Spiritual, but not Religious?

Ayn Rand applauded a culture in which the interests and desires of the individual take precedence over those of the family, group, or community. Frequently, I hear "I am spiritual, but not religious" or "I like Jesus, but not Christianity." Many people who are spiritually searching have had bad experiences with churches. So they want nothing further to do with them. They are interested in a relationship with God, but not if they have to be part of an organization.
I don't know if that's possible. C.S. Lewis was part of a famous circle of friends called the Inklings, which included J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, and also the author Charles Williams, who died unexpectedly after World War II. I his book The Four Loves, Lewis wrote a striking meditation on his death in an essay entitled, "Friendship."

In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald’s [Tolkien’s] reaction to a specifically Charles joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him “to myself” now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald. In this, Friendship exhibits a glorious “nearness by resemblance” to heaven itself where the very multitude of the blessed (which no man can number) increases the fruition which each of us has of God. For every soul, seeing Him in her own way, doubtless communicates that unique vision to all the rest. That, says an old author, is why the Seraphim in Isaiah’s vision are crying “Holy, Holy, Holy” to one another (Isaiah 6:3). The more we thus share the Heavenly Bread between us, the more we shall have.

 It takes community to know an individual. How much more would this be true of Jesus Christ? Only if I am part of a community of believers seeking to resemble, serve, and love Jesus will I ever get to know him and grow into his likeness. 

Faith Underwater

Faith is the act of our soul that turns away from our own resources and focuses on the all-sufficient resources of God. When I was in my single-digit years, the family used to pile into our VW bug and head to the Jersey shore every Sunday morning. The waves were usually tame, but one day, I lost my footing in the undercurrent. As it pulled me down, I felt like table scraps being sucked into the in-sink-erator disposal. Under the water, I could see nothing, and I didn’t know which way was up. I couldn’t plant my feet on the ground; I was out of control and terrified. In my panic, I wanted to yell, “Help me!” but I was underwater. Suddenly, I felt my dad’s hand grab my shoulder like a magnet and lift me into his embrace. It was the sweetest feeling in the world. I yielded entirely to his strength. I didn’t resist his will; I reveled in it. I thought, “Thank you for your grip. Thank you for finding me. I need you. I love you! You’re great!” In that spirit of yielded affection, there was no room for bragging. Ironically, all of the attention was on me when we returned to our blanket on the beach.

Faith

The way Ayn Rand defines faith makes it sound like a fantasy, a whim, an arbitrary wish that originates in the fancy of a not-so-intelligent person’s imagination. In other words, any reasonably intelligent person would have nothing to do with faith, let alone base their life on it. Grace and faith go together. Grace is God’s unmerited favor. Salvation is costly. We are not able to afford it, even by our most valiant efforts. Even though we have done nothing to deserve it, God’s saves us. If it were our own performance, then we would be center-stage. Instead, God gets the attention and recognition. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Now God has us where he wants us, with all the time in this world and the next to shower grace and kindness upon us in Christ Jesus. Saving is all his idea, and all his work. All we do is trust him enough to let him do it. It's God's gift from start to finish! We don't play the major role. If we did, we'd probably go around bragging that we'd done the whole thing! No, we neither make nor save ourselves. God does both the making and saving.”

Stossel

If you didn't see John Stossel's special two weeks ago, I recommend it. Several people gave me the heads up, but I forgot to mention that he did a whole show on Ayn Rand. Great feedback from the audience! (which means passionate opinions, but not well informed about Rand and her worldview). Here is the link.

Dear Reader...

You ask some interesting questions about Objectivism and Christianity: the differences and similarities between the two worldviews, Christian Libertarianism, Christian Anarchism, and Rand's politics, and my own view. I'll do my best, in a nutshell.

Rand is a committed atheist. She believes in absolutes, but not in a Giver of absolutes. Taking a page from Aristotle, she marks her own life as the highest possible occupation of her soul; not others, not the collective, and certainly not God. About every decision and every value, she asks "Will this promote, maintain, or enhance my life?" If so, it's a virtue. If not, it's a vice. After all, she reasons, without my own life I could have no values; my life is therefore the Supreme Value. A person must produce, or create value, in order to sustain their life. So, in all of Rand's fiction, the Producers are the Prime Movers, the heroes and heroines.

