
136
that Christ is the criterion for all saving experiences. In the Christ
the healing power is complete and unlimited, but Tillich maintains
that the person of the Christ cannot be separated from that which
made him the Christ; the being of the Christ is his work and . . . his
work is his being, namely, the New Being which is his being.13
What is the moral import of love for God for self love? The foregoing already indicates a moral prohibition of idolatrous religious
affections and a moral exhortation to a religious encounter and
relation with God. Love for God can also remind us of the religious
depths of moral actions. Our moral actions are means (though
surely not the only means) through which we take up our relation to our selves, to others, and to God. Thus, to act in ways and
nurture attitudes and dispositions that are morally self-destructive
separates us from God and from others. And to sin against God
is to behave in ways and persist in attitudes and dispositions that
are self-destructive. This does not mean that salvation or damnation designate Gods reaction to the person in reward or judgment,
but that the loss or gain of God is itself performed in the persons
free self-determination before God.14 Properly understood, love
for God comprises a norm for self love that rules out works righteousness; it also rules out a quietism that reduces love to a faith
that supposes that the priority and efcacy of Gods grace nullies
human freedom. Christian thought and tradition are marked by
disputes about the relation between faith and love, the Reformation being in many respects the escalation of such early disputes.
Is faith formed by love, particularly works of love, as many Roman
Catholic theologians have suggested? Or as many Protestants have
insisted, Martin Luther vociferously so, does faith ow into love?
The former position courts works righteousness, the latter risks neglecting the self-constituting character of (works of ) love. If, as Jean
Porter notes, acting comprises a kind of knowledge and, as John
Finnis notes, is a way we participate in goods, then works of love can
esh out faith, deepen or re-enliven it, even purify it by connecting
it with the hard realities of human life, or restore it by connecting
13
14
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 195763), vol. 2,
168. Tillich seeks to mediate Incarnational and Adoptionist Christologies. See 149.
See Karl Rahner, Theology of Freedom, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 18687.
Right self love
137
it with experiences of goodness, communion, and hope. If faith

changes us, the way we understand ourselves and the world, then
of course faith will ow into and inform our acting. The real worry
in disputes about faith and love is to avoid the erroneous claim that
the persons acts of love somehow demand a favorable response
from God. This worry should not dissuade us from stressing that
the persons acts of love do affect and effect (if not exhaust) her
response to God. They do not effect Gods response to her.15
Love for God also highlights and relativizes the inevitability of
moral uncertainty and risk.16 Because love for God has an openended quality, to say that the person loves herself when she lives and
loves as she was created to do (and loves others when she afrms and
promotes their creaturely goodness and well-being) is to gesture at
the real yet dynamic moral value of creation. As Kathryn Tanner
argues, the stress is therefore on the manifestation of Gods will in
a moral ordering rather than in a moral order with some static and
immutable character.17 Moral codes, decisions, and relations carry
an ineradicable risk, yet this risk need not paralyze us because Gods
love is not a verdict on our moral efforts. And the very open-ended
quality that highlights the risk also relativizes it. The nal meaning
of our moral efforts is hidden, because we are hidden, in Christ.
Moreover, because love for God is open-ended and because it
asks and exacts everything, it requires us to face the costs of discipleship. The commensurability of self love and love for God does not
make for a facile self love or a vacuous love for God which reduce
either or both loves to a lame and general esteem or afrmation, or
to a blind, defensive protection of our causes and interests. Love for
God can require self love to express itself in various and ongoing
forms of self-denial and self-sacrice. And yet, love for God cannot permit a narcissistic martyrdom in which one can evade the
responsibility of being oneself. Intimacy with God can be a fearful
experience, one shirked by resorting to self-expenditure as well as
self-assertion. Love for God shows self love to involve a distinctive
way of being in the world in which the moral good is a matter of
faith; faith does not eradicate the moral risk, or nullify the possibility
15
16
17
Vacek insists that the persons works do affect Gods response. See Love, Human and Divine.
I will take this up at greater length in Chapter Five.
Kathryn Tanner, The Politics of God (Minneapolis, mn: Fortress, 1992), 101.
138
of a self-sacrice that extends to martyrdom, or dissolve the fear of

venturing oneself. It afrms in love that God is the highest good,
and as such is ones own good.
In light of all this, is it possible or desirable to speak of a person
loving God disinterestedly? Nygren and Ramsey offer powerful
criticisms of the sort of enlightened selshness that makes love for
God a project of self-fulllment or self-improvement. Yet the commensurability of love for God and self is not simply an eschatological one, or a matter of contingent, unintended side effects (such
that love for God can happen to contribute to the self s ourishing).
Others like Francois Fenelon urge a disinterested love for God. But
human love for God cannot be wholly disinterested. How could the
person be disinterested about the one who is her ultimate concern?
James Alison notes that Jesus taught in terms of heavenly rewards
and expected these to be motivational forces in the lives of the disciples.18 Loving God as ones good need not subordinate God to
the project of seeking ones good.19 As Vacek insists, God creates
and sustains us for the divine self-gift. A gift of ones self, love, is
the act of uniting ones self with the beloved. When someone gives
himself or herself to us, we become aware that we do not live our
lives alone. . . . Gods love means that God transcends Gods aseity
and enters our life. God unites Gods own self with our self and
thereby makes Gods own self available to us.20 Loving God as
ones good can and should be a process of devotion, of surrender
and self-disposal towards and participation in the divine. Loving
God as ones good is compatible with and should accompany loving
God for Gods own sake. Indeed, love for God yields fruits we reap
in this life, but it also demands a great deal of us. Love for God
and self entail an often painful and inevitably humbling process of
self-discovery and self-criticism. Loving God for Gods own sake is
part of this process and can sustain us through it.
Now that we have considered, in brief, the normative bearing
of love for God on self love, let us consider what if any normative bearing self love might have on love for God. In light of the
18
19
20
James Alison, The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes (New York: Crossroad,
1998), 229.
Cf. John Burnaby, Amor Dei (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947).
Vacek, Love, Human and Divine, 122.
Right self love
139
commandment to love God with ones whole heart, mind and

strength (Matt. 22:37), it would seem that self love cannot bear
normatively on love for God, at least not if normative bearing suggests that self love is in any respect a prior or higher norm than love
for God. But there are at least two respects in which self love bears
normatively on love for God insofar as it can counter distortions of
love for God as such.
The rst concerns the difference between self love and love for
God. The profound and abiding commensurability of self love and
love for God does not mean that they can be collapsed into one
another without remainder. Because they are commensurable but
not coextensive loves, there are duties proper to each. A regular life
of prayer yields many benets for the self, but prayer is properly
about expressing and growing in love for God, not about those
benets.21 Similarly, there are duties proper to self love that, while
not isolated from the self s love for God, are not properly or directly
acts of love for God. Practices of caring for oneself, like regular
exercise or a good diet, could express gratitude to God as ones
creator and may prompt gratitude inasmuch as they call to mind
ones creatureliness. But they are not directly or necessarily acts of
love for God. More to the point, because self love entails proper
duties, it counters a distortion of love for God that would permit no
room for the self to pursue her own interests and projects. Susan
Wolf has argued against a moral sainthood that crowds out nonmoral pursuits and traits, ones that either do not contribute to
sainthood or cut against its grain.22 Interpreting love for God in a
similar fashion would be just as erroneous as Wolf s version of moral
sainthood. Her worry is legitimate that a morality (or religiosity)
conceived without limits can devalue legitimate and good pursuits
and personality traits that do not seem to contribute to the project
of morality or to ones religious life. Right self love, as a positive and
independent moral obligation, counters such moral and religious
distortions of love for God by afrming the goodness of creaturely
21
22
Petitionary prayer can serve this end, too, fostering reliance on God and providing clarity
about and room for criticism of what we ask from God.
For the latter Wolf gives the example of cynical wit. This only serves to show how false
her conception of moral sainthood is; it is a caricature of goodness. Susan Wolf, Moral
Saints, The Journal of Philosophy (August 1982), 41939. See also Robert M. Adamss
response to Wolf, Saints, The Journal of Philosophy ( July 1984), 392401.
140
life and the propriety of pursuits like recreation. Right self love can
fund reection on the difference between a worldliness or sensuality
that is, say, isolating and concupiscible from a creatureliness that
delights in the pleasures of creation in a way that opens one to and
afrms others and the world. Right self love can fund reection on
the mean between a self-indulgent and unjust life of consumption
and a scrupulous asceticism that devalues our bodily existence and
earthly blessings. It makes room for a joy chastened by justice and
a justice mellowed (but not mitigated) by joy.
The second respect in which self love bears normatively on love
for God is the theoretical correlate of the rst. Self love helps us to
see the need for moral criticisms of religious beliefs. I will develop
this argument in Chapter Six. For now we can note helpfully a distinction that Christian theology draws between des qua (the faith
by which one believes) and des quae (the faith that is believed). The
distinction captures a point important for a contemporary account
of self love because it can illuminate the fact that different symbols
and claims can mediate an existential posture and relation of faith.
The des quae mediates the des qua and can do so in better and
worse fashion. So, on the one hand, the existential commitment of
faith, the des qua, is primary. On the other hand, because the des
quae comprises more than a set of propositions to afrm, it constitutes a cognitive, affective, moral world in which grace operates. In
this respect, it is primary. A hermeneutical account of self-relation
grasps both of these points. It is possible and important to reect
critically on the adequacy of the des quae to the des qua. This
reection should include moral criticism of religious beliefs and
practices. We might, for example, ask after the anthropocentrism
or sexism of various doctrines and seek to revise these doctrines
so that they express more faithfully and correctly the God whose
self-disclosure in Jesus Christ secures our faith. Yet this reection
on the adequacy of the des quae proceeds according to criteria that
emerge in the des quae itself.
self love and love for neighb or
Chapter Two noted that some thinkers, such as Paul Ramsey, argue
on behalf of self love as a duty legitimately derived from love for
the neighbor. I argue that self love is a positive moral obligation in
Right self love
141
its own right. I also argue that self love is actualized and identied
in love for the neighbor. Do these two claims conict? How can
self love be an independent duty and yet depend upon love for the
neighbor in order to be actual? How are love for God, neighbor, and
self related? Is neighbor love simply a litmus test for self love and love
for God? This section will show that the triadic love obligations to
God, neighbor and self are united in God and in the person as such.
The complex dynamics between love for God, neighbor, and self
cannot possibly be done justice in the brief space which this chapter
allows; this section neither pretends nor endeavors to exhaust the
topic. Rather, it explores the inter-relation of self love and neighbor
love in order to show the essentially differentiated relation among
love for God, self, and neighbor as well as their essentially related
differentiation. Rahner and Tillich contribute a number of insights
important to a contemporary account of right self love. But their
transcendental and ontological approaches also risk displacing the
neighbor and diverting moral attention away from our concrete
social and moral existence. They also risk over-emphasizing either
the differentiation or the relation of love for God, self, and neighbor.
A hermeneutical approach fares better.
Self love and love for God are actualized in neighbor love because the self is an embodied and social person. We cannot identify,
much less morally assess self-relation or our relation to God apart
from our being and acting in relation to others and in the world.
Otherwise self-relation and relation to God would consist solely of
states in the mind, divorced from our embodiment, our actions, our
determination by and of others. The social character of the person
is not some quality alongside others but touches every dimension
of the person. Thus, the person comes to know herself, to be herself
in relations with others. The persons self-determining response to
God is not achieved over against others but within these relations.
It is not something won by self-assertion, but is discovered when
she gives herself away. This is the paradox of the moral life, that to
lose oneself is to nd oneself.23 Just as God created by giving Gods
23
Rahner writes, only if one thus abandons oneself, and lovingly sinks into the other, does
one succeed in nding oneself. Otherwise, a person languishes in the prison of his or her
own selshness, (The Love of Jesus and the Love of Neighbor, trans. Robert Barr (New York:
Crossroad, 1983), 17). This is not a new theme in Christianity. And it is on this point that an
account of self love which is culled from Rahner seems at odds with the feminist wariness
142
self, thereby establishing something different, so too does the person actualize herself in surrender to the incomprehensible other.
Nevertheless, to say that self love and love for God are enacted in a
world and in relation to others still leaves much to be said, descriptively and prescriptively. One important point is that self-relation
and relation to God are not reducible to or exhausted by the self s
relations to and with her neighbors. But rst let us see how Rahner
and Tillich account for the relation between love for God, self, and
neighbor.
Rahners appropriation of Thomistic causality allows him to link
self-realization with dynamic relationality. According to Rahner
man is a social being, a being who can exist only within such intercommunication with others throughout all of the dimension[s] of
human existence.24 For Rahner love of neighbor is the actualization of Christian existence in an absolute sense.25 In other words,
love for the other is the basic act of Christian life. As such, it is the
basic act of the human being.26 Love of neighbor is not just another
moral act among many but is the basis and sum total of the moral
as such.27 This is because the one moral (or immoral) basic act in
which man comes to himself is also the (loving or hating) communication with the concrete Thou in which man experiences, accepts
or denies his basic a priori reference to the Thou as such.28
Rahner insists on the unity of love for the neighbor and love for
God. Wherever a genuine love of man attains its proper nature
and its moral absoluteness and depth, it is in addition always so underpinned and heightened by Gods saving grace that it is also love
of God, whether it be explicitly considered to be such a love by the
subject or not.29 Not every act of love for God is also formally
24
26
27
28
of sacrice which I detailed in Chapter Two; one need only recall Beverly Harrisons
emphatic rejection of sacrice to see the disparity. The place of sacrice, surrender, and
obedience will be considered in the next section. Rahners claim that in Jesus Christ,
the GodMan, the divine and human stand in solidarity with one another will provide
important symbolic means with which the role of sacrice can be made amenable to, if not
commensurate with, feminist critiques of sacrice like Harrisons. See Beverly Wildung
Harrison, Making the Connections: Essays in Feminist Social Ethics, ed., Carol S. Robb, (Boston,
ma: Beacon, 1985).
25 Ibid., 308.
For Rahner to be Christian is to be a human being.
Rahner, Reections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbor and Love of God, Theological
Investigations, vol. 6, 240.
29 Ibid., 237.
Ibid., 241.
Right self love
143
neighbor love.30 But all interhuman love is also love of God,

provided it is already of a moral quality, since it is oriented towards
God, not indeed by an explicitly categorised motive but . . . by its
inescapably given transcendental horizon, which is given gratuitously by Gods always prevenient saving grace.31 Thus, the unity
between love for neighbor and love for God is not on Rahners
account a matter of directing ones intentions. Rather, the categorized explicit love of neighbour is the primary act of the love of
God. . . . It is radically true, i.e., by an ontological and not merely
moral or psychological necessity, that whoever does not love the
brother whom he sees, also cannot love God whom he does not
see, and that one can love God whom one does not see only by
loving ones visible brother lovingly.32
The unity consists in the fact that love for God and love for
neighbor share the same horizon. Love for neighbor is love for God
because the person is in the world and realizes her love for God
insofar as in her love for neighbor she accepts the conditions of its
possibility, namely, the grace which supports both loves. Moreover,
love for God is love for neighbor because explicit religious acts are
taken up by the transcendental and inclusive experience of God
which is only found unreectedly in our interaction with the world,
that is, with other persons. Rahner, then, would reject the notion
that the person can have a privatized relation with God, that the
person can attain God interiorly in an unmediated fashion.33
But the claim that love for God, neighbor, and self are radically
united entails serious risks. Does their unity abolish any distinction between them? Is the Godself relation that is actualized in
neighbor love co-extensive with it (i.e., is love for God exhausted
by neighbor love)? This may constrict love for God. Granted, the
unity of love for God and neighbor may open Rahners position to
the claim found in some feminist and liberation theologies (such as
30
31
33
For example, the concrete act of prayer is not formally an act of neighbor love. See ibid.,
238.
32 Ibid., 247.
Ibid., 238.
Rahner of course was not unappreciative of mysticism; the role Ignatian spirituality plays
in his thought attests to this. The point, however, is that the person is a unity of spirit
and matter. See Andrew Tallon, The Heart in Rahners Philosophy of Mysticism,
Theological Studies 53 (1992), 70028. For a constructive use of Rahners spirituality see
Annice Callahan, The Relationship between Spirituality and Theology, Horizons 16
(1989), 26674.
144
Beverly Harrisons) that God is known in the struggle for justice.

Recall that in Chapter One I argued that such a claim sometimes
connes the persons relation with God to a fruit of or moment
within interpersonal relations. I want to show the abiding unity
between the persons relation with God and the persons relations
with neighbors, but argue that, while relation to God is always mediated categorically, it is not exhausted by interpersonal relations.
Moreover, the radical unity of love for God and neighbor threatens
the self inasmuch as it implies that surrender to God occurs in surrender to the neighbor. Consider for example how the unity of love
for God and neighbor pose the problem of right self love anew:
what we are commanded by the commandment to love our neighbor, in
its oneness with the commandment to love God, is the demolition of our
own selshness the overthrow of the notion that love of neighbor is basically really only the rational settlement of mutual claims, that it demands
only giving and taking to the mutual satisfaction of all parties. . . . When
one really understands the unity of the love of God and neighbor, the
latter shifts from its position as a particular demand for a delimited, veriable achievement to a position of total fulllment of ones life, in which
we are challenged in our totality, wholly challenged, challenged beyond
our capacity but challenged in the only way in which we may gain the
highest freedom: freedom from ourselves.34
How can freedom from self, especially when understood as our

highest freedom, be compatible with a command to love ourselves?
In light of the feminist critique that the basic sin of women is the
failure to establish themselves as selves, can we endorse the role
which surrender plays in Rahners account?
Rahners insistence on this unity also threatens to displace the
neighbor. Johannes Baptist Metz, Rahners student and critic, has
forwarded what has become a stock criticism of Rahner, namely
that because of his transcendental approach Rahner fails to deal
34
Rahner, The Love of Jesus, 84. I do not mean to equate selshness with establishing oneself as self; indeed, it is precisely such an equation which feminists reject. That is why
Rahners understanding of self-realization in terms of surrender may be problematic.
More amenable to the feminist critique would be Rahners specication of self-realization
in terms of self-acceptance or self-disposal. This language may suggest a valuation of the
self which the feminist critique nds necessary to offset traditional ethical wariness of
self-assertion. Yet, it is important to note that self-acceptance and self-disposal do not
differ from self-assertion for Rahner; this is the force of his ontology of symbols.
Right self love
145
adequately with the historical and political character of human

existence.35 Edward Vacek also argues against Rahner that human
consciousness is not so necessarily open to the innite that in every
act of self-transcendence we always intend an innite or absolute
horizon.36 We generally live our lives within the nite horizon
of our world. Some even experience life as absurd rather than
meaningful. Moreover, even if love for neighbor does afrm God,
it is not the same thing as a conscious, free act of loving God.37
According to Vacek, the neighbor is not God, and so love for the
neighbor is not love for God. Our neighbors deserve a love that is
directed directly to them.38 We can love neighbors for their own
sake and also love them as part of our cooperation with God.
Tillich encounters problems as well. Recall that Tillich understands morality as the constitution of the self as a person and that
spirit is the dimension of the self which characterizes the person as
such in a community of persons. Given this, the person experiences
the norms of essential being in the encounter with another person.
The other self is the unconditional limit to the desire to assimilate
ones whole world, and the experience of this limit is the experience
of the ought-to-be, the moral imperative. The moral constitution of
the self in the dimension of the spirit begins with this experience.39
The person-to-person encounter implies a moral imperative of unconditional validity, the demand to acknowledge and respect the
other person as a person. This imperative is experienced as the
others resistance to the self s attempts to assimilate everything
into itself.40 The interpersonal encounter is illuminated by the polarity of individuation and participation. The individuated self is
a centered self; a centered self is one who successfully actualizes
some potentialities and, in doing so, integrates them such that no
single potentiality dominates the self. As a centered self, the person
35
36
38
40
See Metzs Faith in History and Society: toward a Practical Fundamental Theology, trans. David
Smith (New York: Seabury, 1979). A condensed version of his critique can be found in
his An Identity Crisis in Christianity? Transcendental and Political Responses, Theology
and Discovery: Essays in Honor of Karl Rahner, ed., William Kelly (Milwaukee, wi: Marquette
37 Ibid., 145.
Vacek, Love, Human and Divine, 144.
39 Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 40.
Ibid., 266.
Tillich, of course, does not deny that the self can ignore or violate the others claim to
respect, but he insists that the claim of the person to be acknowledged as such can never
be eradicated. Here is Kants inuence on Tillich.
146
remains separate from everything other than itself; the self has a
world. Yet, the self also belongs to her world. Thus, the self participates in a world. But the self cannot participate in such a way that
the self loses its centeredness, or else it ceases to be a self. Thus, the
person-to-person encounter must be of such a kind that the separateness of the persons is maintained in the midst of interpersonal
participation. It is the superiority of the person-to-person relationship that it preserves the separation of the self-centered self,
and nevertheless actualizes their reunion in love.41
There are several reasons why for Tillich love for God, neighbor,
and self intersect. First, these three loves are united in the ground
of being, that is, in God. The self participates in being-itself, is
separate from it, and seeks reunion with it. This is the ontological
movement of love. In the urge toward reunion, the self negotiates
its self-relation vis-à-vis its relation to being-itself, that is, to God.
Second, and relatedly, Tillich maintains that right self love and
love for others are interdependent.42 The reunion to which love
drives is not only a reunion of ones actual self with ones essential
being and a reunion of the person with the divine but a reunion of
the person with other persons. The other person is a stranger, but
a stranger only in disguise. Actually he is an estranged part of ones
self. Therefore ones own humanity can be realized only in reunion
with him a reunion which is also decisive for the realization of his
humanity.43 Thirdly, love for God, self, and neighbor intersect
because power, love, and justice are only made real in interpersonal encounters. Every encounter between persons is an encounter in which individual bearers of power engage each other.44
In the person-to-person encounter, the power of being actualizes
itself in the form of justice. Tillich insists that the intrinsic claim
41
42
43
44
Paul Tillich, Love, Power and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 27.
Ibid., 22.
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 261. Such a passage responds nicely to the poor criticism
made against Tillich by Glenn Graber, who argued that Tillichs thought is aficted by
monism. See Glenn Graber, The Metaethics of Paul Tillich, Journal of Religious Ethics 1
(1973), 11333, especially 12526.
Tillich, Love, Power and Justice, 41. For a defense of Tillich against the charge that his
theology is individualistic, see M. W. Sinnett, The Primacy of Relation in Paul Tillichs
Theology of Correlation: a Reply to the Critique of Charles Hartshorne, Religious Studies
27 (1991), 54157, especially 555. See also Joseph Keller, Mysticism and Intersubjective
Creativity, Studia Mystica 8:4 (1985), 3646.
Right self love
147
in everything that is cannot be violated without violating the violator.45 This is because the self, as an ego, cannot be an ego without
some other, some thou, in relation to which it establishes itself.
To ignore the others claim and treat the other as an object is to
surrender ones own ego.46 Thus, the failure to love the neighbor
constitutes a failure to love oneself.
The acknowledgment of the other person qua person is not an
abstract respect; at least, it cannot remain abstract if it is truly to be
love for the other. This is because the immediate expression of love
is action.47 So a fourth and nal reason why love for God, self, and
neighbor are interdependent is the relation of faith and love. Faith,
as ultimate concern, implies both love and action. This is because
an ultimate concern includes the passionate desire to actualize the
content of ones concern. Concern in its very denition includes
the desire for action.48 Tillich argues that ethical faith seeks to
transform estranged reality; in it the agape quality of love is dominant, which means that the person accepts her neighbors yet seeks
to transform them into what they potentially are. Because Tillich
understands love as the reunion of the separated, self love, love for
God, and love for neighbor drive toward the actual manifestation
of essential being.
But, does the drive toward essential being conate or collapse
love for God, neighbor, and self ? If these three loves are united
in essential being, and separated under existence, how are they related in the actual conditions of life? Are they coextensive? Does the
argument that love reunites the estranged undermine the persons
self-determination? Critics like Judith Plaskow would argue this
because, as Chapter Three noted, they attribute a monistic character to Tillichs thought. While such charges of monism ignore the
emphasis Tillich places on individuation, they nonetheless indicate
that some elements of Tillichs system seem at odds with the claim
that in self love the person achieves her identity. While these critics fault Tillich for a monism that may eclipse the self, others like
Schweiker and James Gustafson fault him for an intuitionism that
45
47
48
46 See ibid., 78.

Ibid., 68.
Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper Brothers, 1957),
115.
Ibid., 116.
148
may eclipse the neighbor. Schweiker argues that because Tillich

understands the self s moral task of integration in terms of the
relation between the essential and actual self, his real concern is
not the integrity of diverse goods in historical and social life. This
means that his ethics verges on intuitionism in the appeal to the
silent voice of conscience about what to do, rather than examining the range of questions which constitute the eld of morality in
terms of the actual values and disvalues of life.49 Not only does this
intuitionism divert attention from the actual values and disvalues
of life, the overall quest for fulllment and authenticity requires a
maximization of power that leads to further fragmentation and
frustration. It pits life against life in a circle of fear.50 Notwithstanding Tillichs claims about justice toward other persons, his
very emphasis on self-actualization risks making the neighbor a
rival. Therefore, concludes Schweiker, an ethics must afrm the
goodness of the persons power to act but avoid making it the good
of life.
Because self love is mediated through love for the neighbor, does
the person instrumentalize others in her endeavors to love her self,
to seek her own bonum? I argued that self love is not exhausted by
neighbor love. But, have neighbors become stepping stones toward
her own self-realization? In my judgment, the claim that self love
is not exhausted in love for the neighbor protects and preserves the
neighbor as much as the self. The same irreducibility which belongs
to the self must be attributed to other persons; to recognize this is
to capture in the form of a principle for action the force of the self s
experience of herself as mediated through others. Moreover, the
persons self-determination is not achieved over against others, but
in relation with them, and these relations entail a certain sacrice
from the person. While Rahner and Tillich construe the place of
sacrice differently, each thinker contends that the person in some
way sacrices or surrenders the desire to master herself. Rahner
develops this in terms of the persons surrender to the incomprehensibility of her divine horizon. Tillich develops this sacrice in
49
50

Press, 1995), 84. See also James M. Gustafson, Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics: Prospects
for Rapprochement (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978), 42.
Schweiker, Responsibility and Christian Ethics, 225.
Right self love
149
terms of the persons relinquishment of her own goodness. Despite

these differences, it may be said that the persons sacrice of her
own mastery prevents her, at least theoretically, from a kind of concupiscible assimilation of other persons and things into her self.
The person cannot violate the other persons claim to be acknowledged as such without violating herself, and God must be loved for
Gods own sake. Right self love entails the surrender (Rahner) and
sacrice (Tillich) of self-mastery; this surrender or sacrice offsets
tendencies of self-realization ethics to glorify power or truncate the
self. In this surrender or sacrice, the person acknowledges that
her identity is bound up with her relation to the divine. Because
proper self-relation cannot be won by her own efforts, its goodness
is not her own creation or achievement. Rather, it is the work of
grace. But to the extent that the person engages her freedom in
her response to Gods offer, the person actively seeks her own realization and ourishing. Self love is centrally a matter of love for
God. Human actualization and ourishing consist in a coherence
or integrity the self achieves through grace.
Whatever the difculties of Rahners insistence on the unity of
love for God and neighbor, it cautions against the privatization of
the persons love for God. And it reminds us of the religious import of neighbor love. Tillich reminds us that self love and love for
neighbor actually require one another. A love for the neighbor that
obliterates the self is not really love, nor can the self be properly
related to itself while failing to do justice to others. Yet it seems the
language of being threatens to instrumentalize the neighbor, and
fails to sustain attention to concrete life. In these transcendental
and ontological approaches the tensive relation between self and
other is either collapsed (either the self is instrumentalized by the
neighbor or vice versa) or made into a rivalry. A hermeneutical
approach can retain the insights of transcendental and ontological
approaches while maintaining more adequately than they do the
tensive relation between self and other. It renders being in more
embodied, social, historical, and linguistic directions. Importantly,
a hermeneutical account of self-relation emphasizes that the person is embedded in a world of import and value, in social relations and linguisticsymbolic systems. Yet it also emphasizes the
150
persons capacity to transcend her situation, to reect on it critically. The person exercises her agency in and on the moral space
in which she lives. The dialectical relation of being and thinking,
or self-enactment and self-understanding, means that the person
actualizes her self-relation and her relation to God in her transactions with others and in the world. As a lover, she travels the
tension between her unity with and difference from others in an
ongoing process of discerning the truth and afrming the value of
self and other. And this process occurs in and for the sake of orienting her actions and relations. In this respect, the self-understanding
and self-enactment that belongs to right self love differs from the
norm of self-realization that I sketched in Chapter One. Under this
norm the self seeks to understand and realize herself in a process
of excavating some true identity that its elusively in her interior
life. Or she creates, discards, and tailors her identity at will. Under
this norm others are absent or appear as rivals to the self s realization. By contrast, a hermeneutical account of self-relation construes the moral obligation of self love as a process undertaken in
and through relation to God, with and for God and others and in the
world.
This approach to self love indicates that at times the self may
legitimately pursue her own interests, just as it indicates that at
others she must exercise self-denial. Recently, Gerald Schlabach
has made this point, but he permits the pursuit of the self s interests
in order to re-charge the self for further self-denial.51 I wonder if this
instrumentalizes self love and our delights in particular goods and
pursuits in the name of ordering them. Moreover, I do not think that
an ethics of self love is rst and foremost a matter of adjudicating
what is owed to others against the threat of self-preference, as much
of Christian ethics has rendered self love.52 Nor is the primary
concern to legitimate the self s pursuit of its own interests against
exhaustive obeisance to others, as many feminists have treated self
love. Inquiry into the order of love, the adjudication of love relations
51
52
Gerald W. Schlabach, For the Joy Set Before Us: Augustine and Self-Denying Love (Notre Dame,
in: University of Notre Dame, 2001).
For a recent work that explores such matters of adjudication, see Garth L. Hallet,
Priorities and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). See also
Hallets earlier work Christian Neighbor Love: an Assessment of Six Rival Versions (Washington dc:
Georgetown University Press, 1989).
Right self love
151
in situations of conict, remains important, as does the recognition

that a persons identity and moral obligations are not identical
with the expectations and needs of others. We must not invoke too
quickly or cheerily the claim that the inter-relation of self and other
means that there is no ultimate conict between their interests.
Much of our daily moral lives will consist in adjudicating just such
conicts, and in negotiating conicts between the interests of those
who are near and dear to us and those who are remote and perhaps
unknown. But in a hermeneutical approach to self love the order of
love is less a crib sheet for navigating the moral life than a crucible
of understanding and action. The demand to purify love (e.g., to
develop virtuous dispositions, to see oneself and others truly) meets
the demand to exercise love appropriately (e.g., to know when to
prefer oneself, when to prefer others, when to offer a reproof and
how to accept one, to know when and how to offer friendship
and when as an act of love to withhold it, etc.). With grace, this
tensive relation between askesis and praxis is not enervating but
productive. Indeed, with grace, as a grace, this crucible redeems
self and others.
In this way a hermeneutical approach avoids two dangers: an
emphasis on acts of neighbor love that ignores fundamental dispositions, and an emphasis on dispositions that neglects the power of
acts to build up or destroy others. It avoids these dangers because it
construes understanding as an event in which knowing and valuing
intersect for the sake of orienting action. The intersection of knowing and valuing highlights the importance of cultivating moral sensitivity and dispositions. An ethics of self love is a conversion ethics.
Love for neighbor requires overcoming moral prejudice and callousness and egoism. But because this understanding occurs for
the sake of orienting action, a hermeneutical approach can stress
dispositions involved in loving without obfuscating the importance
of concrete acts and relations.
sel f love and social justice
If we reduce self love to selshness, self love and social justice certainly seem opposed to one another. If personal selshness often
dissuades one from acts of charity and service, the self-interest of
152
groups (as Reinhold Niebuhr and Karl Marx noted in their respective ways) proves a much greater obstacle especially when it
takes on institutionalized and systemic forms and especially when
justice requires not simply charity and service, but a transformation of the status quo. Structural forms of self-interest are especially
problematic because individual agents acquire in them a kind of
(false) anonymity their specic choices and lifestyles seem of little
account and their responsibility to others seems dispersed into the
machinery of the status quo. But because self love is actualized in
love for ones neighbors, does proper self-relation entail solidarity
with the poor and the oppressed? Notice this question differs from
asking whether neighbor love properly entails a commitment to social justice. I judge that it does, but here I am concerned to explore
whether and how a commitment to social justice belongs properly
to self love. I argue that it does.
We can see why this is so from the vantage point of the oppressed
as well as from the vantage point of oppressors. Who are the oppressed? The oppressed include those who are economically poor,
who are socio-politically marginalized, who suffer discrimination
on the basis of race, ethnicity, creed, gender, sexual orientation,
and/or class. We can determine who the poor are through an
analysis of social, economic and political power relations, through
the deconstruction of cultural and religious ideologies that mask
and warrant injustice and by listening to those who experience injustice in its manifold forms. For one who is oppressed, self love
entails a commitment to social justice because the struggle for liberation from oppression is a process of claiming ones humanity
against that which and those who deny it. Ada Mara Isasi-Daz
rightly claims that to become fully human is to be in a love relation
with God and others.53 To do this, justice must prevail. Isasi-Daz
denes sin as alienation from God and others. Similarly, Gustavo
Gutierrez argues that sin is not only an impediment to salvation
in the afterlife. Sin is a historical reality, a breach of communion
among persons, withdrawal from others and a break with God.54
53
54
Ada Mara Isasi-Daz, Solidarity: Love of Neighbor in the 1990s, in Feminist Theological
Ethics, ed. Lois K. Daly (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).
See Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, rev. edn., trans. and eds. Sister Caridad
Inda and John Eagleson (New York: Orbis, 1990).
Right self love
153
By contrast, salvation is the communion of human beings with God

and among themselves. It embraces all human reality, transforms
it, leads it to its fullness in Christ. According to Gutierrez, understanding salvation in this way shows that the world beyond this one
is not the true life, not something opposed to this one, but rather is
the transformation and fulllment of the present life. The absolute
value of salvation does not devalue this world but rather gives it
authentic meaning and independence salvation is already latent
in this world.
Isasi-Daz notes that the oppressed often depend upon oppressors for their survival. Breaking the cycle of dependence and charity in order to transform exploitative relations is a risky enterprise.
This fact sheds light on the courage and self-possession that right
self love entails. Moreover, to struggle for the transformation of
the world is in some measure to experience that transformation
in oneself. Says Isasi-Daz, La vida es la lucha.55 To engage in the
struggle for liberation is to be about justice and self-determination.
Recall a point made in the previous chapter about the practical
character of ethics: ethics is practical because it is reexive (that
is, self-involving) and participatory (to reason practically is in some
measure to participate already in the good life about which one
reasons). Realizing that struggling for liberation yields a taste of it
here and now can sustain us. We must avoid what Thomas Merton
calls the fetishism of immediate results.56 Merton recognized rightly
that our attachment to quick and clear results can cause us to ag
in our work for justice and peace and can distort the meaning of
the work itself.
So for those who are oppressed, right self love includes a commitment to social justice. Fair enough. But in what way might an
oppressors self love require such a commitment? Is it not her self
love that needs to be set aside in order to make such a commitment? Who, in fact, are oppressors? They are those who discriminate against others and who enjoy power and privilege in economic
and socio-political relations and do not stand in solidarity with the
oppressed in a commitment to transform those structural relations.
55
56
Isasi-Daz, Solidarity: Love of Neighbor in the 1990s, 78.

