Should Ayn Rand be off-limits to Christians?

The atheist philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand published more than a dozen books before she died in 1982. Now, liberal Christians say another work belongs in Rand's controversial canon: the 2012 Republican budget.

House Republicans passed their budget along party lines in April, saying its drastic cuts to federal programs are necessary to prevent a deficit crisis. But some Christians are saying that Rand's dog-eat-dog philosophy is the real inspiration for the GOP budget and its author, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

"You've got a guy who is a rising Republican star, and who wrote the budget, saying he's read her books and Washington needs more of her values," said Eric Sapp, executive director of the American Values Network, which produced the video. "If you're a Christian, you've got to ask some serious questions about what's going on here."

In other words, Sapp argues, you can follow Ayn Rand or Jesus, but not both. In novels such as "Atlas Shrugged," the Russian-born Rand portrays American capitalists as heroes battling an encroaching government bent on milking their success. In nonfiction writings, Rand is more explicit about her Objectivist philosophy, which views religion as a "primitive" sop to the feeble-minded masses. "It must be either reason or faith," Rand said in a 1979 interview. "I am against God for the reason that I don't want to destroy reason."

Rand's anti-religious views, however, are not as well known as her novels. By highlighting them, Sapp and liberal Christians hope to discredit the GOP budget and drive a wedge between the conservative Christian and Tea Party wings of the Republican Party. To that end, Sapp, who has directed faith outreach for a number of Democratic campaigns, is promoting a video in which evangelical leader Chuck Colson warns Christians to beware of Rand's "idolatry of self and selfishness."

"I have no love for big government, but there are far better ways to critique it than Rand's godless nonsense, especially for Christians," Colson says in the video.

The American Values Network video, which Sapp said will be emailed to 1.2 million Christians in Wisconsin, opens with anti-religious remarks from Rand and segues into Republican leaders, including Ryan and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., offering high praise of the Russian novelist. "Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism," Ryan says in a 2009 Facebook video excerpted in the ad. "It's that kind of thinking, that kind of writing that is sorely needed right now."

Ryan's spokesman, Kevin Seifert, said the congressman "does not find his Catholic faith to be incompatible with his feelings for Ayn Rand's literary works. ... Rand is one of many figures and authors that Congressman Ryan has cited as influencing his thinking during his formative years."

Seifert said that Ryan has not seen the ads, and so would not comment on them. Nor would Ryan offer an opinion on Rand's anti-religious statements. "It's not appropriate for him to speculate on an individual's personal religious views," Seifert said.

Jay W. Richards, a Catholic and author of "Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem," calls Ryan, like many Rand admirers, a "cafeteria Randian."

"I suspect the progressive Christians are confusing that point," he said. "You can agree with Rand's critique of collectivism as enervating and soul-destroying without adhering to her overarching philosophy."

Would you agree? Can Christians take anything constructive away from Rand's writings, or is her work antithetical to the Gospel?

 

Leave a comment

A login account is required to leave a comment

Comments (48)

To make the question of Rand more interesting, one can also ask about how her words actually fit into how she lived her life. After all, her 'dog-eat-dog' world had to have enough space for medicare - even if she denounced others that used it, she didn't hold on to her theories strongly enough not to accept it herself. Good commentary on this can be found at: http://gruntledcenter.blogspot...
There is plenty of stuff in Rand's philosophy that isn't good. Much of it is mistaken, but she does make some good points. We shouldn't follow her philosophy blindly but we can take pieces of it that make sense. 

