The article I just read was not complementary to Ayn Rand
. It was a slam, not necessarily inflammatory, but Gary Moore
did misunderstand Ayn Rand. Furthermore, he placed too much emphasis on the person, and not enough into understanding the merits of Objectivism as a philosophical framework. What can I do to remedy that situation? What is it that Christians can take away from Ayn Rand? And what can Randians get out of Christianity
? A lot.
First of all, it's the rational self-interest part that hangs everyone up. Rand called it "selfishness" and that didn't help. What she meant, and referred to elsewhere, was a focus on the individual, one's own highest possible good, in a way that Reason supports. Reason, according to Rand, supports activities that support one's own survival and thriving. Those activities are virtues. Without the activities that help us survive, there would be no values, virtues, or vices. According to Rand, anything that detracts from our ability to survive and thrive is a vice. Got it. This definition of virtue and vice makes sense, given that the individual is the center of the universe. And for Rand, the individual life is the lead in the play of her own life. What could be more obvious? But the message of Jesus is that God is the lead in the play of my life. He is the highest possible occupation of my soul, and my own life and thriving happens on a cosmic level only to the degree that I worship and serve the living God, the true God, the God of the Bible.
The author of the article in Christianity Today, August 27, 2010, speaks of Rand's anti-Christian posture as if she truly understood the Gospel. I don't think she did, and her writing makes that clear.
Rand's idea of Christianity was Kantian, wrapped around the idea of duty. When I first read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, I was affronted by her blasting distaste for all things religious, and I wasn't even a Christian! When I continued investigating her philosophy through her nonfiction, I understood what she reacted to the most was the notion of subjecting what she understood to be the highest possible value (her own life) to a very low value, something she didn't believe existed, a "non-entity." Christians don't view their own lives, or God, that way. John Piper
, in Desiring God, made it as plain as anyone ever has. He talks about God delighting in our delighting in Him. In following our deepest desires for satisfaction, fulfillment, and thriving, God delights when those desires are met, recognized, find their conclusion in Him. In fact, He designed us that way.
The best illustration I have heard plays out when I think about my relationship with my wife. It's our anniversary. I have worked everything out, from the flowers, the chauffeur, the quiet table in her favorite restaurant, and a romantic ambiance. As she takes it all in, she is delighted. She turns to me as says, "Thank you. You went to a lot of trouble, and it's beautiful."
At that moment, I can respond in one of two ways that represent two very different heart conditions. I can say, "Think nothing of it. I'm just doing my duty as a husband." Or, I can say, "There is no place I would rather be than here, right now, with you." It's obvious which one of these heart motivations is the most honoring to her. She may even be dishonored by the first, feeling that I don't really love her, but it's all about fulfilling some idea that I have about my own husbandhood. In contrast, when I let loose and seek the greatest possible delight for myself, I go all out for her happiness because it makes me happy.
The Bible is full of commands to seek our highest delight in God because only He can fulfill our deepest longings and highest fulfillment. Does that mean that Gospel Christianity is the fulfillment of Objectivism? What a thought!
. It was a slam, not necessarily inflammatory, but Gary Moore did misunderstand Ayn Rand. Furthermore, he placed too much emphasis on the person, and not enough into understanding the merits of Objectivism as a philosophical framework. What can I do to remedy that situation? What is it that Christians can take away from Ayn Rand? And what can Randians get out of Christianity? A lot. First of all, it's the rational self-interest part that hangs everyone up. Rand called it "selfishness
" and that didn't help. What she meant, and referred to elsewhere, was a focus on the individual, one's own highest possible good, in a way that Reason supports. Reason, according to Rand, supports activities that support one's own survival and thriving. Those activities are virtues. Without the activities that help us survive, there would be no values, virtues, or vices. According to Rand, anything that detracts from our ability to survive and thrive is a vice. Got it. This definition of virtue and vice makes sense, given that the individual is the center of the universe. And for Rand, the individual life is the lead in the play of her own life. What could be more obvious? But the message of Jesus is that God is the lead in the play of my life. He is the highest possible occupation of my soul, and my own life and thriving happens on a cosmic level only to the degree that I worship and serve the living God, the true God, the God of the Bible. The author of the article in Christianity Today, August 27, 2010, speaks of Rand's anti-Christian posture as if she truly understood the Gospel. I don't think she did, and her writing makes that clear.
Rand's idea of Christianity was Kantian, wrapped around the idea of duty. When I first read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, I was affronted by her blasting distaste for all things religious, and I wasn't even a Christian! When I continued investigating her philosophy through her nonfiction, I understood what she reacted to the most was the notion of subjecting what she understood to be the highest possible value (her own life) to a very low value, something she didn't believe existed, a "non-entity." Christians don't view their own lives, or God, that way. John Piper
, in Desiring God, made it as plain as anyone ever has. He talks about God delighting in our delighting in Him. In following our deepest desires for satisfaction, fulfillment, and thriving, God delights when those desires are met, recognized, find their conclusion in Him. In fact, He designed us that way. The best illustration I have heard plays out when I think about my relationship with my wife. It's our anniversary. I have worked everything out, from the flowers, the chauffeur, the quiet table in her favorite restaurant, and a romantic ambiance. As she takes it all in, she is delighted. She turns to me as says, "Thank you. You went to a lot of trouble, and it's beautiful."