Thomas Merton, The Nonviolent Alternative, ed., Gordon Zahn (New York: Farrar, Straus,
Giroux, 1980), 213.
154
Love for God and love for neighbor require such a commitment,
but does self love require it as well? Yes, and for some of the same
reasons that self love requires the oppressed to struggle for their
liberation. If to become fully human is to be in a love relationship
with God and with others, and an oppressor is one who is alienated
from God and others by virtue of her participation in exploitative
institutions and relations, a commitment to transform these institutions and relations is an exercise of self love as well as love for
God and neighbor.57
Further, right self love requires one to understand oneself truthfully and to reckon with ones concrete acts and relations. Given
the collective and conictive character of oppression, right self
love involves a process of conscientization, critical reection on the
structural causes of oppression and ones role in sustaining these
structures. Christian theologies of liberation like those Gutierrez
and Isasi-Daz offer express the dialectical relation between being
and thinking as the unity of theory and praxis. Liberation theologians relate seeing or perceiving the truth to doing the truth. We
need to understand better and to transform the reality of the oppressed. Liberation theology seeks to reveal the false ideologies that
conceal and justify privilege and construct a social order which is
free of such inequity (e.g., natural differences in aptitudes cannot
be used to justify economic disparity).
It seems, then, that few people practice right self love in this respect. Of course a commitment to social justice can take different
expressions and should, given ones particular commitments and
responsibilities. And of course, the analysis of systemic oppression
and the transformation of it are incredibly complex, concrete tasks
about which there will inevitably be much disagreement. And of
course, the reality of sin prevents any complete realization of justice
and peace in this world. But these facts should prompt a readiness
for self-criticism, a willingness to name injustice as such without
self-righteousness but also without reservation. All too often, as
I have experienced in conversation with friends, in teaching in
undergraduate and adult-education programs, these facts elicit instead self-defense, complacency, despair, appeals for caution and
57
Cf. Tanner, Politics of God.
Right self love
155
patience. When we are tempted in these directions we would do well

to remember Martin Luther Kings letter from a Birmingham jail,
in which he stated that the civil rights movements real opponent
was not the rabid segregationist so much as the white moderate.
King recognized that the white moderates devotion to order
and appeals for patience rest on misunderstandings of the plight of
blacks and the nature of justice. Such devotion and such appeals
can mask both cowardice and a reluctance to surrender the benets
the white moderate enjoys in the status quo.
Arguments for social justice are sometimes grounded in the experience and epistemological privilege of the poor and oppressed,
sometimes in the self-disclosure of God in the struggle for liberation,
and, sometimes, especially in secular arguments, in human rights
discourse. In addition to grounding such reection and praxis on
these resources we ought to attend to the demand for social justice
as a part of proper self-relation. This is not a crass appeal to selfinterest such that improving the lot of those less fortunate benets
us as well as them. My point is that self-relation is in part a matter
of deciding the kind of person one should be (I say in part because
we depend on grace) and right self-relation means, among other
things, being about justice in our concrete acts and relations.
A hermeneutical approach to self love deals more adequately
with the relation between self love and social justice than the transcendental and ontological approaches exemplied by Rahner and
Tillich. As I noted above, Metz is one of a number of thinkers who
criticize Rahner for neglecting the socio-political dimensions of
theology. Thinkers like Carter Heyward criticize Tillich for similar
reasons. There are resources in each for responding to these criticisms, e.g., Rahners arguments on behalf of the unity of love for
God and neighbor, Tillichs privileging of the person-to-person
encounter, the fact that both recognize the person as situated in a
mortgage of guilt and a heritage of collective wisdom. A hermeneutical approach recognizes the self as embedded in symbolic,
linguistic, and social systems, and recognizes that these systems
are sites of power. It demands and provides for the criticism of such
systems according to a standard of goodness that is objective yet internal to consciousness. This is akin to the practice of radical interpretation. In order to appreciate the relation between self love and
156
social justice, though, it is important to stress the collective practice

of such criticism and the primacy of social and communal praxis
as a source of insight and understanding. The criticism of social
conventions that is required for social justice cannot occur without the self s capacity to transcend morally the conventions that
shape her, but often communal practices and resources foster and
enable such transcendence. Indeed, the extent to which they do so
can serve as a criterion for criticizing their particular conventions.
As we will see in Chapter Six, it is because Christian ethics provides for its self-criticism that it can criticize other moral systems. It
is also why Christian ethics can be internally validated even as it is
shown to be true through its liberating and transformative effects
here and now.
self love and embodi ed integrit y
This section will indicate that the identity achieved in right self
love is interpretive or hermeneutical in character. This allows me
to conclude the chapter by specifying the moral good which right
self love achieves, the good of embodied integrity. The distinction
between the identity any person has and the moral good of embodied integrity (1) allows an ethics of right self love to address the
contemporary problems of fragmentation and incoherence without sacricing the complexity of the self; (2) allows for the moral
evaluation of forms of self-relation, especially because it attends to
the concrete acts and relations through which the person takes up
relation to herself, others, and God; and (3) divests a hermeneutical account of self-relation of the voluntarism and intuitionism that
can accompany the conceptual language of being.
Thus far I have argued that self love consists in a self-determining
response to God that is actualized in but not exhausted by neighbor love. This is a formal statement of my thesis. It expresses the
interdependence of self-relation with relation to God and neighbor. This account of self love applies whether a person loves herself
rightly or not. The problem, Chapter One showed, is that our
contemporary Western moral situation is characterized by an uncritical endorsement of self love, what I called the norm of selfrealization. The norm of self-realization is a contemporary version
Right self love
157
of the basic problem of identifying what kind of life is worthy of

living. Persons can be related to themselves in better and worse
fashions. Despite the bad press many in Christian tradition gave
self love, even thinkers like John Calvin, Sren Kierkegaard, and
Reinhold Niebuhr agree with Augustine and Aquinas that proper
self-relation is found in God. The issue is what kind of content is
given to proper self-relation. This means that my formal claim
about self love must be specied materially. Right self love designates the morally proper form of self-relation characterized by the
moral good of integrity and governed by the moral norms of love
for God and neighbor. Integrity consists in true self-understanding
embodied in ones acts and relations with others and in the world,
so I refer to the moral good as embodied integrity. This material
thesis testies to the contributions that recent work in philosophical
hermeneutics and theories of practical reason make to conceptual
frameworks of being in a moral anthropology.
A hermeneutical account of self-relation not only reconceptualizes the problem of self love, it reconceptualizes the moral good.
Integrity means that self love is not about xing the self, either as
correcting what is broken in the self or as getting the self right and
keeping it still. Charles Taylors study of modern identity traces
this concern to x the self back to Lockes punctual self. Paul
Lauritzen notes that this concern is shared by heirs as disparate as
Richard Rorty and Ernest Wallwork.58 Integrity replaces this concern to x the self with a complex process of free self-acceptance.
What distinguishes this process of self-acceptance from appeals
to authenticity (and thereby keeps it from devolving into a process of self-creation or self-realization not unlike xing the self )?
What distinguishes self-acceptance from fatalism about oneself ?
What distinguishes it from self-justication? The self-acceptance
that belongs to integrity includes truthfulness of and to the self.
But this observation brings us back to where we began. How does
one know who she is or ought to be? Even if one does know this,
how does one go about being true to oneself ? Persons are complex, erratic creatures, and contemporary culture often fragments
persons further. The pluralism of human existence confronts the
58
Paul Lauritzen, The Self and its Discontents: Recent Work on Morality and the Self,
Journal of Religious Ethics 22:1 (1994), 189210.
158
human aspiration for meaning and coherence. Culture, politics,

arts and sciences, biology and nature all confront the person and
cannot be manipulated into a comprehensive system. The person is tempted to integrate everything else into some inner-worldly
value, to make some value which she encounters absolute. The persons temptation to center her existence on a nite value indicates
that she determines her identity relationally, vis-à-vis some dening value. And if this fragmentation, complexity, and multiplicity
are not enough, attempts to respond to them not only fail, they
constitute efforts to x what is wrong with ourselves. Is there a way
out of this conundrum?
Here we can appreciate the importance of a Christian ethical
perspective. Christian ethics transforms the idea of integrity. I have
expressed the meaning of integrity as knowing the truth about oneself and embodying this in ones acts and relations. Of course, a
person can know he is a scoundrel and be a scoundrel with remarkable consistency, and this is a kind of integrity. But when integrity
is used to designate the moral good that belongs to proper selfrelation, and when proper self-relation is governed by the norms
of love for God and neighbor, two points become apparent. First,
we come to and know ourselves truly in the Lord. Second, truthfulness to our selves is empowered by grace. Integrity is not the
point of the moral life, not something at which one can aim directly. Indeed, it comes only through a self-surrender. So integrity,
from a Christian ethical perspective, is not the quest for ones true
self that contemporary Western culture celebrates and encourages.
We do not discover the truth about ourselves by spelunking in the
caverns of our psyches. We discover it when we venture ourselves
in relation to others. In other words, to recoup a classical insight,
the person becomes what she loves. The difference between any
particular form of self-relation and the self-relation which occurs
in right self love depends, then, on that with respect to which the
person determines herself. Rahner argues that love is not the end
of the integration of these partial moments of mans self-realization;
rather, love is this self-realization itself as such and as a whole, without this wholeness being merely the sum-total of moments. . . . Love
has nothing by which it could be explained except the one person
who himself, however, only learns who and what he is (as a whole
Right self love
159
person) when he loves.59 The person has been created for and
commanded to love God. But the unity of Christian existence lies
beyond its pluralism, even though it is mediated in this pluralism.
Unlike love for some inner-worldly value, love for God does not
confer the persons identity in relation to something tangible or
created but in relation to absolute mystery. In love for God ones
identity is given as beloved and yet remains to be achieved as the
task of ones freedom.
Because the self comes to and knows the truth of herself in God,
she cannot aim directly at truthfulness to herself. Integrity encompasses dialectically both the constitution and determination of the
self by what is other than her (the divine, other persons, institutions
and systems, contingent personal factors, etc.) as well as her selfdetermination (her self-transcendence, freedom, responsibility, and
creativity). The hermeneutical character of self-relation suggests
that the person must go out of herself in order to possess herself.
We cannot aim directly at our own good but receive it indirectly in
a commitment to others; so the obligation of self love is not to seek
our own ourishing directly. Indeed, right self love demands us to
surrender or sacrice this good as a direct pursuit. Still, if we are to
take seriously the feminist critique of traditional Christian accounts
of self love, projects of self-realization must not denigrate the self or
valorize the self s well-being. As my analysis of the contemporary
moral outlook showed, the feminist critique and the deconstruction
of the self raise the problem of how to specify the relation of the self s
good to that of others without exhausting or subsuming the self into
others and without instrumentalizing others for the sake of oneself.
This is why self-transcendence is central to right self love; when we
transcend ourselves we understand ourselves in an afrmation of
something beyond us in power and worth. This self-transcendence
is a grace, not our own creation, not produced at will. Yet it engages our freedom since it requires us to trust the paradox that we
achieve ourselves when we sacrice the direct pursuit of our own
good. I take it that this insight is the moral force behind Rahners
appeal to mystery and Tillichs claim that this surrender of ones
59
Rahner, The Commandment of Love, 443. See Andrew Tallon, Rahner and Personalization, Philosophy Today 14 (1970), 4456.
160
own goodness occurs in him who accepts the divine acceptance

of himself, the unacceptable. The courage to surrender ones own
goodness to God is the central element in the courage of faith.60
The concept of integrity expresses that the dignity and coherence
of the persons life are known in relation to God. Self-relation has
its source and power in the divine other.
We can formulate this in a norm under which the obligation of
right self love falls. The norm which best articulates it is nothing else
than the law of love: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart and thy neighbor as thyself.61 This norm for right self love
obliges the person to love God and neighbor because proper selfrelation is mediated and actualized in love for God and neighbor. It
recoups the classical commensuration of self love and love for God.
Moreover, it indicates that the neighbor is to be loved in God, for like
the self, the neighbors dignity and coherence is found in relation
to God. Thus, it species love for God and neighbor as criteria for
self love. As a norm for self love, the law of love offsets both egoism
and the instrumentalization of others for the sake of ones own
fulllment. The two criteria of love for God and for neighbor allow
for a creative tension in which the self is neither exhausted in love
for the neighbor nor denigrated in her relation to God. That is, the
law of love fosters moral evaluation of the persons relations to her
neighbors and the persons religious relation to God. Finally, as a
norm for self love, this law avoids the subjectivism of Rahners and
Tillichs accounts while still accounting for the affective, passional
elements of the moral life. This is not to say that the question of how
to specify the law of love in particular moral decisions is without
60
61
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 226. Tillich notes that the justice which belongs to divine
love destroys what is not love in the person so that the person can be reunited with the
divine. It is not the destruction of evil in the person, since the person has been created
good, but rather the persons hubris, the persons attempt to reach reunion on her own
efforts.
See the gospels of Mark 12:2834 and Matthew 22:3440. The Markan pericope includes
the following: Which commandment is the rst of all? Jesus answered, The rst is,
Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your
strength. The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other
commandment greater than these (Mark 12:28b-31). For some treatments of the love
command in scripture see Victor Furnish, Love Command in the New Testament (New York:
Abingdon, 1972) and Ernest Wallwork, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself: the
Freudian Critique, Journal of Religious Ethics 10 (Fall 1982), 29192.
Right self love
161
difculties. Chapters One and Two made this much clear. The
law of love appeals to the structures of self-relation as normative
and translates these structures into a specic moral principle. This
principle addresses the pluralism of existence without sacricing
the complexity of the self. It reconceptualizes the good, or selfrealization more generally by directing moral attention to what,
whom, why, and how the self loves. In doing so it casts the moral
problem of self love as one of evaluating forms of self-relation as
they take concrete shape in relations to and with others.
At this point the difculties of Rahners and Tillichs positions
emerge. To see why, and to appreciate how a hermeneutical approach can read them in ways faithful to their insights and without
their problems, let us consider briey how each thinkers treatment
of symbols illustrates the difculties of their respective positions.
This foray into symbols is important for understanding the relation between self love and love for God for reasons I will develop in
the remainder of the book. Because love for and faith in God are
mediated by symbolic resources and in our actions and relations,
self love requires the moral criticism of religious constructs. Because
right self love does not require explicitly Christian or even theistic faith, it is important to understand how non-theistic symbols
and encounters with others mediate the self s relation to Christ,
the Mediator. And because persons not only use symbols but, like
symbols, realize themselves by expressing themselves, we cannot
construe self-relation adequately apart from such acts of understanding and expression.
Being and using a symbol
For Tillich symbols do not possess an intrinsic relation to that which
they symbolize. Symbols have an objective and subjective side the
object present to the person and the persons response to it. The
symbol grasps the person and provides the person with ecstatic participatory knowledge of that which is symbolized. But the person
is not dissipated into or merged with the symbolized; rather he retains a capacity to assess the adequacy of the symbol. Not all objects
function as symbols. In a symbol the object becomes translucent,
manifesting the ground of being. Tillich characterizes and classies
162
types of symbols in various ways throughout his corpus. Regardless,

all symbols reveal or manifest the power of being-itself. According
to Tillich, symbols function to express and occasion being-itself.
The expression occurs in an original revelation, such as the picture
of Jesus as the Christ. The occasioning function occurs in temporally later, dependent revelations which evoke the original revelation. Critics like David Kelsey and Donald Driesbach have noted
that Tillich fails to make clear how these occasioning symbols are
related to the expressing symbols. Tillich draws expressing symbols
from the biblical picture of Jesus as the Christ. He draws occasioning symbols from his ontology. He does not clarify how temporally
later, dependent revelations evoke the original revelation in Jesus
as the Christ.62
Driesbach notes that Tillich operates with two different understandings of faith. Sometimes Tillich speaks of faith as being
grasped by the power of being that conquers estrangement; at
other times, Tillich speaks of faith as being grasped by an ultimate
concern.
One is the state of being ultimately concerned about the genuine ultimate,
so that the personality is made coherent, and inadequate and potentially
destructive ultimate concerns are rejected. The other is an altered state of
self-understanding, so that one has the sense of not being abandoned to
reliance on ones own power, that one is sustained by the power of beingitself. These two different but not incompatible notions, taken together,
imply response to a religious symbol as producing a coherent personality
that is empowered to confront the deepest structural problems of human
existence.63
The different denitions of faith play off the tension between a salvation experienced in the present as unambiguous yet fragmentary
and the persons eschatological fulllment. On the one hand the
Christ is a symbol which provides courage for self-afrmation in
62
63
David Kelsey makes this point. See his The Fabric of Paul Tillichs Theology (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1967). See also Donald F. Driesbach, Symbols and
Salvation: Paul Tillichs Doctrine of Religious Symbols and his Interpretation of the Symbols of the
Christian Tradition (Lanham, md: University Press of America, 1993); H. D. McDonald,
The Symbolic Christology of Paul Tillich, Vox Evangelica 18 (1988), 7588. See also
James J. Buckley, On Being a Symbol: an Appraisal of Karl Rahner, Theological Studies
40:3 (1979), 28598. Buckley contrasts Tillichs ontology of symbols with that of Rahners.
See 45557.
Driesbach, Symbols and Salvation, 45.
Right self love
163
the threat of nonbeing, and on the other hand, Christ is a power

of being, and thus more than a symbol, which conquers the threat
of nonbeing qua threat. A similar tension can be seen in Tillichs
treatment of Spiritual Presence. Because symbols mediate the act
of faith, the problematic relation between symbols which express
the power of being and symbols which evoke it corresponds to
a problematic relation between the symbol which produces a coherent personality and the symbol which empowers the person to
confront the deepest structural problems of existence.
This tension highlights the difculties of Tillichs ontology for
a contemporary account of self love. Tillich suggests, and rightly,
that life is characterized by ambiguity; it is this ambiguity that
makes self love a moral problem. But Tillichs account is not adequately equipped to confront the task of morally evaluating the
forms self-relation can take. Put differently, it contributes to rather
than addresses the way contemporary ethics neglects the concrete
acts and relations through which the person takes up relation to herself, others, and God. The tension in Tillich between the conquest
of estrangement and courage in the face of it yields an account of
conscience as the silent voice of essential being, and an approach
to ethics that, notwithstanding its merits, courts subjectivism in the
form of intuitionism. Moreover, as Schweiker noted above, Tillichs
emphasis on self-actualization risks a valorization of the power to
act that threatens respect for other persons. Finally, the tension in
Tillichs handling of symbols (which illustrates a broader tension in
his system as a whole) makes his ontology ill-equipped to deal with
attention to concrete acts and relations if we were to give it. The
tension makes it difcult to understand the continuity of the person in her acting, and complicates attempts to account for moral
change. Resources in Tillich for addressing such matters (e.g., his
discussion of self-alteration, self-creativity, and self-transcendence)
only illustrate the way his system is beholden to the ontological
polarities he identies.64
Tillichs difculties center on how symbols function in selfrelation. For Rahner, however, the point is not that persons use
symbols, but that they are symbols. According to Rahner, a real
64
164
symbol is the self-fulllment of a particular being in another that

is constitutive of the essence of that particular being.65 This means
that the persons self-fulllment is achieved when she gives herself
away to that which is other and nds [ herself ] in the other through
knowledge and love.66 For Rahner a being has being to the degree
that it is present to itself (Beisichsein). The person is a symbol because
his self-possession is always mediated through the material world.
The person is a synthesis of spirit and matter. Rahners ontology
of symbols highlights the persons embodiment and fundamentally
relational (or as Rahner sometimes says, dialogical) character. By
claiming that all beings are symbols Rahner attempts to transform the static substance metaphysic of Aristotle and Aquinas and
show that beings are dynamically self-mediating realities.67 But
Rahners attempts to revamp the AristotelianThomistic substance
metaphysic continue to struggle against this conceptual ontological framework. As James Buckley notes, this claim raises the question of where personal identity is located. Buckley argues for what
he calls a performative anthropology based on Rahners ontology
of symbols. A performative anthropology accounts for the self s
establishment of itself in self-avowals through which it expresses
itself to an other. A paradigmatic example of such a self-avowal
is the utterance, I love you. Because the persons self-possession
is achieved in self-expression, Buckley notes that it is of the very
essence of human subjects to express themselves in the other,
to utter a performative I love you to God and to neighbor.68
Buckley questions the merit of localizing personal identity in such
performative acts: Granted that I am a symbol in certain performative moments, how can I follow through on this identity in a
historically patterned way? Rahners notion of symbol deals with
the self-involved I in individual moments without dealing with
65
66
67
68
Karl Rahner, The Theology of the Symbol, Theological Investigations, vol. 4, 234.
Ibid., 285.
Stephen Fields, S. J., Being as Symbol: on the Origins and Development of Karl Rahners Metaphysics
(Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 2000), 3. For additional treatments of
Rahners ontology of symbols, see Annice Callahan, Karl Rahners Theology of Symbol:
Basis of his Theology of the Church and the Sacraments, Irish Theological Quarterly 49
(1982), 195205 and Thomas Sheehan, Karl Rahner: the Philosophical Foundations (Athens,
oh: Ohio University Press, 1987).
Buckley, On Being a Symbol, 28598, 468. He offers here a version of the criticism
that Rahners anthropology is individualistic and voluntaristic.
Right self love
165
the ongoing moments of personal identity which are not always

performative.69 So Rahners position, too, nds itself beholden
to a (transcendental) conceptuality of being that generates some
problems. Like Tillichs, Rahners position is ill-equipped to account for the continuity of the persons identity in her acting and,
so, is ill-equipped to account for moral change. Moreover, Rahners
resources to address this problem only exacerbate another inasmuch as Rahners emphasis on the self s exercise of freedom in a
decision provides for the continuity of her identity and can help to
account for moral change, it also heightens the voluntarism of his
position. And, as I noted before, notwithstanding Rahners insistence that the person comes to herself only in a concrete other, the
transcendentalism of his position drags attention away from concrete acts and relations.
In Chapter One I argued that the norm of self-realization fails to
evaluate morally the forms that self-relation may take. In Chapter
Three I suggested that conceptual frameworks of being are a more
valuable resource for this evaluation than many might think. But
these frameworks, as in Rahner and Tillich, can begin to choke and
not simply esh out our moral evaluation. As the next chapter will
show, a hermeneutical approach can make good use of these frameworks. It incorporates Rahners and Tillichs respective insights,
for instance, by rendering the moral good as embodied integrity.
Because embodied integrity consists in true self-understanding embodied in ones acts and relations, it attends to the use of symbolic
systems through which we understand ourselves and by which we
live (Tillich) and the concrete acts and relations through which the
self takes up relation to her self, others, and God (Rahner).
This line of reasoning differs from the other arguments made
on behalf of right self love which I detailed in Chapter Two. I
noted that contemporary thinkers who commend self love do so for
several reasons: as a derivative duty of neighbor love, for the same
reasons which warrant love for the neighbor (e.g., each person is the
imago Dei), and because of structural self-responsibility. The moral
obligation of self love, or put differently, the task of establishing
oneself as a self, is experienced by the person in her freedom and
69
Ibid., 471.
166
responsibility. The person experiences the gap between what she

is and what she ought to be. The moral obligation to right self
love arises in the persons experience of herself. It is experienced
as the demand to actualize oneself. As I have suggested, however,
the difculty lies in specifying the proper form of self-relation, that
is, designating in what right self love consists. That is why the next
chapter explores moral action and Chapter Six explores the moral
criticism of religious claims and relations.
conclusion
This chapter has supplemented the analysis of moral being offered
in Chapter Three in order to advance my thesis: right self love consists in a self-determining response to God which is actualized in
but not exhausted by neighbor love. In doing so, Chapters Three
and Four explored self love as a moral problem. The following
two chapters change gears and take up self love as a moral principle. In that way, I seek to warrant my thesis and test its adequacy
with respect to other problems in ethics: how to account for moral
development and the relation that pertains between religion and
morality. Respectively, Chapters Five and Six ask, What does the
idea of right self love contribute to an account of the moral life?
and, what insight does the idea of right self love lend to the relation
between religion and morality?
chapter 5
Self love and moral action
Previous chapters showed that the person freely decides about herself in relation to God. This decision, in its material specicity,
constitutes the persons identity. This chapter asks how the persons
categorical moral choices and actions condition and constitute her
response and how her response shapes and directs her categorical
choices, even her capacity to reason morally. It explores the status
of concrete acts and relations by engaging conceptual frameworks
of being and by appealing to the norms of love for God and neighbor. This chapter suggests that (1) moral action entails a creative
self-constitution in light of particular situations; (2) moral development consists in a fundamental self-interpretation of oneself in
relation to God, who has acted on behalf of the person rst; and
(3) a hermeneutical account of self-relation helps to specify the
kinds of acts and relations that are/are not ordered to the self s
authentic good.
id enti ty and integri ty
My description of embodied integrity is indebted to and departs from the account of integrity that William Schweiker offers.
Schweikers account of integrity begins with the claim that there are
two levels of goods. The rst, lower level of goods includes bodily,
social, and reective goods. It is multi-dimensional. Persons encounter and recognize these goods in their sensory experiences of
values and disvalues (e.g., pleasure and pain). They also encounter
and recognize them in social roles and relations by which they
identify themselves and are identied by others. And persons experience reective goods in their capacity to reect on their lives,
167
168
paradigmatically in their linguistic self-designation in a space of

value.1 Schweiker insists on a second, higher level of goods because
persons transcend these lower goods in the act of self-criticism (or
conscience or radical interpretation). This higher good consists
in a commitment to respect and enhance the integrity of lower
goods. This commitment constitutes the ethical good of integrity.
Christian ethics makes this distinction between levels of value
simply because it understands questions of faith to be basic to
human existence. Faith is about what one trusts in and is loyal
to in all actions and relations.2
The good of integrity entails what Schweiker terms an integrated
theory of value. He distinguishes it from the axiology offered by
John Finnis, who collaborates with Germain Grisez. Schweiker,
Finnis, and Grisez agree that a range of diverse and basic
goods characterize human existence. Finnis and Grisez argue that
these goods are not commensurable. Many Roman Catholic and
Protestant ethicists dispute this claim. According to Finnis and
Grisez, the incommensurability of goods means that it is wrong
to act directly against any of them. To be sure, as nite creatures
we cannot pursue all goods at all times. The project of writing this
book, for instance, requires me to neglect other goods, chiey rest
and recreation. Neglecting goods or allowing disvalues like pain
to occur in the pursuit of a good (e.g., obtaining vaccinations for
ones child) differ from directly attacking a good. Finnis puts it this
way: Make ones choices open to human fulllment: i.e. avoid
unnecessary limitation of human potentialities.3 Grisez argues,
In voluntarily acting for human goods and avoiding what is
opposed to them, one ought to choose and otherwise will those
and only those possibilities whose willing is compatible with a will
toward integral human fulllment.4
Schweiker claims to offer a different theory of value. Moral
integrity demands truthfulness of self to the project of respecting
1
2
3
4

Press, 1995). See Chapter Five and 16069 for the multi-dimensionality of value.
Ibid., 115.
John Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics (Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1983),
72.
Germain Grisez, Christian Moral Principles, vol. 1 of The Way of the Lord Jesus (Chicago:
Franciscan Herald Press, 1983), 184.
169
and enhancing the integrity of all life.5 This means that while
that which directly and intentionally destroys or demeans the
meaningful coherence of diverse goods and aspirations is categorically prohibited6 nevertheless in some circumstances we are
justied in acting against certain goods, like pre-moral goods, in
the name of the whole of life.7 Schweiker defends this latter claim
because the moral life is ambiguous and sometimes tragic, but he
also thinks it is more adequate a response to and account of the
multi-dimensionality of goods. By contrast, he claims that Grisezs
and Finniss insistence on the incommensurability of goods means
that they are concerned not with the whole of life, as Schweiker
is, but with the sum of its constitutive goods in isolation from one
another.8
Still, Schweikers argument for integrity rests not only on a theory
of value but on a claim about persons as agents. Because axiologies
entail claims about agents, any statement about what to do must
presuppose and also bear upon the coherence of the life of the
agent who is trying to act on that principle.9 This means that
the idea of the integrity of an agent is logically and ontologically
prior to the goods which he or she can or ought to seek; it means
that an act of commitment to live with some integrity is prior to
the quest to secure certain values in existence.10 An imperative
about integrity can be the kind of moral imperative that Kant
called categorical. The idea of integrity articulates the relation
between identity-conferring projects and the acting person which
means that it concerns the conditions for choosing and acting.11 The
logical and ontological priority of integrity makes an imperative
about integrity categorically binding, but it also means one can
maintain a commitment to the project of respecting and enhancing
the integrity of life even as one acts against some of the basic goods
that constitute human life.
While there is much to commend Schweikers account of integrity, a modication is in order here. Schweikers idea of integrity
corresponds to his account of conscience as the activity of radical
interpretation. Integrity identies the values and goods that persons
5
9
Schweiker, Responsibility, 121.