Mother Teresa, in Rand's view, was not a hero and neither was Jesus. In her view, both were moochers, and deserve scorn for their self-sacrifice. Ayn Rand was a passionate individual and a brilliant thinker, but I don't think she truly understood the Gospel. She railed on Christianity, but it was a shallow Platonic version that focused on Victorian religion and Kantian duty. Nothing like what John Piper calls "Christian Hedonism." To the extent that Rand advocated that individuals pursue their highest possible joy, I applaud and appreciate her. But her passion falls short; she "settles" like Lewis's "child making mudpies in the slums..."

Through a journey that began with cancer when I was 17, Jesus drew me to himself. The deepest longings I have felt throughout my life have only been met in Him. Still, my hunger for his presence grows. Today, I can't say that I'm an Objectivist, or even an Objectivist Christian. I would say that Objectivism finds its fulfillment in the Gospel because the truest and highest occupation of my soul is not myself, but God the Father, through Jesus Christ.

Objectivism and Christianity share a strong passion for life, a vibrant work ethic, a conviction around moral absolutes like honesty, integrity, and respect for the individual. Unlike many postmodern thinkers, both Objectivism and Christianity recognize objective truth and see truth as exclusive. The Objectivist becomes arrogant, because he has achieved something that has eluded his contemporaries. The Christian becomes confident based on the achievement of salvation, but humble, because he had nothing to do with it.

Rand's politics are economically conservative and socially liberal. Ayn Rand raged against the Libertarians of her day because they were anarchists; they believed that government had no place, and its authority should be avoided altogether. Today's Libertarians, like Rand, advocate for limited government. Rand believed that government's role is to protect the rights of the individual (the smallest minority in the world) from criminals at home and abroad. It is the function of our Constitution, she said, to protect the individual from government.

I suggest approaching today's new atheists (for whom Rand's thoughts are seminal) with three elements in mind. First, articulate their worldviews accurately and clearly, avoiding oversimplification and caricature. Next, identify areas of truth and validate, wherever possible, the values we hold in common. Finally, show how the Gospel values these truths even more highly than the atheistic worldview. While they may not be converted after the conversation, they go away wishing that Christianity were true.

I have attached an essay by John Piper entitled, "The Ethics of Ayn Rand: Appreciation and Critique." I think his view is accurate and balanced. There are two new biographies of Rand that hit the shelves in October. Jennifer Burns' "Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right" is focused on Rand's politics of capitalism; critical, but balanced. Even more critical, Anne Heller's "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" gets into the destruction she caused through her brilliance, eccentric passion, and emotional sterility.

Inflammatory Propaganda Against Rand

 In Bloomberg article (interview) with a Rand biographer, the author says this:

For people who are passionate about what seems to me to be an unrealistic view of radical individualism, she makes the strongest possible case.What she lacked was empathy and a sense that there’s a social contract.

The interviewer betrays her view in the question, "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" Without reading the book, I think the interview is unfairly slanted against Rand and her philosophy. I'm guessing that's the point, but I don't enjoy an article that implies that "Don’t Rand’s views seem incredibly naive?" is an argument instead of simple, inflamatory propaganda.

Ayn Rand and Whole Foods

Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey, takes his vision for reshaping (or returning to) capitalism from Ayn Rand and others. From Danielle Sacks at Fast Company:

Once Mackey started running his own company, he quickly found himself on the dark side: His customers thought his prices were too expensive; employees complained of being underpaid; and the government "was slapping us with endless fees, licenses, fines, and taxes." "According to the perspective of the political left," he wrote, "I had become a greedy and selfish businessman." The identity crisis sent him into an existential tailspin. Then Mackey, the son of an accounting professor, discovered the writings of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, the high priest and priestess of modern free-market capitalism. He slipped on the Libertarian mantle. "What I love most about the freedom movement, another name for the Libertarian platform," writes Mackey, "are the ideas of voluntary cooperation and spontaneous order that, when channeled through free markets, lead to the continuous evolution and progress of humanity." The beauty of Conscious Capitalism, says Mackey, is that self-interest and altruism can not only coexist, they can both thrive simultaneously without a lot of government meddling.