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean everything that say and think is bad.
John Wesley's view requires the free market (unrestrained capitalism), if people are to be able to give their money freely. Anything other than unrestrained capitalism is taking from others so that you can give it to others.
It's easy for us as Christians to simply dismiss any challenging work. If we can prove that they don't worship our God, then we can disregard anything from a particular source. The problem is that God didn't even follow that logic, often placing the prophets of the Old Testament under the influence, and often friendship, of leaders who didn't worship our God. Often those leaders did find a path to worshiping God, but the outcome was only certain to God never the people involved. Cutting ourselves off from authors, people, ideas, and modern day leaders, doesn't raise God up. We need to engage and connect, and prayerfully seek to turn all things to God's will. Of course, this all fits within Paul's warnings about not excercising our freedoms at the sake of our brothers and sisters. So, for example, if discussing Atlas Shrugged with a fellow believer caused them harm in someway, then we should refrain.
Rand doesn't just "challenge" Christianity, though; she openly rejects not only the theology of the religion, but even the ultimate premise. For her, any act done for another person, any act of altruism, is a violation of a moral law to act for yourself first. That's not just a rejection of Christian doctrine (the idea that Jesus died and was raised, etc), but of the entire mindset upon which Christianity is based. It is completely incompatible with any Christian worldview, which holds the self-sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the very highest, very best thing that has ever happened. Ayn Rand declares the ultimate act of good to be an ultimate act of evil; that is 180º from Christianity.
My response was directed to the leading question: is Rand off limits to Christians? I would agree that the philosophies don't seem to be compatible, but does that make her work "off limits"? I feel that even with those who we disagree widely, even at a basic level, there is no reason on a general level (personal conscience would be an exception) that engaging with them or their ideas would be prohibited. Engagement does not require agreement or even acceptance. Perhaps I misunderstood the thoughts behind the post, but my concern was that the idea of "off limits" would suggest a kind of intelectual isolationism. All worldly knowlege can be received and then weighed in light of Godly knowledge as handed down to us in Scripture.
Oh, I completely agree that we should engage Randism. We should learn all that we can about it so that we can expose it for the anti-Christ philosophy it is. Our immediate aim should be to make it clear that it is categorically impossible to be a follower of Christ if one accepts any of Rand's teachings; our ultimate aim should be to utterly dismantle it as a socially-acceptable philosophy. (It once was considered such, until the most recent "comeback" by Rand's followers in the Tea Party.) We should engage it like we would engage any other philosophy that completely opposes Christ and the Kingdom.
Not only should we hold Randism up to the light of the special revelation we have as Christians—as found in Scripture, the traditions of the church, and our reasoning minds as honed through life in the Kingdom community—but we should also hold it up to the general revelation received by all, pointing out that it is not only completely opposed to Christian doctrine and practice, but it is also opposed to even the most basic dictates of the human conscience and morality.

I don't think Randism should be "off limits" to Christians to talk about, but I do think that clear lines need to be drawn: There is no Rand in Christ, and no Christ in Rand. My understanding of this post was that it was asking whether or not a Christian could get something useful out of Rand—not whether we should add it to some kind of de facto "banned books list." And my answer to the former question is an emphatic, unequivocal "NO." There is absolutely nothing for the Christian in Ayn Rand.
Economy of the kingdom?  Wow, its scary that this line of thought exists in America because it sounds like the kind of talk you'd hear about in Saudi Arabia.
I think your summary questions at the end are much better than the question in your title. Ceonsorship is not the answer at all here. Brian's comments speak well to this matter.
Who's talking about or even suggesting censorship as an answer?

We don't need to censor Rand's ideas; that would only strengthen them. Rather, we need to be crystal clear in calling Rand's philosophy for what it is: A Satanic philosophy, completely incompatible with and opposite from any philosophy with Christ as its base. 

There is no censorship there, only the completely justified and completely righteous moral condemnation of ideas that are the very essence and nature of moral evil.
Rand speaks strongly to individual responsibility. I can see how Rand's ideas about excellence translate for Christians who are trying to figure out how personal accountability before God applies to their financial and political lives. 

Rand also names self-interest as the defining motivation for capitalism. Sometimes altruism is included in a political or philosophical position as a smokescreen to hide selfishness. I do appreciate Rand's honesty. And a society where everyone is striving for excellence (OT writers, Jesus and Paul all encouraged excellence), even if the motivation is selfish, is going to have some positive results. 

Ultimately, though I think motivation has to trump results. Christ should be the defining influence for Christians.
If you want to focus on governmental budgeting, Paul Ryan, who represents a district just south of where I live, is a bold-faced liar. His "plan" for Medicare, for example, amounts to "The Incredible Shrinking Voucher," which will disappear in about ten years. Yes, that will save the government gobs of money -- and leave the elderly without what the Republicans SWEAR they won't take away: any medical care at all, other than what they can afford on a private pay basis.

Most of the Republican budget is like that. They aren't concerned with finding a way to make everything balance. They are concerned with creating the greatest imbalance possible, in order to have cover to cancel out programs they never liked in the first place. Why do you think budget deficits went up under Reagan and both Bush's, and only went down or into surplus during the closing years of the Clinton administration? Why do you think Cheney announced that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter?" If we had been continuing to pay down the debt during the good times, the spending necessary to avert Great Depression 2.0 would have raised the debt from around $3 trillion to a manageable $7-$8 trillion. Instead, the Republicans doubled it from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, then screamed about fiscal prudence as money was spent to avoid disaster, running us up to $14 trillion.