10 Ibid., 124.
Ibid., 123.
6
11
Ibid., 125.
Ibid., 12425.
Ibid., 121.
Ibid.
170
and communities ought to seek, including the commitment to the

moral project of respecting and enhancing these goods. This is expressed in the imperative to respect and enhance the integrity of life
before God in all actions and relations. Radical interpretation is the
persons or communitys appropriation of this imperative into her
or its self-understanding.12 In Chapter Three I argued that the idea
of radical interpretation does not provide adequately for the temporality of the persons identity. Schweiker does mention temporality
as important for the moral life; temporality here refers to constancy
in ones commitment to respect and enhance the integrity of life.13
Moreover, because the concept radical interpretation weds a natural law ethics to an ethics of conversion, it implies an ongoing transformation. Schweikers use of philosophical hermeneutics makes
him attentive to the persons socio-linguistic situation, and because
hermeneutics recognizes that understanding involves knowing and
valuing for the sake of orienting life, radical interpretation involves
the perception of value and the reformation of moral sensibility
in the activity of assuming and ascribing responsibility.14 Still, the
emphasis is on orienting action through the education of moral
sensibilities less than the exercise of agency in a personal history of
freedom. That is, on Schweikers account, moral identity appears
in acts of self-critical reection on and the direction of ones acts
rather than in the acts themselves.
But because self-understanding and self-enactment are dialectically related, it is important to recognize that persons constitute
themselves in their acts. There is, of course, no strict separation that
we can make between our awareness of ourselves and our acting
even as the moral problem is one of division or fragmentation. But,
the problem of self love requires us to amplify certain aspects of
self-relation and accordingly, certain questions in moral theory. We
must wrestle with the temporality of our acting in order to explore
the ways self-relation is negotiated in and through our ongoing relations to God and neighbors in the world. We must ponder the
disparity that often exists between a persons self-understanding
and her concrete actions and relations. When we say that persons do things they do not want to do, or never thought they were
12
Ibid., 178.
13
Ibid., 16768.
14
Ibid., 183.
171
capable of doing, or that they can deceive themselves, we state the

obvious. Nevertheless, given Christian traditions tendency to treat
self love as a problem of selshness, postmodern denials of the self,
and Western cultures norm of self-realization, we must explore
this problem as the problem of self love. So the primary concern
with this space between identity-conferring commitments and the
acting person is not that of ascribing and assuming responsibility
but whether and how the persons acts and relations are ordered to
her ourishing.15 Can the person act directly against some of the
goods that constitute human existence and maintain a commitment
of her self to the moral project? Is that commitment sustained in
her self-understanding even while her actions seem to belie it? Or
are such actions ways in which the self afrms, even re-commits
herself to respecting and enhancing the meaningful coherence of
diverse goods? Projects and commitments do confer a persons
identity, but in some measure persons constitute their identities in
their acting. Can the person act directly against some of the goods
that constitute human existence and love her self ? Might so acting
be, paradoxically, necessary for her to love her self ? This question
is important in order to respond to the norm of self-realization
without critically assessing this norm we cannot identify acts and
relations that are self-destructive. We need to nd ways to evaluate
morally the ways in which persons seek to realize themselves. And
since the person works out her self-relation (and relation to God
and neighbor) continually in her decisions and actions, we need to
look more closely at her moral actions, their relation to identity, to
particular norms, and to faith. How ought we to construe moral
change and development, and how ought we to understand the
continuity of the self in her various actions?
the relevance of moral acti ons
There are a number of reasons why a contemporary account of self
love requires attention to the status of concrete acts in the moral
life and ethics. To begin, the person takes up her self-relation in her
acting. She posits her self in response to various given features that
15
Ibid., 125.
172
situate and shape her freedom but do not exhaustively determine

it. Another reason why we need to specify the status of moral acts is
because right self love concerns more than self-esteem, more than
how we feel about ourselves. Indeed, persons can and often do
deceive themselves. They can be in denial, they can be relatively
unreective, they can be overly self-critical. Persons can exhibit
false consciousness. As I have been revising these pages I have seen
two different news programs that treated the sex industry. Both included interviews with women working in the sex industry as porn
stars and prostitutes, women who claim their work is fun, that it
not only pays well, but lets them make people happy, that they feel
free and/or powerful. The contemporary norm of self-realization
is unable to respond to these claims they can only be taken at
face value. A range of feminists argue for the decriminalization
of sex work and for the right of sex workers to unionize. Drucilla
Cornell constructs her arguments on the insistence that the person
is an abstraction, a node of choice and source of value; as such,
persons (be they sex workers or not) have the right to sexual selfrepresentation.16 Never mind that these women are encouraged to
think of their work in such terms by an industry that, and by customers who, prot from their labor. Never mind that these terms
allow us to ignore or to address as an afterthought the harsh social and economic realities that can force women to work in the
sex industry. Never mind that our cultural readiness to deconstruct
(and so to invalidate) negative attitudes about sex nds little readiness to deconstruct as well our glorication of sex, or that both
the denigration and the glorication of sex operate with terribly
impoverished and confused understandings of human sexuality. If
these women claim to be happy, fullled, even proud of their work,
who are we to say otherwise?
This line of reasoning sustains womens unwillingness to confront the reality of their degradation. It sustains the industrys and
consumers unwillingness to stop exploiting women for prot and
pleasure. It sustains our collective unwillingness to address the social
and economic factors that sustain the sex industry. And it sustains
personal confusion and cowardice in the face of such a complex
16
Drucilla Cornell, At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality (Princeton, nj: Princeton
University Press, 1998). See Chapter 2.
173
socio-economic reality, in the face of the complexity of human sexuality, and in the face of the tension between facile self-righteous
moral judgments and enervating moral relativism. Other less dramatic examples can illustrate the importance of dening self love
more richly than emotional or psychological states. My point is
that a hermeneutical approach to self love retains the importance
of self-understanding (which of course has emotional and psychological dimensions) yet sets self-understanding in the history of her
moral freedom and in a truthful and tting relation to the actions
and relations through which the person constitutes herself.
It is also important to specify the status of moral acts for ones selfrelation because self-relation is actualized in relation to God and
neighbor and in the world. We negotiate these relations through
what we do, although they are more than a series of discrete, identiable deeds. In a hermeneutical account of self-relation, moral
acts are objects of understanding and interpretation the person
deliberates over what to do and retrospectively interprets her actions. Moral acts also express the persons self-understanding. They
disclose her commitments and values, her compassion or her callousness, the perceptions and beliefs and desires that prompted her
so to act, etc. Moral acts are also part of the media of understanding, ways the person posits her self-relation and relation to others
and ways she affects and effects these relations.
Rahners concept of the fundamental option helps us to chart the
connections among identity, action, and faith. Recall that Rahner
understands identity as a free decision of nality vis-à-vis God. The
person achieves her very self in the mode of an acceptance of Gods
offer of self-communication. If the person realizes herself in love,
then moral change and development consist in an ongoing selfdisposal in love for God and neighbor, whereby the person really
comes to be as such. Rahner offers an ethics of transformation, one
in which the moral good is a matter of being and becoming (and not
simply doing) good. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to restrict
right self love to an interior attitude or solipsistic self-interpretation;
given the unity of person and identity, self love must be mediated
and actualized concretely. Because the persons free decision about
herself before God is mediated concretely through her moral life,
Rahner can distinguish growth in ontic sanctity from growth in
174
moral sanctity. Growth in ontic sanctity refers to growth in sanctifying grace.17 This growth is not the Christian perfection that is
incumbent on the person as a duty. Growth in moral sanctity is.
Because Rahner eschews any quantitative understanding of grace,
growth in ontic sanctity is not the accumulation or accrual of grace,
but a deepening relationship, which means that ontic and moral
sanctity are related. This distinction between ontic and moral sanctity points to a tension between Rahners perfectionist motif and
the transcendental condition of the person.18 Rahner asserts that
God has communicated Gods self (at least as an offer) to the person and that this self-communication is an abiding existential of
the person. But the perfectionist motif seems at odds with such a
claim; if the person is always already graced, what need is there
for transformation? In order to understand the relation between
ones deepening relation with God and moral progress, we must
look at the relation between being and doing, or, put differently,
the relation between the person and her actions.
According to Rahner, freedom accomplishes something that
cannot be undone. One becomes something. Namely, one becomes
what one loves. This means that man does not merely perform
actions which, though they must be qualied morally, also always
pass away again (and which after are imputed to him merely juridically or morally); man by his free decision really is so good or
evil in the very ground of his being-itself that his nal salvation or
damnation are really already given in this, even though perhaps
in a still hidden manner.19 Thus, without denying the persons
17
18
19
For example, growth in grace via reception of the sacraments.

This tension is not helped by the fact that Rahner sometimes uses the terms transcendence and transcendental in a less than precise fashion, making it difcult to
distinguish the two. Another way to put this difculty is in terms of the relation between
nature and grace. The secondary literature on how Rahner understands this relation is
immense, and very often critical. The criticisms tend to be versions of the main charge that
Rahners understanding is contradictory or inconsistent, and that this is generally due to
the static framework which Rahner adopts from scholastic Thomism. See, for example,
Mark Lloyd Taylor, God is Love: a Study in the Theology of Karl Rahner (Atlanta, ga: Scholars
Press, 1986); William Dych, Karl Rahner (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992) especially
chapter 3. R. R. Reno defends Rahners account of nature and grace along Barthian
and Wittgensteinian lines. See The Ordinary Transformed: Karl Rahner and the Christian Vision
of Transcendence (Grand Rapids, mi: William B. Eerdmans, 1995).
Rahner, Theology of Freedom, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 184. See Theological
Investigations, vols. 114 (vols. 16, Baltimore, md: Helicon; vols. 710, New York: Herder
and Herder; vols. 1114, New York: Seabury; 19611976).
175
absolute dependence on grace and the utter gratuity of Gods selfcommunication, Rahner nevertheless can say that man disposes
over the totality of his being and existence before God and this
either towards Him or away from Him. Man does this in such a
way that his temporal decisions determine the eternal nality of
his existence either in an absolute salvation or damnation: on account of his freedom, man is responsible for his eternal salvation
or damnation.20 The transcendental horizon is the condition for
the possibility of the persons temporal decisions, but it is not immediately clear how these decisions condition the transcendental
horizon. The fact that the person is always already graced appears
to undercut the radical claim Rahner makes, that the person is
responsible for his salvation or damnation. For Rahner the various
moral decisions the person makes thematize the decision that she
is; and because the person is a symbol, the categorical decisions
do not simply arise out of and express the singular, nal decision,
they constitute it as well, but not in a straightforward or quantitative manner. For there exist decisions which are objectively wrong
but which do not destroy a mans positive relationship with God,
so-called objective sins which carry no subjective guilt.21 And,
conversely, a particular categorical object of choice, even if it is
materially correct and conforms to the objective structure of man
and the world, cannot guarantee for certain that its choice will
bring about a positive relationship to human transcendence and
its goal.22 These important claims can account for the fact that a
persons moral conduct can be erratic and contradictory, and that
different actions vary in terms of the moral gravity of their object.
Rahner maintains that ones existential decision about God cannot
20
21
22
Rahner, GuiltResponsibilityPunishment within the View Of Catholic Theology,

Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 200.
Rahner, Experience of the Spirit and Existential Commitment, Theological Investigations,
vol. 16, 26. It is important to read this in light of Rahners essay On the Question of a
Formal Existential Ethics, Theological Investigations, vol. 2. I will use this essay later in this
section, but note here that Rahner insists therein that a moral act can never contradict
a universal moral norm. Given this, the statement that an objectively wrong act can
carry no subjective guilt should be understood to mean that there can exist a discrepancy
between the moral status of an act and the ethical designation of the act according to
moral principles which may or may not adequately express a universal moral norm. It
may also mean that the extent to which a persons action is conditioned by ignorance,
coercion, internal dispositions, etc. co-determines the extent to which the act expresses
and establishes her relation with God.
Rahner, Experience of the Spirit and Existential Commitment, 27.
176
be directly produced or undone by an objectively moral or immoral

act.23 This is because, as we will see, the persons existential decision
is made over the course of her lifetime, because multiple motives
operate and help to determine the morality of an act, and because
a morally good act may or may not conform to particular moral
norms. These reasons will be explored in what follows.
Thus far we have seen that Rahner understands the person as a
transcendental being oriented toward God and that he understands
morality as free self-realization. The response to God which is at
the heart of self love engages the entirety of the person. Rahner calls
this total engagement the fundamental option. It refers to the persons exercise of freedom, not at the categorical level as the selection
among available objects, but transcendentally. This transcendental
exercise of freedom is neither irreversible, nor the unambiguous
object of human reection. It both arises out of and is constitutive
of the direction in which the person is moving the yes or no one
gives to God. The categorical choices one makes arise from and
express it. Yet, these categorical choices can be incongruent with
the fundamental option; it is the chief act of the person, her surrender to or refusal of God, and is not located in a single act. This
is important because it allows Rahner to say that a fundamental
option toward God is not necessarily and immediately reversed by
a particular sin. The person cannot make her fundamental option
in and through a singular categorical act; it refers to the inclusive
totality of her life and death. Nonetheless, ones categorical actions
do, over time, both affect and effect the fundamental option. Although it cannot be brought wholly to reection it cannot exist
apart from the categorical acts which mediate and objectify it. The
fundamental option is not simply the sum total of the moral weight
of categorical acts, but these acts and the ineffable response to God
they suggest and betray are mutually interdependent.24
There are a number of difculties with the fundamental option.
Because the fundamental option designates the transcendental
exercise of freedom, yet Rahner maintains a categorical dimension
23
24
Pope John Paul II disagrees with this in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
Rahner, Experience of the Spirit and Existential Commitment, 20304. Rahner preserves here the traditional Catholic teaching that one cannot be certain about ones
salvation.
177
to freedom, he seems to equivocate. If categorical freedom arises

out of ones free transcendental decision, is it really freedom? If
categorical freedom can contradict the transcendental dimension,
why ought we to understand that dimension as freedom? That is,
if transcendental freedom is decisive, does it undermine or negate
categorical freedom, and if categorical freedom can be at odds
with transcendental freedom, does this qualify its character as the
capacity to posit something denitive? Rahner contends that the
transcendental and categorical dimensions constitute a unity-indifference of the one human freedom. Charles Curran criticizes
the fundamental option because in this approach salvation and
grace take place on the transcendental level, but salvation should
involve persons totally in all their relationships and in working
for justice and the transformation of the world.25 John Finnis argues that there is no evidence for the fundamental option; what
is offered as evidence is questionably metaphorical.26 Moreover,
both Curran and Finnis nd the language of choice problematic,
but for different reasons. For Curran too much emphasis on choices
eclipses the moral importance of relationships and threatens
to construe the moral life too atomistically. For Finnis, the fundamental option seems to be a choice that is not a choice to do
anything, or is made, ostensibly, apart from particular choices of
actions. Instead of a single fundamental option Finnis argues that
each serious and deliberate choice made with awareness of what
is being chosen, and directly affecting a basic human good, is itself
a fundamental option for or against practical reasonableness or,
if you prefer, against virtue. It is fundamental because it makes a
change in the self by which all future choices will be made, whether
reasonably (virtuously) or unreasonably (wrongly).27 So, the voluntarism of the fundamental option may direct moral attention
away from the persons concrete acts and relations and away from
the socio-political conditions that situate us and that deserve our
moral attention. In this way Rahners account of how persons are
related to their actions begs the very question the problem of right
self love presses: in what sorts of actions does the person relate
25
26
Charles Curran, The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: a Synthesis (Washington dc: Georgetown
27 Ibid., 144.
Finnis, Fundamentals of Ethics, 142.
178
properly to herself, her neighbors and God and in what sorts does
she not? Does Rahners voluntarism and the ineffability of her fundamental option permit us to answer this question in any way other
than by resorting to moral subjectivism? Moreover, a defense of the
fundamental option must clarify how it is that we can reconstitute
the condition for the possibility of acting.
We can respond to these difculties by attending to the selfconstituting character of moral acts and to the temporal character
of agency, points a hermeneutical account of self-relation highlights. The relation between transcendental and categorical freedom is illumined helpfully by what I call the principle of accretion.
This principle shifts the emphasis in Rahner from the voluntaristic
tenor of the fundamental option as a choice or act of freedom to the
strands in Rahner which stress the asymptotic character of personal
becoming and the fact that the persons experience of and relation
to God unfold in her personal history. Let me explain what I mean
by the principle of accretion.
Given the unity-in-difference between the fundamental option
the persons transcendental decision and categorical moral action,
moral development can only be undertaken, if not nally accomplished, in the stuff of human life and society. For Rahner, moral
value is not entirely located within a given situation. Neither is it
wholly attached to a particular choice. Rather, specic situations
and particular choices effect a ripple of moral value and are themselves prescinded by previous choices in previous situations. The
intensity, the existential depth, the freely acquired personal characteristic, all of which have developed in ones life up till then, all
enter as intrinsic elements into the new act of decision and put
their stamp on it. In every moment of the free, personal achievement of existence, the past becomes an inner, essential principle of
the present and its acts.28 The events and choices comprising the
life of an individual prior to a particular moment thus co-determine
both the given situation and the capacity of the individual to act
morally in it. For this reason, the accretion of earlier choices made
by an individual both create the individual and affect the following
situations. The individual, then, in each given situation, makes a
28
Rahner, The Comfort of Time, Theological Investigations, vol. 3, 146.
179
decision not simply to do this or that, but to continue the course

set by earlier decisions or to abandon it, to choose in favor of God
and the self or against them.
Such a decision does not only determine the disposition of the whole
person (since it determines its eternal destiny as a whole and not merely
a part of our existence, merely implicating everything else); it also acts
as the result of the always present totality of the person and thus out of
the latters previous life, because only the whole person can master the
whole. It risks the life which has gone before; it works with the gains of its
previous life.29
The individual makes a decision to be this or that. Ones personhood is either promoted or contradicted.
In this manner each singular moral choice relates not only to
the overall moral sanctity of the individual, it affects the individual
in such a way that ontic sanctity has a greater or lesser potential for
realization as well. Particular moral choices dispose the individual,
accumulating in such a way over time so as to effect an orientation,
indeed, a mode of existing and apprehending. Morality itself, then,
is a matter of process and progress, insofar as previous actions affect
ones capacity for moral behavior in following situations. The more
one sins, the more one becomes disposed to sinning. Indeed, the
more one sins the more one becomes sinful; practicing sin results
in the distortion of ones perspective and capacities. On the other
hand, the more one acts morally, the more free, the more human
one becomes. Moral action, then, like physical training, hones the
agent for future and nal self-commitment to being.
The principle of accretion does not undermine the freedom of
the individual by allowing for her to become something in spite
of her own will and effort. For Rahner one is not entirely what
one does, and in this sense one does not become in spite of ones
will, such that one becomes less human and holy because of sin
despite a genuine and fervent desire to become otherwise. Every
decision one makes leaves room for further decisions, which, to be
sure, are conditioned and determined by those that have gone before them, but are not simply a linear expression of them.30 A bad
29
30
Ibid., 145.
See Rahner, On the Question of a Formal Existential Ethics.
180
choice, a series of bad choices comprise only moments in a lifetime

response to God. Despite the uncertainty that one has acted morally
and despite the ultimate ineffability of ones fundamental option in
the persons moral reasoning and self-examination man accepts
himself in his own self-understanding and hands himself over
precisely as the one who understands himself in this or that way
to the mysterious judgment of God.31 This indicates that the very
activity of moral deliberation and that moral action itself mediate a self-interpretive process. Importantly, this self-interpretation
entails a basic self-acceptance. Furthermore, this self-acceptance is
an acceptance of God, whose self-communication is the condition
for the possibility of our deliberation and action.
Rendering the fundamental option as a process of selfunderstanding that is embodied in ones actions and relations tempers the voluntarism of the fundamental option and species the
continuity of the persons identity in her actions. It shares with narrative and virtue ethics an emphasis on the persons formation in
practices and in her social relations amidst given objective realities. Indeed, Stanley Hauerwas argues that at most, agency names
the skills that enable us to make our own the things that happen
to us which includes decisions we made when we thought we
knew what we were doing but in retrospect seem more like something that happened to us.32 Hauerwas recognizes that the moral
meaning of a particular act or decision is not temporally located
or conned the person wakes up to her decisions. Moral understanding and decisions have as much to do with retrospective
reection (and repentance!) as they do with prospective deliberation
(because we cannot and do not always deliberate before choosing,
because we cannot foresee all the consequences of our acting, etc.)
Other ethicists, philosophical and religious, stress the importance
of practices in the formation of the self. Martha Nussbaum urges
a therapy of desire that frees the soul from false and tyrannous
socio-political inuences. Others adopt the discourse of virtue to
31
32
Rahner, GuiltResponsibilityPunishment Within the View of Catholic Theology,

206.
Stanley Hauerwas, Agency: Going Forward by Looking Back, in Christian Ethics: Problems
and Prospects, eds., Lisa Sowle Cahill and James F. Childress (Cleveland, oh: Pilgrim, 1996),
191. Hauerwas states that morally our lives are more properly constituted by retrospective
rather than prospective judgments, 185.
181
counter the abstract rationalism of some (e.g., Kantian) forms of

ethics; habituation in the virtues counters disinterested legalism
with a richer dispositional ethics.
Against Rahners use of the fundamental option to specify the
relation between identity and action, these narrative and virtue
approaches seem to deal more adequately with the concrete and
socio-political dimensions of the moral life and their inuence on
identity. Relatedly, by eschewing any talk of transcendental conditions for acting, they also provide what may be a more palatable
picture of moral change and development. Hauerwas construes
identity in terms of the life and practice of the church; his position
is one of internal realism. The truth of Christian ethics is validated
within the Christian community and not by appeal to metaphysics
or to human nature. Integrity here would mean consistency or delity to the communitys dening characteristics. Nussbaum looks
to human capacities and needs to reform reason and desire such
that the truths needed to correct errors of belief are to be found
within our human condition, rather than beyond or outside our
condition.33 In different ways, then, these positions truncate selftranscendence.
Whatever its difculties, Rahners account captures the radical
reexivity of human consciousness (our self-awareness unfolds in
an awareness of the divine and in the world with others) and
the radical reexivity of human action (in our actions we take up
some relation to the condition for the possibility of our acting).
There are resources in Rahner that allow his concept of the fundamental option to be rendered moral hermeneutically; recall that
the person is a symbol because she comes to be herself by expressing herself.34 A hermeneutical reading of the fundamental option
is faithful to Rahner and can respond to some of the criticisms that
are offered against it. The self works out her self-relation and her
relation to God in her concrete actions and relations with others.
33
34
Maria Antonaccio, Contemporary Forms of Askesis and the Return of Spiritual Exercises, Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 18 (1998), 6992, 7980. Martha Nussbaum, The
Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton, nj: Princeton University
Press, 1994).
See Andrew Tallon, Rahner and Personalization, Philosophy Today 14 (1970), 4456. For
a lengthier discussion see Andrew Tallon, Personal Becoming, Thomist 43 (1979), 1177,
especially 14977.
182
The embodied and temporal qualities of agency are stressed such

that the self always acts within a history of free, self-constituting acts
yet her relations and her freedom remain open to determination.
Because the self understands herself in and through her acting, her
self-relation is not severed from its material social and historical
conditions. In fact, this hermeneutical approach helps us to think
about the relation between an agents intentions and the concrete
actions and relations that are to embody them.
This approach markedly contrasts the cult of self-creation that
Chapter One described. Our capacities to fashion new selves
through technology and psycho-pharmacology tempts us to believe
that persons can adopt and discard new identities at will. Because
some of these technologies increase our capacities to compartmentalize our lives, they also tempt us to believe that some of our actions
and relations do not impinge on other parts of our lives or do not
count at all. Sherry Turkles exploration of cyber-activities like
MUD-rape illustrates this point; by understanding what the MUDrapist does as a game in which no one gets hurt, we cut short
moral reection on why ones sexual desire plays with that particular expression of power over another, or conversely how ones
desire for power is expressing itself in sexual acts or acts of anger.
What is going on in the life of the MUD-rapist that prompts such
an act? How else is his or her sexuality expressing itself ? In what
other ways is that person grasping for power?
Cornells argument for the decriminalization of prostitution also
shows the difculty of maintaining that ones acts and relations
simply are what one understands them to be. Cornell argues that
a liberal society must protect freedom of conscience, by which
she means the freedom of a person to claim herself as the selfauthenticating source of what the good life is for her.35 Cornell admits that our (sexual) self-representation does not start from scratch,
so we cannot be fully the source of our own values. But we should
be politically recognized as if we were. What kind of regulation,
then, is appropriate when a woman insists that she is involved in
the self-representation of her sexuality by becoming a porn worker
and/or prostitute? What does it mean for a feminist to advocate
35
Cornell, At the Heart of Freedom, 3738.
183
that the state should save a woman from herself ?36 After all, some
prostitutes argue that they only sell part of themselves for a period
of time. Even if this understanding of their profession is partly the
result of having been sexually abused, prostitutes should decide for
themselves the meaning of their prostitution. This is a matter of
personal responsibility.
Here again, substantive moral reection is cut short by an impoverished understanding of freedom. It separates the prostitutes
decision about the meaning of her prostitution from the social,
political, and cultural circumstances and effects that surround it.
Granted, Cornell claims that our immersion in a world is why we
individuate, and that self-representation is a lifelong process we negotiate relationally. But the fact that our (sexual) self-representation
does not start from scratch is more important than she recognizes.
The self that Cornell describes negotiates her immersion with a
will that is somehow detached from the conditions of willing, conditions that are political in character. On what grounds can the
person reect critically on the materials that fund and direct her
own self-representation, that move her will and desire in intimate
relation to her self-understanding?
We can address these matters more adequately by appeal to a
hermeneutical account of self-relation and the moral good of embodied integrity. With those who compartmentalize and discount
certain actions (What goes on in Cancun stays in Cancun), a
hermeneutical approach recognizes that some actions depart from
our usual behavior. We can do things in which we do not recognize ourselves; at least we might reject certain descriptions of
the acts in favor of others, which may be more true, or may be
more palatable to our self-understanding (e.g., a prostitute only
sells part of herself for a period of time). But a hermeneutical approach sets these in the context of a history of freedom, asks after
the needs, and failings, and aspirations that prompt even isolated
and uncharacteristic deeds, and asks how these needs, failings, and
aspirations are shaped by ones socio-historical context. The moral
good of embodied integrity provides an ideal that directs moral reection. It counters the voluntarism and subjectivism of the cult of
36
Ibid., 47.
184
self-creation by prompting us to ask how our concrete actions and

relations are ordered to the diverse goods that characterize human
life. Here again, a conceptual framework of being can fund reection on what sorts of actions are ordered to the self s ourishing,
precisely because such reection is inescapably indebted to (but not
exhausted by) social consensus and practices, shared meanings and
values, collective experience and insight.
Moral actions are relevant to self love because in them we posit
and negotiate our relations to self, others, God, the natural world.
Beverly Harrison is right to proclaim the awesome power of acts
of love or lovelessness to build up or destroy others. A contemporary ethics of self love must provide a way to identify the kinds of
actions and relations by which we promote our authentic good. I
have done this with the love command and the good of integrity.
Of course, ethics that specify our authentic good in too static or
navely naturalistic terms, or by an uncritical promotion of convention are inadequate and even dangerous. A hermeneutical account
of self-relation notes the provisionality of accounts of the human
good without lapsing into moral relativism. A Christian ethical perspective asks and endeavors to articulate the truth about human
beings as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. And it depicts and fosters
the dispositions and practices that t the life of one who becomes a
new creation in Christ. So the principle of accretion does more
than address the voluntarism of Rahners fundamental option. It
helps us to consider how the choices we make to pursue or violate
particular goods in our acting build up or destroy ourselves, our
neighbors, and the world.
the irrelevance of moral actions
A greater emphasis on concrete acts and relations involves certain
risks. It courts scrupulosity and legalism. It can prompt on the
one hand a self-righteousness that is blind to ones failings and
moral callousness and is harmful to others. It can prompt, on the
other hand, a despair that faithlessly neglects ones gifts and Gods
blessings. Thus it is important to reect on the irrelevance of moral
actions in an ethics of self love.
185
Paul Ramsey argues that self love is paradigmatic for neighbor

love because of its constancy. On Ramseys account persons love
themselves and remain steadfast in their self love quite apart from
whether they merit that love. Common ideas of self love as selfesteem or other largely psychological denitions of self love capture
Ramseys point not as an indictment but as an exhortation. Persons
need to accept their limitations, even embrace and love their aws
in order to love themselves. So some argue (as Nietzsche did and as
some postmodernists do) that we need to jettison ethics altogether.
Others insist that we formulate ethics that meet the principle of
minimal psychological realism. Owen Flanagan formulates this
principle as an injunction: make sure when constructing a moral
theory or projecting a moral ideal that the character, decision processing, and behavior prescribed are possible, or are perceived to
be possible for creatures like us.37 For Flanagan, psychological
realism leads to these exhilarating and liberating conclusions:
that there is no single idea of moral personhood but rather varieties of morally good personalities; that high degrees of and virtuosity in reectiveness or self-understanding need not accompany
moral goodness, mental health or happiness and may actually obstruct them; and that our radical plasticity in this regard provides
ever present opportunities for change, growth, and improvement
while cautioning against over condence about our prospects and
intolerance toward others.38
Christian ethics offers a psychological realism that can yield similar conclusions. Despite the fact that some critics fault Christian
ethics for mongering guilt through systems of reward and punishment or oppressive and suffocating pictures of morality, it not only
describes the persons deliverance from an uneasy conscience, from
sin, it proclaims the good news which can effect that deliverance.
St. Paul writes of our three-fold freedom from the law, the esh,
and sin. John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and H. Richard Niebuhr
each describe the transformation of the persons way of being in
the world through faith. Calvin argued that faith transforms our
experience of God from a God of wrath to one of graciousness.
37
38
Owen Flanagan, Varieties of Moral Personality: Ethics and Psychological Realism (Cambridge,
ma and London: Harvard University Press, 1991), 32.
Ibid., 33536.
186
Similarly, Niebuhr argues that the human problem is this: how

can we interpret all actions upon us, especially the decisive action
by which we are, and all things are, by which we are destroyed and
all things are destroyed, as divine actions, as actions of afrmation
and reafrmation rather than as actions of animosity or of indifference?39 Christians understand themselves and the world in light
of Gods afrmation of creation, particularly as this is manifested
in Jesus Christ.
A hermeneutical account of self-relation recognizes the connections among moral anthropology, moral ontology, and axiologies.
It can explain how explicit faith offers more than a particular perspective for the agent; it re-constitutes the conditions for her acting.
But it does this by disclosing the limits of agency. Tillich is instructive on this point, for he suggests that we are affected positively in
our religious and moral being by realities which are not produced
or deserved by us. Good things happen. People do right by one
another and themselves. We can, too. We are gifted with and by
others, in intimate relations and in anonymous, mundane encounters in check-out lines, in literature, and in art. The dog wags its
tail when we enter the room. The friend catches our eyes and what
is unspoken is deeply understood. Our acts of love are not our own
creation, but a gift whereby we overcome our self-seclusion and
participate in another, whereby we afrm being. We actualize ourselves in love for something other. Tillich speaks of these moments
as common grace. This common grace operates in all realms and
relations of life. As grace, it is independent of any merit and cannot
be produced or willed. This grace permeates life; it is experienced
whenever one loves, regardless of the object of that love (another
person, an idea, a thing) and regardless of the quality of love which
dominates (philia, eros, agape). This love reunites being with being,
and, to the extent that it does so, fullls the moral imperative. This
reunion is given and can be lost. Indeed, Tillich insists that it will
be lost. Its character as grace may be forgotten, its seriousness may
be eclipsed or trivialized. We can forget that our love is a gift, a
grace which grasps us and reunites us with the object of our love;
we can think mistakenly that we will and control such participation.
39
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self (San Francisco, ca: HarperSanFrancisco, 1963),
175.
187
Because we inevitably overlook this common grace, our relations

become sites of struggle we feel the pain of separation from those
with whom we seek union. We feel divided within ourselves. We
become problems to ourselves. Tillich argues that both the demand
of essential being and the norms which ones culture formulates,
bequeaths, and modies tend to be expressed in laws. He formulates the persons experience of the demand of essential being in
the concept of conscience. The conscience, however, witnesses to
this unconditional, absolute demand through the cultural contents
which tradition and authority provide. When the law is internalized, it creates conscience and, according to Tillich, the feeling of
guilt. Guilt is inevitable because the law is not able to create its
own fulllment.40 When grace is experienced and operative, the
law ceases to be a law, for one need not struggle to give what the
law commands. But when grace is lost, the law acquires its commanding character. It reveals the persons separation from essential being and the persons impotence to overcome this separation.
Because one realizes painfully that one is not what one should be
and is incapable of becoming so, the law creates anxiety and guilt
and despair. According to Tillich, this suffering under the moral
law nally drives us to the question of the meaning of our existence
in the light of the unconditional moral command which cuts into
our nite and estranged predicament.41
This human questioning receives its answer in the Christian
message. The response of Christianity is the message that a new
reality has appeared with the coming of the Christ, a power of being
in which we can participate, and out of which true thought and right
action can follow, however fragmentarily.42 The Christian message
is the message of grace; it forgives sins and offers the fulllment of
reunited being. Those who are grasped by the New Being receive a
special grace, one which conquers the painful loss of common grace
and infuses the person with love. The fulllment which this grace
effects is fragmentary and paradoxical. It is fragmentary because it
occurs within the ambiguities of actual life. It is paradoxical because
it accepts the unacceptable. The paradox of forgiveness must be
40
41
42
Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959), 142.
Paul Tillich, Morality and Beyond (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1963), 62.
Tillich, Theology of Culture, 145.
188
accepted by the person; she must accept that she has been accepted.
This is no easy task. Indeed, this acceptance is itself the work of
grace. The good, transmoral conscience consists in the acceptance of the bad,
moral conscience, which is unavoidable whenever decisions are made
and acts are performed.43
When the person accepts that she has been accepted in spite
of the fact that she is unacceptable, she transcends her guilty
conscience and experiences what Tillich calls the transmoral conscience. According to Tillich, grace unites two elements: the overcoming of guilt and the overcoming of estrangement.44 Only grace
can forgive one of the guilty failure to obey the law and only grace
can fulll the law; hence, grace liberates one from the convicting
power of the law. A conscience may be called transmoral if it
judges not in obedience to a moral law, but according to its participation in a reality that transcends the sphere of moral commands.
A transmoral conscience does not deny the moral realm, but is
driven beyond it by the unbearable tensions of the sphere of the
law.45 There is in Tillich no perfectionist motif. The transmoral,
or joyful, conscience allows the person to look at her failings and
her conicts without denying them or despairing over them. Thus,
the transmoral conscience does not produce an anti-nomian lawlessness, but genuine freedom.
The transmoral conscience reveals the limits of moral actions.
Moral self-discipline and habits will produce moral perfection although one remains aware that they cannot remove the imperfection which is implied in mans existential situation, his estrangement
from his true being.46 The person cannot save herself. And while
the ambiguities of the moral life result from this religious problem
of estrangement, progress in the moral life does not resolve the
religious problem. For Tillich there is reunion with the eternal
Ground of our being without right action on our part, without
our being good people, or the people of good will.47 Self love is
a moral problem that arises out of a religious predicament. Thus,
right self love is a moral obligation that nds both its possibility
and its limits in a religious solution, grace. This means that right
43
46
47
44 Ibid., 142.
45 Tillich, Morality and Beyond, 77.
Ibid., 80.
Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 75.
Tillich, Morality and Beyond, 14.
189
self love is not nally equivalent to being a morally good person.