At that moment, I can respond in one of two ways that represent two very different heart conditions. I can say, "Think nothing of it. I'm just doing my duty as a husband." Or, I can say, "There is no place I would rather be than here, right now, with you." It's obvious which one of these heart motivations is the most honoring to her. She may even be dishonored by the first, feeling that I don't really love her, but it's all about fulfilling some idea that I have about my own husbandhood. In contrast, when I let loose and seek the greatest possible delight for myself, I go all out for her happiness because it makes me happy.
The Bible is full of commands to seek our highest delight in God because only He can fulfill our deepest longings and highest fulfillment. Does that mean that Gospel Christianity is the fulfillment of Objectivism? What a thought!
2 comments:
Mark,
the gap between Rand and Christianity is way simpler than you make it out to be. She simply recognized no other source of knowledge than our capacity to form concepts from sensory perceptions—reason. And that knowledge is always contextual. It is strictly limited to that which can be logically concluded from evidence at hand. The rest can be probable or possible, but cannot qualify as certain knowledge. Needless to say, faith is but a feeling and is not a source of knowledge. Rand's atheism is therefore not a primary, but rather an unavoidable consequence of her commitment to reason.
If one could define a God and demonstrate that the existence of such was at least possible, like we can describe possible conditions that would enable life on distant galaxies, one could believe in that possibility, but not with any more certainty than we can believe in life on distant planets. One certainly would not make or alter any plans for one's life based on such a mere possibility.
Given that, similarities between Objectivism and Christianity are little more than coincidences of common sense. By that I mean that while Objectivism relentlessly pursues rationality (formal common sense), Christianity embraces to a varying degree from century to century irrational mystical notions; but the Scriptures have usually been forced to comply with common sense lest they lose the congregation altogether. Those instances will often coincide with the Objectivist positions.
Here is a quote from a letter Rand wrote to a fan in 1946:
“Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.”
The closest a Christian could get to Objectivism would be to think of Jesus as just a teacher and embrace the Deism of our most significant Founding Fathers. If you believed in the existence of a God that created you with the capacity of reason and expected you to use it and not fantasize about His nature and wishes (of which He has given you no hard evidence anyway), you would need to identify your God-given nature and live according to it—to never contradict the nature of existence—to never be so arrogant as to believe that you had some special access to God, or that He would ever want to converse with you. He certainly would not want you to denigrate yourself, his greatest creation, by implying that you are no better than a bucket waiting to be filled as you did here:
"The Bible is full of commands to seek our highest delight in God because only He can fulfill our deepest longings and highest fulfillment."
With that view of God, Rand would be His greatest gift to man, because Objectivism teaches man how to live his life on this earth consistent with the God given nature of man and the universe. Now what God would ever complain about that?
Gary Moore has his head all the way up his a*s.
He understands neither Christianity nor Objectivism, yet he purports to
comment on one from the viewpoint of the other.
Typical thoughtless ranting against one's hastily-formed view of the surface of an issue, with no desire to scratch that surface to come any closer to the truth of the matter.
"About the time Fortune was extolling Greenspan, I was putting the finishing
touches on a book about finances for a major evangelical publisher. I included a chapter on Rand's quasi-religious philosophies, and another that encouraged Wall Street to embrace a traditional Judeo-Christian ethic. I
wrote, 'Ayn Rand, like Karl Marx, was one more self-proclaimed prophet who
denied the existence of a loving God.'"
Well, at least he's honest about the fact that his eyes were already closed
before he wrote his alleged "article".
"She didn't understand the faith."
Neither do you, Gary.
"But she knew that Moses was a lawgiver, that Christ told us to 'render unto Caesar,' and that Paul told us to pay taxes and to 'honor and respect' government leaders (Rom. 13)."
And Gary knows that Rand thinks "selfishness" is a "virtue"...but has no idea what she means by "selfishness" or "virtue". So he has to get rid of Objectivism in order to put his religious beliefs in charge of our government.
"So she had to get rid of Christianity in order to get rid of government."
That particular point sounds about right...but you know what they say about broken clocks.
I'm of the opinion that in order to get someone who thinks he's a Christian
to be even remotely accepting of anything resembling Objectivism you need to get them to understand one basic point: both Christianity and Objectivism teach rational self-interest, that One's Own Good is the highest value. The difference is that Christ taught that doing for
others...VOLUNTARILY...achieves The Highest Good for one's own soul (because it's one of the tools we can use to shape the state of our own souls), whereas Rand taught that doing for others instead of yourself is b*llsh*t, or at best a feel-good distraction from the real business of Living, which is to do for oneself in the world and concerning one's worldly concerns (since there is no God or "immortal soul").
If one accepts that God exists and that Jesus Christ taught us to do what's best for our own souls, to achieve The Highest Good for ourselves in the end, then one can be a Christian and still follow the base principles of Objectivism, as long as you don't let Rand's personal atheism... or Gary Moore's personal quasi-Christian religion...stand in your way.
This is getting boring. My hat's off to you Mark, for keeping at your
endeavor to reconcile the two religions in a constructive and instructive way...I lose my will to do that every time I hear or read the typical faux-intellectual junk puked up by most quasi-Christians and Galt-wannabe Objectivists.
Post a Comment