First, precisely because the language of belief in the Christian God provides an acceptable language for understanding human autonomy, one can conclude that these two terms are consistent. For example, free and slave are also terms within the framework of Christianity (as used by Paul and others) which, though seemingly paradoxical, continue to provide a language which consistently helps Christians to understand belief in God.
Second, one might also understand the consistency of these two concepts of belief by asking the question in a different way; namely: can human belief about the Christian God be autonomous? Most will most certain answer yes. One example of such belief is the way in which different regional contexts of Christians hold differing beliefs about God. This difference can be both rooted in the autonomy of the group, and consistent with the Christian faith in so much as we agree that there is no single Christian orthodoxy.
Finally, belief in the God of Christianity is consistent with belief in human autonomy precisely because the God Christianity is a not bound by the fluid diversity of human autonomy or belief; rather, God is present in experience and in unbelief. In other words, in the larger context of human autonomy and belief about or in God, one must remember that God is both deus non est in genere and deus obsconditus. That is to say, God is both unable to be subsumed into any smaller category (of belief) and, paradoxically found in the places most obscure to human expectation (even expressions of humanity’s greatest autonomy).