As both Ramsey and Outka noted in their treatments of self love,
we must surrender our moral goodness as an instrument of selfjustication, as a source of complacency or sloth, as a rod with
which to beat ourselves. This surrender frees us for a proper moral
seriousness.
But there are difculties with Tillichs construal of conscience
as the silent voice through which we apprehend the demand
of essential being. It renders conscience apart from the concrete
social and historical situations in which we recognize that things
are not as they should be. Sin threatens to become only existential
malaise.48 We can specify more adequately the irrelevance of moral
actions. They are irrelevant in three ways. First, our moral actions
are irrelevant to right self love because they do not merit or earn
salvation. They do not merit, but they do matter. In them we take
up a relation to real goods, to ourselves, to one another, to God. The
positive duty of self love is not the direct pursuit of moral goodness
or only the love of God and neighbor. Responsible and faithful
and joyous participation in the goods of this world are required as
responses to God, who gives them graciously.
Second, our moral actions are irrelevant because they are provisional. They accomplish or transact something denite but in just
this way they propel us forward into what is open and unknown.
Their moral meaning can be described (e.g., as disloyalty but not
treachery) with some accuracy, and they can give a more or less reliable reading of how the person stands in relation to herself, others,
God. But their religious signicance is hidden in the counsel of
God.
Third, our moral actions are irrelevant because of the commensurability of self love and love for God. Right self love is really about
a deeply intimate, particular, and personal relation with God. This
means that the descriptions and judgments that are the stock in
trade of (Christian) ethics are abstract and incomplete when they
are isolated from the history or story of this relation of love. Moral
acts may be intelligible in properly ethical terms; Christian ethics
can describe the moral character of a given act or relation as it
48
Carter Heyward, Heterosexist Theology: Being Above it All, Journal of Feminist Studies
in Religion 3 (1987), 2938.
190
ts in the personal history of an agent and as a complex event

in the agents broader historical, cultural, and political situation.
And, inasmuch as these descriptions identify and articulate how a
given act or relation is or is not ordered to objective goods, they
can be true. So the point I am making differs from moral subjectivism, which suggests that the person determines for herself the
moral meaning of her acts and relations. It also differs from the
intuitionism of Tillichs account of conscience as the silent voice
of essential being. The truth of moral realism is a glimmer, a sight
in a mirror, dimly. (I Cor. 13:12) And the call of that silent voice
is a call to a relation that ethics can help us to understand and
enter more resolutely and well. But these moral descriptions are
only part, however crucial, of what is essentially a love story. In this
love story the ethical intelligibility of our moral acts and relations is
fullled and surpassed by understanding, and the moral knowledge
ethics provides is fullled and surpassed by wisdom. As Psalm 51
asks, Teach me wisdom in my secret heart. (Ps. 51:6) Here we
come to see the incompleteness of our morally proper acts and
relations and the gratuity of whatever goodness inheres in them.
Here we come to see the full horror and gravity of our sins and indiscretions. Here we experience the freedom of being judged justly
and the utter gratuity of Gods mercy. Here we recognize ourselves
before God, and when this love story reaches its climax we will
know fully as we have been known (1 Cor. 13:12).
This three-fold irrelevance of moral acts suggests the limits of
an ethical response to the problem of self love. Indeed, it suggests
the limits of the moral enterprise altogether. But just so, we can
appreciate the importance and promise of ethics. What transpires
between God and the person can prompt understanding and love
of the law: How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than
honey to my mouth! Through your precepts I get understanding;
therefore I hate every false way (Ps. 119:10304). So let us consider
the role of moral norms and moral change.
m oral acts, moral norms and moral change
Any ethics confronts the ongoing task of navigating the tension
between absolutism and relativism. In ethical theory, this tension
often expresses itself in an ethicists choice of and arguments about
191
models or methods. H. Richard Niebuhrs important work The

Responsible Self described three different models for ethics, each of
which entails a picture of the moral agent. Deontological theories
picture the person as man-the-citizen. We come to self-awareness
if not to self-existence in the midst of mores, of commandments
and rules, Thou shalts and Thou shalt nots, of directions and permissions.49 For some the republic that is to be governed is mostly
that of the multifarious self, a being which is a multiplicity seeking
unity or a unity diversifying itself into many roles. It is a congeries
of many hungers and urges, of fears and angers and loves that is
contained somehow within one body and one mind, which are two,
yet united.50 Teleological theories picture the person as the being
who makes himself though he does not do so by himself for the
sake of a desired end. . . . We act toward an end or are purposive;
and, we act upon ourselves, we fashion ourselves, we give ourselves
a form.51 While teleological theories differ regarding what the human end is and how and why it is to be sought, these theories agree
that human freedom appears as the necessity of self-determination
by nal causes and practical reason appears as the persons ability to distinguish between inclusive and exclusive, immediate and
ultimate ends and to relate means to ends.52 Neibuhrs own theory
is an alternative to deontological and teleological theories; it is a
catechontic or relational-responsibility theory. What is implicit in
the idea of responsibility is the image of man-the-answerer, man
engaged in dialogue, man acting in response to action upon him.53
It pictures the person as a responder. Here the primary question is
not By what norm ought I to live? or What good should I seek
but rather What is the tting action?
A number of Protestant and Catholic ethicists have adopted the
relational-responsibility model Niebuhr articulated. A relationalresponsibility approach nicely places the moral agent as one seeking
goods and states of affairs and as one living under the law and
with others. The tension between deontological and teleological
moments in ethics must be sustained and rendered productive,
especially if a relational-responsibility approach is to avoid two
pitfalls: allowing the self s encounter with (and constitution by)
the other to displace the self s goods and its duties to itself, and
49
52
Niebuhr, The Responsible Self, 52.

53 Ibid., 57.
Ibid., 51.
50
Ibid., 54.
51
Ibid., 49.
192
allowing the self to instrumentalize the other in the pursuit of her

own realization.
A hermeneutical account of self-relation has afnities with
relational-responsibility theories, especially since it construes the relation between moral consciousness and moral agency in a way that
negotiates the tension between absolutism and relativism. Moral
consciousness is socially and linguistically mediated even as moral
consciousness is itself the medium of our encounters with the reality of value (or put differently the commensurability of being and
goodness). This dense ux of cognition and evaluation is the condition for moral agency. But, as I have argued here, moral acting can
re-constitute these conditions. Moral identity arises in the dialectical relation of self-understanding and self-enactment in the world
and in relation to others. This is why the moral good of integrity
consists in knowing and accepting the truth about ourselves and
embodying this in actions and relations that realize love for God
and neighbor.
In what, then, does moral change consist? And how is the self s
moral determination related to moral norms? In order to grasp the
distinctiveness and the contributions of a hermeneutical approach
to self-relation, let us return rst to the arguments of Rahner and
Tillich.
Rahner and moral change
In order to understand Rahners account of moral change, let us
gain some purchase on how he construes moral acts themselves.
Rahner argues that moral acts consist in internal and external
acts. The external act does not follow from an internal action, as
though the categorical, material performance were subordinate to
the persons intention or volition. Rather, the internal act in some
manner depends upon the external act in order to be achieved.54
For Rahner,
true Christian morality is therefore a balance between the internal intention of the heart and the external act, a balance which always goes from
one to the other without resting or taking root in either one of them. It
54
Rahner, Some Thoughts on A Good Intention, Theological Investigations, vol. 3, 106.
193
does not rest in interiority, for this can be extremely thin and empty and
deceptive if it does not continually inform itself anew and powerfully
into very real deeds. It does not rest in external deeds either as if ultimately and after all only such sturdy, honest and solid things mattered
and not just feelings and moods for all good works, no matter
how good and right and benecial they may be to ones neighbour, can
also be empty of what alone endows them with true saving value, viz.
the believing, hoping love of the heart. This love they cannot carry on
their own; this love cannot completely enter into them, for it reaches out
beyond every concrete act to the innity of God in himself.55
Although the internal act (love) requires the external act, it cannot
be captured or conned by the external act. Because love gives the
external act its saving value, Rahner stresses the need for a good
intention. Rahner calls a good intention the practising effort to
establish more and more perfectly the necessary unity between
internal and external action, a unity always remaining a task to
be achieved anew. This unity must be established in such a way
as to make the external act always more concrete and perfect in
this unity, by making it spring in ever-increasing purity and directness from the correct internal attitude and holding it, as it were, in
its origin.56 Of course actions can be prompted by multiple motives, and these can be contradictory and even unreexively hidden
from the person who has them. The moral dignity of a motive is
co-determined by its formal object, i.e. by what is intentionally and
properly meant and willed, loved and sought. For a love is always
worth as much as what is loved.57 So it is not sufcient simply to
announce to oneself that a particular intention motivates an act; it
is a moral duty to purify and direct intentions and motives through
prayer, reection, and composure.
But, then, what role do moral norms play? Rahner develops a dialectic between essential ethics (which pertain to the immutable nature of the person and the universal, objective norms which follow
from it) and existential ethics (which concern the mutable, unique
55
56
57
Ibid., 109.
Ibid. Rahner distinguishes actual and virtual intentions; an actual intention, for example,
can be a mothers intention to wash her babys diapers; the virtual intention of this
act, presumably, is the love which prompts her to care for the baby. For an act to be
supernaturally meritorious a virtual intention or motive of faith is sufcient. See ibid.,
11112.
Ibid., 121.
194
engagement of personhood).58 The difference may be illustrated

as that between the norm Do not kill and the norm Do not kill
non-combatants in warfare. According to Rahner, essential and
existential ethics may conict. What holds them together in tension
is his understanding of human freedom. The individual possesses
the capacity to discern Gods will for herself, and she exercises her
freedom neither irrespective of nor in complete accordance with
material moral norms and laws. The goal of growth in perfection is
simultaneously the goal of self-realization by the transcendent individual within given objective realities. Because freedom has both
transcendental and categorical dimensions, moral norms point to
and express transcendent realities yet describe created structures.
It follows that moral norms are lower than, and at the use of the
person. 59 Because moral growth does accord with universal moral
norms Rahner is free to argue for what supercially seems to be
a variety of situation ethics.60 At the same time, material norms
cannot be disregarded, for they point to a transcendent, religious
reality which cannot be violated without impinging on the person,
on the persons relation to God. The person is bound to act in such
a way to preserve and promote ones personhood, to overcome or
lessen in an upward direction the difference which belongs to his
essence between what he is and what he can be and should be.61
58
59
60
61
For more on Rahners distinction between essential and existential ethics, see his The
Dynamic Element in the Church (London: Burns and Oates, 1964), 84170. For secondary
literature on essential and existential ethics, see William A. Wallace, Existential Ethics: a
Thomistic Appraisal, Thomist 27 (1963), 493515; James F. Bresnahan, Rahners Ethics:
Critical Natural Law in Relation to Contemporary Ethical Methodology, Journal of
Religion 56 (1976), 3660; Ronald Modras, Implications of Rahners Anthropology for
Fundamental Moral Theology, Horizons 12 (Spring 1985), 7090. Bresnahan and Modras
both consider Rahners work with respect to a reformulated natural law. Bresnahan does
so more adeptly. Particularly interesting is his consideration of the translation of ought
to is and vice versa. See Rahners Ethics, 5354. Modras argues that concrete moral
norms are historically and culturally conditioned and therefore are not universal and
absolute.
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: an Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William
Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 409.
Situation ethics were quite popular in Germany during the 1950s, the time when Rahner
wrote On the Question of a Formal Existential Ethics. He charged that severe situation
ethics amount to a massive nominalism, but that situation ethics do admit of a truth,
namely that the person, and thus his moral action, is not simply a particular instance of
a universal.
Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith, 409.
195
The problem becomes, then, whether or not and which actions

increase human freedom and which contradict it.
Moreover, in the dialectic between essential and existential
ethics, Rahner suggests that each situation demands something
very particular and unique from the person confronted with that
situation. This single moral choice is not reducible to the application of a material norm. Neither, however, can it conict with the
transcendent reality to which the norm points (which of course,
is something quite different from the question of whether it can
conict with the norm itself ). That for which the norm is a referent and sometimes inadequate expression is the inviolability of
the person. Although Rahner maintains that a concrete imperative
cannot violate universal moral norms, he nevertheless asks whether
the moral obligation which pertains in a given situation might exceed simple obedience to an imperative.62 The concrete situation
cannot be analyzed into nite, general propositions. Particularly in
a situation wherein several possible decisions are morally permissible, Rahner argues that there must be one action which alone is
morally obligatory and binding. For Rahner the concrete moral
act is more than just the realization of a universal idea happening
here and now in the form of a case. The act is a reality which has a
positive and substantial property which is basically and absolutely
unique.63 Rahner speaks of this positive element within the moral
act as the coming to light or the being-thus of the ineffable moral
individuality of the person. Thus, the decision made within a range
of permissible courses of action is not arbitrary and neutral but is
the absolutely binding will of God.64 The substantial nature of the
person must achieve itself in positive, unique, concrete, individual
62
63
Rahner, Formal Existential Ethics, 222. Consider also the following: Maturity is, rst
of all, the courage and the resolve to make decisions and to take responsibility for them even
if they cannot be legitimized any longer by universal and universally accepted norms
(Rahner, The Mature Christian, Theological Investigations, vol. 21, 119). Maturity also
entails the readiness to inform oneself of norms which apply to a particular situation,
to appreciate their complexity and to weigh them. Maturity also involves thoughtful
consideration of church teachings and laws, an appreciation for distinctions between
teaching and explanations and a knowledge of the hierarchy of truths in the Catholic faith.
Moreover, maturity entails a willingness to criticize oneself. Maturity means courage for
greater freedom and this freedom means greater responsibility. Courage is anything but
mere whim and subjective capriciousness. Maturity in its authentic form makes human
beings lonely in a certain sense, (ibid., 128).
64 Ibid., 227.
Rahner, Formal Existential Ethics, 225.
196
decisions; it is installed in the non-derivable qualitative properties

of the individual act.65 These acts are more than mere cases. There
is a positive ethical reality which is untranslatable into material universal ethics. So there must be a formal existential ethics, that is, an
ethics that treats the formal structures of perceiving such existential
ethical realities.
Life . . . is made up of a series of situations (in the main, dependent on one another up to a certain point), a series of tasks, each
of which is different from the other with its own particular place
in the course of life as a whole, each of them bringing with them a
certain characteristic and ideal recipe as to how they ought to be
mastered, and each of them being mastered in this or that way or
not being fullled at all.66 Situations encompass the vital statistics
of the person, external circumstances not completely under ones
control, including intervention by God through grace, and earlier
situations which always co-determine following situations, not only
with respect to the manner in which one experienced the prescinding situation but simply its having been experienced at all. Thus,
what each situation demands of the person is also co-determined
by the person.
Rahner distinguishes growth in moral sanctity from the mere acquisition of virtues. The facility for a virtuous act does not exhaust
what is morally demanded in a given situation. In other words,
Christian perfection is not collapsible with virtuous habituation.
Rahner asserts this simply because of the potential for moral acts,
which in the process of acquiring a virtue were spontaneous and
genuine moral acts, to become instinctive reactions which lack what
Rahner terms the moral nucleus, the engagement of the moral
agent. Acquired virtues do not of themselves indicate greater perfection. They free one from marshaling ones energy to respond to
particular pressures of the moral life in favor of attending to other
moral tasks; so the acquisition of virtues is the acquisition of the
possibility for greater perfection.
Rahner, then, understands moral change as the possibility that
the perfect person and the beginner perform the same moral act
65
66
See ibid., 228 footnote 3.

Rahner, Reections on the Problem of the Gradual Ascent to Christian Perfection,
197
differently, that is, the possibility that a moral act may increase in intensity. Hence we must distinguish two quite different dimensions
of intensity in the case of a human act: one of these is the measure
of the greater or lesser personal depth of an act, while the other
measures the intensity and density of the act on a particular personal level . . . [T]here is evidently a development of mans capacity
for an ever more total self-commitment by ever deeper personal
acts.67 In other words, acts may be distinguished with respect to
what each objectively demands from the person (e.g., the decision
not to tell a cashier he gave you too much change as compared
with the decision to terminate a loved ones life support systems);
and acts may be distinguished with respect to the existential depth
with which the agent exercises her freedom (e.g., the decision to
give alms may be done rather supercially or thoughtlessly or it
may involve a very conscious and concerted self-commitment to
the neighbor). The moral recipe of the situation, that which God
demands of the person in that situation, is something unique to the
agent and to the situation itself. This means that God has a will
for the individual, not apart from the universal call of holiness, but
the asymptotic approach to holiness as the self-realization of that
individual. Gods offer of Gods self-communication means that
every person is charged with the task of accomplishing his or her
personality. In this sense, though a universal call, it is a highly individualized endeavor. This unique and personal ideal applies to the
whole of the persons self-realization and to particular categorical
situations. Moreover, ones relationships and occupations, as various types of vocation, comprise both the means and the arena in
which the individual responds to the more fundamental vocation
to holiness; through both providence and discernment the person
travels his or her own pathway to perfection.
Here again we see the voluntarism that dogs Rahners moral
theology. His transcendental-categorical account of freedom permits him to argue that the moral signicance of an act exceeds the
act itself, that the morally binding character of a norm rises from
a transcendental reality that the norm may express inadequately,
that what God asks of the person in each moral situation is progress
67
Ibid.
198
in what God asks of the person as such, her self-disposal in love. At

each point, Rahners account directs moral attention to the persons
transcendental decision or choice and away from the categorical
acts, norms, and situations. Still, we should not overlook Rahners
insistence that true Christian morality is therefore a balance between the internal intention of the heart and the external act, a
balance which always goes from one to the other without resting
or taking root in either one of them. A hermeneutical approach
can develop this insight. Rahner suggests that a properly moral act
is characterized by a unity of the internal and external act, so that
the intention is pure and the external deed springs from and holds
the intention. In a hermeneutical approach this unity is a matter
of t. An intention expresses itself in better and worse fashion
in concrete acts (which can be interior acts by which we work on
our perceptions of others and our affections as well as exterior, observable acts). There are some acts that cannot t the intention
they are meant to carry and express. Recent terrorist attacks in
the United States on the World Trade Center and Pentagon contradicted the religious intentions of those who perpetrated them.
Ascertaining the t between intention and act requires reection
on circumstances, experience, social consensus, authoritative moral
sources, and moral exemplars. It also requires attention to the objective goods that constitute human ourishing. Tillichs account
of moral action affords some help on this point.
Tillich and moral change
Tillich constructs a structure of moral action that embodies both
the absolute and the relative, the static and the dynamic, the religious and the secular elements of ethical thought and moral experience.68 For Tillich there is no progress in the moral act as
such because what is demanded morally is not a state of affairs,
but a person. Morality concerns the actualization of the person
in community, the integration of the persons dimensions in a centeredness which is gained by participation in the New Being. Tillich
shifts moral attention away from particular springs of action to the
68
199
wholeness of the person and to community. Nonetheless, in order

to become a person, the self must make moral decisions of her own.
Because the moral act is a personal decision wherein the dimension
of spirit appears, it is formally absolute and immutable.
Tillich goes on to say,
But there are two kinds of progress in connection with the moral function,
the two kinds being those of ethical conduct and of educational level. Both
are cultural creations and open to the new. The ethical content of moral
action has progressed from primitive to mature cultures in terms of renement and breadth, although the moral act in which the person is created
is the same whatever content is actualized. . . . It is in the cultural element
within the moral act that progress takes place, not in the moral act itself.69
Progress in educational level refers to individual and collective

moral habituation. Such habituation can mature persons and
groups, but this progress does not belong to the moral act. Moral
habituation, clarity in moral reasoning, and the cultural content
given to the moral act do not diminish or condition the constitutive moral conditions of freedom and responsibility. The person is
free to deliberate and decide morally, but her very freedom sets
the ontological parameters of genuinely moral action. Morality is
rooted in being so moral reasoning ought to take the structures of
being into account. Some thinkers argue that Tillichs ethics verges
on intuitionism here.70 Because the moral aim is the actualization
of the person, which Tillich understands in terms of reunion with
essential being, the persons moral attention is shifted away from
the actual to the potential, to the dimensions of essential being.
Such a move resonates with some natural law approaches in ethics,
and natural law theory might offer resources with which one might
begin to translate the silent voice of essential being into some
69
70
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 195163), vol. 3,
33334.
The way in which my own account of self love presses beyond Tillichs position by arguing
that self love consists in a self-understanding mediated in the persons moral conduct can
offset such intuitionism because it claries the connection between moral being and our
thinking about it. See Donald R. Weisbaker, Paul Tillich on the Experiential Ground of
Religious Certainty, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 1:2 (1980), 3744; Mary A.
Stenger, Paul Tillichs Theory of Theological Norms and the Problems of Relativism
and Subjectivism, Journal of Religion 62 (1982), 35975, especially 36667; Richard Gregg,
The Experiential Center of Tillichs System, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
53 (1985), 25158.
200
practical directives for action. But to do so, one necessarily provides the moral act with cultural contents.
Thus, in order to understand moral change we must consider
the cultural creation of the content of the moral act. The ontological character of morality does not change, but the content of
morality can and should change because psychological and sociological processes construct moral systems. Cultures give expression and form to morality.71 Nonetheless, cultural relativity and the
persons freedom nd objective correlates in the structure of being.72 Thus Tillich balances the relativism of moral systems with
the objective and absolute source of the moral imperative. Indeed,
because Tillich understands culture as the whole of human selfinterpretation, the cultural content given to the moral act is a means
whereby persons and communities seek to understand themselves
and how they ought to live. Culture provides these contents on
the basis of collective human experience. The wisdom of this collective experience is embodied in tradition, laws, and authority.
Moreover, it is internalized in the individual persons conscience.
Tillich afrms the soundness of such a heritage; the wisdom which
constitutes ones moral universe provides a sound basis and rich
resources for the decisions which actual life demands. People need
such guidance for daily life.73 So culture provides continuity among
the persons moral decisions.
Tillich concedes that the command of the law may produce
obeisance in an institutionalized form (e.g., paying taxes) and in that
sense can produce moral action. But this obedience is a compromise
and does not manifest the true nature of the moral. Moreover,
because social laws and personal habits can effect action regardless
of what creative justice might demand in a particular situation, the
law provides moral motivation if morality becomes a thread within
the texture of premoral forces and motives.74 Still, logically and
psychologically, the law cannot motivate us to fulll it, it cannot
make us good.75
In order to account for moral motivation Tillich draws upon two
Greek ideas: knowledge and eros. Knowledge of the good, Tillich
71
72
See John McDargh, Theological Uses of Psychology: Retrospective and Prospective,

Horizons 12 (1985), 24764. See also Joseph E. Talley, Psychological Separation-Individuation and Spiritual Reunion, Journal of Psychology and Theology 8 (1980), 97106.
73 Ibid., 45.
74 Ibid., 56.
75 See ibid., 50.
201
notes, was thought to effect good action. The persons basic moral
problem was cognitive in character, and could be remedied by the
practice of philosophy. Tillich distinguishes the knowledge which
leads to action from a scientic, objective knowledge. It is, rather,
the knowledge of participation. For this reason,
knowledge of the character of wisdom cannot be considered as functioning
in one direction only, as the cause of moral action, because it is in itself
partly a result of moral action. Since one must be good in order to be
wise, goodness is not a consequence of wisdom. The Socratic assertion,
therefore, that knowledge creates virtue must be interpreted as knowledge
in which the whole person is involved (insight). That is, a cognitive act
which is united with a moral act can cause further moral acts (and further
cognition).76
Being precedes action (one cannot save oneself through ones good
works) and previous action also determines present being.77 Thus,
while the religious problem of estrangement cannot be overcome
through meritorious behavior, and while the participation which
does conquer estrangement remains fragmentary, free moral action
can contribute to moral maturity; knowing and acting are dynamically related because being and acting are dynamically related.
The second Greek notion which Tillich utilizes to make sense of
moral motivation is that of eros. Drawing on the process of therapeutic healing as an analogy for moral development, Tillich notes
that moral change is only partly an effect of insight and insight
is partly an effect of the moral will to be liberated.78 The Platonic
conception of eros discloses the nature of love in all its qualities: it is
the drive for reunion. The person is driven, attracted by the good
which is the goal or proper object of the moral command. The
good which is sought relativizes morality as a stage in the pursuit of
a good which transcends morality. Morality has a transmoral aim,
participation in the divine. The law, understood as the demand to
actualize our essential being cannot motivate us; but law, understood as our essential being (what Tillich calls the meaning of law
as structure) is an object of erotic longing, that toward which we
76
78
77 Ibid., 14.
Ibid., 58.
See ibid., 5859. Tillich employs psychoanalytic theory as well as therapeutic processes
to illustrate his understanding of sanctication, the healing process of salvation. See also
Tillich, Systematic Theology, passim.
202
are driven. This drive toward reunion is a gift, a grace, because it

is our longing for God, given to us by God.79
A moral act is not an act in obedience to an eternal law, human
or divine. It is the inner law of our true being, of our essential or
created nature which demands that we actualize what follows from
it. And an anti-moral act is not the transgression of one or several
precisely circumscribed commands, but an act that contradicts the
self-realization of the person as a person and drives toward disintegration.80 Despite the unconditional character of essential being
as a moral imperative, the particular moral imperatives which have
been formulated to guide action are relative and the material acts
which are adequate to this self-constitution do change.
Tillich eschews any simple application of law to particular situations. Because the experiential root of morality is the personto-person encounter, morality is a matter of justice, the acknowledgment of the other person as such, without the annihilation of
oneself as a person. Indeed, Tillich maintains that abstract norms
are applied in such a way as to eclipse the uniqueness of the concrete situation. Hence moral systems, just because of their intimate
connection with a cultural system, have the tendency to become
oppressive if the general cultural scheme changes. They tend to
produce moralism as an attitude.81 According to Tillich, each
particular moral decision is bound both by the demand of the universal law and the demand of the concrete situation. Only if both
of these demands are met and made effective for the situation can
justice be realized.82 Justice, however, could be understood as a
matter of external actions performed with cool objectivity; but the
moral imperative demands one be a person in a community of
persons, and, thus, that one be involved. So justice must be taken
into love, which includes yet transcends justice.
79
80
81
82