What does that have to do with Ayn Rand? It is true that an atheist can advocate economically sound policy. But Rand, and the current Republican leadership, both indulged in a mix of deception and self-deception, and THAT should suggest a philosophical connection for any Christian to be wary of.
Rand's artwork is beautiful. He philosophy, while easily tied to government, can't be tied to love. 

Highlighting her anti-religious views and using them to discredit the validity of her inspiration of governmental budgeting is a deceptive tactic. Her atheism has nothing to do with the validity of the inspiration of her politics. 

As you mentioned in the article, Dems are using this to try to weaken the support of Christians for Repubs, not to make a legitimate point. It's inciting emotional response, not honest debate.
While I agree that you can't simply discredit Ayn Rand because she's an atheist (which clearly, the post did not do), on the other hand, once you engaged her work it is apparent that she defined her philosophy in contradistinction from religion. Therefore, much of her worldview is by definition un-Christian. Even, dare I say, anti-Christian. How one can "glean" from an anti-Christian philosophy is beyond me.
There's nothing wrong with Christians learning from an atheist. Much of the world's truth has been discovered by people who claim no religious belief.

What makes Ayn Rand's politics different is that they seem to wallow in the mire of our sinful nature. She doesn't just acknowledge human selfishness; she reveres it. This unapologetic glorification of greed, to our often repressed and censored selves, can seem a breath of fresh air. And from a purely humanistic perspective, perhaps it is.

However, Christians are to strive for redemption from that sinful nature--not just redemption in the world to come, but in this world. And in that light, Rand's ideas no longer breathe life--they suck it dry. I will not say that there is nothing true in her writing. I won't even say there's nothing appealing. Like most other religious and political debates, this one is not nearly as black and white as most want to make it. 

Yet I am saddened by the fervor with which so many Christians have latched onto (and loudly defended) Rand's ideas. A political philosophy devoid of grace, love and forgiveness simply cannot be reconciled with a Gospel built upon grace, love and forgiveness.
While I think it might be fair to say that she might not understand the finer points of Christian doctrine, she understood two of the key philosophical and moral underpinnings of Christianity: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down one's life for one friends," and "Whatever you did for the least of these, you also did for me."

Her philosophy not only rejected but explicitly opposed both of those things, suggesting that both are evil in that they violate the high moral law of self-interest above all other things. I'd say that her statement that her philosophy is at odds with Christianity is the case in every way that matters—and that, as Christians, we should reject all things Rand.
Not exactly. Rand would argue that sacrificial love is perfectly acceptable, altruism isn't. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice for someone you love and enjoy, not for someone you don't. As a Calvinist, this is how I understand the atonement.
And yet, we are called to love and serve all. Even if you accept a doctrine of limited atonement—and to be perfectly frank, I find the idea that there are some people God doesn't love to be utterly repugnant in its characterization of God and in its potential social consequences—there can be no doubt that God calls the Christian to act out of love and service toward all people, and makes clear that God will judge the person by their treatment of "the least of these." 

Such sentiments would be explicitly opposed by Rand, who would suggest that only productive people are worthy of love (and then, only insofar as they serve some use to your own selfish desires as an individual), and the "parasites"—who would be the very people Jesus describes as "the least of these"—are worthy only of scorn and hatred, if one pays them any mind at all.
I think it is worth noting that on many more occasions than not, Jeus asked "the least of these" to be helped up and not forever...Christians, myself included are consistently made to believe that the only aim of our life and happiness is to "help" others.  Jesus never said to help everyone!  HE never said to allow a third party middle man (government) to "help" on our behalf.  He never said we should automatically and in all cases lay our lives down over a man or womans self made crisis!  Christians are ridiculous in general and love even more to than to help "the least of these" to "wait, and know that I am god", "the wait" part being the most adhered to.  Consistently waiting for god shaped coins to fall from the sky and consistently bashing men of genius that provided the technology to follow along in a sermon from a big screen at the front of the church.  Oh yeah, that's right, the screen wasn't just miraculously zapped in place, in was created by a mind, purchased by a mind, and then placed by a mind.  This is the essential theme of Ayn Rand's discourse with religion in general, that religion (Altruism) preaches self-sacrifice and more specifically forcible self sacrifice.  She argues how evil it is no matter where the Altruistic morality comes from.
I think it is worth noting that on many more occasions than not, Jeus asked "the least of these" to be helped up and not forever

Not sure what you mean by this. Also not sure where you're getting it.