Ibid., 20. This suggests, as we saw in Rahner, that there can be a discrepancy between
the moral status of an act and its coherence with particular moral norms.
Tillich, Theology of Culture, 133. Tillich sometimes exhibits a strong resistance to systems
and institutions which, in his judgment, claim too much authority. This resistance has
been attributed to Tillichs encounter with the Third Reich, but also to his personal
history. See Melvin L. Vulgamore, Tillichs Erotic Solution, Encounter 45 (Summer
1984), 193212.
See Paul Tillich, Love, Power, and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), 15.
203
For love is both absolute and relative by its very nature. An unchanging
principle, it nevertheless always changes in its concrete application. It
listens to the particular situation. Abstract justice cannot do this; but
justice taken into love and becoming creative justice or agape can do so.
Agape acts in relation to the concrete demands of the situation its conditions, its possible consequences, the inner status of the people involved,
their hidden motives, their limiting complexes, and their unconscious
desires and anxieties.83
Tillich insists that love is not simply added to justice. Were this
the case, justice as such would be impossible. Rather, he develops
the idea of creative justice to express the union of justice and love
as the principle of morality. Love designates lifes drive toward
reunion with itself, and justice provides the norm that that which
is estranged should be reunited. Only love, however, can create the
participation which reunion requires. Thus, justice implies love.
Even as love fullls and realizes the justice which norms express,
it relativizes and may even contradict the norms themselves.84 Love
synthesizes the absolute and the relative, the demand of the universal law and the demand of the concrete situation. This creativity which love allows, indeed, which love demands, is necessary if
the person is to do what is morally demanded. Yet, recall that for
Tillich in existence the creation and fall coincide. Creativity is risky
business.85
Whichever side of a moral alternative might be chosen, however great the
risk in a bold decision may be, if it be a moral decision it is dependent only
on the pure ought to be of the moral imperative. And should anyone
be in doubt as to which of several possible acts conforms to the moral
imperative, he should be reminded that each of them might be justied in
a particular situation, but that whatever he chooses must be done with the
consciousness of standing under an unconditional imperative. The doubt
concerning the justice of a moral act does not contradict the certainty of
its ultimate seriousness.86
The risk of morality is not limited to decisions which do not conform

to traditional norms. Because such norms are contingent, even
decisions which cohere with them entail a certain risk. Accepting
83
84
Tillich, Morality and Beyond, 44. For more on agape, the ambiguity of law, and creative
justice see also Systematic Theology vol. 3, 4550 and 27175.
85 Ibid., 140.
86 Tillich, Morality and Beyond, 23.
Tillich, Theology of Culture, 145.
204
or trespassing traditional morals is spiritually justied only if done

with self-scrutiny, often in the pain of a split conscience, and with
the courage to decide even when the risk of error is involved.87
Both Tillich and Rahner reject rigid delity to principles and
both reject moral habituation as an adequate account of moral
change. Both also endorse in different ways the importance of
moral acts as ways we actualize our selves by installing our selves
(Rahner) and participating (Tillich) in the concrete. Each insists
on the one hand that the person realize a proper intention in a
suitable concrete form, what classical Christian ethics expressed
in the principle materia bene disposita, that the matter of an act
be well disposed to the intention it is to carry and embody. On
the other hand, Rahner and Tillich recognize that this may require acting that violates particular norms in order to do justice to
the real moral demand of a situation.
The moral meaning of acts
A contemporary account of self love should embrace the freedom
and the responsibility these arguments provide for the moral agent.
Yet it should avoid the voluntarism and intuitionism that dogs these
arguments, both of which lead to subjectivism. Rahner and Tillich
may also mask a form of legalism insofar as each insists that the
agent must discern the unique and absolutely binding obligation
hidden in the situation.88
In a hermeneutical account of self-relation the moral meaning
of an act does not reside in the act apart from the situation or
the agents intention. But neither is the act neutral material that
receives its moral status from her intention. Moral meaning is not
temporally located or conned. A person wakes up to her decisions,
re-interprets her past. Her moral acts constitute her like sacraments
of re-commitment or repentance or reection in response to others
and in relation to the goods at stake. These acts are events in which
her intentions, her motives, the external features of the situation,
and the others and goods involved all co-determine each other.
87
88
Ibid., 45.
Finnis makes this claim about proportionalism. I do not mean here to explore whether
he characterizes proportionalism rightly in this regard. See his Fundamentals of Ethics.
205
Moreover, this co-determination occurs in a personal history such

that the meaning of any particular act depends in part on other
acts of hers, and on social and historical consensus about kinds
of actions and the degree to which the concrete act is ordered to
human ourishing or not. Given the fact of sin, the murky depths of
human motivation, and the unpredictable effects of any course of
action, the moral meaning of any act is known ultimately in God. A
range of external or concrete acts can be hospitable to a particular
(set of ) intention(s). But because the idea of right self love requires
us to identify some acts or projects or relations as incompatible with
the self s authentic good, we need to determine the parameters of
this range. Because acting proceeds from knowing the good and
yields such knowledge we can do this through inductive reection
on experience and through trial and error. We also need to appeal
(albeit critically) to trustworthy communities and traditions, and to
commit all our ventures to the mercy of God.
I can now clarify the good of embodied integrity and its relation to continuity and change in a persons identity. Recall that for
Schweiker integrity results indirectly from the education of moral
sensibility through self-criticism (radical interpretation) as a condition for moral acting. Radical interpretation is the process wherein
moral identity arises and whereby moral change can occur. Recall
as well that because integrity is logically and ontologically prior
to the persons attempts to secure particular goods she may act
against these goods as part of maintaining commitments to the
moral project.
For a contemporary account of self love, it is important to highlight the temporal and embodied dimensions of identity by stressing
its constitution in acting. Moral change does involve the education
and transformation of moral sensibilities (perceptive and affective)
as conditions for changes in moral acting. But moral change also
occurs in acting. Moral progress and moral regress can occur preor extra-linguistically as the persons acting ramies in her experience of herself. The radically reexive character of moral acts
also accounts for the persons continuity in her acting. Her freedom has a history. Indeed, the experience of being convicted of
ones sin is simply a morning after experience one awakens to
her own misused freedom, becomes aware of what she has chosen
206
and done and been, all of which have led ineluctably to what she
at present is. We are, however, and happily, more than the sum
total of our acts. Our transcendence means that we can take up a
posture toward ourselves and toward the relations and contingent
factors that situate us. We are capable of reexive self-criticism, of
a moral self-transcendence. And in this active self-interpretation
we can accept ourselves in such a way as to accept Gods offer of
forgiveness. The person receives indirectly the good of embodied
integrity when she understands herself in light of, and endeavors
to make her acts and relations works of love for, God and neighbor.
Both Rahner and Tillich recognize in some measure the reexive character of moral acts. Rahner does this in the fundamental
option, and Tillich does this in his argument about participatory
knowledge as a form of moral motivation. Actions are reexive
because the self constitutes herself in her acting, and because in
acting she participates in or alienates herself from the goods at
stake in a given action. A contemporary theory of right self love
can recognize with Schweiker that the self appears in the space
between consciousness and acting. But the crucial issue is how the
self is to integrate her self-understanding and her acting. By what
activities can she purify her consciousness, recognize the truth and
overcome moral insensitivity? How can she express and embody
this truth in concrete acts and relations that are faithful to and
effective for it? This is the problem of right self love. Actions and
embodiment in general become important as sacraments for inner
attitudes and dispositions, even as the meaning of actions and of
embodiment cannot be grasped apart from these internal factors.
So, we cannot claim, as Finnis and Grisez do, that one may never
act against the goods that constitute human existence. But we need
to exercise caution and self-criticism in claiming that sometimes
one might have to act against them. Judgments about what kinds
of acts are or are not ordered to the self s authentic good will be
deeply personal and particular but not private. Given the self s
relations to others and to God, she will determine herself as she
negotiates these relations in the lifelong task of adjudicating her
interests and those of others. The fact that we can and do act at
odds with the beliefs and values and commitments we profess is a
given. But by construing this disparity as the problem of self love we
207
note both the need to evaluate concrete acts and relations through
which we take up our self-relation, and the need to accept, even
embrace, this disparity. Further, by recognizing the way features of
our contemporary situation exacerbate this disparity and enervate
us in the face of it we recoup some agency in response to them.
At this point we can grasp the importance of bringing hermeneutical theory to bear on conceptual frameworks of being in the service of moral anthropology. The reexive structure of consciousness
that hermeneutical theory contributes offsets the subjectivism and
intuitionism of Rahners and Tillichs arguments by emphasizing
cognitivism. Conceptual frameworks of being can remind us of the
reality of value, the moral import of our embodiment and our connections to the natural world. As heuristic devices these conceptual
frameworks can elicit and guide inductive reection on experience.
This means that in the self s moral creativity she meets the moral
constraints on it.
conclusi on
This chapter highlighted the fundamentally relational character of
moral reasoning and moral acting, as well as the dialectical tension
between being and doing. These insights into moral development
rene the idea of right self love insofar as they highlight the role of
interpretation in self-relation and relation to others.
The fundamental unity of religion and morality has lurked
throughout the preceding chapters, but Chapter Six will show explicitly that the unity of the religious and the moral in right self
love point to the connections between religion and morality. If this
chapter explores how we are to think about the moral life, Chapter
Six explores how we are to think about such thinking.
ch apter 6
Self love, religion, and morality
I began by noting how contemporary philosophical moral anthropologies truncate the self. This chapter explores the intimate
relation between the moral and religious dimensions of human existence. Here I argue that (1) theological (particularly Christian
ethical) discourse recovers and expresses this inter-relation and
(2) the religious relation to God relativizes morality, but religious
constructs must be subject to moral critique. A hermeneutical account of self-relation provides a way to address a number of important questions in ethics; by exploring the place of explicit faith in
right self love, we also learn something about the scope and specicity of Christian morality and ethics. This claries the contribution
Christian ethics makes to wider debates about the self and about
foundationalism in ethics, debates that, we saw in Chapter One,
re-cast and heighten the problem of self love.
Already I argued that formally or structurally speaking right self
love designates a form of self-relation that responds lovingly to the
divine self-offer and actualizes this response in love for neighbors.
The inexhaustible and happy particularity of persons shows itself
in the conceptual and practical resources that mediate self-relation
and relation to God, and in the material acts and relations in which
persons posit them. Explicit faith provides a set of conceptual resources and practices through which a person understands herself and the world. Are these resources one set alongside others?
Do they express and prompt relation to others and community
or do they contribute to moral subjectivism and/or intolerance?
Pursuing these questions will let me show not simply the helpfulness of Christian ethics over against secular offerings, but that
Christian ethical discourse is self-validating.
208
209
sel f-understandi ng i n morali ty and rel igion

Moralities and religions are socio-cultural and historical constructs
that express the moral and religious dimensions of the person.1
They are more or less discrete systems of reection on those dimensions. A hermeneutical approach to self-relation emphasizes
and claries the relation between these dimensions and their conceptualization in moralities and religions. It also emphasizes and
claries the distinction and relation between morality and religion.
It presses this question: do particular moral and religious claims
and practices adequately conceptualize the moral and religious dimensions of the person? This question is pertinent to self love in
two ways. If right self love is a morally proper form of self-relation,
the concepts and practices that express and posit the self must do so
appropriately if they are to be ordered to the self s good. Moreover,
they must express and orient the self s proper relation to her neighbors and the world; particular moralities and religions must not be
tyrannous.
These two demands center on contemporary debates about
moral realism and relativism and on contemporary experiences of
diversity, fragmentation, and, unhappily, violence and oppression,
ostensibly warranted by religious claims. These debates, experiences, and problems lead many to advocate moral subjectivism and
to regard religious commitments as private choices to be tolerated
and protected as such. A hermeneutical approach to self-relation
captures the insights of these experiences and debates but avoids
moral subjectivism and the privatization of religion. It places moral
and religious constructs in a mutually critical relation. It evaluates
moral claims and norms in relation to the objective values and
goods that constitute human existence. And in Christian ethics,
it evaluates them in light of the truth about the person as this
is revealed in Jesus Christ. A hermeneutical approach also evaluates religious claims and practices on these same grounds, and
according to criteria that are internal to particular traditions and
communities.
1
Some contemporary thinkers argue that religion is a modern construct and cannot be
predicated of the human as such. See Wayne Proudfoot, Religious Experience (Berkeley, ca:
University of California Press, 1985).
210
This chapter attempts to show all of this and, in doing so, to

demonstrate the promise of a hermeneutical account of self-relation
for reection on self love and for (Christian) ethics more generally. It
also endeavors to show the apologetic fruit Christian ethics bears for
the problem of self love. The chapter takes up these tasks by reading Rahner and Tillich hermeneutically. This reading reaps the
insights of their respective frameworks of being and avoids moral
subjectivism and the privatization of religion. It also deals more
adequately than Rahner and Tillich do with the moral connection
between the persons religious relation to God and the moral act
of self-constitution.
Let me turn to Rahner rst. His position is amenable to a
hermeneutical account of self-relation; such an account actually
claries the insights of Rahners transcendental Thomism in a way
that frees us from its voluntarism and sets moral talons into the
categorical dimension of freedom. According to Rahner, through
religion and morality the person reects on and thematizes the
transcendental and non-thematic orientation which she experiences. Moral acts have religious import. They do not merit or
earn salvation, but in her moral acts the person can express and
posit her self-understanding in such a way that her acts contribute
to and shape her more basic stance of faith. Rahner goes so far as
to say that salvation takes place non-thematically in the moral act.
According to Rahner there is only a logical but not a real distinction
between a moral and a salvic act. Wherever the person posits
a positively moral act in the full exercise of his free self-disposal,
this act is a positive supernatural salvic act in the actual economy
of salvation even when its a posteriori object and the explicitly given
a posteriori motive do not spring from the positive revelation of Gods
Word but are in this sense natural.2 Rahner makes quite a radical claim here the persons moral conduct can constitute a de
facto acceptance of Gods offer of self-communication, even if the
persons moral conduct lacks any thematic theistic reference. This
is the case for two reasons.
2
Karl Rahner, Reections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbor and the Love
of God, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 239. See Theological Investigations, vols. 114
(vols. 16, Baltimore, md: Helicon; vols. 710, New York: Herder and Herder; vols. 1114,
New York: Seabury; 19611976).
211
First, Rahner argues that Gods universal salvic will offers divinizing grace to everyone and thereby elevates the moral act. If
the self is both transcendental and categorical, how is subjectivity
divinized a priori? As Chapter Three noted, it is because God has
already given Gods self to the person as a constitutive element.3
According to Rahner, any action categorically mediates the persons self-presence, particularly in her knowledge and freedom.
Indeed, if the person is always already graced, her moral life falls
within the realm of Gods saving activity. A linear picture of justication and sanctication becomes inappropriate because the priority
of the divine self-offer makes the persons religious and moral activity irreducibly responsive. Moral rectitude is not simply an extrinsic
consequence of salvation any more than it is a precondition for it.4
Recall that for Rahner the persons transcendental orientation toward God provides a non-thematic knowledge of God. Because
God so offers Gods self to the person, this non-thematic knowledge of God constitutes a metaphysical reception of revelation. It
includes an element of (transcendental) revelation and possibility of faith which also gives such an act that sufcient character
of faith necessary for a moral act being a salvic act.5 When
the person posits a positive moral act she accepts the transcendental condition of possibility of this act even if the acceptance
happens without conscious reection and the object which mediates this moral decision is not necessarily grasped in a religious or
theist manner.6 In a hermeneutical account of self-relation this
non-thematic knowledge of God occurs in the orientation of consciousness itself. Here, too, when the person accepts herself in a
moral decision, she accepts the conditions for the possibility of her
acting.
Second, the religious and moral dimensions of the person connect in her sociality, and specically in the unity of love for God
and love for the neighbor. As Chapter Four showed, for Rahner the
3
4
5
6
Rahner develops this claim in terms of quasi-formal causality. See section three of
Chapter Three for a treatment of quasi-formal causality. See also Paul de Letter Divine
Quasi-Formal Causality, Irish Theological Quarterly 27 (1960), 22128.
Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: an Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans.
William Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 152.
Rahner, Unity of the Love of Neighbor and the Love of God, 239.
Rahner, Anonymous and Explicit Faith, Theological Investigations, vol. 16, 59.
212
primary act of love for God is love for the neighbor. Hence, one can
love God in a non-explicit manner when one loves ones neighbor.
This is because the subjects experience of himself and of the Thou
who encounters him, is one and the same experience under two different aspects, and that too not merely in its abstract formal nature,
but in its concrete reality as well, in the degree of success or failure
with which it is achieved, in its moral quality as an encounter with
the real self and with ones fellow in love or hatred.7 Love for God
and love for neighbor mutually condition one another. It is not the
case, argues Rahner, that love for the neighbor simply follows from
love for God as a secondary moral consequence. Nor is it the case
that ones dealings with the world and with others can be separated
from ones response to God. Indeed, the persons response to God is
actualized in such dealings. So the persons unique relation to God,
her lonely responsible task, nevertheless cannot be understood as
a private affair.
The force of Rahners position is two-fold. First, Rahner maintains that the religious and moral dimensions of the person should
be objectied appropriately. I indicated this in Chapter Five, under the discussion of internal and external acts. There I noted that
the external act is not an arbitrary concretization of a primary
internal act, but, rather, the internal acts constitutive medium.
Moral development consists in part in an increasing conformity
or suitability between the internal and external acts. The persons
religious activity ought also to correspond appropriately to the persons religious existence. Second, the elusive, inexhaustible depths
of the person as a moral and religious creature must be accepted
and embraced as such. The person is oriented toward absolute
mystery and is ultimately not at her full disposal. These two points
may seem to contradict one another. On the one hand Rahner argues that religion and morality must objectify the religious and the
moral as perfectly as possible. On the other hand, Rahner argues
that the person must surrender to and embrace the mystery that
seeks expression in morality and religion. But these two claims do
cohere. The appeal to mystery does not vitiate the task to objectify appropriately the religious and the moral. This is because for
7
Rahner, Experience of Self and Experience of God, Theological Investigations, vol. 13, 128.
213
Rahner religion does appropriately objectify the religious depths

of the person when it articulates the persons relation to mystery.
Similarly, because morality is the persons self-acceptance in her
free self-disposal toward the horizon of absolute mystery, when it
entails an abandon to mystery it objecties the moral dimensions
of human existence appropriately.
Christian ethics expresses this point by construing the Christian
life as a paradox in which the self gains itself by losing itself. Human
freedom is situated, yet open to further determination. It is ambiguous; it cannot be brought to reection completely. Freedom
therefore must surrender itself to God. This surrender is a venture
of trust that unfolds slowly in the experience of freedom itself. The
person is incapable of this surrender of freedom outside of Gods
prevenient grace. God has manifested this grace, this irrevocable
decision to liberate freedom, in Jesus. In personal love for God the
horizon and object of freedom are identical. Thus our freedom is
realized, we are realized, when we abandon ourselves to God. So
the claim that free self-actualization constitutes an act of faith or
unbelief is not at odds with a more traditional construal of faith as
trust in God. Faith, then, need not be conned to a discrete, explicit, and self-conscious act indeed, it cannot be so conned. The
totality of our free self-actualization is an act of faith or unbelief
the transcendental depths of categorical freedom mean that we
take up some stance in relation to Gods revelation, Gods offer
of salvation. This does not relativize explicit faith, for such faith
can bring the depths of our acceptance into our semi-conscious
self-understanding. Moreover, the faith posited by freedom has an
inescapably cognitive dimension. This means, for instance, that the
traditional distinction between des qua (faith by which we believe)
and des quae (faith which we believe) helps to make sense of explicit faith as a set of commitments (cognitive and affective) through
which persons understand themselves and the world and by which
their way of being in the world is transformed. A hermeneutical account of self-relation amplies these two points. If, as Paul
Ricoeur suggests, we invent in order to discover, the moral and
religious constructs through which persons and communities interpret themselves are relative without being irrelevant. Moreover,
the moral and religious acts by which a person enacts her relations
214
to God, self, and others ought to posit and embody as well as possible the love that should motivate and inform them. Yet, that love
means that such acts cannot be tokens of self-mastery. Because religious and moral constructs and acts are the constitutive media
of the self s various relations, the problem of self love captures the
importance of evaluating them morally under the norms of love for
God and neighbor. These constructs and acts can be evaluated with
respect to objective goods of human existence as well as internally
in terms of how adequately they express the self s dependence in
relation to the divine and to others.
Tillich also maintains that the person expresses her religious
depths in social and historical constructs. Indeed, for Tillich, religion is essentially a matter of self-understanding. Tillich broadly
denes religion as the state of being ultimately concerned; when
this concern has something nite such as the nation or an ideal as its
object, Tillich calls this state of concern a quasi-religion. If religion
is a human construct through which persons interpret themselves
around some ultimate concern, then religion has an undeniable
and ineradicable contingency or relativity. Yet the human predicament can only be answered by a revelation which is given to it, not
produced within. Revelation, when it is received, becomes religion,
and the structures of religion are cultural creations. Culture is religious, for it encompasses the totality of forms in which ultimate
concern expresses itself.
For Tillich, religion, culture, and morality are ontologically related to one another as functions of spirit; the three functions
each involve the entire person and, thus, never appear in isolation from one another. But, religion must rst of all be considered as a quality of the two other functions of the spirit and not
as an independent function.8 Religion cannot be reduced to an
aesthetic, cognitive, moral, or psychologicalemotional function,
because it is the depth dimension of each of these.9 The three
functions of religion, culture, and morality are united in essential
being, but due to existential estrangement, in actual life they can
8
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195163),
vol. 3, 96. See John. H. Morgan, Religion and Culture as Meaning Systems: a Dialogue
between Geertz and Tillich, Journal of Religion 57 (1977), 36375.
Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959), 5.
215
be and are separated and their unity appears only fragmentarily.

The religious predicament of estrangement leads us to morality,
because there is not self-transcendence under the dimension of
the spirit without the constitution of the moral self by the unconditional
imperative.10
Recall that for Tillich the moral imperative is the demand to
become a person in a community of persons.11 It has a religious
dimension, its unconditional character. This refers not to its content, which is culturally created, but to its form. Tillich claims that
the moral demand has a religious source because it can be fullled
only by love. And Tillich recognizes a religious element to moral
motivation because the persons inability to fulll the moral imperative drives her to ask about the meaning of her existence, and,
in doing so, to seek the grace of reunion with that from which
she is estranged. The revelation that answers the religious predicament of estrangement enables the moral self-constitution of the
person as a person in a community of persons. But, this revelation is received and this self-constitution occurs and nds meaning
within the universe of meaning created in the cultural act.12 According to
Tillich, culture provides the form of religion and the contents of
morality.13 Culture provides the form of religion because the reception of revelation is expressed in particular cultural forms such
as myths, and because cultural creations in general are forms of
self-interpretation in which the person expresses her ultimate concern. Culture provides the contents of morality through various
attempts to specify the objective and absolute source of morality in
the form of laws, traditions, and authority. Indeed, because Tillich
understands culture as the whole of human self-interpretation, the
cultural content given to the moral act is a means whereby persons and communities seek to understand themselves and how they
ought to live. Thus Tillich balances the relativism of moral systems
with the objective and absolute source of the moral imperative.
This suggests that religion and morality arise through the persons
self-understanding, what Tillich calls spirit, or the unity of meaning
10
11
12
13
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 95 (my emphasis).

Paul Tillich, Morality and Beyond (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1963).
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 95 (my emphasis).
Put differently, religion gives culture its depth and morality gives culture its seriousness.
216
and power. Because the persons existential self-awareness expresses

itself in cultural forms it can be said that she achieves actualization
through understanding.
Lest an emphasis on self-understanding be thought to foster
solipsism and subjectivism, it is necessary to note that the person
does not understand her predicament through solitary interpretation.
Since man can become a person only in the person-to-person encounter
and since the language of religion even if it is silent language is dependent on the community, subjective religiosity is a reex of the communal
tradition, and it evaporates if it is not continuously nourished by life in the
community of faith and love. There is no such thing as private religion;
but there is the personal response to the religious community, and this
personal response may have creative, revolutionary and even destructive
impact on the community.14
As Tillich notes, even the most private prayer depends upon language and symbols, and, therefore, upon community. Moreover, the
person nds herself in a particular environment; the world which
she has is also one to which she belongs.15 Tillich notes that the person inhabits a moral universe, a tradition of reection on the nature
and telos of the person. Persons learn and use socially the concepts,
symbols and practices through which they understand themselves.
To some extent these social languages and practices constitute the
persons experience. But they do not exhaust it or capture it wholly.
By virtue of their personal histories and personalities, individuals
appropriate and nuance these social resources. Because the human religious predicament requires a moral self-constitution that
occurs and is given meaning only within cultural forms we must
subject any religions cultural forms, its constructs, to moral criticism. This moral criticism is undertaken in light of the persons
encounter with other persons. This properly moral encounter establishes the limit or criterion for cultural ideas of personality and
community and for ethical laws.16 Thus, for Tillich the forms which
14
15
16
Ibid., 209.
The persons belongingness is expressed ontologically in the polarity of freedom and
destiny.
Thus, the person-to-person encounter provides a criterion for the persons moral selfinterpretation. See Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 158.
217
religion takes cannot thwart the moral task of personhood within

a community of persons. It is possible and necessary to criticize
the expressions and obligations that accompany organized religion
and to distinguish the Spiritual Community from any particular
church. These points require more development, so let me provide this by turning to the mutually critical relation of religion and
morality.
self love beyond morali ty and re l igion
A hermeneutical approach synthesizes moral realism and moral
relativism. Objective moral goods constitute human existence but
particular moralities fare better and worse in acknowledging, protecting, and ordering our lives toward these goods. Christian ethics
afrms these goods as providential gifts of a sovereign God who
is the highest good. Just as the persons historical and social character requires her to articulate the unconditional moral demand
she experiences in her being into particular norms and theories,
the persons historical and social nature also requires her to construct systems to express and reect on her religious depths; we need
not restrict these to organized religions. If the relativity of morality follows from the fact that morality is a human construct, then
it stands to reason that religion also entails a certain contingency.
Because the person mediates the religious through cultural constructs, these constructs must be subject to criticism as well. Thus a
hermeneutical account of self love should provide critical principles
which allow for several things rst, for the moral criticism of the
person, and second, for the moral criticism of religions, Christianity
included.
A hermeneutical method in Christian ethics permits and requires a mutually critical relation between morality and religion.
But this criticism does not stand or fall on hermeneutical method.
Its possibility and necessity belong to the intimate relation between self love and love for God. The problem of self love drives
the person beyond morality to a religious relation. Indeed, self
love is a moral problem because of a fundamentally religious
human predicament. I noted that Rahner understands morality
as the persons free self-acceptance of his nature as the nature of
218
love.17 This love is the real concern of Christian morality.18 In

this love the perfection which belongs to the person as a task (law)
and the sanctity which is given to the person (grace) meet. Indeed,
morality and the fulllment of the law always consist in ones
readiness to allow oneself to be loved by God in the full measure
and with all the demands on ones own love that is determined
by Gods love, and to enter into the experience of the radical and
profound nature of this love which comes out to meet us.19 Tillich
makes a similar point by insisting that the persons inability to
fulll the moral law drives her to the transmoral conscience, the
acceptance that she has been accepted though she is unacceptable.
Rahner and Tillich express an insight that is at once liberating
and unsettling, joyful and grave. The moral enterprise of self love
launches one into a deeper relation with God that requires the
surrender of ones own attempts to be and to believe oneself to
be good, that relativizes yet heightens the place of moral norms
and authorities. Intimacy with God elicits a response from the person that in its existential depths and in its concrete embodiment
broadens the scope of moral freedom and intensies its demands.
Intimacy with God frees the person to perceive, acknowledge, and
accept her moral failings, to enter into them as opportunities for
greater intimacy. And intimacy with God permits an emotional
and experiential range that can include sweetness as well as struggle, communion as well as distance, humor as well as frustration.
Fidelity to this God, known so personally, becomes the hallmark of
ones integrity. It is a delity born not of self-interest or of fear, but
of love. In light of this, the contemporary surge of interest in spirituality might seem a welcome response to the problem of self love.
Of course, many people consciously choose to stand outside organized religions. Moreover, even those who do place themselves in
a particular religious tradition run the risk of compartmentalizing
their afliation. One reason for this is the individualism that permeates much of Western attitudes toward religion and spirituality.
Churches seem to be voluntary associations of like-minded people.
And since the crux of Christian faith is a personal relation with
17
18
See Rahner, The Commandment of Love in Relation to the Other Commandments,

19 Ibid., 455.
Ibid., 454.
219
God, active participation in a church appears to be an optional accessory. Further, given the imperfection of all human communities
and institutions, there can be a number of moral reasons to reject
organized religion. Tillich helps us to see how right self love lies
beyond religion as well as morality. But insofar as religions and spiritualities are construed as individual enterprises of self-expression
and healing they prove inadequate for the problem of self love.
Because religion expresses revelation (in better and worse fashions) it is not entirely subjective.20 Religion depends upon a reality
which it does not construct, but to which it attests. But, religion
like everything else, is subject to the ambiguities of life. Tillich describes two particular dangers which attend religion: profanization
and demonization.21 Profanization refers to both the institutionalization and the reduction of the holy in every religious act. In
religion, the greatness of life, the holy, manifests itself in theory and
praxis; yet the holy remains more than its nite appearances. When
religion fails to transcend itself in the direction of the innite, the
institutionalized forms of religion (which need not accompany organized religion per se) make religion a nite object among others,
a particular function of the spirit. This can happen, for example,
in sets of doctrines, in the language of prayer, and when religion is
reduced to forms of culture and morality. The profanizing elements
in religion do not constitute an argument against its greatness, but
simply disclose its ambiguity. The demonization of religion refers
to the elevation of something conditional to the status of the unconditional. While the profane resists the self-transcendence which
belongs to religion, the demonic distorts it. The demonic identies
a particular bearer of holiness, be it a person, a community, a symbol, with holiness itself. The demonic can also appear in culture
and morality, for example as scientic absolutism.
The ambiguities of religion are conquered by the Spirit. Conquest of religion does not mean secularization but rather the closing
20
21
The current realismrelativism debate underlies this point. See William Schweiker, One
World, Many Moralities, in Power, Value and Conviction (Cleveland, oh: Pilgrim, 1998) and
Responsibility and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). See also
Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, ed., Essays on Moral Realism (Ithaca, ny and London: Cornell
See Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, 98106. See also Walter Sundberg, The Demonic
in Christian Thought, Lutheran Quarterly 1 (1987), 41337.
220
of the gap between the religious and the secular by removing both
through the Spiritual Presence.22 Tillich formulates this two-fold
conquest of profanization and the demonic as the Protestant Principle. It is Protestant, because it protests against the tragic-demonic
self-elevation of religion and liberates religion from itself for those
functions of the human spirit, at the same time liberating these
functions from their self-seclusion against the manifestations of
the ultimate.23 The Protestant Principle can be operative in every church because it is not constrained to any particular church.
Rather, it is an expression of the Spiritual Community. According
to Tillich, the Spiritual Community is not a religious community
but the anticipatory representation of a new reality, the New Being
as community.24
When churches are identied mistakenly as the Spiritual Community (which cannot be collapsed with any particular church), the
Spirit is wrongly thought to be limited to religion in order to impact
culture. In protest to this mistake, Tillich establishes the principle
of the consecration of the secular.25 This principle can apply
to groups and individuals who are openly and emphatically antireligious; according to Tillich the Spirit can use these groups and
persons to transform culture as well as churches. The second principle is the convergence of the holy and the secular.26 The secular
operates as a necessary corrective to any claims to absoluteness
which a religion might make, yet the secular is driven toward the
holy because the self-transcendence of life resists meaninglessness
22
23
24
In so far as the Spiritual Presence is effective in the churches and their individual members, it conquers religion as a particular function of the human spirit. . . . (ibid., 243).
Moreover, insofar as the Spirit conquers religion, it prevents the claim to absoluteness by both the churches and their members. Where the divine Spirit is effective, the
claim of a church to represent God to the exclusion of all other churches is rejected
(ibid., 244).
The Protestant Principle is an expression of the conquest of religion by the Spiritual
Presence and consequently an expression of the victory over the ambiguities of religion, its
profanization, and its demonization (ibid., 245). Tillich says that the Protestant Principle
requires the Catholic substance in order to be effective. Rather unhelpfully, he simply
denes the Catholic substance as the concrete embodiment of the Spiritual Presence.
For Roman Catholic discussions of Tillich on this point, see Ronald Modras, Catholic
Substance and the Catholic Church Today, in Paul Tillich: a New Catholic Assessment, eds.,
Raymond F. Bulman and Frederick J. Parrella (Collegeville, mn: Liturgical Press, 1994),
3347 and Julia A. Lamm Catholic Substance Revisited: Reversals of Expectations in
Tillichs Doctrine of God in Paul Tillich: a New Catholic Assessment, 4872.
25 Ibid., 247.
26 Ibid.
221
and emptiness. These two principles are rooted in a third, which

Tillich calls the essential belongingness of religion and culture to
each other.27 This principle simply expresses Tillichs claim that
religion cannot express itself without culture and that culture loses
its meaning and depths without religion.
Religion is not a private creation. Like all other elements of the
persons life, she receives her religious existence in given material
in a community, in history and develops her existence socially and
historically. To be sure, religion must be appropriated by the person
in faith and love, in a responsible, free decision. But we misconstrue
the religious dimension of human existence if we regard it only as
the persons subjective self-interpretation. The reexive structure
of consciousness testies to the reality of the divine as the source
of meaning and value. The conceptual resources which mediate
the persons awareness of the divine orient her in the world and
in response to the divine. Admittedly, religion can serve as a kind
of existential analgesic, but the contingent elements of particular
religions and the uses and abuses of religion do not negate the
normativity of the divinehuman relation. The self-interpretation
which occurs in the persons appropriation of religion in faith remains thoroughly social and is to be assessed by a normative reality
which the person does not fabricate. Because the person is situated
in a relation with God, upon whom she depends in creaturely existence, she is not entirely at her own disposal. It follows that genuine
subjectivity recognizes that something else orients and obliges her,
a reality which is prior to the persons own mediation of it.
All of this leads us to the paradoxical quality of human freedom and creativity. The deterioration of secular and theistic worldviews that posit some objective reality, external to yet normative
for, persons has in many respects denuminized the world. The
rise of historical consciousness, the brute fact of diversity, and the
modern legacy of autonomy all reinforce the fact that human
beings are makers of meaning. Moreover, increasing specialization in the world in commerce, in intellectual enterprises
and increasing technological capacities for compartmentalization
and fragmentation (of the kind Chapter One noted) contribute
27
Ibid., 248.
222
to the persons interior compartmentalization and fragmentation.

Because of this, the person tends toward a managerial approach
to the various dimensions of her existence; her personal relationships, her moral behavior, her religious activity can become mere
functions of her personality, divorced from the meaning of life.28
Ironically, however, the greater the persons control over her world
and her existence, the more she experiences herself and her world
as uncontrollable. The persons control over her environment has
divested it of much of its mystery, but this mystery now breaks forth
from the person; for this reason, the de-sacralizing of the world has
a positive religious signicance. This is in part because the persons
increased freedom brings with it a more acute experience of the
burden of freedom and the poignancy of nitude, the sober acceptance of which has religious signicance. The persons experience
of herself as disposing of her world and her experience of herself
as being at the disposal of something other than herself belong
to the pluralism of her existence. This tension comprises the task
of human freedom and the paradox that one achieves freedom in
self-disposal toward another.
The basic fact about the person, that her predicament cannot
be resolved by her own will or effort, yet is resolved by a reality which does not violate but engages her freedom, is expressed
in the Christian message of grace. Yet, the answer to the human
predicament lies beyond Christianity and beyond religion as well.
At the end of the previous section I claimed that a hermeneutical
approach reckons with human sociality and historicity in a two-fold
manner by recognizing that symbolic systems and social practices
constitute the persons experience without wholly determining it
and by recognizing that the reality of others provides a criterion
for the persons religious and moral constructs. These two points
certainly seem to encourage ecclesiological relativism by highlighting the contingent character of religions and the moral requirement
to respect others. In order to gain some purchase on the contribution Christian ethics makes to a contemporary ethics of self love,
let me continue.
28
See Rahner, The Man of Today and Religion, Theological Investigations, vol. 6. Several
of his remarks remain timely and are echoed here.
223
self love and the normativi ty of christ

The ethics of self love I offer here purports to be adequate to the
person as such, and thus, to be both descriptively and normatively
adequate to persons across cultural and historical lines. And yet, it
is a Christian ethical account, and one indebted to the theological
anthropologies of two roughly contemporary German theologians.
In many respects, it is highly particular. This is especially true since
Rahner and Tillich argue that the human predicament is answered
by the Christian message. The person loves herself rightly when she
participates in, is personally related to, Jesus Christ, however unthematic such a relationship might be. This strikes many as, at best,
fancy inclusivist footwork, and, at worst, an example of Christian
imperialism. We will see that for both Rahner and Tillich, right
self love depends upon the persons relationship with Christ, but
does not necessarily depend upon any relation to or knowledge
of Christianity. This position is criticized for reducing Christian
revelation to anthropology or philosophy and thereby undermining the integrity of Christian ethics. This position is also criticized
for failing to respect the irreducible differences and integrity of
non-Christian religions. Each position, however, drives toward the
importance of love. And this is why each is amenable to and may
be helped by a hermeneutical approach that insists the connection between self and other is inscribed in human consciousness.
A hermeneutical reading frees us from binding commitments to
Rahners or Tillichs ontologies, and this frees us to use the language of being to highlight the Christian claim that Jesus Christ
reveals the meaning of human existence. It also frees us to stress a
positive relation between Christian ethics and non-Christian and
secular sources. This freedom in turn helps us to see the apologetic
upshot of Christian ethics for self love and to consider whether and
how Christian ethics can be internally self-validating.
Jesus Christ, Christianity, and salvic love
Religious pluralism challenges our thinking about the salvic import of love for the obvious reason that a belief in Gods universal
saving will seems to conict with the belief that salvation comes
224
through a justifying faith in what God has done in Jesus Christ. And
while the dangers of religious imperialism and of religiously sanctioned forms of oppression remain all too present, other worries
present themselves to us for consideration, namely the fragmentation and privatization of religious belief. Perhaps in response to the
dangers of religious imperialism, perhaps in recognition of religious
and cultural diversity, religious beliefs are regarded as altogether
private, enshrined in a language of spiritual subjectivism and authenticity, and they are therefore often perceived as inadmissible in
public debate and decision-making.
Various thinkers have noted and sought to respond to this problem. Kenneth and Michael Himes, for instance, argue that contemporary American culture fragments faith and social action, either
denying that there is social import to religious belief or insisting
that such claims cannot be incorporated into public consensus and
policy.29 This fragmentation translates the good of secularization
(the separation of church and state) into a kind of incoherence or
paralysis for religious believers and leaves public discussion bereft
of the insight expressed in religious language and symbols. The
fragmentation and privatization of religious belief comprise particular moral dangers. They wrongly neglect the social dimensions
and implications of faith and make it difcult to criticize tyrannous and/or self-destructive forms of faith that of others and our
own.
A Christian ethics of self love confronts dual worries of religious
imperialism and of discerning what is worthy of our devotion.
What resonates in human experience: simply an encounter with the
divine other, or the goodness of the divine? To ask whether what we
worship is worthy of devotion is to note that religious claims need
to be subjected to moral and social criticism. Indeed, the risks of
religious imperialism and self-righteous exclusivism connect with
worries over the privatization of faith and moral intuitionism in
the problem of neighbor love. What explicit religious claims articulate convictions about God in a way that informs and prompts
our commitments to others for their own sake?
29
Michael J. Himes and Kenneth R. Himes, Fullness of Faith: the Public Signicance of Theology
(New York: Paulist, 1993).
225
Rahner may seem ill suited to meeting such challenges. His arguments for anonymous theism and anonymous Christianity may
be exclusivism in inclusivist clothing. And they may exacerbate the
privatization of religious belief. Rahners transcendental accounts
of human knowledge and freedom lead him to argue that human
moral activity, chiey love for neighbor, can posit a faith that is
salvic even if it does not include an explicitly Christian or theistic
reference. The salvic import of neighbor love speaks to the challenges of religious pluralism and to the privatization of faith. But
his transcendental arguments strike many as philosophically untenable and may evacuate Christian ethics of its particularity and
subsume faith into morality. A hermeneutical reading of Rahner
offsets these difculties.
The question of how Rahner relates self love and Christianity can
be approached from two directions, that of the presence of Jesus
Christ in non-Christian religions, and that of anonymous Christianity. The former leads to the latter. Rahner treats the question of the
presence of Jesus Christ in non-Christian religions as a dogmatic
question. Such a presence of Jesus Christ throughout the whole
history of salvation and in relation to all people cannot be denied
or overlooked by Christians if they believe in Jesus Christ as the
salvation of all people, and do not think that the salvation of nonChristians is brought about by God and his mercy independently
of Jesus Christ.30 This dogmatic claim presupposes the universal
salvic will of God. Nevertheless, if the persons salvation is to be
understood as historical and social in character, and not simply conned to abstract transcendentality, Christian dogma must also presuppose that when a non-Christian attains salvation, non-Christian
religions have a positive signicance. Rahner contends that the dogmatic theologian can only approach this question by inquiring into
the presence of Christ in the non-Christians salvic faith.
Traditional dogmatic theology states that Jesus Christ is present
and operative in non-Christian religions in and through his Spirit:
the Spirit who makes faith possible and who justies is given in
all times and places intuitu meritorum Christi, that is, in view of the
merits of Christ. Consequently, it can correctly be called the Spirit
30
226
of Jesus Christ.31 Rahner takes this dogmatic formulation as his

starting point and asks how the grace of the Spirit, given in all
times and places, might be connected to the particular historical
event of Jesus death on the cross. The Spirit and the cross relate
not only in the knowledge and will of God who transcends history,
but within history. Gods salvic will is not the effect of the cross,
but its a priori, gratuitous, antecedent cause. Gods salvic will is
offered for all people and this communication is oriented to begin
with towards a historical event in which this communication and
its acceptance become historically tangible in this eschatological
triumph.32 The historical mediation of the Spirit takes place in
the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus, Rahner
argues, insofar as the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth are the nal cause of the Spirit, the Spirit which is given
to all people everywhere can be said properly to be the Spirit of
Jesus. In this way, Jesus Christ is present and operative in the salvic
faith of non-Christians.
At issue is the relation between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Something which encounters the person in history, that is,
something a posteriori, can only be encountered by the person
given a certain a priori expectation. The concreteness of history
cannot be anticipated, but this transcendental orientation of expectant hope is nevertheless mediated historically. The mediation
of the persons transcendentality is the historical experience of it,
and this historical experience will vary in content from person to
person. According to Rahner, the mediating contents need not be
religiously thematic; what is important and universal is that the
contents mediate a person to herself as freely disposing of herself in
a decision of ultimate validity. History is the history of freedom, and
freedom, as we have seen, is the capacity to make such a denitive
decision; history, then, in its very structures, anticipates decisions
which move from open multiplicity to something nal and irreversible. Moreover, because the persons transcendental freedom is
supernaturally oriented, it searches for a decision in history about
the salvic outcome of history.33
31
32
33
Ibid., 316. Indeed, this claim is crucial to Rahners entire theological method.
Ibid., 317.
See ibid., 32021. Rahner goes on to say that a dogmatic theologian can leave the interpretation of saviour gures to the historian of religion. See Edward J. Miller, Inclusivist
227
This leads us to Rahners concept of anonymous Christianity.

Stated simply,
man is called an anonymous Christian who on the one hand has de facto
accepted of his freedom this gracious self-offering on Gods part through
faith, hope, and love, while on the other he is absolutely not yet a Christian
at the social level (through baptism and membership of the Church) or in
the sense of having consciously objectied his Christianity to himself in
his own mind (by explicit Christian faith resulting from having hearkened
to the explicit Christian message).34
Thus, Rahner attempts to account for the tension between a belief in Gods universal salvic will and the belief that only faith
justies. Can salvic faith be attributed to non-Christian, even
atheistic persons? This question is complicated further by the fact
that Gods salvic will cannot be guaranteed to persons by virtue
of their nature. That is, nothing about the person requires or necessitates Gods saving grace. If this were the case, salvation would
not be gratuitous. This difculty can be resolved by a return to
the supernatural existential. Recall that for Rahner the supernatural existential means that Gods self-communication, at least as
an offer, is an abiding existential of the person. It does not belong
to the persons nature as such. Rather, it designates Gods offer of
self-communication, the persons capacity to receive Gods grace.
Because the supernatural existential belongs to all persons, it accounts for the universality of Gods salvic will, at least as an offer
made to every person. The person can accept this offer in an explicit act of faith, or she can accept this offer implicitly in her
self-acceptance as a creature oriented toward mystery. This latter
response is anonymous theism.
34
and Exclusivist Issues in Soteriology: to Whom Does Jesus Saving Power Extend?
Perspectives in Religious Studies 12 (1985), 12337; Jacobus A. Van Rooy, Christ and the
Religions: the Issues at Stake, Missionalia 13 (1985), 313; Richard Viladesau, How is
Christ Absolute? Rahners Christology and the Encounter of World Religions, Philosophy
and Theology 2 (1988), 22040; and Maurice Wiles, Christianity and other Faiths: some
Theological Reections, Theology 91 (1988), 30208. This article also discusses Tillich.
Rahner, Observations on the Problem of the Anonymous Christian, Theological
Investigations, vol. 14, 283. There is a considerable amount of secondary literature on
Rahners argument about anonymous Christianity, much of it highly critical. See for
example Lucas Lamadrid, Anonymous or Analogous Christians? Rahner and von
Balthasar on Naming the Non-Christian, Modern Theology 11 (1995), 36384. For a defense
of Rahner see Gavin DCosta, Karl Rahners Anonymous Christian: a Reappraisal,
Modern Theology 1:2 (1985), 13148.
228
Does this implicit acceptance sufce for an anonymous Christianity? Because persons are saved by the grace of Christ, Rahner
asks if the persons transcendental orientation includes a reference
to Jesus Christ. He maintains that it does. Recall that for Rahner
Christ is the goal of all creation.35 Christ is the entelechy of the
person, and she experiences this in her experience of her self as
oriented toward mystery. Indeed, Rahner insists that the Christian
message only makes explicit the persons own experience of herself.
Accordingly, no matter how he wants to understand and express
this in his own reective self-understanding, he is becoming thereby
not merely an anonymous theist, but rather takes upon himself
in that Yes to himself the grace of the mystery which has radically
approached us. God has given himself to man in direct proximity:
perhaps the essence of Christianity can be reduced to this formula.36 Because the persons orientation toward God has its goal
in Christ, the name anonymous Christian implicitly signies that
this fundamental actuation of a man, like all actuations, cannot and
does not want to stop in its anonymous state but strives towards an
explicit expression, towards its full name.37 This leads Rahner to
argue that the person can culpably reject Christianity. Anonymous
Christianity accounts for the salvic faith of those who have not
encountered the gospel or whose exposure to it has been so limited
and distorted as to constitute an obstacle for the intrinsic movement toward a more explicit faith. But if a person is offered, in
a manner which is credible to him, the chance to give objective
structure and shape to his being (and therefore an opportunity of
supernatural elevation), and if he rejects this possibility, then he is
deliberately denying his grace-lled transcendence as well. It is not
35
36
37
See Denis Edwards, The Relationship between the Risen Christ and the Material
Universe, Pacica 4 (1991), 114.
Rahner, Observations on the Problem of the Anonymous Christian, 394.
Ibid., 395. Elsewhere Rahner writes, There can be an anonymous faith which carries
with it an intrinsic dynamism and therefore an obligation to nd full realisation in explicit
faith, but which is nonetheless sufcient for salvation even if a man does not achieve this
fulllment during his lifetime, as long as he is not to blame for this. Naturally such a
person would deny, both to himself in his conscious awareness and to others, that he
has such anonymous faith and in consequence this doctrine is not directly available for
apologetic use. But this does not prevent a Christian from holding that his non-Christian
or atheist fellow human being may be an anonymous believer (Anonymous and Explicit
Faith, Theological Investigations, vol. 6, 54).
229
possible to have anonymous faith when its thematic expression in

the Christian belief in revelation is culpably rejected.38
Rahners argument for the normativity of Christ is related to his
claim that a moral act of neighbor love may express salvic faith
apart from explicitly Christian or even theistic conceptualization.
Thinkers like Hans Urs von Balthasar, Edward Vacek, and Jean
Porter reject this claim. The implicit faith expressed in neighbor
love is not a substitute for explicit faith but its minimum.39 Rahners
claim that a moral act can instantiate salvic faith may subsume
faith into morality.40 Indeed, Porter notes that Rahner so conates
salvic love with the moral act of charity that he empties salvic
love of the content that served to indicate the point of being a
Christian, to set criteria for success or failure as a Christian, and
nally to formulate guidance and to offer remedies when things go
wrong.41 We are thereby rendered incapable of making such discriminations. Vacek makes a similar point by arguing that although
love for God and for neighbor are related to and lead to one another, when one loves a neighbor one is not necessarily intending
to love God thereby. There is a distinctive form of Christian love,
since the Christian stands within a tradition and intends something
quite different than an atheist intends in loving.42 At stake in these
points is, among other things, the question of how constitutive ones
intention is for the meaning of an act. If salvic love and charity
are correlative with one another then, as Porter notes, there seems
to be no material difference between love for God or neighbor,
between faith and works. And this suggests that what I understand
myself to be doing in an act or relation of love is irrelevant to what
is in fact occurring.
A hermeneutical reading of Rahner can accommodate Porters
and Vaceks insights because it allows us to clarify the distinctive
38
39
40
41
42
Rahner, Anonymous and Explicit Faith, 59.

Eamonn Conway, The Anonymous Christian a Relativised Christianity? (Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 1993).
Moreover, it can clarify the distinctive natures of religious and moral acts, and the importance of the agents intention in each. But such an impression must be balanced against
Rahners emphasis on spiritual discernment as an element of moral decision making.
Jean Porter, Salvic Love and Charity, in The Love Commandments: Essays in Christian
Ethics and Moral Philosophy (Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1992), 256.
Edward Vacek, Love, Human and Divine: the Heart of Christian Ethics (Washington dc:
Georgetown University Press, 1994).
230
natures of religious and moral acts (even if there is an essential unity

between them) by stressing the importance of the agents intention
in each. That is, while there is not a necessary relation between
explicit faith and salvic faith, explicit faith would provide the epistemological principles with which Christians can set criteria for
success or failure as Christians and formulate guidance. This
does not make explicit faith into a heuristic device; rather, explicit
faith, as a mediation of self-understanding, confers a particular
identity. Faith is more than intellectual assent to various propositions. Yet it is also more than an act of will. Faith must consist in
a recognition of the truth. If faith is a matter of self-understanding
that posits a particular way of being in the world, then explicit
faith provides an account of the world and of our place within it,
the means with which we interpret our existence. These means are
shown to be true when they testify to and direct us practically toward the key
Christian insight that the meaning of life is found in ones self-disposal in love.
Certainly other religious symbol systems, theistic and otherwise,
and non-religious sources of culture can so testify and orient us.
The requirement that our interpretive apparatus orient us practically is one way of formulating the traditional Christian claim that
one tests spirits by their fruits. This means that (1) these interpretive
frameworks can and should be tested and revised so as to be made
more truthful and (2) faith cannot be understood properly as a private commitment, unrelated to the demands of social justice, or as
primarily affective, unrelated to how we describe the world and our
place within it. There are reasons internal to Christian faith that
caution against sectarian withdrawal as well as imperialism, though
sadly these reasons are not always heeded. The very argument that
implicit faith drives toward appropriate objectication in explicit
faith requires Christians to evaluate the formulation of dogmatic
claims on the basis of love for the neighbor. And that neighbor
love demands due recognition of the historicity and particularity
of persons and the positive signicance of non-Christian religions.
The demand is not for ecclesiological relativism but for mutual
and sensitive criticism. Yet, if intention is wholly constitutive of the
meaning of an act or relation, we undermine reection on whether
certain acts or relations really can embody and posit the intention
an agent has.
231
So a hermeneutical reading of Rahner can offset the risk of subsuming faith into morality. It provides for the integrity of Christian
ethics as it emphasizes the status and operation of explicit faith
in the Christians self-understanding. But we must not distinguish
salvic love and the moral act of charity in a way that does not
account for their relation. To make their difference hinge solely
on the intention of the agent can segregate them unduly. It also
undermines reection on whether certain acts and relations really
can embody and posit the intention an agent has. A hermeneutical
account of self-relation can render the relation of salvic love and
charity within the fabric of perception and cognition that makes up
human consciousness: it recognizes, with Vacek, that a Christian
and an athiest may intend something different in loving but insists,
with Rahner, that more is going on than what each intends. In
the agents self-understanding and acting she takes up a relation to
the goods she encounters in the world and to the divine other to
whom her self-awareness testies. Too much emphasis on either
the depths of freedom or on conscious intention can lead to moral
subjectivism and displaces moral attention to concrete acts and relations. Reading Rahner hermeneutically qualies his voluntarism
and accommodates the critical insights of Vacek and Porter. Moreover, importantly, this reading helps us attend to the inter-relation
of (Christian) self-understanding and acting. The particular beliefs
and commitments (explicit faith or not) that orient our acting can
be tested inasmuch as they impel us to moral acts of charity and
to explicit acts of love for God. But our acting also is not simply
the fruit of those beliefs and commitments. It reexively informs,
deepens, or counters them. It sustains or thwarts, broadens or narrows our openness to the objects of belief and commitment. So,
a hermeneutical reading can provide Christian faith its particular
and proper place and yet also provide for Rahners insight that we
receive and respond to Gods self-communication in Christ in ways
not limited to explicit faith.
The Christ event, self-criticism, and agape
Recognizing the interpretive character of religions promotes and
complicates inter-religious exchanges in various forms of dialogue,
232
comparative analysis, ecumenism, and criticism. It seems to promote such exchanges (which admittedly vary considerably in type
and tenor) insofar as the constructs through which individual and
collective self-interpretation occur are historically and culturally
contingent and can (and very well may) give way to other constructs
more adequate to or at least more contemporary for the religious
depths expressed in them.43 That is, the interpretive character of religions cautions, indeed necessitates, against absolutizing particular
constructs and thereby invites (though does not ineluctably lead to)
more positive and engaged relations among adherents to various
religions. Still, the interpretive character of religions complicates
inter-religious exchanges as well. To begin, the fact that religions
are personal and collective forms of self-interpretation begs questions whether they are truthful ctions, or heuristic devices, or
consoling illusions, etc. The complexities of religious psychology
aside, the very interpretive character that reveals exclusive and
imperialistic religious claims to be historical and social constructs
may also account for the fact that history has never been shy of
them; religious claims are apt vehicles for our egoism and narcissism, providing them various lofty and noble aims and sanctions.
Religious beliefs threaten an interpretive or hermeneutical concupiscence that grafts everything into my own constructs such that my
ultimate concern may be and remain my self. Moreover, the interpretive character of religions is sometimes taken to indicate that
inter-religious exchanges and comparisons ought not smack of any
claims to or concerns for normativity. The socio-cultural and historical contingency of religions means for some thinkers that there
are no grounds or objective criteria with which to subject religious
claims, symbols, and practices to moral criticism. This risk is particularly grave given contemporary Western cultures embrace of subjectivism and relativism, and continuing questions about whether
43
I say these constructs promote inter-religious exchanges insofar as their contingency can
be distinguished from that which they mediate which is not conned to such particularity
though it does not appear apart from it because I assume (with Tillich) that the fact that
religions unavoidably employ constructs does not mean that they are constructs without
remainder. As Paul Ricoeur has put it, we invent in order to discover. See his Interpretation
Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, tx: Texas Christian University,
1976). Such a claim cannot be defended here. Moreover, the literature on the question
whether there is some sui generis religious experience is massive. I leave it to others to
defend this position and to defend Tillich as one representative of it.
233
and how faith may be admitted into public debate and decisionmaking. Indeed, the increasing privatization of religious belief and
the increasing conjunction of spirituality with self-help programs
has in many respects severed faith from social justice and presents
additional obstacles to the moral criticism of religious beliefs and
practices.44
The prevalent worries seem to be that religions provide unwelcome, and/or unwarranted, and/or imperialistic moral criticisms.
And in the face of these worries, religion is squired away and privatized. Is there a way to wrest the self-interpretation operative
in religion from its privatization yet still avoid the hermeneutic
concupiscence and religious imperialism it threatens? Perhaps surprisingly, such moves become possible when we turn to Tillichs
claim that Christ is normative for the evaluation of religions. Initially, this can be said because Christ functions as a self-negating
criterion. According to Tillich, the event on which Christianity is
based is such that it provides not only the criterion for judging
Christianity but for judging other religions and quasi-religions as
well, simply because this particular event points beyond its particularity. By moving from the normativity of the Christ event to the
principle of agape we grasp the fundamental connection of self and
other as the ground for the moral criticism of institutional and personal religious constructs and practices. This connection is at the
heart of a hermeneutical account. For Tillich the relation between
Christianity and other religions is not limited to other organized
religions, but includes secular forms which possess religious elements. According to Tillich, the pluralism of world religions is not
as signicant today as the encounter of organized religions with
quasi-religions.45 The appearance of ultimate concern within secular aspects of culture should not come as a surprise or as a special
problem. Because profanization and demonization form a polarity
between which religions vacillate, the profane acts as a necessary
44
45
The secondary literature on Tillich characterizes the differences in his early and later
work in a variety of ways, e.g., in terms of Americanization. Some contend that Tillichs
early work makes him a theologian of culture, while his later writings indicate that after
coming to America he became more of a church theologian. While it was not Tillichs
aim to combat privatized religiosity, my extension of his project provides a means to do so.
Paul Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions (New York and London:
Columbia University Press, 1963), 5.
234
corrective to the demonic; hence, secular expressions of ultimate

concern can counter the misguided, demonic elevation of nite
concerns to the status of ultimacy. Tillich maintains that Christianity must value the secular realm; Christianity should express the
ultimate meaning of actions in daily life.46 Right relation with God,
self, and others can be worked out within ordinary tasks and encounters, that is, without elaborate religious or moral systems and
within given cultural ideas of and programs for self-realization.
This appreciation of the secular, however, is qualied by a recognition of the ambiguities of profanization. Tillich notes that the acceptance of secularism can lead to a slow elimination of the religious
dimension altogether.47 To be sure, Christianity rejects elements
of religions and quasi-religions. If a group like an individual is
convinced that it possesses a truth, it implicitly denies those claims to
truth which conict with that truth. . . . Consequently the encounter
of Christianity with other religions, as well as with quasi-religions,
implies the rejection of their claims insofar as they contradict the
Christian principle, implicitly or explicitly.48 What is this principle? It is the event on which Christianity is based, and . . . the
continuing spiritual power of this event, which is the appearance
and reception of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, a symbol which
stands for the decisive self-manifestation in human history of the
source and aim of all being.49 Although the answer to the persons predicament has been given in Christ, the person need not
receive it in Christianity. Thus, while Tillich resolutely maintains
the absolute and decisive character of the Christ event, he insists
46
47
48
49
See ibid., 94. In this respect Tillich reveals his Lutheran heritage. Indeed, Tillich echoes
Reformation Protestantism with his criticism of demonization and of institutionalized
forms of profanization and his appreciation for the secular as an appropriate place for
the manifestation of the holy. For a discussion of Tillich and Christianity, see William P.
Alston, Realism and the Christian Faith, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38
(1995), 3760.
Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, 48. Protestantism, argues Tillich,
maintains that the secular realm is not nearer to the ultimate than the sacred realm is. Its
positive valuation of the secular makes the relation of Protestantism to the quasi-religions
much more dialectical and even ambiguous. Protestantism can receive and transform
the religious elements of the quasi-religions (ibid., 49).
Ibid., 2829.
Ibid., 79. See Ruth Page, The Consistent Christology of Paul Tillich, Scottish Journal
of Theology 36 (1983), 195212; Edward J. Miller, Inclusivist and Exclusivist Issues in
Soteriology: to Whom Does Jesus Saving Power Extend?; and H. D. McDonald, The
Symbolic Christology of Paul Tillich, Vox Evangelica 18 (1988), 7588.
235
that Christianity should not adopt an agenda of conversion toward other religions. Moreover, Christianity must subject itself to
ongoing criticism based on the criterion of the Christ event, a criterion which may manifest itself outside religion and in extremely
anti-religious persons and trends. Tillich does not suggest that one
negate or relinquish Christianity, or any other religious tradition
per se. Rather, he argues that religion cannot come to an end, and
a particular religion will be lasting to the degree in which it negates
itself as a religion. Thus Christianity will be a bearer of the religious answer as long as it breaks through its own particularity.50
According to Tillich, the event on which Christianity is based is
such that it provides not only the criterion for judging Christianity,
but for judging other religions and quasi-religions as well, simply
because this particular event points beyond particularity.51 This
could mean that conversion should give way to dialogue with other
religions, and, moreover, that quasi-religions could be understood
as an indirect path toward religious transformation.52
Because all (quasi) religions are (social) forms of human selfinterpretation, Tillich can say that there are [in other religions]
elements in human nature which tend to become embodied in
symbols similar to those of his own religion.53 For this reason,
the decisive point in a dialogue between two religions is not the
historically determined, contingent embodiment of the typological
elements, but these elements themselves.54 According to Tillich,
a helpful comparative starting point is the question of the intrinsic aim of existence in Greek, the telos of all existing things. It is
here that one should start every inter-religious discussion, and not
with a comparison of the contrasting concepts of God or man or
history or salvation.55 Telos-formulas express views of reality out
50
51
52
53
55
Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, 96.

Ibid., 82. Tillich writes elsewhere that the unconditional claim made by Christianity
is not related to the Christian Church, but to the event on which the Church is based
(Theology of Culture, 41). Tillich argues that Protestant Principle is mindful of this, while
the Roman Catholic Church has failed to subject itself to self-criticism on this score.
See Douglas O. Schwarz, Religious Relativism: Paul Tillichs last word, American
Journal of Theology and Philosophy 7:2 (1986), 10614 and John Foerster Paul Tillich and
Inter-religious Dialogue, Modern Theology 7 (1990), 127.
54 Ibid., 57.
Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions, 3.
Ibid., 63. The way is to penetrate into the depth of ones own religion, in devotion,
thought and action. In the depth of every living religion there is a point at which the religion itself loses its importance, and that to which it points breaks through its particularity,
236
of which the particular accounts of God, the human, and salvation

arise and are explicated. Of decisive importance for the Christian
telos-formulation is its ethical expression in agape. Agape allows for
an encounter with other religions and quasi-religions which accepts
them but seeks to transform individual and social structures which
are against love. Because agape accomplishes what the person-toperson encounter demands and religion must be judged by this
encounter, what can be considered now is the connection between
the other person as a criterion or limit for my self-actualization and
the Christ event as a criterion for (quasi) religions. Importantly, the
principle of agape which directs the criticism of other religions and
quasi-religions as well as the self-criticism of Christianity is the same
principle of self-criticism that applies to my own attempts to understand myself. This suggests that the selfother connection grounds
the moral criticism of religious belief and practice. Tillichs account
of agape is the critical pivot that links interpersonal relations and
the need to subject religions to moral criticism. Specically, the
self-negating criterion of Christ not only addresses the hermeneutic concupiscence driving religious constructs. It also addresses the
privatization of faith.
Why does agape as a critical principle disclose the connection of
self and other and ground thereby the moral criticism of religion?
Agape seeks the fulllment of the other for its own sake. Thus, to
say that God is love is to say that God seeks the fulllment of that
which God has created.56 Because of the connection between Gods
love for the person and the persons fulllment as such, it should
be noted that divine love includes the justice which acknowledges
and preserves the freedom and the unique character of the beloved.
It does justice to man while it drives him toward fulllment. It
neither forces him nor leaves him; it attracts him and lures him
toward reunion.57 Divine love includes justice, which also resists
and condemns that which is against love. Tillich speaks of this
as loves compulsive power.58 Tillich calls love the most radical
concern. As the most radical concern, loves object must be the
56
57
elevating it to spiritual freedom and with it to a vision of the spiritual presence in other
expressions of the ultimate meaning of mans existence (Ibid., 97).
58 Ibid., 28384. See also vol. 2, 77.
Ibid., 283.
237
completely concrete being, the person.59 This claim intimates the

deep connection in Tillichs thought between love and morality,
whereby the persons relation with God entails the moral act of
establishing oneself as a person and comprises the moral imperative
to become a person in a community of persons.
Given this connection of self and other, resonating in the depths
of self-relation, Tillichs position can fund specic moral criticisms
of religious imperialism and the privatization of religion. The previous section suggested how Tillich can fund moral criticism of
religious imperialism (even if some thinkers still nd some of his
philosophical and religious commitments ill-suited to such a task).60
Still, Tillich might seem an unlikely resource with which to address
the privatization of religion since he risks an intuitionistic ethics.
Moreover, Tillichs own receptivity to psychotherapy as a means for
achieving the self-acceptance central to faith and to quasi-religions
in general suggests just the interiorization and therapeuticization of
faith that proves problematic. Many thinkers have noted that Tillich
just as often construes faith as a self-afrmation that allows one to
cope with the anxiety of estrangement as he construes it as the conquest of that estrangement in the establishment of communion with
others.61 There is merit in such criticisms Tillich allows for but
does not himself undertake the moral criticism of religions beyond
the dangers of demonization and profanization. More than this,
the interpretive character of religions Tillich posits proves problematic. If institutional religion runs risks of imperialism, are there
corresponding personal dangers entailed in my self-interpretation
around my ultimate concern? Put differently, if we agree with
Tillich that religion is self-interpretation around an ultimate concern, does it follow that religious belief and its cultural forms always
risk a kind of totalizing, hermeneutic concupiscence? As William
Schweiker argues, the search for fulllment tries to complete life,
make a person whole. And because these are quests or projects,
59
60
61
Ibid., vol. 1, 211.