Christians, myself included are consistently made to believe that the only aim of our life and happiness is to "help" others.  Jesus never said to help everyone!

You mean He didn't say "love your neighbor as yourself," and then when asked "who is my neighbor," make it crystal clear that our neighbor is anyone we run across who needs help—even if that person is a member of a rival ethnic group?

HE never said to allow a third party middle man (government) to "help" on our behalf.

Well, yes and no. He was talking to a time where a notion of government similar to ours didn't exist—but He did come to proclaim not only spiritual revolution but also economic revolution. In the synagogue in Luke, Jesus's proclaiming from Isaiah that "the year of the Lord" was at hand, was understood as a proclamation of the Old Testament Year of Jubilee—when all debts would be forgiven and the land redistributed equitably among the people. The Law makes it pretty clear that God does not intend for indebtedness and wealth to be permanent or even generational attributes; providing for Jubilee once every half-century was God's way of "hitting the reset button" on the nation's economy every generation or two.

He never said we should automatically and in all cases lay our lives down over a man or womans self made crisis!

What is human sinfulness, but "man or woman's self-made crisis"? And yet Christ did not hesitate to lay down His life for us. And we are called to follow Christ's example.

Christians are ridiculous in general and love even more to than to help "the least of these" to "wait, and know that I am god", "the wait" part being the most adhered to.

Again, really not sure what you mean by that.

 Consistently waiting for god shaped coins to fall from the sky and consistently bashing men of genius that provided the technology to follow along in a sermon from a big screen at the front of the church.  Oh yeah, that's right, the screen wasn't just miraculously zapped in place, in was created by a mind, purchased by a mind, and then placed by a mind.

First of all, women are engineers and computer programmers too. Please use gender-neutral language rather than excluding over half of the human race.

Second, please provide me a link to whoever's "bashing" the people who invented digital projection technology. (Some of us intentionally don't use such things at our churches, by the way.)

Third, I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. So someone built, bought, and installed digital projectors. I don't see how that operates in any way as a justification for the Randian worldview. The building, purchasing, and installation of digital projection technology can occur in the context of other economic theories besides Rand's.

This is the essential theme of Ayn Rand's discourse with religion in general, that religion (Altruism) preaches self-sacrifice and more specifically forcible self sacrifice.  She argues how evil it is no matter where the Altruistic morality comes from.

Darn right it preaches self-sacrifice. (Forcible self-sacrifice isn't really self-sacrifice.) That's the whole point of Christianity, that God sacrificed God's-self for us, and that because of that we should do the same for one another. To reject the notion of altruistic self-sacrifice is to reject Christianity; to describe it as "evil" is to describe Christianity as evil and proclaim one's own philosophy as being in opposition to it. That is precisely my point. 

Christ tells us that we should love everyone and sacrifice ourselves for everyone, that we should give to "the least of these"; Rand suggests that "the least of these" are parasites feeding off the labor of the truly valuable people and are unworthy of sacrifice. Which simply demonstrates what I have said repeatedly throughout this discussion: There is no Rand in Christ, and no Christ in Rand.

If you'd like to continue defending the (in my opinion, rather adolescent and shallow) ideology of Ayn Rand, please do be my guest and do so. But please don't pretend that there's any such thing as a Christian defense of Rand, or that the two ideologies are in any way compatible.
The problem isn't that Rand is an atheist. Hopefully, we all have atheist friends. We know that the apostles and church fathers borrowed or adapted heavily from pagan myths and philosophy (at the very least to make sense of this new kingdom ethos to a pagan culture. and often, because they themselves came from a pagan culture). I myself lean a bit towards socialism, and the biggest proponents of that theory are atheists.

Being an atheist isn't so much the problem. It's more *why* she declares herself to be an atheist. Like Nietzsche, she views Christianity and the cross (and sacrificial love) as weaknesses. In fact, she declares it to be evil. 

For more: http://leftcheek.blogspot.com/...

Leave a Comment »

See the latest in:

Promotion

promo 1 promo 2
promo 3 promo 4

Donate Now