Certainly, on this count Tillich needs to be read in light of his historical context.
There is no denying that the events in and surrounding World War II impacted him
profoundly.
See for example Donald F. Driesbach, Symbols and Salvation: Paul Tillichs Doctrine of Religious
Symbols and his Interpretation of the Symbols of the Christian Tradition (Lanham, md: University
Press of America, 1993).
238
power becomes central in life. It is only through maximizing power

that the values of authenticity and fulllment can be attained.62
If this is so, privatizing religious belief fails to remove the risk of
effacing others. It also fails to remove the risk of personal obeisance
or devotion to an unworthy God.
A hermeneutical reading of Tillich brings resources in his argument to the fore in order to address these problems. Specically, it
mines his account of agape for its link between self and other. Agape
overcomes our predicament of estrangement and reunites us with
essential being by effecting our participation in New Being (Christ)
in whom estrangement is conquered. For this reason, agape also
accomplishes what the person-to-person encounter demands the
moral act of self-constitution as a person. And it does this in such a
way that the personhood of others is respected and preserved. Since
human beings only become persons in the person-to-person encounter, the other, as other, comprises a limit to my self-constitution
and therefore a criterion for my self-interpretation. To understand
myself and my predicament correctly, then, is to grasp my dependence in relation to being-itself and to others, and, moreover, to do
so in a way that does not efface the other or surrender myself.
Agape, then, is the ethical expression of the drive and aim of being. Given loves compulsive power to destroy that which is against
love, in order to do justice to the other agape requires a commitment
to achieving a unity-in-difference. This respects and preserves the
others difference as well as my individuation. A hermeneutical account reveals that agape also requires a commitment to destroy that
which is against love in practices or in systems of meaning-making.
To fail to do so proves self-destructive as well as destructive of others.
This point is important. My self-understanding and its various expressions
in religious symbols and cultural forms are true and worthy only if they attest
to and impel me toward the claims of others, the demands of personhood in
myself and in them. Thus, while Tillich does not adequately undertake the moral criticism of (privatized) religion, or, say, stress the
relation between faith and social justice, a hermeneutical reading
of his argument can.
62
Schweiker, Responsibility and Christian Ethics, 225.
239
The question remains, however, how to specify the relation between Christian theology and general moral reection. How are
we to understand the relations among Christian theology, general moral reection, and particular prescriptives for action? Let
us turn now to consider this relation between self love and moral
thinking.
sel f love and theologi cal ethical t hinking
In the remainder of this book, several tasks converge: (1) my argument culminates methodologically by showing the contributions
Rahner and Tillich make to a contemporary ethics of self love
and how a hermeneutical approach resolves problems in them and
promises a way to confront other metaphysically indebted theological anthropologies; (2) I complete my account of self love by
clarifying the status of explicit faith and what this implies for the
universality and specicity of Christian morality and ethics; and
(3) I show what Christian ethics contributes to secular inquiry into
self love by showing how it is (to borrow Charles Taylors term)
error-reducing as well as internally self-validating.
Rahner and Tillich help us address the contemporary problem
of self love in several respects. They broaden the problem of self
love beyond adjudicating the self s interests vis-à-vis love for neighbor; self love is a matter of proper self-relation. Moreover, their
metaphysically indebted anthropologies offer a heuristic device for
thinking about the relation of self love and love for God and the
character of (right) self love. In this respect they are, ironically, more
concrete and practical than many deliberate Christian ethical treatments of self love. As Chapter Two suggested, these local debates
in Christian ethics tend to operate on the terms of a reied account
of love. This risks both moral abstraction from acts and relations
and moralism.
Nevertheless, if I am right that (1) right self love is ultimately about
an intimate relation with God that both relativizes and heightens
what is morally required of the person and (2) right self love, as
the proper form of self-relation requires us to evaluate morally
the truth of the persons self-understanding and the concrete acts
240
and relations through which she takes up her self-relation, then

we need to understand better than Rahner and Tillich do the
relation between the moral act of self-constitution and the persons
religious relation to God. Both of them fail to provide adequately
for the moral evaluation of the various forms self-relation can take.
In order to evaluate morally the various forms which self-relation
can take, it is necessary to subject this religious relation to God
to moral norms. Rahner and Tillich fail to allow for this moral
evaluation for different reasons.
For Tillich the moral act of self-constitution is a necessary condition for the persons religious relation to God (insofar as the moral
act of being a person is a prerequisite for being in any relation), but
is not constitutive of that relation. According to Tillich
every moral act is a responsible act, a response to a valid command, but
man can refuse to respond. If he refuses, he gives way to the forces of moral
disintegration; he acts against the spirit in the power of the spirit. For he
can never get rid of himself as spirit. He constitutes himself as a completely
centered self even in his anti-essential, antimoral actions. These actions
express moral centeredness even while they tend to dissolve the moral
center.63
Tillich recognizes that self-relation can take a variety of forms,

some of which are destructive and morally invalid. Because even
anti-moral acts establish the person as a centered being, one can
be morally vicious and yet still be rightly related to God. What
could be more Christian than this message? We are saved while
we are yet sinners. Still, can we say that ones moral character and
(mis)deeds and relations are neatly segregated from ones religious
relation to God? This hardly seems adequate to the totality of
the person. Tillich may insist that moral self-determination is not
constitutive of the religious relation, but he certainly argues that the
religious relation impacts the moral act. Because a false religious
relation threatens to dissolve the persons centeredness, it vitiates
the persons moral self-constitution; it is morally self-contradictory.
63
Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 39. See also 284, where Tillich writes, A nite being
can be separated from God; it can indenitely resist union; it can be thrown into selfdestruction and utter despair; but even this is the work of the divine love. . . . Hell has
being only in so far as it stands in the unity of the divine love. It is not the limit of the
divine love. The only preliminary limit is the resistance of the nite creature.
241
But this simply returns us to Tillichs claim that even anti-moral

acts express moral centeredness even while they tend to dissolve
the moral center. Tillich effectively relativizes the moral question
of whether or not a given form of self-relation is destructive to the
self. Thus it is not possible meaningfully to evaluate morally the
various forms self-relation can take.
He attempts to resolve the problem in the following fashion:
Why should one afrm ones essential being rather than destroy ones self ?
The answer to this must be that the person becomes aware of his innite
value or, ontologically expressed, of his belonging to the transcendent
union of unambiguous life which is the Divine Life; this awareness occurs
under the impact of the Spiritual Presence. The act of faith and the act
of accepting the moral imperatives unconditional character are one and
the same act.64
This equation of faith and the recognition of the moral imperatives unconditional character is problematic since elsewhere in
Tillich this same recognition of the demand of essential being is
distinguished from faith as the ecstatic experience in which this law
ceases to be a law because it has been fullled. Here Tillich seems
to operate with an understanding of faith as ultimate concern. So,
Tillichs argument is confused about the relation between the moral
act and relation to God, and whats more, he ounders on the very
tasks of right self love, that of evaluating the various beliefs (religious
and otherwise, in their affective and cognitive aspects) with which
the person understands herself, and evaluating the acts and relations through which she takes up her relation to herself, to God,
and to neighbors.
Like Tillich, Rahner maintains that the moral act of being a person is a necessary condition for religious relation to God. However,
unlike Tillich, Rahner argues that the moral act can be constitutive
of ones religious relation. This is because the moral act is divinized
by grace and thereby elevated. The persons a priori orientation toward God includes an element of (transcendental) revelation and
possibility of faith which also gives such an act that sufcient character of faith necessary for a moral act being a salvic act.65 The
64
65
Ibid., 159.
Rahner, Unity of the Love of Neighbor and the Love of God, Theological Investigations,
vol. 6, 239.
242
religiously constitutive character which moral action can have is

illuminated further by how Rahner understands freedom. Rahner
understands moral freedom as necessarily always also religious
freedom; even if this is not expressly known, it is at least silently
experienced in the fact that this freedom cannot be transmitted, in
the responsibility and innity of freedom.66 So Rahner species
the moral connection between the persons moral self-constitution
and her religious relation to God differently than Tillich. In doing so Rahner seems to provide for the moral evaluation of ones
religious relation to God. But this is not the case.
Rahner argues that any categorical object can mediate the persons transcendental experience of God as well as her response
to God. Thus although Rahner argues that moral self-constitution
can be constitutive of ones relation to God, the very transcendental
dimension which allows him to make this argument accounts for
his claim that any object can mediate the moral and religious relation. For this reason, Rahner fares little better than Tillich does
when it comes to evaluating morally the forms self-relation takes.
Rahner does acknowledge that the thematization of ones transcendental experience can be more or less appropriate he indicates
as much when he says that anonymous Christianity has explicit
faith as its entelechy, as well as when he argues that the unique
will of God in a moral situation is something the person is morally
obligated to discern and to bring into actuality. Here again, the
person is threatened by false and tyrannous forms of the religious
relation. Moreover Rahners argument makes it difcult to assess
morally the objects and commitments which mediate the persons
self-relation; surely it makes a difference whether the person experiences her transcendental relation to God through a love of
wealth as opposed to love for her neighbor. Indeed, Chapter Four
noted that the pluralism of human life tempts the person to center
her existence on some particular inner-worldly value. Thus, that
with respect to which the person centers her existence does matter
morally and religiously. The difculty is that Rahner does not bear
66
Rahner, On the Origins of Freedom, in Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for
Meaning, ed., Geoffrey B. Kelly (Minneapolis, mn: Fortress, 1992), 119.
243
out this impulse in his thought so as to argue that the thematizations

of ones religious relation are subject to moral evaluation.
The persons being includes a capacity for and trend toward
reection on it (although it is never completely captured in such reection). Because moral thinking arises out of moral being and has
moral being as its object, moral thinking is fundamentally an act
of self-interpretation, practiced individually and collectively; this
self-interpretation is undertaken with the conceptual and practical resources persons and communities create. These resources are
ways to express and respond to the values and goods they meet in
the world and to the divine as the source of value. This reexive
realism demands moral reection and testies to the norms for
such reection God and neighbor. This is why the imperative
for self love is the command to love God and neighbor. Religious
and moral activity are ways in which persons and communities endeavor to understand the divine horizon or ground toward which
they are driven and in which they participate, as well as ways they
try to guide action in accordance with the divine. Furthermore,
the constructive character of religion and morality highlights these
systems and institutions as arenas of human self-interpretation; but
their roots in the real provide criteria by which to assess their constructive elements. The person constitutes herself relationally (in
relation to others and to the ground of being) and hermeneutically
(how she understands herself as constituted by these relations and
whether she lives in consonance with them).
The claim that self-interpretation is mediated in the persons
religious and moral activity is a formal claim about the fundamental structure of understanding and its relation to agency; this
formal structure accommodates various contents. For example,
democratic liberalism might mediate a persons self-interpretation,
or a commitment to a particular project such as ones family or
a social justice enterprise. Explicit faith confers a particular identity; it does this so profoundly that it re-constitutes the conditions
for ones agency. But given the epistemological effects of acting, in
ones neighbor love one can express and work out a knowledge of
and love for God that is not (for any number of reasons) conceptualized in explicit faith. A hermeneutical approach shows Christian
244
ethics and Christian morality to be both universal and particular.

Certainly ethics employs particular sources, though these sources
(e.g., scripture) are not self-contained. They are themselves conditioned by historical and cultural forces and have a history of effects whereby they impress on the historical consciousness of those
who do not know them directly or recognize them as authoritative.
Certainly Christian convictions can inform ones intentions and
motivate one to act, and certainly they can yield moral and religious obligations that do not bind others. It is entirely appropriate
that Christian ethics sets criteria for success or failure in these
respects. Christian ethics is validated in ways internal to Christian
communities. But this fact does not necessarily conne the truth of
Christian ethics or the scope of Christian morality.
A hermeneutical account of self-relation insists that the self s
relation to others is inscribed into human consciousness. Christian
ethics insists that the person realizes herself in a self-disposal of love
for God and neighbor. Bringing philosophical hermeneutics to bear
on it in order to show the contributions it makes to the problem
of self love does not mean that Christian ethics is tested and validated by an independent philosophical anthropology. Of course, a
hermeneutical account does open it to secular and non-Christian
resources for thinking about the self and its relation to others in the
world. These resources can deepen and nuance Christian ethics,
prompt it to articulate more clearly and adequately the truth about
the person. But Christian ethics does this by reecting on this truth
as it is revealed in Jesus Christ. This means that there are principles and practices internal to it that can specify the point of being
Christian and set criteria for success and failure as a Christian
and that Christians can endeavor to love as Christians.
To claim that Christian faith is one of any number of commitments which might mediate self-understanding does not make it
one option among other, equally valid, options. But it does subject
Christian theological discourse to moral evaluation. If Christian
ethics opens up human moral existence, its force and veracity as a
means to do this must be established dialectically with respect to
other options. It must demonstrate its claim to apprehend rightly
the dignity and meaning of life before the divine, in the world,
and in relation with others. The persons self-relation testies to
245
the reality of the divine and right self love designates a particular
form of self-relation, a way of being in which the experience of the
divine which underlies the self s actions and relations provides the
meaning and coherence for her life. To the extent that Christian
ethics species the fundamental structure which its discourse mediates, and keys this to a vision of life before the divine in which
the persons well-being is neither divorced from nor subordinate to
that of others, Christian ethics validates itself through the dynamic
of self-relation.
How, then, does the account of right self love offered here fare in
relation to other Christian ethical arguments about self love? Recall
from Chapter Two that I argued that the contemporary literature
on self love tends to begin with an analysis of love rather than
the lover, evaluates self love with respect to love for the neighbor,
and collapses the nature and moral evaluation of self love. This
conceptual correlation of self love and neighbor love fosters relative
silence on love for God (though Vacek is a notable exception) and
cuts short theological anthropology. This in turn undermines moral
reection on religious accounts of the divinehuman relation and
on the concrete acts and relations through which persons take up
relation to self, God, and neighbor in the world.
By shifting our starting point from love to the self who is to love,
and by shifting our center of gravity from neighbor love to love for
God, we position ourselves well to glean the insights of Christian
ethical treatments of self love and to avoid their difculties. To begin, these shifts tease apart the nature and moral evaluation of self
love so that we can recognize that self-relation takes better and
worse forms. The norm of self-realization does not equip us to distinguish them. But by taking love for God as our center of gravity,
we avoid subjectivism and excessive reticence about normative anthropologies; love for God directs our attention to the divine as the
highest good and the source of value, and to our creatureliness and
to the goods that comprise it.
This point permits, for example, sympathy with and criticism of
Nygrens contention that self love is thoroughly pernicious. Recall
that Nygren found eros utterly opposed to Christian love (selfsacricing agape). Nygren reminds us that self love (when it is
wrong) can obstruct love for God and neighbor. His emphasis on
246
sacrice reminds us to transcend desire sufciently to gauge the

correspondence (or lack thereof ) between desire and ones basic
moral commitments, and to reform desire in the ways that we can.
The ethics offered here shares these claims with Nygren. But it differs from him on the egoism of loving God as the highest good.
Nygren neglects, as John Burnaby argued, the communal character of love and good in Christian thought.67 Love for God is not
a private pursuit (though it is increasingly regarded as such in our
contemporary situation). It is, as the Christian doctrine of the communion of saints suggests, a thoroughly communal delight (and, in
this world, struggle). And it is empowered and perfected by Gods
love for us, which instructs and enables us to love others and things
for their sake in God.68
Gods love for us and our love for God drive us more deeply into
the world with others, a world marked by sin, and more deeply and
truly into a confrontation with ourselves. So, against those Christian
theologians who deem self love natural and morally neutral, the
ethics offered here denounces moral indifference to the problem
of proper self-relation. It insists that self love is not simply a precondition or by-product or paradigm of neighbor love. It shares
with Ramsey the insight that slothful unwillingness to be oneself
can be a form of pride (and with Outka that it can be a form of
faithlessness). But it does not derive a duty of self love from neighbor
love. Because the person is created to love God, and because this
ethics has love for God as its center of gravity, it addresses and is
better equipped to identify duties to the self that might arise out
of love for God. Because both love for God and for neighbor are
norms for self love, this account also addresses Ramseys worries
about the selshness of mutuality.
Self love and neighbor love will conict, though they may, episodically and ultimately, be harmonized. Therefore Christian ethics
must articulate the positive, independent content of right self love
if we are to adjudicate conicts. It must offer a vision to orient
us and tools to deploy so that we can endeavor to love ourselves
rightly. Outkas language of structural self-responsibility is helpful.
67
68
John Burnaby, Amor Dei (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947).

Oliver ODonovan, The Problem of Self-Love in Augustine (New Haven and London: Yale
247
The account of self love offered here eshes out that language
by grappling with our creatureliness. Reformulating ontologically
indebted anthropologies assists us in this task.
The ethics offered here shares much with but also corrects
Christian ethical arguments for self love as an independent duty.
It does this by identifying the good of right self love as embodied integrity. Feminist tendencies to stress autonomous selfdetermination can collude with the immunization and privatization
of desire and with contemporary versions of the mindbody split.
And these tendencies contribute to rather than critically assess the
norm of self-realization. Feminist emphases on love as mutuality
can neglect the proper place of sacrice and unwittingly reinforce
the dichotomy of self-sacrice and a love that seeks reciprocity. They
also leave love for God out of the selfneighbor relation, or make
it a by-product of the relation. Finally, feminists can undermine
their concern for embodiment by an undue wariness of normative
anthropologies. They therefore court moral subjectivism and ironically risk a voluntarism in which intention constitutes the moral
meaning of our acts and relations. Vacek risks this, too.
In contrast, a hermeneutical account of self love construes selfrealization not simply as autonomous self-determination but more
broadly as proper self-relation. It highlights the unity-in-difference
of self and neighbor, thereby providing a proper place for sacrice.
In a hermeneutical account self-sacrice is limited and ordered, not
valorized, by the commensurability of self love and love for God.
This account provides for moral criticisms of religious accounts
that would render love for God as something that exacts the self s
denigration. Moreover, a hermeneutical account stresses our bodily
being in a world of value. It presses and responds to the questions
of whether our self-understanding is true and whether our acts
and relations appropriately embody our intentions, affections, and
commitments. In all of these ways, it fares better than available
Christian ethical treatments.
How does it address contemporary secular approaches to (and
denials of ) the self and the norm of self-realization? As Chapter
One noted, our contemporary moral situation exhibits problems
and questions that modern thinkers endeavored to address: the
relation of mind and body, the self s continuity, questions of a
248
stable human nature, the conditions of agency (especially freedom

and desire), the relation of the person to value, and the will to
power. These problems and questions meet in a suspicion of and
reticence about normative anthropologies, especially metaphysically indebted ones. They also express and reinforce the norm
of self-realization. I have argued that a hermeneutical account of
self-relation can treat ontological frameworks as heuristic devices
that address these problems and questions and the norm of selfrealization. It has important afnities with Christian theological anthropology that make it a valuable method for retrieving Christian
insights (e.g., the commensurability of self love and love for God)
and for responding to modern challenges. Thus, it can dispose us
well to the force and veracity of Christian ethics.
Consider, for example, the way a Christian ethical account of
freedom accommodates and corrects our modern emphases on
autonomy. Christian ethics recognizes the positive import of autonomy (it signals the non-instrumental worth of the self and the need
to resist tyranny and oppression). But it does not make the descriptive mistake of understanding the self as a free agent or sovereign
source of value. Christian ethics afrms freedom as established in
relation to an other who transcends it. Specically, the difference
between God and the creature means, among other things, that
freedom emerges in an antecedent order of value. Freedom is situated, co-determined, and conictual, and just so it is a capacity
for self-disposal or self-commitment. Freedom is not, as autonomy implies, a freedom of choice that requires independence from
all choices. Instead, Christian ethics rightly perceives the unity of
freedom in and through freedoms history.
Christian moral insight into our creatureliness also accommodates and corrects (post) modern deconstruction of the self. This
is especially true when a hermeneutical method is used to read
Christian claims about our creatureliness. Because it insists with
(post) modern thinkers that we are social, linguistic and selfinterpreting creatures, it does not require or permit a static human
nature. It does afrm the goodness and moral import of our bodily
existence. The relatively stable needs and goods that characterize
human existence provide objective reference points for moral reection. A hermeneutical method both grants our historical and
249
cultural creativity in specifying their meaning and ordering our

lives to them, and insists on deconstructive and liberating reection
and praxis so that we might do so in ever better fashion. Christian
ethics, while not at all immune from criticism and revision, offers a
vision of the human good and rich symbolic resources and practices
that normatively direct us in these tasks. It also shares with (post)
modern deconstructions of the self an insistence on a post-moral
freedom. Its (self-) critical power prohibits complacent rest in a single system of meaning or idolatrous regard for some nite value
or project. The sovereignty of God and the freedom Christ brings
exact and prompt ongoing vigilance and openness to transformation. But this freedom answers rather than thwarts our aspirations
for coherence. The answer is experienced in the loss or gain of
God in the response we make to Gods self-communication; the
history of our free response to Gods gracious love gives coherence
to our own self-relation. We come to know ourselves (and others)
in God.
This means, as well, that Christian ethics afrms our plurality
without absolutizing it, afrms our complexity without compartmentalizing or fragmenting the self. The cult of self-creation
promises ways to x ourselves into versions we (and others) may
love, but it is predicated on self-loathing. It also misconstrues the
relation between our identity and our acting. Christian ethics insists on the goodness of our creatureliness and the freedom of
self-acceptance (and its correlate, responsibility). A hermeneutical
method can highlight Christian insight into our self-constitution
through acting and the provisional moral meaning of those acts in
the divine counsel. It accounts for moral change not by stressing
Nietzschean higher overcomings or by making oneself worthy, but
by describing the way faith vivies our agency, puries and directs
desire and sets our freedom free.
In doing all of this Christian ethics responds to the privatization
and immunization of desire. It recognizes the way desire is shaped
and elicited (and therefore is not private). It makes sense of our experiences of conferring value and being confronted by it. It indexes
desire to objective goods and to God as the source of value and
the highest good; it thereby prohibits the immunization of desire.
In particular, a hermeneutical method for Christian ethics requires
250
us to consider how desire expresses itself in our concrete acts and

relations.
So, a Christian ethical argument for right self love is not a gross
instantiation of the will to power. Nor is it a slave morality that
diminishes human life. A hermeneutical account of self-relation afrms the interpretive and perspectival character of human thought
but also can re-deploy ontology as a resource for insightful selfinterpretation and as an exercise of practical reason.
conclusion
Persons are problems to themselves; the question of how to be
rightly related to oneself taps into the deepest aspirations and anxieties of the moral life. The problem of self love concerns nothing
less than ones very existence before God and in the world. This
book has wrestled with the tensions between the complexity of the
person and of the moral life, and the need to think clearly and fruitfully about this. Perhaps the most tting conclusion to this work,
then, is to recognize that something of the meaning and goodness
of life before God is to be found in our asking about it and in our
attempts to answer.
Bibliography
Adams, James Luther, Paul Tillichs Philosophy of Culture, Science and Religion
(New York: Harper and Row, 1965).
On Being Human Religiously: Selected Essays in Religion and Society, ed., Max
L. Stackhouse (Boston, ma: Beacon Press, 1976).
Adams, Robert M., Saints, The Journal of Philosophy ( July 1984), 392401.
Adler, Nathan, The Underground Stream: New Life Styles and the Antinomian
Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).
Alison, James, The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin Through Easter Eyes (New
York: Crossroad, 1998).
Allik, Tina K., Nature and Spirit: Agency and Concupiscence in
Hauerwas and Rahner, Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (1987): 1432.
Alston, William P., Realism and the Christian Faith, International Journal
for Philosophy of Religion 38 (1995), 3760.
Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reections on the Origin and Spread
of Nationalism, 2nd edn. (New York: Verso, 1991).
Anderson, James F., Paul Tillich (Albany, ny: Magi Books, Inc, 1972).
Anderson, Ray S., On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Grand
Rapids, mi: William B. Eerdmans, 1982).
Andolsen, Barbara Hilkert, Agape in Feminist Ethics, in Feminist Theological Ethics: a Reader, ed., Lois K. Daly (Louisville, ky: Westminster/
John Knox, 1994).
Anshen, Ruth Nanda, ed., Moral Principles of Action: Mans Ethical Imperative
(New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1952).
Antonaccio, Maria, Contemporary Forms of Askesis and the Return of
Spiritual Exercises, Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics 18 (1998),
6992.
Augustine, St., Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford
Bacik, James J., Apologetics and the Eclipse of Mystery: Mystagogy According to Karl Rahner (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame,
1980).
251
252
Bibliography
Balibar, Etienne, and Immanuel Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous

Identities (London: Verso, 1991).
Beauchesne, Richard J., The Supernatural Existential as Desire: Karl
Rahner and Emmanuel Levinas Revisited, Eglise

et Theologie 23
(1992), 22139.
Bechte, Regina, Karl Rahners Supernatural Existential: a Personalist
Approach, Thought 48 (1973): 6177.
Bell, Daniel, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (New York: Basic,
1976).
Bellah, Robert, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swindler,
and Steve M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment
in American Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1985).
Benhabib, Seyla, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in
Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge, 1992).
Berry, Wendell, Standing By Words: Essays by Wendell Berry (San Francisco,
ca: North Point Press, 1983).
What Are People For? (New York: North Point Press, 1990).
Bossy, John, Christianity in the West, 14001700 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press; John Bossy, 1985).
Bresnahan, James F., Rahners Ethics: Critical Natural Law in Relation
to Contemporary Ethical Methodology, Journal of Religion 56 (1976),
3660.
Brown, Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in
Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).
Brummer, Vincent, Speaking of a Personal God: an Essay in Philosophical Theology
Buckley, James J., On Being a Symbol: an Appraisal of Karl Rahner,
Theological Studies 40:3 (1979), 28598.
Bulman, Raymond F., and Frederick J. Parrella, eds., Paul Tillich: a New
Catholic Assessment (Collegeville, mn: Liturgical Press, 1994).
Burnaby, John, Amor Dei (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947).
Burnham, Frederick B., ed., Postmodern Theology: Christian Faith in a Pluralist
World (New York: Harper and Row, 1989).
Butler, Joseph, Five Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel: and a Dissertation
upon the Nature of Virtue, introduction by Stuart M. Brown (New York:
Liberal Arts, 1950).
Butler, Judith,Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York
and London: Routledge, 1990).
Bynum, Caroline Walker, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: the Religious Signicance of
Food to Medieval Women (Berkeley, ca: University of California Press,
1987).
Cahill, Lisa Sowle, Between the Sexes: Foundations for a Christian Ethics of
Sexuality (Philadelphia, pa: Fortress Press, 1985).
Bibliography
253
Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1996).
Callahan, Annice, Karl Rahners Theology of Symbol: Basis of his
Theology of the Church and the Sacraments, Irish Theological
Quarterly 49 (1982), 195205.
The Relationship between Spirituality and Theology, Horizons 16
(1989), 26674.
Carey, John J., ed., Kairos and Logos: Studies in the Roots and Implications of
Tillichs Theology (Cambridge, ma: The North American Paul Tillich
Society, 1978).
Carr, Anne, The Theological Method of Karl Rahner, AAR Dissertation Series,
no. 19 (Missoula, mo: Scholars Press, 1977).
Castels, Manuel, The Power of Identity, vol. 2, The Information Age: Economy,
Society and Culture (Malden, ma: Blackwell, 1997).
Cates, Diana Fritz, Choosing to Feel: Virtue, Friendship and Compassion for
Friends (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997).
Cawte, J., Karl Rahners Conception of Gods Self-Communication to
Man, Heythrop Journal 25:3 (1984), 26071.
Chadwick, Owen, The Reformation (London: Penguin; Owen Chadwick,
1972).
Chodorow, Nancy, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (New Haven: Yale
Chopp, Rebecca, The Power to Speak: Feminism, Language and God (New York:
Crossroad, 1989).
Cobb, Kelton, Reconsidering the Status of Popular Culture in Tillichs
Theology of Culture, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63
(Spring 1995): 5384.
Coburn, Robert C., The Idea of Transcendence, Philosophical Investigations 13 (1990), 32237.
Conway, Eamonn, The Anonymous Christian a Relativised Christianity?
(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993).
Cornell, Drucilla, At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality
(Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1998).
Coward, Rosalind, Patriarchal Precedents: Sexuality and Social Relations
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983).
Cowburn, John, Love and the Person: a Philosophical Theory and a Theological
Essay (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967).
Curran, Charles, The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: a Synthesis (Washington
dc: Georgetown University Press, 1999).
DArcy, M. C., The Mind and Heart of Love (New York: Meridian Books,
1959).
Davis, Joseph E., Identity and Social Change: a Short Review, The
Hedgehog Review 1 (Fall 1999): 95102.
254
Bibliography
DCosta, Gavin, Karl Rahners Anonymous Christian: a Reappraisal,

Modern Theology 1:2 (1985), 13148.
de Letter, Paul, Divine Quasi-Formal Causality, Irish Theological Quarterly
27 (1960), 22128.
de Rougemont, Denis, Love in the Western World, trans. Montgomery Belgion
(Garden City, ny: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1957).
Devaney, Shelia Greave, Problems with Feminist Theory: Historicity
and the Search for Sure Foundations, in Embodied Love: Sensuality
and Relationship as Feminist Values, eds., Paula M. Cooey, Sharon A.
Farmer, and Mary Ellen Ross (San Francisco, ca: Harper and Row,
1987).
Dilman, Ilham, Raskolnikovs Rebirth: Psychology and the Understanding of Good
and Evil (Chicago and La Salle: Open Court, 2000).
Donagan, Alan, The Theory of Morality (Chicago, il: University of Chicago,
1977).
Driesbach, Donald F., Paul Tillichs Hermeneutic, Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 43 (1975), 8494.
Essence, Existence, and the Fall: Paul Tillichs Analysis of Existence,
Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980), 52138.
Symbols and Salvation: Paul Tillichs Doctrine of Religious Symbols and his Interpretation of the Symbols of the Christian Tradition (Lanham, md: University
Press of America, 1993).
Dych, William V., Karl Rahner (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1992).
Eberhard, Kenneth D., Karl Rahner and the Supernatural Existential,
Thought 46 (1971), 53761.
Edwards, Denis, The Relationship between the Risen Christ and the
Material Universe,Pacica 4 (1991), 114.
Edwards, Jonathan, On the Nature of True Virtue, foreword William K.
Frankena (Ann Arbor, mi: University of Michigan, 1960).
Erikson, Erik, Identity: Youth and Crisis (New York: Norton, 1968).
Etzioni, Amitai, The Spirit of Community (New York: Crown, 1993).
Farley, Margaret, Personal Commitments: Beginning, Keeping, Changing (San
Francisco, ca: HarperSanFrancisco, 1986).
Feminist Theology and Bioethics, in Feminist Theological Ethics, ed.,
Lois K. Daly (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).
Fields S. J., Stephen, Being as Symbol: on the Origins and Development of Karl
Rahners Metaphysics (Washington dc: Georgetown University Press,
2000).
Finnis, John, Fundamentals of Ethics (Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1983).
Flanagan, Owen, Varieties of Moral Personality: Ethics and Psychological Realism
(Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1991).
Bibliography
255
Flanagan, Owen and Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, eds., Identity, Character

and Morality: Essays in Moral Psychology (Cambridge, ma: MIT Press,
1990.
Foerster, John, Paul Tillich and Inter-religious Dialogue,Modern Theology
7 (1990), 127.
Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan
Sheridan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977).
The History of Sexuality: an Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York:
Random House, 1978).
Frankfurt, Harry, The Importance of what We Care About (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988).
Freud, Sigmund, Civilization and its Discontents (New York: Norton, 1930).
Fromm, Erich, Man for Himself: an Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (New
York: Rinehart, 1947).
Furnish, Victor, Love Command in the New Testament (New York: Abingdon,
1972).
Gallagher, John A., Time Past, Time Future: a Historical Study of Catholic Moral
Theology (New York: Paulist, 1990).
Gergen, Kenneth J., The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary
Life (New York: Basic, 1991).
Gilleman, Gerard, The Primacy of Charity in Moral Theology (Westminster,
md: Newman, 1959).
Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University
Press, 1982).
Goffman, Erving, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York:
Doubleday, 1959).
Goldstein, Valerie Saiving, The Human Situation: a Feminine View, in
Womanspirit Rising: a Feminist Reader in Religion, eds., Carol P. Christ and
Judith Plaskow (San Francisco, ca: HarperSanFrancisco; Christ and
Plaskow, 1979).
Graber, Glenn, The Metaethics of Paul Tillich, Journal of Religious Ethics
1 (1973), 11333.
Graham, Elaine, Making the Difference: Gender, Personhood and Theology
(Minneapolis, mn: Fortress, 1996).
Gregg, Richard, The Experiential Center of Tillichs System, Journal
of the American Academy of Religion 53 (1985), 25158.
Grisez, Germain, Christian Moral Principles, vol. 1 of The Way of the Lord Jesus
(Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1983).
Gustafson, James M., Protestant and Roman Catholic Ethics: Prospects for
Rapprochement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).
Gutierrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, rev. edn., trans. and eds. Sister
Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (New York: Orbis, 1990).
256
Bibliography
Hadot, Pierre, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to

Foucault, ed. and intro., Arnold I. Davidson (Oxford and Cambridge,
ma: Blackwell Publishers, 1995).
Hallet, Garth L., Christian Neighbor Love: an Assessment of Six Rival Versions
(Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1989).
Priorities and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998).
Harrison, Beverly Wildung, Making the Connections: Essays in Feminist Social
Ethics, ed., Carol S. Robb (Boston, ma: Beacon, 1985).
Harvey, David, The Condition of Postmodernity: an Enquiry into the Origins
of Cultural Change (Oxford and Cambridge, ma: Basil Blackwell,
1989).
Hauerwas, Stanley, A Community of Character (Notre Dame, in: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1987).
Agency: Going Forward by Looking Back, in Christian Ethics: Problems
and Prospects, eds., Lisa Sowle Cahill and James F. Childress (Cleveland, oh: Pilgrim, 1996).
Hauerwas, Stanley, and Gregory L. Jones, eds., Why Narrative?: Readings in
Narrative Theology (Grand Rapids, mi: W. B. Eerdmans, 1989).
Hazo, Robert, The Idea of Love (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967).
Hewitt, John P., Dilemmas of the American Self (Philadelphia, pa: Temple
Heyward, Carter, Heterosexist Theology: Being Above it All, Journal of
Feminist Studies in Religion 3 (1987): 2938.
Higheld, Ron, The Freedom to Say No? Karl Rahners Doctrine of
Sin, Theological Studies 56 (1995), 485505.
Hill, W., Uncreated Grace A Critique of Karl Rahner, Thomist 27
(1963), 33356.
Himes, Michael J. and Kenneth R. Himes, Fullness of Faith: the Public
Signicance of Theology (New York: Paulist, 1993).
Irwin, Alexander C., The Faces of Desire: Tillich on Essential Libido,
Concupiscence and the Transcendence of Estrangement, Encounter
51 (1990), 33958.
Isasi-Daz, Ada Mara, Solidarity: Love of Neighbor in the 1990s, in Feminist Theological Ethics ed., Lois K. Daly (Louisville, ky: Westminster/
John Knox, 1994).
Jackson, Timothy P., Love Disconsoled: Meditations on Christian Charity
Johann, Robert O., The Meaning of Love: an Essay towards a Metaphysics of
Intersubjectivity (London: Geoffrey Chapman Ltd., 1954).
Johnson, Mark, The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination,
and Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).
Bibliography
257
Kant, Immanuel, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans.

Thomas K. Abbott (New York: Macmillan, 1949).
Kegley, Charles W., and Robert W. Bretall, eds., The Theology of Paul Tillich
(New York: Macmillan, 1961).
Keller, Joseph, Mysticism and Intersubjective Creativity, Studia Mystica
8:4 (1985), 3646.
Kelsey, David H., The Fabric of Paul Tillichs Theology (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1967).
Kierkegaard, Sren, Works of Love, eds. and trans. Howard Hong and Edna
Hong (New York: Harper and Row, 1962).
Kottukapally, J., Nature and Grace: a New Dimension, Thought 49
(1974), 11733.
Kramer, Peter D., Listening to Prozac: a Psychiatrist Explores Antidepressant Drugs
and the Remaking of the Self (New York: Viking, 1993).
Laing, R. D., The Divided Self: an Existential Study in Sanity and Madness
(Baltimore, md: Penguin, 1965).
Lamadrid, Lucas, Anonymous or Analogous Christians? Rahner and
von Balthasar on Naming the Non-Christian, Modern Theology 11
(1995), 36384.
Lamm, Julia A., Catholic Substance Revisited: Reversals of Expectations in Tillichs Doctrine of God, in Paul Tillich: A New Catholic Assessment, eds. Raymond F. Bulman and Frederick J. Parrella (Collegeville,
mn: Liturgical Press, 1994).
Larmore, Charles E., Patterns of Moral Complexity (Cambridge: Cambridge
Lasch, Christopher, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of
Diminishing Expectations (New York: Norton, 1979).
The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times (New York: Norton,
1984).
Lauritzen, Paul, The Self and its Discontents, Journal of Religious Ethics
22:1 (1994), 189210.
Lewis, C. S., The Four Loves (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960).
Lichtman, Susan L., The Concept of Sin in the Theology of Paul Tillich:
A Break From Patriarchy? Journal of Women and Religion 8 (1989),
4955.
Lifton, Robert Jay, The Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation
(New York: Basic, 1993).
Locke, John, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. with a foreword
by Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford
MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue, 2nd edn. (Notre Dame, in: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1984).
258
Bibliography
Mahoney, John, The Making of Moral Theology: a Study of the Roman Catholic
Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Marcuse, Herbert, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced
Industrial Society (Boston, ma: Beacon, 1964).
Martin, Bernard, The Existentialist Theology of Paul Tillich (New York:
Bookman Associates, 1963).
McDargh, John, Theological Uses of Psychology: Retrospective and
Prospective, Horizons 12 (1985), 24764.
McDonald, H. D., The Symbolic Christology of Paul Tillich, Vox Evangelica 18 (1988), 7588.
McFadyen, Alistair, Bound to Sin: Abuse, Holocaust and the Christian Doctrine of
Sin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
McFague, Sallie, Models of God (Philadelphia, pa: Fortress, 1987).
Mead, George Herbert, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1934).
Meilaender, Gilbert, Friendship (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1981).
Merton, Thomas, The Nonviolent Alternative, ed. Gordon Zahn (New York:
Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1980).
Metz, Johannes Baptist, Faith in History and Society: toward a Practical Fundamental Theology, trans. David Smith (New York: Seabury, 1979).
An Identity Crisis in Christianity? Transcendental and Political
Responses, Theology and Discovery: Essays in Honor of Karl Rahner, ed.,
William Kelly (Milwaukee, wi: Marquette University Press, 1980),
16978.
Meyrowitz, Joshua, No Sense of Place: the Impact of Electronic Media on Social
Behavior (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).
Miller, Edward J., Inclusivist and Exclusivist Issues in Soteriology: to
Whom Does Jesus Saving Power Extend? Perspectives in Religious
Studies 12 (1985), 12337.
Miller, William Ian, The Anatomy of Disgust (Cambridge, ma, and London:
Harvard University Press, 1997).
Mitchell, Juliet, Womens Estate (New York: Random House, Vintage Books,
1973).
Modras, Ronald, Implications of Rahners Anthropology for Fundamental Moral Theology, Horizons 12 (Spring 1985), 7090.
Catholic Substance and the Catholic Church Today, in Paul Tillich:
a New Catholic Assessment, eds., Raymond F. Bulman and Frederick
J. Parrella (Collegeville, mn: Liturgical Press, 1994).
Morgan, John H., Religion and Culture as Meaning Systems: a Dialogue
between Geertz and Tillich, Journal of Religion 57 (1977), 36375.
Muck, Otto, The Transcendental Method, trans. William D. Seidensticker
(New York: Herder and Herder, 1968).
Bibliography
259
Murdoch, Iris, The Sovereignty of Good (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1970).
Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals (New York: Allen Lane/Penguin, 1993).
Niebuhr, H. Richard, Faith in God and in Gods, Radical Monotheism
and Western Culture, With Supplementary Essays, foreword by James M.
Gustafson (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1960).
The Responsible Self (San Francisco, ca: HarperSanFrancisco, 1963).
Nussbaum, Martha, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic
Ethics (Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press, 1994).
Nygren, Anders, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson (London: S.P.C.K.,
1957).
OConnell, Timothy, Principles for a Catholic Morality, rev. edn. (San
Francisco, ca: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990).
ODonovan, Leo J., ed., A World of Grace: an Introduction to the Themes and
Foundations of Karl Rahners Theology (New York: Seabury, 1980).
ODonovan, Oliver, The Problem of Self-Love in Augustine (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1980).
OGrady, Jane, Emotions and feelings in Oxford Companion to Philosophy,
ed., Ted Honderich (Oxford and New York: Oxford University, 1995).
OKeefe, Mark, Becoming Good, Becoming Holy: On the Relationship of Christian
Ethics and Spirituality (New York: Paulist, 1995).
Outka, Gene, Agape: an Ethical Analysis (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1972).
Universal Love and Impartiality in The Love Commandments: Essays
in Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy, eds., Edmund N. Santurri
and William Werpehowski (Washington dc: Georgetown University
Press, 1992).
Ozment, Steven E., The Reformation in the Cities (New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1975).
Page, Ruth, The Consistent Christology of Paul Tillich, Scottish Journal
of Theology 36 (1983), 195212.
Parsons, Susan Frank, Feminism and Christian Ethics (Cambridge:
Peter, Carl, The Position of Karl Rahner Regarding the Supernatural:
a Comparative Study of Nature and Grace, Proceedings of the Catholic
Theological Society of America 20 (1965), 8194.
Plaskow, Judith, Sex, Sin and Grace: Womens Experience and the Theologies of
Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich (Lanham, md: University Press of
America, 1980).
Pope, Stephen, Expressive Individualism and True Self-Love: a
Thomistic Perspective, The Journal of Religion 71 ( July 1991), 38499.
Porter, Jean, Moral Action and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge
260
Bibliography
The Recovery of Virtue (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1990).

Salvic Love and Charity, in The Love Commandments: Essays in
Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy, eds., Edmund N. Santurri and
William Werpehowski (Washington dc: Georgetown University
Press, 1992).
Post, Stephen, A Theory of Agape: On the Meaning of Christian Love (Lewisburg,
pa: Bucknell University Press, 1990).
Proudfoot, Wayne, Religious Experience (Berkeley, ca: University of
California Press, 1985).
Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, vols. 114 (vols. 16, Baltimore, md:
Helicon; vols. 710, New York: Herder and Herder; vols. 1114, New
York: Seabury, 19611976).
The Dynamic Element in the Church (London: Burns and Oates, 1964).
Spirit in the World, trans. William Dych (New York: Herder and Herder,
1968).
Hearers of the World, trans. Michael Richards (New York: Herder and
Herder, 1969).
Meditations on Freedom and the Spirit (New York: Seabury, 1978).
The Love of Jesus and the Love of Neighbor, trans. Robert Barr (New York:
Crossroad, 1983).
Karl Rahner: Theologian of the Graced Search for Meaning, ed., Geoffrey B.
Kelly (Minneapolis, mn: Fortress, 1992).
Foundations of Christian Faith: an Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans.
William Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1993).
Ramsey, Paul, Basic Christian Ethics (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John
Knox, 1950).
Reiff, Philip, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith After Freud (New
York: Harper and Row, 1966).
Reno, R. R., The Ordinary Transformed: Karl Rahner and the Christian
Vision of Transcendence (Grand Rapids, mi: William B. Eerdmans,
1995).
Reuther, Rosemary Radford, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology
(Boston, ma: Beacon, 1983).
Richard, Jean, Theology of Culture and Systematic Theology in Paul
Tillich, Eglise
et Theologie 2 (1986), 22332.
Ricoeur, Paul, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort
Worth, tx: Texas Christian University, 1976).
Oneself as Another, trans. Kathleen Blamey (Chicago: University of
Roth, Robert J., ed., Person and Community: a Philosophical Exploration (New
York: Fordham University Press, 1975).
Royster, James E., Paul Tillichs Ethical Thought, Ohio Journal of
Religious Studies 5 (April 1977), 3551.
Bibliography
261
Rudman, Stanley, Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics (Cambridge:

Sabatino, Charles J., An Interpretation of the Signicance of Theonomy
within Tillichs Theology, Encounter 45 (1984), 2338.
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey, ed., Essays on Moral Realism (Ithaca, ny and
London: Cornell University Press, 1988).
Scharf, Uwe C., Dogmatics between the Poles of the Sacred and the
Profane: an Essay in Theological Methodology, Encounter 55 (1994),
26986.
Schlabach, Gerald W., For the Joy Set Before Us: Augustine and Self-Denying
Love (Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame, 2001).
Schrag, Calvin O., The Self After Postmodernity (Cambridge: Cambridge
Schwarz, Douglas O., Religious Relativism: Paul Tillichs last word,
American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 7:2 (1986), 10614.
Schweiker, William, Hermeneutics, Ethics and the Theology of Culture:
Concluding Reections, in Meanings in Texts and Actions: Questioning Paul Ricoeur, eds., David E. Klemm and William Schweiker
(Charlottesville, va: University of Virginia Press, 1993).
Responsibiltiy and Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995).
Power, Value and Conviction (Cleveland, oh: Pilgrim, 1998).
Sennet, Richard, The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism
(New York: Knopf, 1977).
Sharpe, R. A., The Moral Case Against Religious Belief (London: SCM Press
Ltd., 1997).
Shaw, Elliott, All You Need is Love: Ethics in the Thought of Paul
Tillich, Modern Believing 37 ( January 1996), 2430.
Sheehan, Thomas, Karl Rahner: the Philosophical Foundations (Athens, oh:
Ohio University Press, 1987).
Singer, Irving, The Nature of Love, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1987).
Singh, Sachindra Kumar, Religious Philosophy of Paul Tillich (Delhi-6:Capital
Publishing House, 1989).
Sinnett, M. W., The Primacy of Relation in Paul Tillichs Theology of
Correlation: a Reply to the Critique of Charles Hartshorne Religious
Studies 27 (1991), 54157.
Slater, Peter, Tillich on the Fall and the Temptation of Goodness, Journal
of Religion 65 (1985), 196207.
Soble, Alan, The Structure of Love (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1990).
Staes, Paul, Positive Self Regard and Authentic Morality (Aeteneo de Manila
University, 1972).
262
Bibliography
Stambaugh, Joan, The Formless Self (Albany, ny: SUNY, 1999).

Stenger, Mary A., Paul Tillichs Theory of Theological Norms and
the Problems of Relativism and Subjectivism, Journal of Religion 62
(1982), 35975.
Stern, Karl, The Flight from Woman (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,
1965).
Sundberg, Walter, The Demonic in Christian Thought, Lutheran Quarterly 1 (1987), 41337.
Talley, Joseph E., Psychological Separation Individuation and Spiritual
Reunion, Journal of Psychology and Theology 8 (1980), 97106.
Tallon, Andrew, The Heart in Rahners Philosophy of Mysticism,
Theological Studies 53 (1992), 70028.
Rahner and Personalization, Philosophy Today 14 (1970), 4456.
Personal Becoming, Thomist 43 (1979), 1177.
Tanner, Kathryn, God and Creation in Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell,
1988).
The Politics of God (Minneapolis, mn: Fortress, 1992).
Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self: the Making of the Modern Identity
(Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1989).
The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press,
1992).
Taylor, Mark Lloyd, God is Love: a Study in the Theology of Karl Rahner
(American Academy of Religion Series. Atlanta, ga: Scholars Press,
1986).
TeSelle, E. A., The Problem of Nature and Grace, Journal of Religion 45
(1965), 23849.
Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 195163).
The Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952).
Love, Power and Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954).
Biblical Religion and the Search for Ultimate Reality (Chicago: University of
Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper Brothers,
1957).
Theology of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959).
Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions (New York and London:
Columbia University Press, 1963).
The Eternal Now (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1963).
Morality and Beyond (Louisville, ky: Westminster/John Knox, 1963).
Tilly, Maureen H., and Susan A. Ross, eds., Broken and Whole: Essays on
Religion and the Body (Lanham, md: University Press of America, Inc.,
1994).
Toner, Jules, The Experience of Love (Washington: Corpus Books, 1968).
Bibliography
263
Turkle, Sherry, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (New York:
Simon and Schuster; Turkle, 1995).
Vacek S. J., Edward, Love, Human and Divine: the Heart of Christian Ethics
(Washington dc: Georgetown University Press, 1994).
Van Rooy, Jacobus A., Christ and the Religions: the Issues at Stake,
Missionalia 13 (1985), 313.
Viladesau, Richard, How is Christ Absolute? Rahners Christology and
the Encounter of World Religions, Philosophy and Theology 2 (1988),
22040.
Vulgamore, Melvin L., Tillichs Erotic Solution, Encounter 45 (Summer
1984), 193212.
Wallace, William A., Existential Ethics: a Thomistic Appraisal, Thomist
27 (1963), 493515.
Wallwork, Ernest, Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself: the
Freudian Critique, Journal of Religious Ethics 10 (Fall 1982), 29192.
Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic, 1983).
Waters, Mary, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America (Berkeley, ca:
University of California Press, 1990).
Weisbaker, Donald R., Paul Tillich on the Experiential Ground of
Religious Certainty, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 1:2
(1980), 3744.
Wiles, Maurice, Christianity and other Faiths: some Theological Reections, Theology 91 (1988), 30208.
Williams, Bernard, Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 19731980 (Cambridge,
ma: Harvard University Press, 1981).
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University
Press, 1985).
Wolf, Susan, Moral Saints, The Journal of Philosophy (August 1982),
41939.
Yankelovich, Daniel, New Rules: Searching for Self-Fulllment in a World Turned
Upside Down (New York: Random House, 1981).
Young, Iris, The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference,
Social Theory and Practice 12:1 (Spring 1986).
Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, nj: Princeton University
Press, 1990).
Zurcher, Louis A., Jr., The Mutable Self: a Self-Concept for Social Change
(Beverly Hills, ca: Sage, 1977).
Zurcher, Louis A., Jr., and Michael R. Wood, The Development of a Postmodern
Self: a Computer-Assisted Comparative Analysis of Personal Documents (New
York: Greenwood, 1988).
Index
agape 5, 47, 4850, 52, 5456, 6163, 69,

70, 7475, 146, 186, 233, 23638,
245
agency 5, 1922, 3436, 38, 50, 120, 124,
152, 190, 19192
conditions of 1213, 18, 2731, 51, 101,
118, 248
experience of 78, 84, 102, 129
faith and 13637, 186, 243, 249
moral acts and 17382, 196201, 20407
understanding and 85, 8691, 92, 104,
112, 150, 151, 16971, 243
see also freedom; God, moral acts
and; integrity, embodied;
self-understanding, acting and
Alison, James 138
Aquinas, St. Thomas 89, 105, 133, 157, 164
Aristotle 164
AristotelianThomistic tradition 41, 7879,
89, 104, 105, 164
Augustine, St. 8, 36, 82, 95, 157
Benhabib, Seyla 2729
Berry, Wendell 31
body 1112, 18, 3135, 40, 6364, 68, 69,
78, 96100, 247
see also embodiment
Buckley, James 16465
Burnaby, James 246
Butler, Joseph 53 n.13
Cahill, Lisa 69, 7879, 8991, 98
Calvin, John 95, 157, 185
conscience 182, 185
see also Schweiker, radical interpretation
in; Tillich, on transmoral conscience
consciousness 12, 16, 75, 8586, 145, 155,
192, 231
Cornell, Drucilla 172, 18283

creation 4, 39, 61, 113, 11718, 128, 137, 140,
141, 186, 203, 228
see also God, difference from creation;
self, as creature
Curran, Charles 177
Derrida, Jacques 95
Descartes, Rene 1112
desire 1315, 18, 3639, 50, 69, 95, 101,
118, 18081, 182, 183, 246, 247, 248
see also eros
Driesbach, Donald 162
duty 9, 1315, 16, 20, 59, 72, 73, 139, 191
Edwards, Jonathan 53 n.13, 185
embodiment 25, 30, 42, 46, 65, 7172,
7879, 81, 88, 91, 95100, 103, 104,
106, 125, 141, 164, 182, 247
see also integrity, embodied
emotions 76, 88, 92, 10102
Engels, Fridrich 16
Erikson, Erik 33
eros 5, 47, 4850, 52, 54, 57, 61, 66, 69,
70, 7475, 122, 186, 20102
ethics
deontological 57, 191
feminist 14344; human nature in 12,
30, 78, 96, 97; self love in 19, 46, 47,
48, 50, 51, 56, 6072, 79, 80, 159, 247;
sex industry and 172, 18283
relational responsibility 19192
Etzioni, Amitai 23
faith 56, 41, 44, 13537, 147, 16263,
18586, 233, 236, 237
explicit 92, 140, 161, 173, 208, 210, 211,
213, 221, 22431, 239, 242, 243, 244
264
Index
self-relation and 36, 107, 124, 127, 132,
168, 171, 241, 249
Farley, Margaret 52, 99
Fenelon, Francois 138
Finnis, John 9091, 136, 16869, 177, 206
Flanagan, Owen 185
Foucault, Michel 19, 68, 9697
Frankfurt, Harry 95
freedom 6, 18, 74, 76, 86, 191
as autonomy 1316, 1922, 27, 30, 40, 42,
78, 115, 248
moral acts and 19495, 197, 199, 211, 231,
relation to God and 4445, 77, 94, 105,
108, 113, 114, 124, 129, 132, 136, 149,
159, 185, 188, 190, 213, 218, 242,
249
self-commitment and 35, 36, 125, 126,
135, 222, 226, 248
as situated 29, 84, 11518, 127, 172,
18384
unity of 25, 165, 170, 20506
see also Rahner, on fundamental option
Freud, Sigmund 7, 11, 16, 95
Gadamer, Hans-Georg 85
God passim
difference from creation 81, 106, 107,
11315, 120, 126, 12829, 14142, 248
as highest good 3, 4, 39, 59, 79, 121, 133,
138, 217, 246
knowledge of 6, 94, 10912, 211
moral acts and 99, 165, 17376, 178,
180, 194, 195, 197, 198, 205, 210, 211,
234
moral criticism of relation to 6, 10, 42,
45, 60, 77, 80, 107, 129, 140, 141, 160,
161, 166, 208, 224, 240, 242, 247
relation to 44, 71, 82, 93, 95, 10708,
123, 130, 135, 157, 170, 193, 213, 221,
249, 250
as source of value 2122, 39, 42, 87,
128, 249
see also freedom, relation to God and;
love, for God
grace 45, 82, 106, 11214, 116, 117, 12021,
127, 129, 136, 14243, 149, 151, 158,
17375, 177, 18589, 196, 202, 21113,
222, 22729, 249
Graham, Elainc 97
Grisez, Germain 16869, 206
Gustafson, James 147
Gutierrez, Gustavo 15253, 154
265
Harrison, Beverly Wildung 6466, 70, 102,

144, 184
Hauerwas, Stanley 23, 18081
Hegel, Georg Whilhelm Friedrich 11, 1516
Heyward, Carter 155
Himes, Kenneth 224
Himes, Michael 224
Hume, David 11, 1213
identity 2, 3236, 69, 79, 84, 8688, 9798,
10304, 125, 128, 149, 150, 182, 192,
205, 230
body and 9798
Christian 3536, 230
integrity and 15659, 16771, 205
narrative 19, 25, 180, 181
socially constructed 2, 67, 19, 21, 2231,
41, 68, 24849
unity of 2, 12, 18, 2425, 31, 3435,
16365, 17071, 17374, 205, 247
integrity 84, 91, 101, 10304, 15758,
16771, 181, 184, 192, 205, 218
embodied 82, 88, 91, 9295, 131, 15666,
16771, 18384, 20507, 247
see also identity, integrity and
intention 7172, 7577, 99, 100, 103, 143,
182, 19293, 198, 20405, 22931,
244, 247
interpretation 16, 17, 39
intuitionism 2, 40, 96, 10607, 14748, 156,
163, 190, 199, 204, 224
Isasi-Daz, Ada Maria 15253, 154
Jesus Christ 3536, 59, 68, 137, 153, 187
normativity of 223238
revelation in 21, 81, 82, 117, 125, 140, 161,
16263, 184, 186, 209, 213, 244
sacrice of 5, 65
uniqueness of 13536
Johnson, Mark 96
Kant, Immanuel 11, 1316, 38, 169, 181
Kelsey, David 162
Kierkegaard, Sren 95, 133, 157
King, Martin Luther 155
knowledge 2, 6, 1113, 1516, 36, 71, 82,
9495, 100, 10812, 115, 136, 151, 161,
164, 170, 190, 20001, 205, 206, 211,
226
Lauritzen, Paul 24, 157
Locke, John 11, 12, 25, 157
266
Index
love
for God 38, 9, 17, 4546, 5052, 56, 57,
59, 66, 72, 7377, 7980, 86, 91, 92,
12627, 129, 131, 13240, 141, 14247,
149, 152, 154, 155, 158, 160, 161, 164,
166, 167, 173, 18990, 206, 21112, 217,
22931, 239, 24347
for neighbor 5, 89, 17, 42, 4480, 86,
91, 92, 106, 127, 131, 132, 14051,
152, 154, 15558, 160, 164, 165, 166,
167, 173, 185, 189, 206, 208, 21112,
214, 225, 22930, 239, 242, 243,
244, 24546
nature of 46, 52, 57, 61, 6667, 70, 71, 245
order of 89, 3738, 133, 15051
for self, as derivative duty 47, 5660,
140, 165; as independent duty 45, 47,
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 6080, 138,
14042, 160, 166; as morally neutral
47, 5256, 72; as pernicious 47, 4852;
see also ethics, feminist, self love in
Luther, Martin 136
Marx, Karl 11, 95, 152
Merton, Thomas 153
Metz, Johannes Baptist 14445, 155
moral change 163, 165, 171, 173, 174, 178,
181, 190207, 212
moral norms 1315, 85, 169, 171, 188,
190207, 217, 218
Murdoch, Iris 7, 41, 85, 94, 95
mutuality 6, 9, 47, 5758, 61, 6566,
6970, 246
Nicbuhr, H. Richard 134, 18586, 19192
Ncibuhr, Reinhold 62, 152, 157
Nietzschc, Fricdrich 7, 11, 1618, 68, 95,
185
Nussbaum, Martha 18081
Nygren, Anders 47, 4852, 59, 69, 125, 138,
24546
OConnell, Timothy 52
Outka, Gene 47, 5356, 69, 72, 73, 189, 246
Parsons, Susan Frank 6769, 70
Paul. St. 8, 36, 185
philia 52, 186
see also mutuality
Plaskow, Judith 6263, 66, 147
Pope, Stephen 133
Porter, Jean 8991, 136, 22930, 231
power 7, 1617, 2627, 36, 39, 6566, 87,

9798, 102, 122, 124, 14647, 148,
155, 16263, 182, 187, 238, 250
pride 3, 39, 6164, 7273, 133, 246
Rahner, Karl 31, 81, 84, 10507, 131, 141,
239
on anonymous Christinity 223, 22531,
242
on causality 10405, 12021, 142
on fundamental option 17382, 181, 184,
206
on love for God and neighbor 14245,
155,
on morality 19298, 204, 20607,
21013, 21718
on orientation to God 94, 10810,
11213, 135
on self-determination 11617, 11920,
121, 12728, 132, 14849, 15859,
24143
on supernatural existential 11314, 174,
211, 227
see also symbols
Ramsey, Paul 47, 51, 5660, 138, 140, 185,
189, 246
reason 6, 1216, 27, 40, 41, 8891, 94, 102,
11011, 153, 157, 177, 181, 191, 250
religion
morality and 78, 45, 60, 166, 188, 208,
20917
privatization of 209, 210, 22425, 233,
23738
see also Tillich, on religion
respect 14, 15, 8687, 92, 147, 163, 16970
responsibility 12, 21, 25, 51, 5556, 60, 62,
7374, 86, 116, 118, 126, 137, 16566,
17071, 183, 189, 191, 199, 204
Ricoeur, Paul 19, 24, 25, 85, 111, 213
Rorty, Richard 24, 157
Rudman, Stanley 12, 41, 97
salvation 5, 77, 11920, 13536, 15253,
16263, 174, 177, 18789, 21013,
22331, 241
Schlabach. Gerald 150
Schleiermacher, Friedrich 44, 85, 95
Scharg, Calvin 25, 41
Schweiker, William 85, 91, 100, 128,
14748, 163, 167, 205, 206, 23738
radical interpretation in 8688, 95, 168,
16970
Index
self
as creature 21, 3536, 39, 42, 56, 60, 106,
11215, 12021, 124, 13940, 185, 245,
247, 248, 249
foundations of 67, 1618, 19, 2431, 41,
90, 91, 107, 115, 124, 128, 181, 208,
241
self-acceptance 3536, 5860, 75, 9192,
105, 116, 119, 129, 132, 135, 157, 180,
206, 213, 21718, 249
self-interest 16, 4850, 52, 5760, 74, 126,
137, 15051, 155, 218
self-realization, norm of 2, 10, 30, 3943,
51, 6971, 78, 95, 107, 124, 132, 150,
15657, 165, 171, 172, 245, 247,
248
self-relation
as interpretive 42, 79, 81, 8384, 8588,
91, 92, 93, 10001, 120, 132, 216, 143
see also interpretation; Schweiker,
radical interpretation in
as reexive 94, 95, 96, 100, 103, 10812,
13132 see also consciousness
see also embodiment; self-understanding
self-sacrice 12, 4, 8, 37, 46, 50, 60, 6166,
69, 70, 80, 125, 128, 133, 13738,
14849, 15960, 24546, 247
self-transcendence 29, 30, 45, 59, 71, 83,
100, 109, 114, 116, 118, 122, 123,
126, 129, 150, 156, 159, 163, 181,
206, 215, 219
self-understanding 9, 30, 41, 80, 115,
12425, 181, 183, 20817, 230
acting and 15051, 173, 206
truthfulness in 91, 10001, 154, 230, 238
sin 4, 5, 50, 56, 6164, 117, 136, 144, 152,
154, 175, 176, 179, 185, 187, 189,
190, 205, 246
social justice 131, 15156, 230, 233
subjectivism 2, 38, 3940, 46, 6768, 70, 77,
78, 86, 101, 104, 10607, 13132, 160,
163, 178, 183, 190, 204, 208, 209, 210,
216, 231, 232, 245, 247
see also value, self as source of
symbols 140, 16166, 175, 181, 216
267
Tanner, Kathryn 137

Taylor, Charles 12, 18, 24, 41, 82, 85, 87,
95, 157
teleology 1314, 38, 57, 191
Tillich, Paul 31, 62, 81, 84, 10507, 119, 131,
13536, 16263, 141, 233, 239
on love for God and neighbor 14547,
155
on morality 198204, 20607, 21412,
218
on ontological structure 94, 10405,
11012, 11415, 11718
on religion 21921, 23338
on self-determination 12224, 12628,
132, 14849, 15960, 24041
on transmoral conscience 106, 148, 163,
18690, 200, 218
on ultimate concern 36, 113, 11415, 147,
162, 214, 23334, 237
see also symbols
Turkle, Sherry 3234, 182
Vacek, Edward 48, 7477, 133, 138, 145,
22930, 231, 245, 247
value 18, 25, 36, 3839, 52, 76, 85, 89, 102,
125, 126, 128, 148, 158, 186, 221,
248, 249
reality of 88, 9495, 97, 100, 112, 115,
149, 151, 16770, 192, 209, 247
self as source of 2, 2122, 27, 4042,
107, 182
transvaluation of 1617, 87
virtue 19, 45, 6263, 89, 151, 177, 18081,
196
voluntarism 2, 30, 3940, 71, 77, 96, 106,
107, 156, 165, 17778, 180, 183, 184,
19798, 204, 210, 231, 247
von Balthasar, Hans Urs 229
Wallwork, Ernest 157
Walzer, Michael 23
Weber, Max 11
Wolf, Susan 139
Young, Iris Marion 24
REVELATION

Weaver - Self Love and Christian Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weaver - Self Love and Christian Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weaver - Self Love and Christian Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELF LOVE AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Self love is an inescapable problem for ethics, yet much of

new studies in christian ethics

SELF LOVE AND

cambridge university press

John Clayton Fozard

General editors preface

1 The contemporary problem of self love

2 Self love in Christian ethics

3 A hermeneutical account of self-relation

4 Right self love

5 Self love and moral action

6 Self love, religion, and morality

General editors preface

This book is the twenty-third in the series New Studies in Christian

General editors preface

to William Schweiker. Like him she attempts to show that a rich

I began revising the dissertation while working at the Theology

The contemporary problem of self love

Self Love and Christian Ethics

The contemporary problem of self love

Self Love and Christian Ethics

At the risk of over-simplifying matters, it may be said that the

The contemporary problem of self love

conjunction with reformation claims about grace and freedom in

Self Love and Christian Ethics

accounts of love still tend to construe love as mutuality, and often

The contemporary problem of self love

a particular historical period, with a particular ethnic and racial

Self Love and Christian Ethics

The contemporary problem of self love

Self Love and Christian Ethics

The contemporary problem of self love

social, and cultural changes of modernity, strands of which some

Self Love and Christian Ethics

The self is essentially mind; of course Descartes then encountered

Rudman Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics, 8184.

The contemporary problem of self love

in feelings that respond to useful or agreeable qualities because

Self Love and Christian Ethics

The contemporary problem of self love

because reason gives this principle to itself, the will is self-legislative.

Self Love and Christian Ethics

phenomenal worlds is overcome, not by cosmic absorption or

Rudman, Concepts of Persons and Christian Ethics, 95.

The contemporary problem of self love

called for a revaluation of received values in light of the will to

Self Love and Christian Ethics

keeps us from dumbly re-asserting the modern self after Nietzsches

The contemporary problem of self love

Self Love and Christian Ethics

The contemporary problem of self love

Self Love and Christian Ethics

having chosen them. Rather they express her free relation to or

The contemporary problem of self love

of itself.32 And yet another strand of literature places an interesting

Self Love and Christian Ethics

approaches to selfhood is the problem of locating the self in the

The contemporary problem of self love

the self s freedom and responsibility. Nevertheless, the self s unity